Transcripts For CSPAN2 Attorney General Calls Collusion Accusations A Detestable Lie 20170614

Testifying today before the Senate Intelligence Committee Attorney general Jeff Sessions denied any collusion between him and russian officials during the president ial campaign. He also answered questions about a private meeting in february with the president and then fbi director james comey. Senator richard burr of North Carolina chair is this two and a half hour hearing. And [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] i called the hearing to orderore please attorney general sessions, appreciate your willingness to appear before the committee today and thank you for your years of dedicated service as a member of this body and recent leadership at the department of justice. As i mentioned when the director appeared before us last week that his committees role is to be the eyes and ears for the other 85 members of the United States senate and the American People, ensuring that the Intelligence Community ishe operating lawfully and has the necessary tools to keep america safe. The community is large and diverse of a place and we recognize the gravity of ourur investigation into russias interference in the 2016 u. S. Elections, but i remind the we constituents while we investigate russia, we are scrutinizing the cia budget while we are investigating russia we are still scrutinizing the cia budget, nsa sends you to program carbonation Satellite Program and the entire effort to recruit and maintain the best talent we can find in the world. More often than not, the committee conducts its work behind closed doors a necessary step to ensure that sensitive sources and methods are protected. The sanctity of the sources and methods are at the heart of the communitys ability to keep us safe and our allies safe from those who seek to harm us. Ive said repeatedly i did not believe any pick up anything the committee does should be done in public but i also recognize the gravity of the current investigation and the need for the American People to be presented the facts so that they might make their own judgments. It is for that reason this committee has now held its tentf open hearing of 2017, more than double that of the committee in recent years, ancome and do this from the topic of russian interference. The venue is your opportunity tc separate fact from fiction and those in the press for example there are several issues but im hopeful we will address today. Number one did you have any meetings with russian officials or the proxies on behalf of the campaign or your time as attorney general, number two what was your involvement with the foreignpolicy team and what are the possible interactions with russia. Number three why did you decide to recuse yourself from the investigation and forth what role if any did you play in the removal of the then fbi directoa comey. I look forward to an honest discussion as we continue to pursue the truth behind the interference in the elections. It the committees experienced staff is interviewing the relevant parties and that have spoken to more than 35 individuals that party today to include just yesterday an interview with the former Homeland Security secretary johnson we also continue to review some of the most sensitive intelligence in the countrys possession. As i said previously we will establish the facts, separate from the rampant speculation and lay them out for the American People to make their own judgment and only then will hee be able to put this episode to rest and look to the future. Im hopeful members will focus their questions today on the a russia investigation into the opportunity by taking the political or partisan shots the. Vicechairman and i continue to lead this investigation together on what is a highly charged political issue. We may disagree at times but we remain a unified team with a dedicated, focused and professional staff working tirelessly on behalf of the American People to find theas truth. The committee has made much progress as the political winds blow forcefully around us and i think all would agree despite a torrent of public debate on who and what committee might be best suited to lead on this issue, the Intelligence Committee has lived up to its obligation to move forward with purpose and above politics. Mr. Attorney general, its good to have you back and i will now turn to the vicechairman for any remarks he might have. I want to thank the way we are proceeding on the investigation. Its good to see you again and we appreciate your appearance on the heels of the testimony lastm week. I do want to take a moment at the outset and first expressss some concern with the process by which we are seeing the attorney general today. S its my understanding you were originally scheduled to testify in front of the house and Senate Committee appropriations today. I know those appearances have been canceled to come here instead. While we appreciate the testimony before our committee, i believe, and i believe i speak for many of my colleagues i believe you should also answer questions from the members of those committees and the Judiciary Committees as well. It is my hope that you will reschedule those as soon asou possible. In addition i want to say at the outset while we consider the t appearance today as just the beginning of our interactions with you and your department, ws always expect it to talk with you as a part of ourct investigation and we believed it would be later in the process. We are glad to accommodate the request to speak with us today but also expect to have the commitment to cooperate with alo future requests and make herself available as necessary to the committee as the chairman commencommented on this investi. Now with todays discussion lets start with the campaign. You were an early supporter of mr. Trump. In march he remained as chairman of the Trump Campaign National Security advisory committee. We more than a surrogate for the Strategic Advisor who helpedha shape much of the campaigns National Security strategy. No doubt he would have key insights about some of the associates that were seeking to hear in the weeks ahead. Questions have also been raised about some of your own interactions with russian officials during the campaign. In a hearing in january you said ruu didnt have communicationsns with russians. Senator leahy later asked you in writing whether youd been in contact with anyone can put any part of the government and he answered a definitive no. Despite that fact was discovered later you did have interactions with russian government officials in the course of the campaign. To drop the fbi investigation on Michael Flynn. Finally he believes he was fired over his handling of the rush investigation and the president himself confirmed these statements to the media and we need to preserve the independence of the fbi so in order to followup mr. Attorney general your testimony today is an opportunity to begin the process for instance, you recused herself from the Russian Investigation but yet you participated to fire director komi ova handling of the same investigation. After speaking oneonone that is a concerning action. And how you read viewed you the president s request and if you thought was appropriate and also if you are aware of any attempts by the president to enlist leaders of the intelligence themittee to undermine this. And the committee wants toto hear we were doing to ensure the russians or any of other foreign nationals cannot attack the democratic process i am concerned the president still does not recognize the severity so does not even have any conclusions as the russians even enter injured intervened in the elections the recent achievements in france that all western democracies must take steps i believe the United States can and must be a leader the requires administration to be serious so to concede a concerning pattern of refusing to answer public classified questions of allegations in this investigation and made very clear that our witnesses to come before congress the American People deserve an accord to there stood your testimony. I will the minister the oath to solve the swear to tell the truth, a whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god . I do. Please be seated for go the floor sure. Thank you very much to the chairman into Ranking Member to appear before your committee today as these importance due in chip so such interference can not be tolerated and i encourage every effort to and as you know, to appoint a special counsel to investigate the matter with the russian interference in the 2016 election i am here to redress what has been raised before this committee. And i appreciate the opportunity to respond to questions but as they buy a shoe mr. Chairman we cannot or will not violate my duties that i have with the president. So now let me address issues directly ahead no private meetings or do i recall a conversation of any russian official i did not attend any meetings separately prior to the speech today and i attended a reception with my staff that includedn two dozen people and President Trump so i do recall several conversationscep. In did not have any recollection corelli other russian officials for pro and i did not remember by the news media that there was a different room and at the hotel but not if i ever attended a reception were the Russian Ambassador was also present is entirely beside the point of this investigation into russian interference of the 2016 campaign me make clear i have never met with where have had any conversation concerning any type of interference in the United States and further and have no knowledge for anyone connected i was en this body and your colleague and i participated in any collusion to hurt this country which i have served with honor for 35 years to undermine the integrity of the democratic process is appalling and detestable and there is the assertion and that is false i cannot see colleagues now is there no thiser part of this body this is what happened senator frank and asked me a rambling question after six hours of testimony that included dramatic allegations that United States intelligencee committee added vice of president elect that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign during those intermediaries. Aback i was taken aback with these allegations that was reported as breaking news that very day of which i had done heard. S so any suggestions as part of such activity i replied this i am not aware of any of those activities progress have been called a surrogate in that campaign to have communications with the russians said they cannot communicate. That was the context in wasch was asked a question with fair and correct response how was responding to this allegation that surrogates for reading with russians on a regular basis simply did not occurred to me to go further than the context of that question that i may have had with the russian with a routine situation as i had other readings of the other officials so only in march a that a reporter asked a spokesperson if i had never met with any russian officials this was the first time that question was posed to be on the same day we provided the inspiration related that we held in the senate office, as well asy the brief encounter in julyd, o. During the convention in cleveland ohio. Reporte has also provided a reporter with the list and in addition am provided supplemental testimony to the Judiciary Committee to explain this event so i readily acknowledgement is certainly not one thing happened that was improper and that will also explain the circumstances of my recusal from investigationthe of russian interference. Colleagues to me on this i was sworn in and february february 9th and the very next day i promised what i would do then that with carrier park officials to discuss something as publicly reported in the press that might have a bearing if i should recuse myself in this case. Ebruary from that point february for february 10th analysis my formal recusal i was there ever briefed on any a investigations in did not access any information i received only that limited information to determine what was necessary for mesuch, and as such i have no knowledge of this investigation beyond what has been publicly reported. And i have taken and though action whatsoever on the date of my formal recusal name sending a head by dave of director komi to the fbi to instruct them to inform their staff in to revise them in any way of any such matter. Reportedly i recused myself not because of any wrongdoing or any belief that i may have been that involved but because the department of justiceon, 28 regulation i felt required it. It says that Department Employee should not participate in the investigations on a campaign if they serve as a campaign adviser. So the scope of my recusal does not to in cannot interfere with those who oversee the department of justice including the fbi within a billion dollar budget and 35,000 employees. I presented to the president my concern and those of the Deputy Attorney general of the ongoing leadershipissues a issues the fbi has stated in my letter recommending their review removal of director comey along with the attorney general memorandum on the issue to be released publicly by the warehouse those represent a clear statement of my views depy i adopted the points that were made and with my recommendation. It is of surges in just a recusal from a single specific investigation would render the attorney general l to not have leadership of the the various departmentntcomn of components that conducts thousands of investigations. Finally during the testimony mr. Komen discussed a conversation we had about the meeting with the president. T i am happy to share with the committee my recollection of that conversation that i had. Following a routine briefing he spoke to me and my chief of staff said he did not provide me with any substance of his conversation and the baby for the director expressed concern of the proper communication protocol with the warehouse a of the president. I responded to his commenthat t by a agreeing the fbi inin department of justice need to follow policies regarding appropriate contact with the white house broke mr. Komi had served for more than two decades and i was confident he understood and would abide by the wellestablished rules the limited communications with one white house especiallyly with ongoing investigations. My comments as i understand it and how the department of justice rules have been in place for years and mr. Kelley new those and i assume he complied with them so i will finish with this. Ecusd i recuse myself from any investigation into the campaign for president but did not recuse myself from defending when honor against careless and false allegations. And during that capri share process and as attorney general i have dedicated myself to the highest standard and have earned a reputation for bad and in this body over decades. The people of this country expect an honesty and transparent government and that is what were giving them for the president wants to focus on the people of this country to be sure they are treated fairly the child the agenda is to improve the lives of the American People some have different ways to achieve this with a different agenda but that is his agenda and one that i share. As attorney general i have responsibility to enforce laws of the nation to protect this country from its enemies and to ensure and i intend to work every day with our team and these professionals from the department of justice to a fancy important work. Th the use of false attacks and innuendoes you can be sure will not intimidate me and in fact, illy strengthens my resolve to fulfill my duty to reduce crime at the state and local lawenforcement officers to work on the street every day and just last week it was reported overdose death in the country are rising faster than ever recorded. Last year 52,000 the New York Times just estimated it will be 62,000 next year. The murder rate is up overton and increase since 1968. Paillette were telling the gangs in the cartels and the terrorists that were coming after you, every one of our citizens to matterze who they are or where they live their right to be safe in their homes and communities i will not be deterred roulette this department to be deterredro from this vital issue. I have the it is a great honor to t appear before you today and i will do my best to be of your questions. Thank you for that testimony. Note i would like to note for members the chair in the vice chair recognized andnu its the members are recognized by the minister like to remind the members were in open in session no sensitive materials should be used relative to your questions so i recognizefo myself for 10 minutes. Attorney general sessions, you talk about the Mayflower Hotels with the president gave his first Foreign Policy speech youe. Were there and others for their buck from your testimony you said you dontt remember if the a Russian Ambassador was there . I did not remember that but i a understand he was anere. But i dont doubt that he was. In fact, i recently saw a video of him coming into their rooms director you dont remember having a conversation with him relieving with him . I do not. Was there ever a crowded room setting you were involved in . No. Other than the reception area that was two or three dozen people. Came yes. A and there were people that were with you at the event . To read maya director at the time to do was is a retired u. S. Army colonel served on the u. S. Senate Services Staff was with me in the reception area throughout the rest of the event. Were you there is the United States senator as a member of the campaign . I came there very anxious to see how President Trump would do i believe he had only given one major speech before sellout was ted interesting time for me with the delivery and the message. Ere. Stick nike reported two other meetings one on the sidelines and one in september. Have you had any other interactions with a Campaign Capacity . Am not asking from the i standpoint of her staff. No mr. Chairman. But i would of farha offer when asked about whether i have had any meetings with the russians with a reporter in march weve really recall a conversation at the convention at the meeting in my office and made that public never intended not to include data i gladly would have reported the meeting and be encounter that occurred at the mayflower if i had remembered that but i dont remember that that occurred. March 2nd 2017 you formally recuse jurors selffcone by the fbi and department of justice. What are the specific reasons that you chose toell, recuse yourself . At specific reason is the of code of federal regulations put out by the department of justice rules and it says this. This date cfr is authorized no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person involved in the conduct of the investigation and it goes on to say in a Political Campaign if you have that identification with the elected officials or candidates arising from service, you should not participate in the investigation of that campaign. So with my recusal is because i felt i was a subject of the investigation itself that i may have done something wrong but i felt that i was required under the rules for under the department of justice and i should comply with the rules leg so did your Legal Counsel though you had to recuse yourself because of the current statute . I do have a time line i was sworn in on the ninth of february then on the tenth have my first meeting to discuss the issue where the cfr was not discussed. We had several other meetings ended became clear over time that i qualify that a significant principal adviser type of person to the campaign ended would be inappropriate to recuse myself. This would explain director komis comments that he knew there would be a likelihood to recusee yourself because he was familiar with the same statute. Probably so. The department of justice probably communicated with him because let me say this clearly that as a matter of fact i recused myself that day i never received anyon information i thought there was a problem with me being able to serve as attorney general over this issue and i felt i possibly would have to recuse myself and not to involve myself in the campaign in any way and i did not. So sending out an email internally of your decision would you ask your staff to make that available. T i believe i have a with me now. Have you had any interactions with the special counsel sincent appointment . I have not with regard to that email director, me indicated he did not know when i recused myself or did not receive notice one of those mentioned him by name so what happened i am not accusing him of any wrongdoing but that is what happens. So he testified at length with his center for interactions with the president and you address the meeting in new said he did inform you of how uncomfortable foul was and then to follow the rules but it did with that original discomfort we may have had . He had a total of six o calls. That is correct. There is nothing wrong with the president to have communication with the fbi director but it is problematic for any department of justice and police to talk to any cabinet person or white house official about our ongoing investigations if theyre not properly cleareded through the top levels of the department of justice so that was a regulation that eating is selfie and that be needed as strongly believe we needed to restore to read here to just those kinds of rules that were lacking in need to be restored. You couldnt have a conversation the tissue were never briefed. Correct but i would know with regard to their private meeting that director pooley had by his own admissione had several that he had with President Trump or president obama it is not improper for say but would not be justified for Department Officials to share information of the ongoing investigation. One last question as the chair of the Foreign Policy this for the Trump Campaign to the best of your knowledge did that he never meet . We met a couple of times maybe. But weve never functioned frankly as coherent. Were there any members you have never met . Yes. Now was a mention to mymy Opening Statements we appreciate your parents but we do see this as the first set but we would like to get your commitment you will not make yourself available as the meet in the weeks and months ahead. I will commit to appear as appropriate for gore dont think it is a policy to continually bring cabinet members over the same thing over and over. S alaska about this committee. Can we get your commitment to access to documents . We will be glad to provide appropriate responses to your questions. Yes today a friend of the president was reported that President Trump was considering removingsi director mahler as special c counsel to have confidence in him to conduct impartially . I didnt know about these reports. But i am asking. I have known mr. Mueller over the years serving 12 years as deputy fbi director and i knew him before that and i am confident. But i will not discuss any o hypothetical or a situation in the future i am not aware of today because i know nothing of the investigation to believe the president to has confidence . I have no idea. As you commit to this committee not to take any personal actions that may result in his firing . I think i could say thate with confidence because i recused from the investigation in fact, the way that works is the acting attorney general. Edges wanted to get you on the record. So you would not take any actions to your knowledge you have any justice of Department Officials about any president ial pardons. I cannot comment on conversations and that is a violation of the communications rule. So as the basis of factto is that based on executive privilege . A longstanding policy with the department of justice not true comment on conversations the attorney general has had with the president of the United States for confidential reasons that are found in the coequal branch of powers so does that mean you are claiming executive privilege . Se i am not that is the president s power. What about conversations houe with other departments or white house officials . But not the president. Without any way suggesting i have had conversations concerning parties Public Private there are some within the department of justice thatha we share. We have a right to have a department of justice in mean encourage people to speak upnt to argue case is on different sides. And i hope the you would agree you would reach years herself or the president to brothers would pardon i someone during the midst ofio this investigation while in the middle of cars would be problematic one of the comments in your testimony is you reached this conclusion about the performance of directore believability to leave the day fbi so did you ever with the failure to perform . Or the accusations did you have conversations . I did not. You were his superior and there were fairly harsh thing said about director komi you never thought it was appropriate to raise those concerns . I did not do so. And it happened friday and then notice of serious problems. In fact, we talked about this even before was confirmed or he was confirmed it is something we both agreed to a of a fresh start was probably a good thing. I could understand if you talked about that before ores had a chance for a fresh start but now suddenly in the midst of thed investigation the timing seems peculiar out of the blue the president friers the fbi director with problems of disarray going to the april 27 meeting by the time that came around your already named to chairps n of the National Security adviser. That was the Mayflower Hotel. Yes sir but minder standing that jerry was at that meeting as well . I believe he was speaking to recollect if he had conversations with the ambassador . I do not spicule had no conversation at that meeting . I dont recall that and certainly i canid shirt zeroad negative assure you if i didi jd and if it is conceivable but remember it. There is nothing in the notes are very when you hire the chance to correct those other touse sessions this did not come up pop into your memory . I guess i could say i possibly had a meeting but i do not recall that and dead anyway i did not fail to record something in myor testimony your my letterlse. Intentionally false. I an interstate and so byct this time he had a chance to correct the record was theis at the april 27 session andid to echo what the chairman has said, there was no other meeting with russian officials. Not to my recollection and with regard to the to encounters as the of Mayflower Hotel, i came there not knowing he would be there i have no o recollection he would be there. I had no communications with him before or after and likewise at the convention. Gap of mayflower. I did not know he wouldn be in the audience. So there was this section first but that is my recollection. General sessions one of the troubling things that i sort through is director komi testimony was that he felt uncomfortable with the president asked everyone to leave the room and left the impression they evening neared the tissue were uncomfortable as well. The rig after this meeting took place that clearly director director, we felt uncomfortable you never toss what took place . I would say it this way. We were there and i was standing there with having any conversation that took place but i did depart i believe everyone elsee departed they were talkingwa of the president s desk. I believe it was the next day he said something to express concern to be left alone with the president did that in itself is not problematic. He did not tell me at that time any details aboutbo anything that was said or improper. I affirmed his concern we should be following proper guidelines that the department of justice and back him up with his concern and he should not carry on any conversation with the president or anyone else about investigation that was not proper. Now and so that conversation was improper . He was concerned in his recollection is consistent with my recollection. Attorney general sessions it is good to hear you talk about this russianct interference i think there is any american that would disagree that we need to drill down and to know what happens but again this is what the committee was charged so as you know february 14 the New York Times published an article alleging there was constant communication between the Trump Campaign and the russians regarding the elections. Do you recall that article . Generally. Director collegial this s yet a very specific recollection through the intelligence and then has the democrats appeared there is no such fact so this committee and we have been through thousands of pages of the information were no different than where we were when restarted. But to have any factual information are you aware . So with that socalled dossier i believe that is the report that senator franken hit me with i was testifying and i do believe it has been substantially discredited but this would suggest that i participateds a in the continuing communications with russia as a surrogate are absolutely false. Those conversations with the officers of other governments or ambassadorsoccurn is in everyday occurrence. Eidenshink it is. And oh so but certainly a to be improper and illegal. Are you willing to sit here pa tell the American People that you participated in no conversation of any kind whether collusion between a the Trump Campaigner other government . Absolutely and i have no hesitation to do so. You participated in the Trump Campaign and he traveled . . Cry did. You spoke for the campaign . Cpac based upon youran experience did you hear even in a whisper or suggestionhat c that somehow of those russians . I would have been shocked . And had known it was improper. E. This is a serious matter because what you talk about inta hacking into a private personal computer to obtain information is just not right and i believe it is likely if that actually occurred was violated that is improper. Has any person from the white house has erected a new aura ask you to any illegal act. Welcome to the is attorneygeneral. On may 19 making a statement to the house to essentially tell them he learned on may may 8 the President Trump intended to remove director komi when you wrote your letter on may 9 did you kill the president had already decided to fire director colby . Senator feinstein i believe that has been made public the president and i dunno how much more he said so on may 11 and did two days there that president so i am puzzled about the recommendations because of the decision that had been made. So what was the need to write a recommendation . We were asked a row opinion and when we expressed that which was consistent with the memorandum and the letter that we wrote i felt comfortable as the Deputy Attorney general did to provide that information in writing. See you concur with the president he would file but st that Russian Investigation . His words will speak for himself i am not sure what was in his mind when we talked. Did you ever discussed director komi fbis handling of the Russian Investigationse . Or anyone else . Filing for the communications between they attorneygeneral and i can comment. Did you ever discuss the since you discussed the a determination. Bad his will was put. Said you had no verbal about communication . Cannot confirm or deny the nature of the conversations i may have had with the president on this subject brothers and i know how this will be discussed to be easier to by the department of justice. Your longtime colleague m but we did hear admiral rogers say essentially thehe same back when it was easy to say the answer is no. But he said the answer was yes is still would have been improper. So how exactly were you involved in the determination of the termination of director komi . Im looking at your letter that says thene director must follow faithfully the rules and principles who sets the right example for lawenforcement officials therefore must recommend you remove director komi toy identify and the syrians to leave the great men and women of the fbi so do you really believe this has to do with his performance of the men and women of the fbi v . As the Deputy Attorney general set out in his sleep which i adopted that we had problems there and it was my best judgment that a fresh start at the fbi would be inappropriate thing to do and also something of a wooded here to read the letter dealt with a number of things but that was really Bad Authority on the federal prosecutors with the department of justice with a stunning development. That is the Investigative Team they dont decide policy. Also he commented as some link of clinton prosecution which you should not do if you decline, you decline in dont talk about it. There were other things that have happened that indicated to me a lack of discipline con to cause controversy on both sides of the aisle and i have come to the conclusion a fresh start was appropriate and they did not mind putting back to in s writing. Banks for being here attorneygeneral going back to close the loop he provided a great detailv about that day so working on the oval office and then the president passed to richter t komi tuesday and behind. Would not comment. So his testimony was that using dirty and the view was because you knew they you needed to stay that way she hid its characterization. I do recall being one of the last ones to leave. I dont know how that occurred i think it was a Counter Terrorism of briefing for pro i eventually left and to be one of the last two or three to leave. T do you feel. Data and our power would characterize that. Be a major problem. And you saw him after that . To say never leave me alone and he said what a my supposed to do . And then to raise that issue with mes that is correct in his concern over their private conversation and i agree essentially but there isnt day provision so i did not feel that it gives no details of what was or was he was concerned about. Can certainly knew that he could call his trek to supervisor the director affirmative justice is the Deputy Attorney general. He couldnt complained at any time if he felt pressure and but he did not yield to any pressure. As any president with those official duties. O. I dont know. And to go to the campaign for a moment. But essayed Business Manager at any point do you have interaction with anyone in hindsight to say they try to influence or gain insight . But with those three times. In general . I know for officials who wanted to argue their case for their country and 2. 0 things they thought were artant. If theyre not an official but a businessman or walking down the street . But in hindsight do appear suspicious . Ra that platform was changedd in so were you involved in that decision . I was not active in that committee and dont think i have any direct involvement. I never watched the debate i do not recall that senator. Thanks for holding this hearing in the open and then to have it stonewalling tots know their privilege or offlimits per that it would be inappropriate to tell lois what they know talking about the attack on the Democratic Institution to stonewall and general sessions has acknowledged laste is no legal basis blast and thursday asking former director komi about the interaction prior to your stepping aside to save the continued engagement was problematic and he cannot discuss it in public and he also said fbi personal personnel were calling to step aside. Russia the day before you wrote your letter. He tweeted that collusion story was a total hoax and asked when will this taxpayer funded sh ra charade end . I think i should ab loud to briefly respond at least and would cite the letter, the memorandum that senator that Deputy Rosenstein wrote and my letter that accompanied it represented my views of the situation. Ill ask that on the second round. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator collins. Second round . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Attorney general sessions, i want to clarify who did what with regard to the firing of mr. Comey. First of all, let me ask you, when did you have your first conversation with Rod Rosenstein about mr. Comey . We talked about it before either one of us were confirmed. It was a topic of, you know, conversation about among people who served in the department a long time. They knew that what had happened that fall was pretty dramatically unusual. Many people felt it was very wrong. And so it was in that context that we discussed it. And we both found that we shared common views that a fresh start would be appropriate. And this was based on mr. Comeys handling of the investigation involving Hillary Clinton and clinton in which you said he userped the authority at the department of justice . Yes that, part of it. And the commenting on the investigation in ways that go beyond the proper policies. We need to restore senator collins. I think the classic discipline in the department, my team, we discussed this. Theres been too much leaking and too much talking publicly about investigations. In the long run, the department historic rule lets you remain mum about on going investigations is the better policy. Now, subsequently, the president asked for you to put your views in writing. You received today. And i believe that you are right to recuse yourself from the on going Russian Investigation. But then on may 9th, you wrote to the president recommending that mr. Comey be dismissed. And obviously this went back many months to the earlier conversations you had had with mr. Rosenstein. But my question is why do you believe your recommend togs fire director comey was not inconsistent with your march 2 n nd recusal . Thank you. The recusal involved one case involved in the department of justice. And in the fbi. They conduct thousands of investigations. Im the attorney general of the United States. Its my responsibility to our Judiciary Committee and other committees to ensure that that department is run properly. I have to make difficult decisions. And i do not believe that it is a sound position to say that if you recuse for a single case involving anyone of the great agencies like dea or u. S. Marshals or atf that are part of the department of justice, you cant make a decision about the leadership in that agency. Now if you had known that the president subsequently was going to go on tv and in an interview with lester holt of nbc would say that this russian thing was the reason for his decision to dismiss the fbi director, would you have felt uncomfortable about the timing of the decision . Well, i would just say this, senator collins. I dont think its appropriate to deal with those kind of hypotheticals. I have to deal in actual issues and i would respectfully not comment on that. Well, let me ask you this. In retrospect, do you believe that it would have been better for you to have stayed out of the decision to fire director comey . I think its my responsibility. I mean, i was a party to be attorney general, supervising all the federal agencies is my responsibility, trying to get the very best people in those agencies at the top off them is my responsibility. And i have a duty to do so. Now director comey testified that he was not comfortable telling you about his oneonone conversation with the president on february 14th because he believed that you would shortly recuse yourself from the Russian Investigation which you did. Yet, director comey testified that he told no one else at the department outside of the Senior Leadership team at the fbi. Do you believe that the director had an obl gagigation to bring information about the president saying that he hoped he could let Michael Flynn go to someone else at the department of justice . There are a lot of lawyers at the department of justice, some 10,000 10,000 by last count. I think the appropriate thing would have been for director comey to talk with the acting Deputy Attorney general who is his direct supervisor. She had 33 years in the department of justice. And was even then still serving for six years and continues to serve as a attorney general appointed by president obama. So hes a man of great integrity and Everybody Knows it. A man of decency and judge ment. If he had concerns, i think he should have raised it to the Deputy Attorney general who would have been the appropriate person in any case really but if he had any concern i might be recusing myself that, would be a double reason for him to share it with Deputy Attorney general bente. Thank you. Attorney general sessions, has the president ever expressed his frustration to you regarding your decision to recuse yourself . Senator, im not able to share with this committee private communication. Because youre invoking executive privilege. Im not able to invoke executive privilege. You took an oath. You raised your right hand here today and you said that you would solomnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing built the truth. And now youre not answering questions. Youre impeding this investigation. So my understanding of the Legal Standard is that you either answer the question, thats the best outcome. You say this is classified. Cant answer it here. Ill answer it in closed session. That is bucket number two. Bucket number three is to say, im invoking executive privilege. There is no appropriateness bucket. It is not a Legal Standard. Can you tell me what are these long standing doj rules that protect conversations made in the executive without invoguiki executive privilege . Zbh im protecting the president s constitutional right by not giving it away before he has a chance to review it. And secondly, i am telling you the truth in answering your question in saying its a long standing poll sieve the department of justice and to make sure the president has full opportunity to decide these issues. Can you share those policies with us . Are they written down at the department of justice . I believe they are. Certainly the appropriate Legal Standard for not answering the inquiries . Its my judgement that it is inappropriate for me to answer and reveal private conversations with the president when he has not had a full opportunity to review the questions and to make a decision on whether or not to approve such an answer, one. There are also other privilege thats could be invoked. One of the things deals with the investigation of the special counsel as were not asking questions about that investigation. If i wanted to ask questions about that investigation, id ask those of Rod Rosenstein. Im asking about your personal knowledge from this committee which has a constitutional obligation to get to the bottom of this. There are two investigations here. There is a special counsel investigation. There is also a congressional investigation. And you are obstructing that congressional delegation investigation by not answering these questions. And i think your silence, like the silence of director coats, like the silence of admiral rogers speaks volumes. I would say that i have consulted with senior career attorneys in the department. I suspect you have. And i believe this is consistent with my duties. Senator asked you a question about appropriateness if you had known that there had been anything untoward with regard to russia and the campaign, would you have headed for the exits . Your response was maybe. Why wasnt it a simple yes . Well, there was an improper, illegal relationship in an effort to impede or influence this campaign, i absolutely would have departed. I think thats a good answer. Im not sure why it wasnt the answer in the first place. I thought i did i find it strange that neither you nor Rod Rosenstein brought up performance issues with director comey. And in, fact, deputy fbi director mccabe has directly refuted any assertion that there were performance issues. This is troubling because it appears that president decided to fire director comey because he was pursuing the russia investigation. And had asked you to come up with an excuse. When your assessment of director comey didnt hold up to public scrutiny, the president finally admitted that he had fired director comey because he was pursuing the russia investigation. Ie the Lester Holt Ibt vintervi. It appears that his firing was directly related to russia, not departmental mismanagement. How do you square those two things . Well, you have a lot in that question. Let me say, first, within a week or so, i believe may 3rd, director comey testified that he believed the handling of the clinton declanation was a proper and appropriate and he would do it again. I know that was a great concern to both of us. It did not that represented something that i think most professionals in the department of justice would totally agree that the fbi Investigative Agency does not decide whether to prosecute or decline criminal cases. Pretty breath taking use of patient of the responsibility of the attorney general. So thats how we felt. That was sort of additional concern that we had heading the fbi, someone who boldly asserted the right to continue to make such decisions. That was one of the things we discussed. That was an important factor for us. I would like the record to show that last night admiral rogers spent almost two hours in closed session with the almost full committee fulfilling his commitment to us in the hearing that in closed session he would answer the questions and i think it was thoroughly answered and all members were given an opportunity to ask questions. I just want the record to show that with what senator stated. Senator blunt. Thank you, chairman. Attorney general, good to see you here g. Good to see mary. I know there are places youd rather be today. You always looked at Public Service as something do you together. Goods to see you here together and know that your family continues to be proud and supportive of what you do. Thank you, i am blessed indeed. I agree with that. Let me get a couple things clear. You was taking notes. You were talking on the april 27, 2016 event, i think that is the Mayflower Hotel speech that president ial candidate gave on Foreign Policy. You didnt have a room at that event where you had private meetings, did you . No, i did not. As i understand it, you went to a reception that was attended by how many people . I think two to three dozen. Two to three dozen people. You went in and heard the speech and then may have seen people on your way out. Correct. So when you said you possibly had a meeting with mr. Kisslyback, did you mean you possibly met him . I didnt have any formal meeting with him. Im confident of that. But i may have had an encounter during the reception. Thats the only thing i cannot say was w. Certainith certainty. I did not. Thats what i thought you were saying. Sometimes when i hear meeting, that means more to me than you met somebody. You might have met him at the reception. Could you have met other ambassadors at that reception as well . I co. I remember one in particular that we had a conversation with whose country had an investment in alabama and we talked at length about. That i remember. That otherwise, i have no regulation of a discussion with the Russian Ambassador. All right. So you were there. You read since he was there, you may have seen him but you had no room where you were having meetings with individuals to have discussions at the Mayflower Hotel that day . No. That is correct. On whenever you talk to mr. Comey after he had his meeting with the president , do you think that was probably the next day . You didnt stay afterwards and see him after he left the oval office that night . No. I understand his testimony may have suggested that it happened right afterwards. But it was either the next morning, which i think it was, or maybe the morning after that. We had three times a week National Security briefing with fbi that i undertake and so it was after that that we had that conversation. You had that conversation. Now what im not quite clear on is did you respond when he expressed his concern or not . Yes, i did respond. I think he was incorrect. He indicated, i believe, that he was not totally sure of the exact wording of the meeting. But i do recall my chief of staff was with me. And we recall that i did affirm the long standing written policies of the department of justice concerning communications with the white house. We have to follow those rules and in the long run youre much better off if you do. They do not prohibit communications oneonone by the fbi director with the president. But if that conversation moves into certain areas, its the duty, the rules apply to the department of justice. So its a duty of the fbi agent to say, mr. President , i cant talk about that. Thats the way that should work. Apparently he did. When mr. Comey talked fwou that meeting, did he mention mr. Flynn . No. He mentioned no facts of any kind. Did he not mention to me that he had been asked to do something he thought was improper. You just said he was uncomfortable, i believe, with it. After that discussion with mr. Comey actually, i dont know that he said he was uncomfortable. I think he said maybe what he testified to is perhaps the correct wording. Im not sure exactly what he said. But i dont dispute it. Well, exactly what i think what i remember him saying was that you didnt react at all and kind of shrugged. But youre saying you referred him to the normal way these meetings are supposed to be conducted . I took it as a concern that he might be asked something that was improper and a firmed to him his willingness to say no. Or not go in an improper way, improper direction. Just say, finally, im assuming you wouldnt talk about this because it would relate to the may 8th meeting. But my sense is that no decision is final until its carried out. My guess is there is somebody that said they were going to let somebody go or fire somebody and never did. That the fact that president said that on may 8th doesnt mean that the information he got from you on may 9th was not necessary or impactful and im sure youre not going to say how many times the president said we ought to get rid of that person but im sure thats happened and chairman, ill senator cane. Thank you for joining us. I respect your willingness to be here. You testified a few minutes ago, im not able to invoke executive privilege. Thats up to the president. Has the president invoked executive privilege in the case of your testimony here today . He has not. Then what is the basis of your refusal to answer the questions . Senator cane, the president has a constitutional i understand. That but the president has not asserted it. You said you dont have the power to assert the power of executive privilege. So what is the legal basis for your refusal to answer the zbhez. Im protecting the right of the president to assert fit he chooses. And there may be other privileges that could apply in this circumstance. Well, i dont understand how you can have it both ways. The president cant not assert it and youve testified that only the president can assert it. And, yet, i just dont understand the legal basis for your refusal to answer. What we try to do, i think most cabinet officials, others that you questioned recently, officials before the committee, protect the president s right to do so. If it comes to a point where the issue is clear and theres a dispute about it at some point, the president will either assert the privilege or not or some other privilege would be asserted. It is premature for me. You testified it is premature for me to deny the president a full and intelligent choice about executive privilege. Thats not necessary at this point. You testified a few minutes ago that we were asked for our opinion. Who asked for your opinion . You mean we were we were asked for our opinion. My understanding is, i believe im correct in saying that the president has said so. That he didnt ask you directly . I thought you were asking about the privilege. No. You want to go back . You said, we were asked for our opinion. You and mr. Rosenstein. I believe that was appropriate for me to say that because i think the president im just asking you, who asked you for your opinion . Who asked you for your opinion . Yes, right. The president asked for our opinion. All right. So you just testified as to the content of the communication. That is correct. I believe hes already revealed. That i believe im correct in saying that. Thats why i indicated that when i answered that question. If he hasnt and im in error, i would have constricted his constitutional right of privilege. So youre being selective about the use , no im not intentionally. Im doing so only because i believe he made that discussion in public about that. Did the question of the Russian Investigation ever come up in the firing of james comey . I can not answer. That it was communication about it president or any such occurred, it would be a communication that he is not waived. But he has not asserted executive privilege . He has not. Do you believe the russians interfered with the 2016 elections . It appears. So the Intelligence Community seems to be united in. That i have to tell you, senator king, i know nothing but what ive read in the paper. Ive never received any detail briefing o briefing on how hacking occurred or information was alleged to have influenced. Between the election, there was a memorandum from the Intelligence Community on october 9th, detailed what the russians were doing. After the election, before the enr inauguration, you never sought any information about this rather dramatic attack on our country . You never asked for a briefing or attend aid briefing or read the intelligence reports . You might have been very critical of me if i as an active part of the campaign was seeking intelligence relating to something that might be relevant to the campaign. Im not sure that would have been im not talking about the campaign. Im talking about what the russians did. You received no briefing on the russian active measures in connection with the 2016 election . No. I dont believe i ever did. Lets go to your letter of may 9th. You said based upon my evaluation and for the reasons expressed by the deputy, was that a written evaluation . My evaluation was an evaluation that had been going on for some months. Is there a written evaluation . I did not make one. I think you could classify Deputy Attorney general rosensteins memorandum as an evaluation. He was the direct supervisor of the fbi director. Zblaen his evaluation is based 100 on the handlingst Hillary Clinton emails, is that correct . And a number of other matters. But as i recall, he did explicitly lay out the errors that he thought had been made in that process by the director of the fbi. I thought they were he could jen joent and accurate and far more significant than a lot of people have understood. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Attorney general sessions, good to see you again. Thank you. You speak as a man eager to set the record straight. You spoke very plainly from the very beginning from your Opening Statement through this time. I am amazed at the conversations as if an attorney general has never said there were private conversations with the president. And we dont need to discuss those. It seems to be a short memory about some of the statements eric holder would and would not make to any committee in the house or the senate. And would or would not turn over documents even requested that had to go all the way throughout court system to final lit courts strog s final lit courly the courts hold those back. Some accusation saying that he every conversation about everything, there say long history of attorney generals standing beside the president saying there are some conversation thats are confidential. And can we determine from there. It does seem as well that every unnamed source story somehow gets a hearing. I was in the hearing this morning with Rod Rosenstein as we dealt with the appropriations request that originally obviously you were scheduled to be at that, Rod Rosenstein was taking your place to be able to cover. He was very clear and peppered with questions about russia. During that conversation as well. He was very clear that he is never had conversations with you about that. And that you have never requested conversations about that. He was also peppered with questions of the latest rumor of the day that is somehow the president is thinking about firing Robert Mueller and getting rid of him and very clear that rosenstein himself said im the only one that could do that and im not contemplating that nor would i do that and no one has any idea what the latest unnamed source story of the day is coming from but somehow it is grabbing all the attention. I do want to be able to bring up a couple things to you specifically. One is to defiant word recuse. And i come back to your email that you sent to jim comey and others that day on march 2nd. This is what you said in your email. After careful consideration following meetings with career Department Officials over the course of the past several weeks the attorney general decided to recuse himself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaign for president of the United States. The attorney generals recusal is not only with respect of such investigations if any but also extends to the department of responses to congressional and Media Inquiries related to such investigations. Is that something you have maintained from march 2nd snond. Ond . Absolutely, i maintained it from the first day i became attorney general. We discussed those matters and i felt until and if i ever made a decision to not recuse myself, i should not as abundance of caution involve myself in studying the investigation or evaluating it. So i did not. I also would note that the memorandum from my chief of staff directs these agencies and one of the people directly it was sent to was james b. Comey, director of the fbi. You should instruct members of your staffs to not to brief the attorney general or any other officials in the office of the attorney general about or otherwise involve the attorney general or other officials in the office of the attorney general in any such matters described above. And you requested. That. We took proper and firm and Crystal Clear position of that recusal meant recusal. Relating to this april 27th meeting, nonmeeting in the same room, at the same time. The National Interest was asked specific by this as well who was host of that event. They stated this in writing. As the host, seblter for National Interest decided whom to invite and then issued the invitations. The Trump Campaign did not determine or aprofit invitation list, guests included both republicans and democrats with the lighter supporting other candidates. Some of the geflts were washington policy experts and journalists, center for National Interest visited Russian Ambassador kislyak and several other ambassadors to the speech. We regularly invite ambassadors to our events to facilitate dialogue. Then they said, we seated all four in the front row in defrns to the diplomatic status. The center for National Interest extended equal treatment of the four ambassadors attending the event and vilted each to a short reception prior to the trump speech. It includes approximately two dozen guests in a receiving line. The line moved quickly and any conversations with mr. Trump in that setting were inharnltly bri inherently brief and could not be private. The questions were a exchange of pleasantries. We are not aware of any conversation with ambassador kislyak and Jeff Sessions at the reception. However in a Small Group Setting like this one, we consider it unlikely that anyone would have engaged a meaningful private conversation but drawing attention from others present. You have any reason to disagree with that . Number i think thats a very fair description of the reception situation. I appreciate them having made that statement. Great. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here again. I want to follow up a little bit on what senator king had asked concerning you and i are the same age. We remember back in our lifetime we never known the russians to be the russian government or the Russian Military to ever be our friend. And wanting the same things we wanted out of life. The seriousness of this russian hacking is very serious to me and concerning. You said you were not briefed on. That i think october 9th, the one known that the odni at that time i think mr. Clapper and also mr. Jay johnson, Homeland Security, made that public what was going on. Then on december 29th, president obama at that time expelled 35 Russian Diplomats and denied access to kpounld and brooned the existing sanctions. Have you had any discussions at all or set in on any type of meetings or recommendations were made to remove the sanctions . I dont recall any such meeting. And during the time not from the president being inaugurated on january 20th, prior to that in the campaign up until through the transition, was there ever any meetings he showed any concern or consideration or just in quiztive of what the russians were really doing and if they really done sfwlit. I dont recall any such conversations. Im not sure i understood your question. Maybe i better listen again. You were part of the National Security team f he heard something about russia and with the capabilities and our concern about what they could do to our election process, was there ever any conversations concerning that whatsoever . I dont recall it. I know its been asked of you, the things that your executive privileges and protecting the president. I understand. That but also when we had mr. Comey here, you know, he couldnt answer a lot of things in open session. He agreed go into closed session. Would you be able to go into closed session . Would it change your answers to us or your ability to speak more frankly on some things we would want to know . Senator, im not sure. The executive privilege is not waived by going in closed session. It may be that one of the concerns is that when you have a investigation on going as the special counsel does, its often very problematic to have persons, you know, not cooperating with that counsel and the conduct of the investigation. May or may not be a factor in going into closed session. It would be very helpful to the committee. There say lot of questions theyd like to x i know you would like to answer if possible. And maybe question check into that a little further f i could, sir, did you have any meetings, any other meetings with russian government officials that have not been previously disclosed . I racked my brain and i do not believe. So i can assure that you none of meetings discussed manipulating a campaign in the United States in any way, shape, or form or any hacking or any such ideas like. That. Im going to go quickly through this. Are there any other meetings and any other Trump Campaign association thats have not been disclosed . I dont recall any. Doive in the following individuals meet with russian officials at any point during the campaign . You can just go yes or no. Paul man i for the . Repeat that now. To the best of your knowledge, sir, did any of these following individuals meet with russian officials at any point during the campaign. You can say yes or no. Paul manifort . I dont have any information that he had done so. He served as Campaign Chairman for fema. Steve bannon . I have no information that he did. General Michael Flynn . I dont recall it. Reince priebus . I dont recall. Steve miller . I dont recall him ever having such a conversation. Corey lewandowski . I do not recall any of those individuals having any meeting with russian officials. Carter page . I dont know. And i would finally ask this quechlt i always think we try to get you have innate knowledge there was there may have been some published accounts of mr. Page talking with russians. Im not sure. Okay. I dont recall. You bring unique wholistic perspective to this investigation because youve been on both sides. I have, indeed. All in all, its better on that side. If you were sitting on this side, okay nobody gets to ask you about your private conversations with your staff. Here we go. Get your chance to give us some advice. If your sitting on this side, what question would you be asking . I would be asking whether or not i would asking questions related to whether or not there was an impact on this election. And what part of the story do you think there . By foreign power, particularly the russians since Intelligence Community is suggested and stated that they believe they did. But i do think members of this government have offices to run. Is there a part of the story and the question should be on. That. Is there part of the story that were missing . Im so sorry, mr. Chairman. Is there part of the story that were mising . I dont know. Because im not involved in the campaign and had no information concerning it. I have no idea at what stage it is. You members of the committee know a lot more than i. Thank you, general sessions. General sessions, i will assure you were very much focused on russias involvement and our hope is we complete this process. Well lay the facts out for the American People so they can make their own determinations as well. Were grateful for what you have done. Senator . Well, i am on this side of the dias. I can ask a very simple question that should be asked. Did donald trump or any of the associations in the campaign collude with russia and release them in the public. Thats where we started six months ago. We laerd frheard from six of th democrats. I dont think a single one of them asked that question. They have gone down lots of other rabbit trails but not that question. Maybe that is because jim comey said last week as he said to donald trump, down three times, he assured him he was not under investigation. Maybe its because multiple democrats on this committee have stated they have seen no evidence thus far after six months of our investigation and 11 moves an fbi investigation of any such collusion. I would suggest what do we think happened at the mayflower . Mr. Sessions, you are familiar with what spies called trade craft . A little bit. That involves things like Covert Communications and dead drops and brush passes, right . That is part of it. Do you like spy fiction, daniel silva, Jason Matthews . Allen first, david ig nay shus. Do you like jamdz bond movies . No. Do you like james bond movies . Number yes, i do. You have ever in any of the fantastical situations heard of a plot line so ridiculous that a sitting United States senator and an ambassador of a Foreign Government he could lieutenanted in an open setting with hundreds of other people to pull off the greatest caper in the history of espionage . Thank you for saying that, senator cotton. Its just like through the looking glass. I mean what is this . I explained how in good faith i said i had not met with russians because they were suggesting i as a surrogate had been meeting continuously with russians. I said i didnt meet with them. There some influence campaign for the american election. Its just beyond my capability to understand and i really appreciate mr. Chairman the opportunity to at least be able to say publicly i didnt participate in that and know nothing about it. You want to testify in public. Last week mr. Comey and character stim stick and the theatrical fashion eluded ominously to what you call innuendo. There is some kind of classified intelligence that suggested you might have clueded with russia or you might have otherwise acted improperly. Youve addressed those allegations theer day. Do you understand why he made that allusion . I do not. I no yfgs about that. I have a lot of questions. You said did you talk to mr. Comey. Do you know why he would say you didnt respond to him on that conversation with you on february 14th or 15th . I do not. It was a little conversation not very long. But there was a conversation and i did respond to him, perhaps not to everything he asked. But i did respond to him. Im not able to speculate on that. Lets turn to the potential crimes that we know happened. Leaks of certain information. Heres a short list of what i have. The contents of alleged transcripts of alleged conversations between mr. Flynn and in kislyak. The contents of President Trumps phone calls with australian and mexican leaders, the content plaintiff trumps meetings with the Russian Foreign minister and ambassador. The leak of Manchester Bombing suspects identity and crime scene photos and last week within 20 minutes of this Committee Meeting in classified setting with jim comey, the leak of what the basis plaintiff comeys innuendo was. Are these leaks serious threats to our National Security and is the department of justice taking them with the appropriate degree of seriousness and investigatesing and ultimately going to prosecute them to the fullest xeent of t fullest extent of the law. Thank you, senator cotton. We had one successful case in georgia. That person has been denied bail. We have to restore a regular or the principle. We cannot have people in our intelligence agencies, Investigative Agency norz congress leaking sensitive matters. On staff. So this is im afraid will result in is already resulting in investigations. And i fear that some people may find that they wish they didnt leak it. It was stated early thats right republican platform was weakened on the point of arms for ukraine. That s that is incorrect. It was the democratic president who refused paeped bipartisan requests of this congress to supply the arms. Senator harris . Attorney general sessions, you have several times this afternoon prefaced your responses by saying to the best of your recollection. Just on the first page of your three pages of written testimony, you wrote nor i do recall, dmo not have recollectin do, not remember it. My question is for any of your testimony today, did you refresh your memory with any written documents be the calendar, written correspondence, emails, notes of any sort . I attempted to refresh my recollection but so much of this is in a wholesale campaign of extraordinary nature. Youre moving so fast that you dont keep notes. You meet people. I didnt keep notes miff conversation with the Russian Ambassador. I didnt keep notes so most of the things. There is nothing for me will you provide the committee with the notes did you maintain . As appropriate i will supply the committee with documents. Can you please tell me what you mean when you say appropriate . I have to consult with lawyers in the department who know the proper procedure to before disclosing documents that are held within the department of justice. Attorney general flynn im not able to make that opinion today. Im sure you prepared for this hearing today and mostst questions that have been presented you to were predictable. So my question to you is did you then review with the lawyers of your department, if you were the top lawyer are unaware what the law is regarding what you can share us and what you cant share with us. What is privileged and not privileged . We discussed the basic parameters of testimony. Frankly, i have not discussed document airy disclosure rules. Will you make a commitment to this committee that youll share any written correspondence be they your calendars, records, notes, emails, or anything that has been reduced at any point in time in writing . To this committee where legally you actually have an obligation to do so . Ill commit to reviewing the rules of the department and as and when thatti issue is raisedo respond appropriately. Did you have any communications with russian officials for any reason during the campaign that have not been disclosed in public or to this committee . I dont recall it. I can not testify what was said as we were standing at the Republican Convention before the podium where i spoke. Did you have any communication with any russian businessmen or any russian nationals . I dont believe i had any conversation with russian businessmen or russian nationals. A lot of people were at the convention. Its conceivable that somebody i have a few more. You let me qualify. If i dont qualify, you accuse me of lying. Im not able to be rushed this fast. It makes me nervous. Are you aware of any communications with other Trump Campaign officials and associates that they had with russian officials or any russian nationals . I dont recall that. And are you aware at this moment. Are you aware of any communications with any Trump Officials or did you have any communications with any officials about russia or russian interests in the United States before january 20th . No. I may have had some conversations and i think i did, with the general strategic concept of the possibility of whether or not russia and the United States could get on a more harmonious relationship and move off the hostility. The soviet union did in fact collapse. Its really a tragic strategic event that were not able to get along better than we are today. Before being sworn in as attorney general, how did you communicate with then candidate or president elect trump . Would you repeat that . Before you were sworn in as attorney general, how did you typically communicate with then candidate or president elect trump . I did not submit memorandum. I did not make formal presentations. Did you ever kbhun him in writing . I dont believe so. And you referred to a long standing doj policy, can you tell us what policy it is that youre talking about . Well, i think most cabinet people as the witnesses you had before you earlier, those individuals declined to comment because were all about conversations with the president. Sir, im just asking you about the doj policy you referred to. The policy that goes beyond just the attorney general. Is that policy in writing somewhere . I think so. So did you not consult it before you came before this committee knowing we would ask you questions about it . Well, we talked about it. The policy is based you think it would be shown to you . The policy is based on the principle that the president sir, im not asking about the principle. Im asking im not able to answer the question. You rely on that policy, did you not ask your staff to show you the policy that would be the basis for refusing to answer the majority of the questions that have been asked of you. The attorney general should ab loud to answer the questions. Senator harris, let him answer. Please do. We talked about it. And we talked about the real principle that is at stake is one that i have some appreciation for as having spent 15 years in the department of justice, 12 as United States attorney. En that principle is that the constitution provides the head of the executive branch certain privileges. And that members one of them is confidentiality of communications. And it is improper for agents of any of the department of any departments in the executive branch to waive that privilege without a clear approval of the president. Mr. Chairman, i have asked thats the situation mr. Sessions, i asked for a yes or no. Yes, i consulted. Did you ask staff to see the policy . The senators time has expired. Apparently not. Senator . Attorney general sessions, former director comey in his letter to fbi employees when he was terminated started this way, he said ive long believed that a president can fire an fbi director for any reason or no reason at all. Do you before he with that . Yes. And i think that was good for him to sachlt i believe were going to have a new and excellent fbi director, a person who is smart, disciplined and with integrity that will be good for the bureau. I think that statement probably was a valuable thing for director comey to say and i appreciate he did. Just to reiterate the time line of the recusal and the rosenstein member and letter to the president recommending the term ination of director comey. You recused perfect the russia investigation on march 2 nnd, correct . The formal recusal took place on that date. The letter that you wrote forwarding the rosenstein memo to the president as a basis for director comeys termination was dated may 9th. A couple months after you recused from the Russian Investigation. Isnt it true the Russian Investigation didnt factor into the recommendation to fire director comey . The recommend dumb, your letter to the president forwarding that recommendation didnt mention russia at all. Is that your recollection . What was the basis for the recommendation. He wrote in the memo, he said i did k. Not defend the directors hand willing of the conclusion of the investigation of secretary clintons emails. And i do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgement that he was mistaken. Of course, hes talking about director comey. He went on to say the director, that was director comey at the time, was wrong to userp the attorney generals authority on july 5th, 2016. Youll recall that is the date of the press conference he held. He went on to say that fbi director is never empowered to s surplant federal prosecutors and commandst Justice Department. Kpounlding the error, the director ignored another long standing principle that we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. In fact, there is written policy from the department of justice, is there not, entitled Election Year sensitivities. Are you familiar with the prohibition of the Justice Department making announcements or taking other actions that might interfere with the normal elections . I am generally familiar with that. Those were some of the memorandum after my time in the department. Let me read theres always been rules about it though. Let me read just an excerpt from a memo from the attorney general march 9th, 2012, entitled Election Year sensitivities. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of effecting any election or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the departments mission and with the principles of federal prosecution. Do you agree with that . Essentially, yes. So what essentially the Deputy Attorney general said is that former director Comey Violated Department of justice directives when he held a press conference on july 5th, 2016, he announced that secretary clinton was extremely careless with classified email and went on to release other derogatory information including his conclusion that she was extremely careless. But, yet, went on to say that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her. That is not the role of the fbi director, is it . That is a job for the prosecutors at the department of justice. Thats what was meant by Deputy Attorney general rosenstein when he said that the director comey userped the role of the department of justice prosecutor, is that right . That is correct. And former attorney general bill barr wrote an oped recently in which he said he assumed that attorney general lynch had urged mr. Comey to make this announcement so she wouldnt have to do it. But in, fact, it appears he did it without her approval totally and that is a pretty stunning thing. It is a stunning thing. It violates fundamental powers and then when he reaffirmed that the rightness he believed of his decision on may 3rd, i think it was, that was additional confirmation that the directors thinking was not clear. Senator reid . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. First, a point, attorney general. The senator and others have raised the issue of long standing rules. If there are written rules, would you provide them to the committee, please . I will. Thank you very much. Now, senator cornyn ened then you concluded by saying essentially that its not his problem. Its Hillary Clintons problem. Then in november on november 6 after mr. Comey again made news in late october by reopening, if you will, the investigation, you said again on fox news, you know, fbi director comey did the right thing. He had no choice but to report it to the American Congress where he had under oath testified. The investigation was open. He had to correct that and say this investigation is ongoing now. Im sure its significant or else he wouldnt have announced that. So in july and november director comey was doing exactly the right thing, you had no criticism of him, you felt that, in fact, he was a skilled professional prosecutor. You have felt that his last statement in october was fully justified, so how far can you go from those statements to agreeing with mr. Rosenstein and then asking the president or recommending he be fired . I think in retrospect as all of us begin to look at that clearly and talk about it as representatives of the department of justice, once the director had first got involved and embroiled in a public discussion of this investigation which would never have been better to have been discussed publicly and then said it was over. Then when he found new evidence that came up, i think he probably was required to Tell Congress that it wasnt over, that new evidence had been developed. It probably would have been better, it would have been consistent with the rules of the department of justice to have never thought about that investigation to begin with. That went against classical prosecutoring policies that i learned and was taught when i was a United States attorney and an saernt easy attorney just a moment fi may ask another question. Your patrol premise in recommending to the president was the actions in october involving secretary of state clinton, the whole clinton controversy. Did you feel misled when the president announced that his real reason for dismissing mr. Comey was the Russian Investigation . I dont have im not able to characterize that fact so i wouldnt try to comment on that. You had no inkling that there was anything to too with russia until the president of the United States basically declared not only on tv but in the oval office to the russian Prime Minister saying the pressure is off, i got complete of that nut job. That came to you as a surprise . All i can say is our recommendation was put into writing and i believe it was correct. I believe the president valued it but how he made his decision was his process. You had no inkling that he was considering the investigation investigation . Well, im not going to try to thats fair. There is a scenario in which this whole recapitulation, the plaent clinton, was basically a story, a story that he wanted put out and quickly abandoned, which would have been the case i suppose you as an individual would preclude yourself of any involvement. Thank you. Senator mccain. Over the last few weeks the administration has characterized your previously undisclosed meetings with Russian Ambassador kislyak as meetings you took in your official capacity as u. S. Senator and a member of the Senate Armed Services committee. As chairman of that committee, let me ask you a few questions an that. Did you raise concerns about russian invasion of ukraine or of crimea . I did and i would like to follow up on that. Thats one of the issues that i recall explicitly. The day before my meeting with the Russian Ambassador, i had met the Ukrainian Ambassador and i heard his concerns about russia, and so i raised those with mr. Kislyak and he gave, as you can imagine, not one inch. Everything they did was the russians had done, according to him, was correct and i remember pushing back on it and it was a bit testy on the subject. With you on the committee, i cant imagine that. Did you raise concerns for support of president bashar al sad including use of chemical weapons against his people . I dont know. Did you raise or its sbrfrgs the electoral processes of our applies. I dont recall that being discussed. If you met with ambassador kislyak, you presumably talked with him about russianrelated Security Issues that you have demonstrated is important to you as a member of the committee . Did i discuss security yeah. I dont recall you as being particularly rockial on such issues. On repeat that, senator mccain. Im sorry. The whole russiarelated Security Issues, demonstrating as important to you as the committee. Did you raise those with him . You mean the issues was Nuclear Issues or yeah. In other words, russiarelated Security Issues. In your capacity as the chairman of the Strategic Forces subcommittee, what russiarelated Security Issues dove hold hearings on b and otherwise hold a keen interest in . We may discussed that. I just dont recall the meeting. I was not making a report about it to anyone. I just was basically willing to meet and see what it he discussed. And his response was . I dont recall. During that 2016 Campaign Season dove any contacts with any representative including any american o lobbyists or agent of any Russian Company in or outside your position in the congress nchts i dont believe so. Politico reported that the fbi found that Russian Diplomats whose travel to the state department was supposed to track were missing. Some came up driving around kansas. Reportedly after about a year of inattention these movements indicate one, that uss moscows ground game has grown 12r07ker and more brazen and that quietly the chem len have been trying to map the infrastructure what do you know about this development and how the Justice Department and other relevant u. S. Government agencies responding to it . We need to do more, senator mccain. I am worried about it. We also see that from other nations with these kind of Technology Cal skills like china and some other nations who are penetrating our National Security interest. As a member the Armed Services committee, i did support and advocate and i think you supported legislation that would and its on going now that requires the Defense Department to identify weaknesses in our system and how we can fix them. But i would say to you, senator mccain, in my short tenure here in the department of justice ive been more concerned about computer hacking and thoz issues than i was in the senate. Its an important issue, youre correct. The paesh post reported yesterday russia has developed a weapon that can disrupt telecommunications and electric infrastructure. This is similar to what Russian Hackers used against ukraine in 2015. Can you discuss a little bit in open session how serious that is . I dont believe i can discuss the technological yirns. Just to say that issues. Just to say that it is very disturbing that the russians continue to push hostile actions in their Foreign Policy and it is not good for the United States or the world or russia, in my opinion. Believe we have a strategy in order to counter these everincreasing thets to our National Security and our way of life . Not sufficiently. We do not have a sufficient strategy dealing with tech lolg cal and i. T. Penetrations of our system. I truly believe its more important than i did before and i appreciate your concern and leadership on that issue and in fact, all congress will have to do better. Recognize the vice chair. Thank you. I particularly appreciate your last comments with senator mccain about the seriousness of this threat and its why so many of us on this committee are concerned on the whole question of russian intervention. The president continues to refer to it as fake news and a witch hunt. I share, i think most members do that the russians interfered, they want to continue to interfere to favor their own interest. It is of enormous concern that we have to hear from the administration how they take that on. Also, comments vn made here about where we had in terms of the Trump Associates who may have had contact with russians. Weve not gotten to all of that yet because of the unprecedented firing of the fbi director that was leading this same Russian Investigation. Those members who i hope will equally pursue the very troubling amount of smoke at least thats out there between individuals who were affiliated with the Trump Campaign, possible ties with the russians. Ive not reached any conclusions. We have to pursue that. I understand your point. But you have to a series of comments made by mr. Comey last week. I think members on this side of the aisle have indicated you understand executive privilege, nnd classified setting, i do think we need, as senator reid and harrison and others, if there are these long written procedures about this fwloilt have some other category to protect the conversations with the president , wed like to get a look at them, because we need to find out in light of some of the contradictions between today and last week where this all head. At the end of the day, ill say what i said last time. Id not about relitigating 2016. On a Going Forward basis, its about making sure the russians who are not finished in terms of their activities, didnt end on election day on 2016, we know thats going ongoing and we must persist. Thank you. Thank you. I do want to say that a change at the top of the fbi should have no impact whatsoever on the investigation. Those teams have been working and theyll continue to work and theyve not been altered in any way jub of very strange comments that mr. Comey testified on last week that i believe you could shed light on. Thank you. Thank you. Im not sure that you knew it but your replacement sat through most of this hearing, luther. Big luther is a good round ballplayer. Tulane. Youve been asked a wide range of questions and i think youve answered things related to claims about the meeting at the may flower. Youve answered questions that surround the reasons for your recusal and the fact that you had never been briefed since day one on the investigation, that you made clear that you cant think of any other conversations that youve had with russian officials. Youve covered in detail the conversation that you had, though brief, with director comey that he referenced to after his private meeting with the president , just a few questions you helped us clear up. There were a number of questions you refused to answer because of confidentiality with the president. I would only ask you to go back and work with the white house to see if there are any areas of questions that they feel comfortable with you answering and if they do, that you provide those answers in writing to the committee. I would also be remiss if i didnt remind you that those documents that you can provide for the committee, they would be helpful for us for the purpose of sorting timelines out, anything that substantiates your testimony today, individuals who might have been at events that youre fam with, especially those that worked with you would be extremely helpful, and more importantly, i want thank you for your agreement to have continuing dialogue with us as we go further down the investigation, that certainly does not have to be a public hearing but it may be an exchange in a dialogue we have. You have helped us tremendously. Were grateful to you and mary o for the unbelievable sacrifice you made in this institution, but now also in this hearing. This hearings now adjourned. Thank you. Mr. Deputy attorney general, welcome to the congress science