Transcripts For CNNW Inside Politics 20190208

Briefed on the special counsels investigation. Do you believe the involvement of the hostile foreign entities interfering with the elections is more severe than the false representations of voter fraud in elections . Do you believe that a foreign interference with the elections is more severe . Congresswoman, i think foreign interference in our election system in the United States is a very serious and ongoing concern. I also believe that voter fraud is a serious concern. After you left office, you pursued a series of other political offices, one of which was the United States senate. Yes or no if in pursuit of that Office Someone contacted you to offer dirt on your opponent which at the same time included other candidates such as steve king and nowsenator joni ernst . Would you have contacted the fbi . Congresswoman, i am nothetic questions. Im here for an oversight hearing. I dont believe you know, i was very unsuccessful in my just answer the question yes or no. Would you have contacted the fbi if you were asked to get dirt on your opponents . Congresswoman, if i was contacted by a Foreign National or foreign country when i was candidate for United States senate, i most likely would have reached out to the fbi, but it didnt happen so its hard for me to answer your hypothetical question. With respect to sifcivil rig, you have not prosecuted one voters rights case, is that correct . The time for the congresswoman has congresswoman, just so i have a complete answer on this, well follow up in writing as to the Voting Rights cases. Thank you. Mr. Chairman . Why did Rod Rosenstein send a memo to bob mueller in 2017 requesting the scope of the special counsel investigation . That question. I know this is of great interest to you and i hope we can have a discussion about this today. The special counsel regulations require a scoping of the special counsels investigation that identifies the subject and the targets of the investigation, so i am certain that it would have identified the scope of the investigation pursuant to the special counsels my question is not ill get to that. My question is why. Because it was two and a half months after the special counsel was formed. So lets go back to the beginning document which you told the chairman earlier you are completely briefed on the special counsel investigation. This is a onepage document. Order 1152017 says this. The special counsel is authorized to conduct the special investigation including any matters that arose or ma may arise directly from the investigation. Thats pretty broad. Would you agree . Yes, and in my mind is consistent with other appointments of special counsels. Thats fine. It may be too broad, but as broad as you can get, one page ordered, go do your investigation and anything that arises out of it, you can investigate it as well. But then two and a half months later, we get this threepage memo from Rod Rosenstein, acting attorney general to Robert Mueller, special counsel. Scope investigation definition of authority. This is what confuses me. Because in this memo that only mr. Mueller and my guess is you and mr. Rosenstein and a few people at the Justice Department have seen, most of it is blacked out n th out, in this memo it says this. The following authorizations are within the scope of the appointment and are within the scope of the order. If thats true, why do you have to say it . If you could do it all along, why do you have to put it in a memo . Congressman jordan, first of all, i was because of general sessions recusal from the special counsels investigation, i was also recused from that investigation, and so i was not im asking. You said you were fully briefed youre asking me why at the time Rod Rosenstein im asking you why two and a half months after the broadest order you can have, why did Rod Rosenstein say, hey, you could do this all along but now im putting it in a memo. What really troubles me, mr. Whitaker, right after that statement the final orders were within the scope of the allegation and within the scope of the order. Right after that, you know what happens . Everything is redacted. Look at this. The whole darn thing. So if you could do it all along and you have to send a memo to him two and a half months later, and then you redact everything after it. You know whats under the redactions, mr. Whitaker . I do, sir. You do. Are there names under the redactions, mr. Whitaker . In my experience with investigations generally, you would not have a Public Document identify targets or subject matter of an investigation, especially if someone is not ultimately charged with a crime. Let me frame it this way. Did Rod Rosenstein give the special counsel the authority to investigate specific americans . Congressman, mr. Rosenstein acting as the attorney general, because of mr. Sessions recusal, gave authorization and jurisdiction to the special counsel, and so yes, under the special counsel regulations, thats the whole purpose of the special counsel. You said yes, so there are specific names two and a half months into the investigation that Rod Rosenstein gave the special counsel, specific american names to go investigate . Congressman, as you know if thats the case, i hope i want to know yes or no. This is the subject of an ongoing investigation, and i spoke to you generally about investigations. Let me ask it this way. Can you give us assurances that there are not specific names under this 70 redacted memo that Rod Rosenstein sent to the special counsel . Congressman jordan, i know this report you know why im asking you this, acting attorney general. Because in this country we dont investigate people, we investigate crimes, and if there are specific american citizens crimes in this redacted i asked mr. Rosenstein to see this and he got all mad and huffy in his office and wouldnt show it to me. If this alters specific names of americans in the scope of the investigation of the special counsel, dont you think its appropriate for the american citizens to know the full parameters of an investigation into the guy they made president of the United States . Congressman, let me be very speck about this, because you are right. We investigate crimes, not individuals. Thats why im asking the question. I would like a yes or no answer. Are there names mentioned under this redacted portion of this memo . On that as i mentioned before, that memo crops up a confidential investigation, as is every department of investigation. Are there specific names mentioned in this 70 redacted memo that happens two and a half months after the special counsel gets his order to start his investigation where he was gifren tgifven the broadest latitude he could possibly have . The time for the gentleman is expired. The witness may answer the question. I would just refer the congressman to the general practices of the department of justice that we investigate crimes and not individuals. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, mr. Chair. Mr. Attorney general, the Inspector General of the gsa had a rather scathing report on the gsas decision not to address specific issues concerning the governments post office and its lease to the trump family concerning the emollient clause. He told them they knew about the post office lease and it was up to them to do something. Are you aware of anything the Justice Department did to look into evaluation of an emolluments clause . That clause to the subject fortunate hotel is related to a number of litigation matters. Right. So while i can say im aware of the subject you describe but generally the litigations around the emolluments clause, im unable to specifically talk about those cases. You cant recall anything about the emolluments clause violations or limitations . As i sit here today, as it relates to the trump hotel is the subject of ongoing litigation. And the president is having you represent him around these, is he not . Is that appropriate when he is under litigation with regard to the hotels and not reporting to congress as hes supposed to according to the constitution . Shouldnt he have lawyers representing him for this nefarious conduct . Congressman, i can understand this is an important issue to you, but as it relates to the emolluments clause and the Justice System of the United States, it is well within our purpose to be involved in that case. You said if the special counsel investigation looked into that, it would be unethical. He was told he could go into any matters that arose from the investigation. If matters arose from the investigation direct oral indirectly that the trump family owed lots of money to oligarchs and president putin on behalf of the United States of america, would you agree that is not crossing a red line but, in fact, was a red line from moscow that we need to look into . Congressman, when i made that statement, i was a private citizen and had no publicly available information. I only had publicly available information, and so i made that as a commentator and not as the acting attorney general of the United States. I am very familiar with the responsibilities of my office as acting attorney general, and we make our decisions based on the law and the facts on a casebycase basis. Thats no longer your opinion . Its not crossing a red line for him to look into the finances if they might have interfered with objective judgment of the president concerning his duty of trust to the United States of america and not to his personal financial interest or his families . Congressman, as i mentioned earlier, at the department of justice and as long as im acting attorney general, were going to follow the law and the facts wherever they may lead, and were going to do our jobs with fidelity. Thank you, sir. Let me ask you this. Theres been a conviction in the special counsel investigation of mr. Manafort. Jury trial, conviction. There have been guilty pleas from flynn, manafort, papadopoulos and Michael Cohen and dozens of indictments concerning 13 internationals and roger stone. Would you say the special investigation is a witch hunt . Are you overseeing a witch hunt . Congressman, as ive mentioned previously, the special counsels investigation is an ongoing investigation, and so i think it would be inappropriate for me to but you wouldnt oversee a witch hunt, would you . You would stop a witch hunt, wouldnt you . Congressman, it would be inappropriate for me to talk about an ongoing investigation. You said you were not interfering with the special counsels investigation. Have you denied him any funds hes requested at all . Congressman, i can tell this is an important issue for you its an important issue for the American Public and for the whole world. Congressman, to answer your question directly, i have not denied any funds to the special counsels investigation. Have you denied him going into any areas he wanted to investigate or any matters of investigation . Congressman, as i previously testified, i have not interfered with the special counsels investigation. I kweeld bayield back the ba my time. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Govert. Acting attorney general, thank you for being here today. Good to see you again, congressman. I was amazed you would be coming since your successor is apparently going to be confirmed next week and youll no longer be acting director, so i dont know what kind of suicide wish you had or whatever, but its good to see you. One thing i wanted to hit first was a statement that you had pthese are your words, and i hat quote, there is no doubt in the Law Enforcement community that the vast majority of the Illegal Drugs in this country is coming over our southern border. A pattern that is true for all crimes generally and there is no doubt that criminals and cartels seek to exploit weaknesses in our southern border. Are those your words . Well, i dont know which speech or statement youre quoting. It sounds like something i would have said, yes. And you wouldnt have said that if you didnt believe that, correct . Oh, i believe what youre saying. The drugs and the general illegality thats pouring in to our southern border is having a negative effect on our country. I want to get to this issue of career officials since colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made such a big deal about it. They accuse you of not following the advice of career officials. Do you know the backgrounds of the people that are working directly under you and directly under Rod Rosenstein . Congressman, i sit on top of an organization that has a 115,000 employees. Im talking about people directly to you and directly to Deputy Rosenstein. I am familiar with the people that report to both of us, yes. Although i will tell you, i think Rod Rosenstein as Deputy Attorney has over 100 direct reports as Deputy Attorney general. That was something i recommended to attorney general sessions, that he needed to reorganize and have some of those people reporting directly to him, but one of the mistakes, i think my dear friend Jeff Sessions for whom i have immense respect, one of the mistakes i saw him making, he was listening to people who love sd sally yat, loved her efforts to disrupt anything President Trump tried to do, they loved what president obama did through the Justice Department, and, in fact, i had informed jeff that his contact at the with the nsc was sitting on his notices, so he either developed conflicts or wasnt properly prepared, and that was tashina gahar. And she reported directly to rosenstein. The a. G. Should have someone that a liaison of the nsc should report directly to the a. G. And not go directly to Rod Rosenstein, and especially when theyre setting the attorney general up to be harmed. And then anthony feranti, apparently hes the senior managing director of fti consulting. He was another one that some considered a career position at the doj. He had jordan kelly there. Hes currently director of Cyber Security policy and response at the nsc, at the white house. There are reports that she met routinely with the mueller investigators. You know, between these people who like tashina gahar just thought yates was wonderful, i would hope that wisdom and you as acting director, wisdom in the incoming attorney general, would be to look at the backgrounds, look at the people who are political hacks and figure out, oh, theyre giving me advice on this . This is not for my wellbeing, this is to hurt the president of the United States. And i know you may just have another week, but i would encourage you that as people make a big deal about career, look beyond career. Look where their loyalties are, because even though they may be in a career position, if their loyalties are not to the attorney general and not to the president of the United States and are more political than they are constitutional, disregard what they say. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Johnson. Thank you. General whitaker, do you agree with the president s statement that the russia investigation is a witch hunt . As i mentioned previously, congressman, i think it would be inappropriate for me to comment about an ongoing investigation. Well, you commented about the roger stone investigation which is ongoing, did you not . Congressman, just to be clear about this i mean, i heard you comment on the roger stone investigation. Why would you comment on the roger stone investigation but you are reluctant to answer our questions about the Mueller Investigation . Thats a good question, congressman. And my comments about the roger stone investigation were merely to acknowledge that i was aware that cnn had appeared to receive or was acting you dont know whether or not the cnn reporter was camped out with no advance knowledge or whether or not he was tipped off or not. Congressman, that is true, but im very concerned let me move on. Hold on, sir, im controlling the time. Let me move on. Id like to take a moment to better understand your decision not to recuse yourself from the supervision of the special counsels investigation. Isnt it a fact, sir, that you received your final ethics guidance on this matter on december 19, 2018 . I appreciate this question, and im glad this is an opportunity its a pretty direct question. Did you receive your final guidance on that question . As you know, we have communicated with congress the entire process that i went through to address any recusal questions that i might have, and i had no conflict of interest. I had no financial i understand you take that position, but my simple question is, isnt it a fact that you received your final ethics guidance on that question on december 19, 2018 . Congressman, we laid out very explicitly the process that we went through, and ultimately the decision whether or not to recuse was my decision. Im very comfortable with that decision. Mr. Whitaker, you were asked a direct question, and its getting a little tiresome hearing you stall and wasting the members time. The member only has five minutes. He asked you a specific question. Did you last receive advice on that on october 18 . The answer should be yes or no or some other date or i dont remember. We dont need a speech. The gentleman may repeat the question. Mr. Chairman, if were going to counsel the witness and act as his attorney are you answering the question or is the witness answering the question . Ive asked witness not to stall. Weve endured that many times as hes trying to ask the question the way its asked. The gentleman is out of order. Mr. Johnson has the floor. Your time will be restored. Thank you, sir. Sir, isnt it a fact that career officials at doj recommended to you that you recuse yourself to avoid an appearance of conflict of interest or bias . That was the guidance that you got from career doj officials about your participation or oversight of the Mueller Investigation, isnt that correct . Congressman, i made my recusal decision by myself but there were doj officials who advised you that you should not touch that investigation, isnt that correct . Congressman yes or no . I consulted with career ethics officials, i consulted with my senior staff, i consulted with the office of legal counsel. It was my decision to make. I decided not to recuse. Im happy to walk through the stepbystep advice that i received. There were four individuals who you consulted who advised you that you had the ability to not recuse yourself from this investigation, isnt that correct . Congressman, the regulations actually say four individuals advised you that you did not have to recuse yourself, is that correct . Congressman, let me be clear. It was my decision to make and i made the decision. Your obstruction and refusal to answer im not obstructing anything. I discussed with people my decision to recuse name me some names. I consulted with my senior staff and i consulted with the office of senior counsel. Name me some names. One person would be the assistant attorney general. His or her name . Steven engel. Who else did you consult with . The senior deputy. Curtis gannon. Who else did you consult with, sir . Who else did you consult with about whether or not you should recuse yourself from the Mueller Investigation . Generally who did i consult with . I want to know specifically who you talked to. Well, i talked to brad weinschimer who is the senior career official at the department of justice. And he advised you that your recusal was unnecessary, or did he advice you to recuse . He actually could not identify any precedent for me to recuse. He said it was a close call. He said im sorry, did you have a question . Go ahead. Okay. He said that my other public statements did recognize the professionalism incompetence of the special counsel. He said that out of an abundance of caution that if asked, he would recommend a certain course. Did he recognize that you should recuse yourself . The time of the gentleman is expired. Can i finish . The witness may finish his answer. He also said, congressman, that the decision was mine to make based on the regulations of the department of justice, and i made that decision and i stand by that decision. Mr. Radcliffe. Mr. Attorney general i spent a number of years as a federal prosecutor, and because of that service i have literally hundreds of friends at the department of justice right now and at its component agencies like the fbi. Folks that i have tremendous respect for, and so i appreciate your stated desire earlier today to want to highlight their good work. And for the new members of the judiciary committee, an oversight hearing is typically where that would take place, where an attorney general would give an accounting of the work of 115,000 men and women in the Justice Department and provide some idea of the vision with respect to the departments priorities, priorities like drug and human trafficking, preventing terrorism, reducing gun and gang violence. Now, earlier this week my colleagues on the other side of the aisle indicated that they had a great desire to reduce gun violence in this country. In fact, we had an eighthour hearing with six witnesses that talked about the need to reduce gun violence in this country. We started this hearing at 9 30 this morning. Its now 12 30 in the afternoon, and i havent seen you field a single question from the other side of the aisle about any of the enforcement priorities of the department of justice. Despite the fact that you are the head of an organization that has a greater ability to impact and reduce gun violence than anyone or anything in the country. So i may be the only person today that wants to ask you a question about that, but im going to use the remainder of my time for that purpose. When i was at the department of justice, we had a very Successful Initiative called project safe neighborhood. It was a program that took guns out of the hands of criminal offenders. It was a Successful Program that was killed by the obama administration. The obama Justice Department ended it. I understand that it has been reinstated during the trump administration. Id like you to inform us about its progress as well as any other measures or programs or enforcement priorities of the department of justice with respect to reducing gun violence in this country. Thank you, congressman. As you know, we served as United States attorneys together until you went into politics and i went into private practice. I want to talk specifically, and its a really good question about project safe neighborhoods. In 2017, attorney general sessions announced the expansion of project safe neighborhoods which encourages u. S. Attorneys offices to work specifically with their unique communities to work to develop a customized Crime Reduction strategy. A study showed it reduced crime overall by 4. 1 , and with case studies showing reductions of up to 42 of violent crime. We had the project Safe Neighborhoods National conference, as i said in my opening statement, and i can tell you that especially in our largest cities, our 29 largest cities, we are seeing a reduction in crime because of u. S. Attorneys specifically working with their sheriffs and Police Chiefs and federal and local and state partners in reducing gun violence. Some other things that weve done is the attorney general was one of the four cabinet positions that were part of the School Safety commission that came out with a report in the last several months that gave a practical outline as to how states especially could work to reduce gun violence, including the idea of the erpos. And congressman, i appreciate your tone that this oversight hearing is not a hearing about the types of things were talking about but the chairman sent me a letter specifically outlining things that he wanted to talk about, and i dont feel like weve talked about many of those things. So im glad you offered that opportunity to talk about the department of justices efforts reducing gun violence. Thank you, attorney general. Id like to yield the remainder of my time to congressman jordan. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Whitaker, are there any other memos . Any other memos that mr. Rosenstein has sent to mr. Mueller that we dont know about, and if we did, would be redacted like the one that happened on august 2nd, 2017 . Congressman, as you know, the special counsels investigation is ongoing, and it would be inappropriate for me to talk about any other memos related to that. Mr. Whitaker, we already know that theres been some modification of the broadest order i think you could have with this august 2nd, 2017 memo. All im asking is, are there any other modifications, any other changes to the parameters of an investigation into the president of the United States . The congressmans time has expired. The witness may answer the question. Congressman, just to be clear, the special counsel understands the scope of its investigation and is complying with all the regulations and orders related to that. Thank you. Mr. Sherman. Dont just repeat the question, answer yes or no, otherwise people in your career will think youre not a good lawyer. We know youre a good lawyer. Lets heed that advice going forward. We did not go to the same law school. We didnt. The advice is good nonetheless. In november 2018, Chris Wallace asked the president a question that he said did you know before you appointed him that he, meaning you, had the record that was so critical of Robert Mueller . And the president said, i didnt know that, i didnt know he took views on the investigation. Do you believe that the president was telling the truth that he just did not know that you were critical of mueller before the appointment . I understand how it all worked. Im just asking do you believe the president was telling the truth when he said he did not know that you had been critical of Robert Mueller before making your appointment . Congressman, i have no reason to believe as i sit here today that the president didnt know. Who did you interview with for the chief of staff job . It was general sessions decision to make. I interviewed with him and he offered me the job. And before you got the job, did you ever before you took this job, did you ever speak with the president about the Mueller Probe from may 17, 2017 to september 22nd, 2017 . Are you saying about before i was actually the chief of staff . Im saying between may 17, 2017 congressman, i had never met the president until after i joined the department of justice. Let me ask you another question. Did you communicate with anyone at the white house about the special counsel investigation before september 22nd, 2018 . I assume youre excluding my appearances on cnn. Because i dont know who at the white house was watching my appearances. You told me the president wasnt watching those, otherwise he would have been aware of your positions. I assume the president wasnt watching. Did you talk about those appearances with anyone at the white house . I did not talk about my appearances on cnn. Did you talk about your views of the Mueller Investigation with anyone at the white house . I did not talk about my views of the Mueller Investigation at the white house in this time period, essentially may of 2017, until i joined the department of justice in october of 2017. Throughout that process, did you ever communicate with heres the question. By my count, you made six comments in opeds, talk radio or cable news critical of the special counsel between the time you interviewed in june 2017 and the time you were hired as chief of staff to the attorney general. Did you ever use any intermediaries, did you have anyone since the president didnt know, did you have anyone communicate with the white house or anyone at the white house, either staff members, friends or others, to let them know exactly where you stood as expressed in at least those six public statements . Congressman, i had, at the time you described, may 2017 until i joined the department on october 4th of 2017, i didnt have a relationship with the white house. Did you talk to any white house personnel before you were hired, anyone at the white house . Congressman thats an easy one. Did you talk to anyone at the white house . Is the answer no . Congressman, i had previously been at the white house when i was a private citizen to talk about a different position. I understand, but did you talk to anyone at the white house about your views on mueller, anyone at the white house at all before you assumed the position . Let me just go forward. Heres the issue. When you became the attorney general, since becoming the attorney general, you said that you have been briefed on the special counsel. Did you use anyone else to have communications did you do anything to make sure that the white house might have learned some of what you learned in those briefings . Could it be that somebody else on your staff might have spoken to someone at the white house since you told us you didnt . Congressman, im not aware of that happening. How many people were in those briefings with you when you were briefed about the Mueller Investigation . Congressman, im not going to go into specifics of the briefing, but it was a very limited group. There was only one member of my staff who was present with me. And have you ever attempted to use any intermediaries to get information to the president or others on his staff . No, i have not attempted to use any intermediaries to get information to the president or his staff . Were going to go on for a while. The concern that we have, mr. Whitaker, is there was no Senate Confirmation here. Were not the senate. But the administration justified their decision in picking you under the vacancies reform act. There was a law on the books for the attorney generals succession and the authority to oversee the special counsels work. It goes from one Senate Confirmation to another from the associate ag, attorney general, assistant attorney general, assistant ag for national security, assistant ag in charge of the Criminal Division and on and on and on. None of them none of them are the chief of staff to the attorney general. I think what were trying to figure out is why is it exactly that they chose to go beyond the statute and choose you . And i hope through the bowels of this hearing, that will become clear. Thank you. I believe they chose me to be the acting attorney general for a couple reasons. I had served as the United States attorney, which is a pretty important position. For 13 months, i was the chief of staff for attorney general sessions. I had done the full year with him side by side. Obviously he made the decisions but i gave him advice and counsel, and i was aware of everything that was going on at the department of justice that obviously general sessions wasnt recused from. I think the president was comfortable to continue the momentum at the department of justice we had established in addressing these important priority issues, like reducing violent crime, the opioid issue that he felt i was doing in the duties of attorney general. Ill just say to mr. Whitaker my questions in a normal Oversight Committee would be vastly different than the direction im going to go because weve kind of wandered into this other stream over here. So im going to ask you some questions. The longstanding constitutionally based department of Justice Policy holds that a sitting president cannot be indicted. And thats based on the last review which happened during the clinton administration. Is that still in effect or has it changed . That is still the policy of the department of justice. Have you spoken to Deputy Attorney general rosenstein about his statements on invoking the 25th amendment in wire tapping President Trump . I have seen the statements by Deputy Rosenstein that he made to the press regarding those statements, and i have no reason to believe that he did not that those statements were consistent with what he believed at the time. Im not sure i understood that. You said no reason to believe that they were not consistent, so there are a couple negatives there. Do you believe they were consistent to what he believed at the time . I do. I believe that what Deputy Attorney general rosenstein said to the press when it was first reported about his discussion youre talking about his comments to the press, not the ones about him wearing a wire . Im talking about Deputy Attorney general rosensteins comments to the press after it was reported that he had considered the wire andinvoking the 25th amendment. Did you talk to him about these issues at all . Again, im not here to talk about the internal discussions that i had this is a critical issue. With all due respect, this has nothing to do with an ongoing investigation. What it has got to do with is mr. Rosenstein in his role as an unbiased overseer of the Mueller Investigation. It has to do with his capacity to be unbiased. Im not asking whether im not trying to get into the substance or even the periphery. I want to know, though, did you have a conversation with mr. Rosenstein about his comments as reported . This is an important question to you, but im not going to answer questions about deputy general rosenstein. Im fulfilling the duties of the acting attorney general i know thats important to you, but youre answering in a way that we as the American People can understand, thats important to us. Lets get to june 21st, 2017 where you said the truth is there was no collusion between the russians and the Trump Campaign. There was interference by the russians but there was not collusion with the campaign. Thats where the left seems to be dividing these two issues. Thats where they want the truth to come out and the fact there is not a single piece of evidence that demonstrates the Trump Campaign had any illegal or improper conversations with the russians. Is that still true in your mind today . Counsel, as i mentioned before in previous questioning about my statements as a private citizen before i joined the department of justice, those were made based on publicly available information, and i had no inside information. I did not know the details of the investigation. I obviously know the traditions of the department of justice, the rules and regulations, and i follow those as i exercise my duties as acting attorney general. I know you gave an answer to a similar question but not that question here. What im asking is, as we sit here today a year and a half later, has your opinion changed from what you stated june 21st, 2017 . Has it changed . Thats a simple question, thats not hard. The special counsels investigation is an ongoing investigation, and im not going to characterize that investigation or give you my opinion of that investigation as i sit here today. So the scope memo indicates that the scope of the Mueller Investigation with any links and coordination with the russian government and candidate donald trump, and two, anything that maya ri arise from that investigation, has that scope been expanded in any way . Congressman, as i was discussing with representative jordan, i am not going to talk about the scope of the special counsels investigation. Then ill go forward and say the indictments of scope 1, papadopoulos false statements reporting after mueller was appointed. Gates, no relation to the campaign. Richard panetta, unrelated to the investigation. Some patton not related to the 2016 election or campaign and false statements occurring after mueller was appointed not alleged in an illegal relationship between trump and or russia. With that i yield my time. Thank you, mr. Chairman. [ inaudible ] thank you, mr. Chair. Mr. Acting ag, i actually wanted to ask you some questions regarding what you did prior to being acting ag. Its my understanding that before you moved to the department of justice that you were the executive director of the foundation for accountability and civic and trust . I have a point of order. Mr. Chairman, i have a point of order. He made full use of the opportunity to call for investigations of multiple democrats. The gentleman will state his point of order. My point of order from the very statement of the gentlelady is outside the scope of an investigative hearing of the department of justice. Its not. You need to let me finish my question and youll see. That is not a valid point of order. The gentlelady will continue. Thank you. The house rules that the question is outside the scope the gentlelady has the floor. Are you just going to overrun a point of order . I made my point of order. The gentlelady will suspend. I ruled that it was not a valid point of order, and the gentlelady has the floor. The gentlelady will continue. Thank you. I was not through with my point of order. Gentthe gentlelady will cont. Move to table. I move to table. Motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair is before the committee. Motion to table is not debatable. The clerk will call the roll. One moment while we set up the clerk. Mr. Chairman, may i make a unanimous consent request while were waiting for this vote . [ inaudible ] since when is a biased witness not relevant to anything . Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman votes aye. Miss loftgren. Miss jackson lee. Aye. Mr. Cohen. Aye. Mr. Cohen votes aye. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Deutsch. Mr. Deutsch voetes aye. Miss bass . Miss bass votes aye. Mr. Richmond. Mr. Richmond votes aye. Youre watching the House Judiciary Committee take a vote on the perceived dispute between the democrats and the republicans. In the achair, acting general matthieu whitaker. He was asked about issues before he joined the department. The democrats are arguing that should be outside the scope of todays committee hearing. Its a matter of contention between the democrats and republicans. The hearing of mr. Whitaker will continue after this vote. The procedure requires them to take this vote which is just this vote has very little to do with the substance at hand and has everything to do with the partisanship at hand. Absolutely. And weve been remarking on this as weve been watching, that the one thing that has not changed with the new congress is the divisiveness. And i guess in one way you would expect it because republicans are nervous about democrats being in charge, but democrats are also, you know, many of them are being as partisan as they were in the minority. Were not getting a whole lot new that we didnt know before, but we are getting some things new that we didnt know before starting earlier in the day. Just even something basic like and he said this several times, that he did not deny any funds to Robert Mueller. Thats something that we didnt know yet only because or at least officially, only because we didnt have the opportunity to hear from him under oath as we are today. He said he hasnt denied any funds to mr. Mueller. He said he in no way interfered with mr. Mueller. He said he has not communicated to the president or any officials at the white house anything he learned about the Mueller Investigation. So if you want to bottle all that up, the democrats are suspicious. They want to know why the president picked the chief of staff to Jeff Sessions to replace Jeff Sessions when he fired him. Theyre suspicious because of the president s constant attacks on Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department and the investigation, but anybody who wants to jump in the roll call is just about done. He has done nothing to give the democrats a reason to advance suspicions of him, is that correct . Thats right. Even saying during the hearing he has not talked to the president about the Mueller Probe is allaying those suspicions. What hasnt been brought up yet is the sndy probe, and were looking to see if theyre back in session. Lets get back to the hearing. Karen bass, democratic senator of california, asking her questions. You recommended that facts called for ethics investigations into our filed complaints about the following democratic politicians, officials and organizations. The Democratic National committee, Hillary Clinton, john kerry, speaker pelosi, representative ami berra, louis. In fact, the organization actually called for an investigation into a member of this committee, representative hank johnson. Thats a total of about 46 organizations or individuals that in the time period you were director of fact you called for either ethics investigations or filed complaints. So since you have joined the ags office, i want to know whether or not any investigations have been initiated into those people just answer that, yes or no. Have there been investigations initiated into the people that you suggested be investigated during the time you were the ed effect . Congresswoman, i was the executive director of the foundation for accountabilities of trust. We were an independent watchdog group. We did file ethics complaints against members of both parties. You filed ethics complants against republicans . Can you tell me which republicans you filed ethics complaints against . Again, im here for an oversight hearing yes, you are, so my questions are leading to that. Can you answer that . Which republicans did you file an investigation or ask for an investigation . The nice thing about being an Ethics Watchdog Group is they filed all their complaints on its website and i would direct you there. I dont have time to look at a website. You were the executive director. What ethics complaints did you file . Congresswoman, i would ask you to look at the website since youve been in the doj, have any complaints been initiated against the 46 democrats, either individuals or organizations, in the time that youve been the acting ag . Congresswoman, as i sit here today, i am not aware of any, but obviously if i had recommended as the executive director of fact that someone be investigated, i would and if my recommendation was adopted by the department of justice, im certain i couldnt be involved in that investigation. Youre certain, but did you recuse yourself of any . I think its important for everyone to understand is recusal decisions are made based on a matter. Let me move on. I want to ask you questions about ethics guidance you received in december. Did they recommend you recuse yourself from any involvement in the criminal investigation into the world patent marketing, the fraudulent patent promotion scam to which you still owe almost 10,000 to the court. Did they provide an ethics opinion or did you not receive one pursuant to the world market patenting order . Just to be clear, who do you mean by they . Ethics officials . Im asking did they recommend that you recuse yourself from any sflovinvolvement in the cri investigation by the world patent marketing . I am recused from that investigation. How about any involvement with Hillary Clinton . Its been documented in your reviews into matters related to mrs. Clinton. Any investigations into former secretary clinton, if theyre open confirmation or denial of a recusal would suggest that there is or is not an investigation regarding that person. I actually believe i have more time on the clock since i was interrupted. We restart the time. Go ahead. Continue. What im saying is your inquiry about whether or not im recused from any matter concerning former secretary clinton would, by its very nature, suggest that there is an open matter regarding secretary clinton. Any recusal decision that i would make would be based on what the matter was, and we would go through the exact same analysis that i twliwent throug the case of the special counsel investigation. At the request of a number of people, the committee will stand in recess for five minutes. A quick recess. Youve been watching the House Judiciary Committee. Right there center of your screen is Matthew Whitaker. He is the acting attorney general. Republicans objecting to the tone of the questioning and trying to move on with a brief recess. Dana bash, Catherine Lucy with the associated press, sam liu and pamela brown. The partisanship here, at times this was as much a tournament as it was a question for Matthew Whitaker. But the democrats suspicious of Matthew Whitaker thing the president wanted to put in someone agreeable to him. Hes much more comfortable talking to the republicans, so you do see the partisan nature of this, but on the substance he has said he has not talked to the president on the investigation, has not shared updates on the investigation with anyone at the white house, has not interfered with Robert Mueller, has not cut off any funding to Robert Mueller. What else has come out of this of note or interest or, let me start with the attorney. If youve been listening to this and your turn was next, what would your questions be . I would push him on the details of what briefings he has or hasnt had. If he tries to retreat into executive privilege or legal privilege, that doesnt cover who, what and when. Only the content of the subject of his communications. I think they could find out a lot about when those dates were and who he actually talked to. Hes not really been pressed on that yet. I think early in the hearing he appeared very uncomfortable, looked very nervous, and that kind of witness, i think, would be pretty vulnerable. As time has gone on, i think hes become more solid. You made the point with the brief roll call vote earlier, they asked him about robert mule mueller and his hand inc. Of the his handling of the Mueller Investigation. They ever not pressed him on President Trump and his association there. We know the president has been focused on that and is concerned about the sdny investigation, and we know that whitaker did talk to the president. The president had vented to him, lashed out about the charges to Michael Cohen and the hush money scheme. We know the president believed he was treated unfairly, because he was listed as individual 1 in the court documents. So the president , according to our reporting, did speak to whitaker about this. Im a little surprised that the democrats havent brought up the sdny probe which is separate from the Mueller Probe. He is sticking to the script from his prep sessions and really not going beyond. I think he realized a couple weeks ago at the press conference that the Mueller Probe was nearing its end and the attention it got that he was nearing the end of that. And the strategy, im sold, is let the democrats have it and he can walk out a representative hero. I think if democrats say he doesnt want to work, you may see them citing this as what democrats want to do in control of the house. Brianna keilar will pick up our coverage after a quick break. Have a great afternoon. We know whats around the corner is always worth the trip. We know the only thing better than the last adventure is the next one. We know the great outdoors. We love the great outdoors. Bass pro shops and cabelas where incredible selection, great people, and an experience like no other, all come together. Bipolar i disorder can make you feel like you have no limits. But mania, such as unusual changes in your mood, activity or energy levels, can leave you on. Shaky ground. Help take control by asking your Healthcare Provider about vraylar. Vraylar treats acute mania of bipolar i disorder. Vraylar significantly reduces overall manic symptoms, and was proven in adults with mixed episodes who have both mania and depression. Vraylar should not be used in elderly patients with dementia, due to increased risk of death or stroke. Call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may mean a lifethreatening reaction or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be permanent. Side effects may not appear for several weeks. High cholesterol and weight gain; high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death; decreased white blood cells, which can be fatal; dizziness upon standing; falls; seizures; impaired judgement; heat sensitivity; and trouble swallowing may occur. Youre more than just your bipolar i. Ask about vraylar. Im Brianna Keilar and its a contentious day the testimony of acting general attorney Matthew Whitaker. Whitaker repeatedly refused to answer questions from democrats related to the special counsels investigation and to communications with President Trump. The hearing continuing any moment now, but first a taste of what we just saw. Have you communicated anything you learned in that briefing about the investigation to President Trump, yes or no . Mr. Chairman, as i said earlier today in my opening remarks, i do not intend today to talk about my private conversations with the president of the United States. But to answer