Transcripts For FOXNEWSW Americas Newsroom With Bill Hemmer And Sandra Smith 20190115

What could be a contentious confirmation process. It is going to be an interesting day. Good morning. Welcome. Im bill hemmer. Sandra good morning, im sandra smith. We know william barr is expected to tell the committee he intends to let the Mueller Investigation continue without any interference. We can expect democrats to grill him on his views. One thing is clear. It will be mustsee tv. He has been attorney general before. He is certainly capable. I think he is an outstanding choice. I want him to be challenged. I just want him to be respectfully challenged. I would need a Firm Commitment he would not allow any interference with the Mueller Investigation, he will allow it to reach its conclusion and release the report to the public. He said he is going to let it play out. What more assurance can he give to democrats that thats going to be the case. Sandra Catherine Herridge is live. What more can we expect . We expect comments from or win hatch and then to william barr and his prepared remarks released yesterday in advance of the confirmation hearings a short time from now. In those prepared remarks, william barr takes on, square on the issue of the special counsel and an anticipated report and whether it will be made public later this year. It reads, my goal will be to provide as much transparency as i can consistent with the law. I will make those judgments based solely on the law. I will not let personal, political or improper interests influence my decision. We also anticipate democrats will have hard questions for mr. Barr on a memo he wrote to the Deputy Attorney general last summer. He wrote that memo as a private citizen. That was unsolicited on media reports that rob mueller was investigating obstruction of justice over the president s decision to fire fbi director, james comey. Here is senator republican marsha blackburn. We expect the democrats are going to oppose mr. Barr. They are on this obstruct tangent. Everything that they can do to get in the president s way. The senate is there to provide advice and consent. That should be our role. Mr. Barr and his prepared remarks sought to clarify that personal memo he wrote last year saying that he never meant to imply or leave the imminent preg that a present could not be pursued for obstruction of justice. Sandra what are some of the issues civil Rights Groups are concerned about . The aclu put out a statement and said they want senators to press william barr in his role for laying a foundation for mass Data Collection programs within the u. S. Government. Lets listen. They have to vigorously question him about his views on executive power and what he thinks the limits of the president s power is and how he will define the fourth amendment. Of course can the session begins just a half hour from now. You can see it here on fox. We have day two, which will be im sure just as exciting beginning tomorrow. Inside that hearing room on capitol hill as we await the hearing to begin any moment. Bill a lot of people probably dont remember william barr. He served under president george h. W. Bush as attorney general. He is 68 years old today. Grew up in new york city. Worked for the cia for four years before he joined george bush xlis first term. Sandra senator Lindsey Graham will lead off the hearing with a statement before each senator gets approximately ten minutes to question barr. Im going to ask him, do you see any reason to fire mr. Mueller based on what you know now for cause . He does expect barr to be challenged in this hearing. He does hope that he is respectfully challenged. Bill we have seen his remarks. They run about 3. 5 pan poi3. 5 p length. He will say, we live in a time where the country is deeply divided. There are places in government where the rule of law and not politics hold sway. The department of justice must be such a place. Bill he said he was on his way to retirement after a long legal career but his dedication to the department of justice has brought him back to serve. Sandra four priorities he is expected to lay out, fighting Violent Crimes, prosecuting hate crimes and enforcing and improving our immigration laws and protecting the right to vote and the integrity of election. A lot of faces on the screen today. Here is our first one, senator kennedy. What are your questions you want to ask today . I want to get to know bill barr, and get to know, is he smart, is he honest, does he have integrity. I want to judge his authenticity. I want to hear what he has to say about the Mueller Investigation. I happen to believe that some disagree with me, all this business about he needs to recuse himself or withdraw his nomination because he has opinions is a bunch of bovine waste. Anybody with an intellect above a single cell organism has a view. I wouldnt want bill barr if he hadnt thought about things. The issue is not his letter to Rod Rosenstein about the investigation. The issue is, is he dogmatic about it or is he willing to consider other points of view . Is he willing to test his assumptions . Bill our apologies, we still got you. We just dropped out a little bit. Thats okay. Bill you had a chance to meet with him privately and you did not, i dont believe. How come . He didnt ask to. I figured he was busy meeting with the Democratic Senators on the committee. I didnt press the issue. It doesnt hurt my feelings one bit. What i want to know about bill barr is whether he can he is willing to divorce himself from his personal points of view and follow the rule of law. Thats it. Thats the issue here today. Bill immigration will come up. Crime will come up. He seems to be in agreement with you and the president on those issues. Here is a tweet with this new caravan forming in honduras. The president said, a big new caravan heading to the southern border from honduras. Tell nancy and chuck that a drone flying around will not stop them. Only a wall will work. Only a wall or steel barrier will keep our country safe. Stop playing political games and end the shutdown, which brings us to our second point. Where is the shutdown now, senator . There seems to be no movement as of this hour. I was with the president yesterday. He gave a speech in new orleans, in my state and i rode back on his plane with him. He is not budging. I think he understands what most americans understand, that it is ludicrous to think that you can secure a 1900mile border without barriers. Its laughable on its face. He doesnt want to build a wall 1900 miles long. He understands we need technology and drones and more border personnel and more detention beds. He believes, as i happen to, that illegal immigration is illegal, duh. Legal immigration is good for the cun t country. Illegal undermines legal. I dont understand why Speaker Pelosi is not tested more on her assertion that somehow a border wall, which 100 plus countries have, is ineffective and imminent more. How is she going to seal a 1900mile border without using a barrier . Maybe she doesnt want to seal it. Im not saying one way or the other. The way she has been acting, she just doesnt support Border Security. If she doesnt like the law, change it. Bill you had a chance to talk with him about that yesterday. How did he tell you the negotiations how will they negotiate their way out of this . He said he has had no contact from them. I dont believe i dont speak for the president. My impression is that he is not going to enter into any kind of settlement unless there is a border wall, period, end of discussion. He thinks he is right. He thinks that the democrats are wrong on this one. They are being just obstructionists. We are waiting for that hearing to begin in 20 minutes. Well dip in and show our viewers that when it starts. Well wait for your questions as well. There might be a lunch at the white house this afternoon. Well wait to get more information on that. Maybe there is a move forward on this shutdown. I hope so. Bill thank you, senator for your time. Thanks. Sandra it is decision day for uk Prime Minister, Theresa Mays Brexit plan. Yesterday, she made one final plea to win them over with the deal facing widespread opposition. Rather than leave wg no deal, this house blocked brexit, that would be a subversion of our democracy saying to the people we were elected to serve that we were unwilling to do what they had instructed. Sandra Benjamin Hall is live in london ahead of that key vote. Benjamin. Hi, sandra. I have just been down to parliament. They feel this is one of the biggest political moments of a generation. It is make or break for theresa may. It is make or break for brexit. For 2 1 2 years, the uk has been negotiating with the eu in terms of the socalled divorce settlement ahead of the supposed departure from the eu on march 29th. Thats only ten weeks from now. Everything has been discussed, including trade relations and security sharing and Immigration Rights and the 47 billion settlement fee. The deal is disliked by practically everyone in common. Critics that want to leave the eu, say it keeps the eu too closely tied to eu regulations. Those against brexit see an opportunity to reverse it all together and rejoin the eu. This is going to come down to numbers. If she loses by more than 150 votes out of 650, her deal is dead in the water. If she loses by double digits, there is every opportunity to go back to the eu and try and get more concessions and run this bill past parliament. She is admitting this is not a perfect deal herself. For one, it doesnt allow the uk to do a trade deal with other countries like the us. Because of this and the fact that it does not safeguard against a hard border between ireland and northern ireland, it is expected today she is going to lose by a landslide. We expect the vote at 3 00 p. M. Eastern. If she loses, she has three days to come up with a plan b. There is as much chance of a hard brexit as there is of a general election. Sandra Benjamin Hall, thank you. Bill we are watching this story out of nairobi, kenya. There is an Upscale Hotel said to be under siege. Those inside, during a hail of bullets and massive explosion. Witnesses are calling it a terror attack. Sandra back to our top story of the moment. Any moment now, ag nominee, william barr, will be in that hearing room. We have special Team Coverage all morning with a packed lineup. Juan williams and judge Andrew Napolitano will be here with us in new york. Later, bret baier, Jonathan Turley and Shannon Bream round out our coverage from washington, d. C. As americas newsroom continues. S most meaningful to you. A reliable income that lets you retire, without retiring from life. Thats the power of pacific. Ask your financial professional about pacific life today. Bill ohio republican, steve king, reprimanded by his republican colleagues. They are voting to strip him of all assignments after a racially charged remark in the New York Times. Kevin mccarthy saying this type of language will not be tolerated. I watched what steve king said and we took action. I think it is clear across the country about how serious the Republican Party believes that all men and women are created equal. We made a decision tonight that steve king will not be serving on committees in this congress. King is responding saying leader mccarthys decision to remove me from committees is a political decision that ignores the truth. The truth is as follows. One of my quotes in a New York Times story has been completely mischaracterized, end quote, from congressman king. Sandra a live look from inside of that hearing room this morning where william barr will be appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Just moments from now. He arrived on capitol hill a short time ago. The gop has the vote to confirm barr. That does not mean we wont see some fireworks in that room. Here with us now, juan williams, cohost of the five. And judge Andrew Napolitano, fox senior analyst. We awit this to begin. To you, first, judge, who is william barr . Senator kennedy wanted to know more about him. I like senator kennedy and i have a lot of respect for him. This is not the place to learn about him. I am sure he could have met with bill barr as the former and future attorney general did with many members of the Senate Judiciary committee. He is a mainstream establishment republican whose stewardship of the Justice Department in the george h. W. Bush presidency was standard and unremarkable. We did learn after he left the doj and during the presidency of bill clinton of his involvement in establishing the legal basis for mass warrantless surveillance of americans. That is not the key issue. The key issue is bob mueller. How much of a leash are you going to give bob mueller . How much of his reports that he gives to you pyou are you going give to the congress and the public . Are you going to err on the side of transparency or err on the side of secrecy . Sandra has he said enough to satisfy democrats. He said he believes it is in the best interest of everyone that this matter, Mueller Investigation, be resolved by allowing the special counsel to complete his work. He also wants the findings of that report to be made public and for congress to see all of it. Much of this was said in remarks that were released yesterday, sandra. Sandra got them right here. The reason for this is last june, bill barr, unsolicited, sent a memo, 19 pages, to Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney general, and to jeff sessions, then the attorney general, saying that the investigation was really illegitimate, it had no basis. Simply the firing of comey was not the baseis for a legitimate special counsel probe. This picks on something that the judge was talking about. Bill barr was a champion of expansive president ial power and authority during his time as attorney general, that should not be questioned, and that the president has the right to make all decisions on everything that takes place in the executive branch, which would essentially make him the nations chief Law Enforcement officer, as opposed to the attorney general. The question then becomes, is he willing sandra this is an example of the concerns we are going to hear in the room. We have to go. Judge, final thoughts . I think that is correct. Thats the second issue they are going to raise. How independent of the white house can the doj be. The department of justices is the only executive branch entity by law and legal ethics must have independence on the white house. Sandra Lindsey Graham, the new chairman will be overseeing the committee today. He hopes there will be challenges but hopes they will be respectful. Bill Lindsey Graham has already said what questions he will ask. Our coverage continues. Bret baier is on deck, Shannon Bream, Jonathan Turley. Stand by. We are not going anywhere. Come on back right after this. Gs means they wont hike your rates over one mistake. See, Liberty Mutual doesnt hold grudges. For drivers with accident forgiveness, Liberty Mutual wont raise their rates because of their first accident. Switch and you could save 782 on home and auto insurance. Call for a free quote today. Liberty mutual insurance. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Ds i am a family man. I am a techie dad. I believe the best technology should feel effortless. Like magic. At comcast, its my job to develop, apps and tools that simplify your experience. My name is mike, im in Product Development at comcast. Were working to make things simple, easy and awesome. Bill minutes away from the confirmation hearings of william barr. We want to bring in bret baier for our panel. Jonathan turley is a Fox News Contributor and law professor at George Washington university and Shannon Bream is up early, anchor of fox news at night. Bret, lets start with you. We saw a list of questions that Lindsey Graham has today. Good morning. I apologize for the sexy voice. It is just gone. As william barr starts, there are going to be a lot of questions as you just focused on, on syria, on the robert Mueller Investigation and what he thinks about this 19page memo he drafted about obstruction of justice. A lot of questions likely from democrats. Remember, there are three potential democratic president ial candidates on this committee, amy klovichar, cory booker and kamala harris. Expect there to be some fireworks when it comes to the Mueller Probe. However, bill barr in his Opening Statement will say that he wants mueller to complete his probe. It is vitally important in his words. He also says it is important that the American Public and Congress Know about that. How he says that in the Opening Statement will be parsed and questioned and saying, well, what kind of release for the Mueller Report. I will be surprised if you get that much detail from bill barr. Thats where i think the question is going to focus most of this marrying. Sandra jonathan turly, dick durbin on the sunday shows, democrat from illinois, said he is concerned about what he is going to hear in this room today. He said, bill barr better give us some iron clad insurances in terms of his independence. How can bill barr do that in that room today . He has already done it, which is the curious aspect of those comments. He says in the memo himself that he does believe a president can commit crime ns office. Those crimes include obstruction. He says he has no intention to interfere with robert mueller. He wants the investigation to go to its natural conclusion and he wants transparency to release the report in as great a shape and to the extent possible. He has already made those assurances. I expect he is going to repeat those. Whats interesting about barr, he is a remarkably honest and direct guy for someone who has been in washington so long. In his last confirmation hearing, then chairman, joe biden, was taken aback by how honest barr was and direct. He said that this was a hearing that he hasnt seen in a long time where a nominee actually answered the questions. So i think you are going to see that same individual two decades later and he hasnt lost that directness or that honesty. Bill im looking at the questions from Lindsey Graham. Shannon, do you trust mr. Mueller to be fair to the president and the country . Will you make sure he can finish his jobs. If you get the report, will you be as transparent as possible . As transparent as the law would allow. What are you listening for today, shannon . When asked those questions, he refers to bob, when referring to robert mueller. They go back 30 years. He has a long history and having previously served as the attorney general under president george h. W. Bush. He leaves a trail. That is going to be the subject of a lot of questioning from these folks today, because he has had a very expansive view of president ial power. Many in that room would like to reign in president donald trump. They are going to want to talk a lot about how he feels about president ial power. Today, he wrote memos in the past when he was in the department of justice of Legal Counsel heading up that office talking about president ial power when it came to things like invading iraq and panama. You know they are going to pars through that old record to see how it applies to the commander in chief. A lot of the democrats would like to limit the power he has over making the decisions. Bill Lindsey Graham in the room taking over for Chuck Grassley. You may call that for a couple of months back. It looks like william barr on the right. Senator hatch will deliver his own testimony. Sandra bret, if we can squeeze in a few extra minutes, several Democratic Senators that are thought to be potential 2020 contenders will be in that room that could send sparks flying. Definitely. As you look at william barr shaking warren hatchs hand, his seat is going to be filled by mitt romney. These moments, they are trying to create moments, specially on a potential president ial candidate. You remember cory bookers spartacus moment in the Brett Kavanaugh hearing. This is the ag. It is a big job, specially in this administration. Bill and sandra . Bill thank you all in washington. We are going to pause for a moment and let our fox stations across the country join our coverage. William barr is in the room. At age 68, he will get ready to deliver his 3. 5 page statement. He has been in washington, d. C. Going back 27 years. He has served in the corporate world as an attorney for Companies Like verizon. You are about to know him a lot more beginning now. This is fox News Coverage of the Senate Conference hearings for President Trumps pick of william barr. Im bill henning alongside sandra smith. As we see william barr and the glasses behind senator warren hatch about to deliver his Opening Statements. We will go for hours, sandra, as to how he feels about executive privilege, president ial powers, crime in america, immigration and so forth at a time when the department of justice has been racked by a series of stories that have gone back for two plus years. Sandra good morning. As we look on live at capitol hill, the confirmation hearing for bill barr is expected to begin any moment now. Barr will face tough questions over the russia probe. That will be a huge topic but also the independence of the judiciary. Both will be addressed by republicans and democrats in that room. It could get heated at times. We will see. It will certainly be a big day in washington. Bill with us also, Shannon Bream, bret baier, Jonathan Turley and to the gentle lady. Age 68, worked as attorney general under george bush 41. Jonathan turley said he was going to go off into the legal sunset of his life. He had no intention of coming back to work again. Thats the problem of doing a good job. People want you to do it again. He should focus on my philosophy and the rank and file adored this man. He is the perfect guy at this moment to bring some stability back to the Justice Department at a critical department. Bill stand by. The things to watch are num prus as Lindsey Graham begins todays hearing. Lets drop on in. In is the first meeting of the Senate Judiciary committee in this 116th congress. It is also the first time that we convened while my friend, Lindsey Graham, holds the gavel and will proceed to be chairman. I would like to congratulate the new chairman, thank him for his leadership and say that i look forward to working with you and other members of this committee as we seek to address some of our nations most pressing problems. I have every confidence you will steer our 200yearold committee in the right direction. Thank you. I appreciate that. In my view, nobody looks over 100. We are aging well as a committee. The bottom line is, how do you get this job . Your colleagues have to vote for you. Thank you. You have to get reelected and outlive the person to your right. I have been able to do that. I look forward to working with senator feinstein, who i have a lot of affection and fondness for. She, to me, represents the seriousness that the body needs and a demeanor that i think we should all aspire to. To the new colleagues, senator holly, blackburn and ernst, thank you for being part of this committee. To senator blackburn and ernst, thank you for making history, i think, on our side. As to the hopes and dreams for this committee, to get as much done as possible and to fight when we have to over things that matter to the public and show two different views of an issue thats important, but do it as respectfully as possible. Sentencing reform, criminal Justice Reform was a very big deal. This committee delivered for the country. Senator durbin, i want to thank you very, very much for working with senator lee and senator grassley and senator booker. Thats a big deal thats going to change lives, i think, in a positive way. So this committee has within it the ability to do big things long overdo. I know senator blackburn wants to do something on social media. Senator klubuchar has some ideas to say if you put an ad on social media, you have to stand by it. We are all worried about social media platforms being hijacked by trysts and the international world. Do you really know what you are signing up for when you get on these platforms. I would like this committee to find some way to tame the wild west. Intellectual property, senator tillis and coombs have some ideas i look forward to. Senator sass wants to make sure that we act ethically. You have a package of ethic reforms. I look forward to working with you there. On this side, i know there are a lot of ideas that im sure if we sat down and talked, we could embrace and i look forward to solving as many problems as we can. And having a contest or ideas tla matter to the American People. Senator hatch, thank you for coming. In terms of my chairmanship, if i can do what you and senator grassley were able to do during your time, i will have done the committee a good service. Senator grassley, thank you very much. Last year was tough. I think you and senator feinstein did the best you could in the environment in which we live. The times in which we live are very difficult times. I dont see them Getting Better overnight but i do see them Getting Better if we all want them too. So about me, i want us to do better and ill be as measured as possible. The immigration lindsey will show up. The other guy is there too. I dont like him any more than you do. The bottom line is were starting off with something that would be good for the country. We have a vacancy for the attorney generals spot. We have a chance to fill that vacancy. Mr. Barr, you cant hold a job when you look at what he has done in his life. It is incredible. I want to thank the president for nominating somebody who is worthy of the job, who will understand on day one what the job is about and can right the ship over there. I think we all have concerns. I know senator whitehouse is passionate about cybersecurity and fort cyberand all of these other ideas that sheldon has been pushing. It is just a matter of time before we get hit and hit hard if somebody doesnt step up the plate with some solutions. A little bit about the nominee. He has been attorney general before, from 91 to 93 by voice vote. Those were the days. Deputy attorney general from 90 to 91, unanimous consent without a recorded vote. Assistant attorney general, office of Legal Counsel, voice vote. Thats pretty amazing. I think you are going to have an actual vote this time. Academically gifted. George washington law school, Columbia University undergraduate. Outside the doj, the general counsel for the cia, legislative counsel. Thats how he met bush 41. He has been a law clerk and worked in private committee. He was senior vicepresident , general counsel of gte. He has lived a consequence life, general counsel for verizon. You lived a life that i think has been honorable and note worthy and accomplished and i want to thank you for being willing to take this task on. We have got a lot of problems in the department of justice. I think morale is low and we need to change that. So i look forward to this hearing. You will be challenged. You should be challenged. The moem mo, there will be a lot of talk about it, as there should be. I want to let you know, mr. Barr, we appreciate you stepping up at a time when the country needs somebody of your background and your temperament to be in charge of the rule of law and with that, i will turn it over to senator feinstein. Thanks very much, mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you and i think we can Work Productivity together. Senator grassley, i want to thank you for the time we worked together. It really was a pleasure and i had an opportunity to get to know you as the fine person that you are. So thank you very much. I want to say just one word or two or three about women. 25 years ago, there were no women on this committee. Ill never forget watching the anita hill hearing on television in the london airport with a lot of people gathered around. I went over to take a look. I saw this all male Judiciary Committee. It took all these years but here we are and i want to particularly welcome senator ernst and senator blackburn. I think it is extraordinarily important that this committee be representative of our society atlarge. We are growing that way. Thank you very much for being here. I would also like to welcome bill barr and his family. I know you are proud to be here and you served as attorney general before from 91 to 93. I think we all have Great Respect for your commitment to Public Service. When we met, your previous tenure marked a very different time for our country, we talked about. Today, we find ourselves in a unique time with a Different Administration and different challenges and now perhaps more than ever before, the country needs someone who will uphold the rule of law, defend the independence of the Justice Department and truly understand there job is to serve as the peoples lawyer, not the president s lawyer. Top of mind for all of us is the on going Mueller Investigation. Importantly, the attorney general must be willing to resist political pressure and be committed to protecting this investigation. Im pleased that in our private meeting as well as in your written statement submitted to the committee, you stated that it is vitally important, and this is a quote, that the special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation, end quote, and that, quote, the public and congress be informed of the results of the special counsels work, end quote. However, there are at least two aspects of mr. Muellers investigation. First, russian interference in the United States election and whether any u. S. Persons were involved in that interference. Second, possible obstruction of justice. It is the second component that you have written on. Just five months before you were nominated, i spent the weekend on your 19page legal memo to Deputy Attorney general Rod Rosenstein, criticizing muellers investigation, specifically the investigation into potential obstruction of justice. In the memo, you conclude, i think, that special counsel mueller is, quote, grossly irresponsible for pursuing an obstruction case against the president. And pursuing the obstruction inquiry is fatally misconceived. I hope we can straighten that out in this hearing. Your memo also shows a large sweeping view of president ial that is right and a determined effort, i thought, to undermine bob mueller, even though you state you have been friends and are in the dark about many of the facts of the investigation. So it does raise questions about your willingness to reach conclusions before knowing the facts and whether you prejudge the Mueller Investigation. I hope you will make that clear today. It also raises a number of serious questions about your views on executive authority and whether the president is, in fact, above the law. For example, you wrote, the president , and i quote, alone is the executive branch. As such, he is the sole depository of all executive powers conferred by the constitution. Thus, the full measure of Law Enforcement authority is placed in the president s hands and no limit is placed on the kinds of cases subject to his control and supervision. This is in your memo on page ten. I will ask you about it. This analysis included cases involving potential misconduct where you concluded and i quote, the president may exercise his Supervisory Authority over cases dealing with his own interest. The president transgresses no legal limitation when he does so. Thats on page 12. In fact, you went so far as to conclude that, quote, the framers plan contemplates that the president s Law Enforcement powers extend to all matters, including those in which he has a personal stake. You also wrote the constitution itself places no limit on the president s authority to act on matters which concern him or his own conduct, page ten. Later, you conceded that certain supervisory actions such as the firing of director comey, may be unlawful obstruction. However, this too is qualified. You argue that in such a case, obstruction of justice occurs only if first a prosecutor proves that the president or his aides colluded with russia. Specifically, you conclude, and i quote, the issue of obstruction only becomes ripe after the alleged collusion by the president or his campaign is established first, end quote. So thats some of the things i hope to ask you about. In conclusion, let me just say that some of your past statements on the role of attorney general and president ial power are concerning. For instance, you said in the past that the attorney general is the president s lawyer. In november of 2017, you made comments suggesting it would be permissible for the president to direct the Justice Department to open an investigation into his political opponents. This is notable in light of President Trumps repeated calls for the investigation of Hillary Clinton and others who disagree with him. I believe it is important that the next attorney general be able to strongly resist pressure, whether from the administration or congress to conduct investigations for political purposes. You must have the integrity, the strength, and the fortitude to tell the president no, regardless of the consequences. In short, he must be willing to defend the independence of the Justice Department. So my questions will be, do you have that strength and commitment to be independent of the white house pressures you will undoubtedly face . Will you protect the integrity of the Justice Department above all else . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator feinstein. Senator hatch, welcome back. We truly miss you. You were a great chairman and an incredible member of this body. You are very welcomed to share your thoughts about mr. Barr with this committee. Nathank you so much, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member feinstein and members of the committee. It is my distinct pleasure to be here today to introduce william barr, the president s nominee to be attorney general of the United States. I have known and worked with bill closely over the years and im glad to call him a friend. Bill has had a distinguished career in Public Service and in the private sector. He started his career at the Central Intelligence agency. While there, he went to law school part time at George Washington university. Following graduation, he was selected for a prestigious clerkship with a federal judge on the d. C. Circuit before heading to private practice. Later, he served in the Reagan White House in the office of policy development. Following another stint in private practice, bill began his distinguished career at the department of justice under president george h. W. Bush. Bill served as the assistant attorney general for the office of Legal Counsel. Then, as Deputy Attorney general and finally as attorney general of the United States. As attorney general, bill oversaw a number of sensitive criminal investigations, including the investigation into the pan am flight 103 bombing. He prioritized fighting Violent Crime and became known as the law and order attorney general. Throughout his time at the Justice Department, bill earned a reputation as a fierce advocate for the rule of law, as a principled and independent decisionmaker and as a lawyers lawyer. He has shown his commitment to the constitution time and time again while serving our country. That is why he has been confirmed by the Senate Unanimously three times. After completing his service at the doj, bill returned to the private sector work at law firms and as counsel for some of americas largest companies. I could go on at length in describing bills distinguished career. There is no question, none whatsoever, that bill is well qualified to serve as attorney general. He has held this position before and won high praise during his tenure for his fairness, his tenacity, and his work ethic. So, instead of droning on about bills resume, i want to tell you about what bill identifies as the most important achievement of his private service as attorney general. At least this is what i believe is what he believes. I believe his answer tells you much about how he will approach the job and month he is. When asked what his most important accomplishment was as attorney general, bill does not point to one of his many policy successes. He doesnt talk about his role in setting antitrust merger guidelines. He doesnt say it was his role leading the dojs response to the savings and loan crisis. No. For him, it was something more. It was something more tangible. It was talladega. Three days after bill was named acting attorney general by president bush, 121 prisoners noted and seized control of the Talladega Federal Correctional Institution in alabama. This was a very serious matter. They took ten hostages. Planning at the doj began immediately for how best to resolve the situation and secure the safe release of the hostages. In such a situation, some would have sought political cover. Not bill. He was in charge. He knew the response was his decision to make. His responsibility. He maintained his focus on the safety of the men and women held hostage by the prisoners. The standoff lasted ten days. Then, on bills order, fbi agents stormed the prison. Three minutes later, it was over. The hostages were safe. The mission was wellplanned and executed. The federal agents did not even have to fire a single shot. Bills decisionmaking and judgment helped save lives. When president obama nominated him to be attorney general in 1991, i noted why he had been selected. He was not a member of president bushs political or personal inner circle. He was not a part of the president s brain trust. He was not a politician or former politician who brought political clout to the position from prior elections or prior elected office. Bill barr was a lawyers lawyer, talent, may merit and performan. Those were the reasons president bush selected him to be the attorney general at that time. That statement holds fru today. Bill barr, in my opinion, is an outstanding choice for attorney general. His vast experience for nonjudgment and reputation as an ardent defender of the rule of law make him someone that the American People, the president , and the senate should all be proud of. I feel very honored to be here today to speak in his favor and i hope his nomination will be approved ex ped iciously. The rules of the senate prohibit outbursts, claps or demonstrations or blocking the view of people around you. Please be mindful of these rules. I will ask the Capitol Police to remove anybody that violates the rules of this committee. Mr. Barr, would you come forward, please. Raise your right hand, please . Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give to this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god . I do. The floor is yours. Before i begin, mr. Chairman, could i introduce my family . Absolutely. My wife of 46 years, christine, a retired librarian. My daughter, margaret, who we call meg. She was an assistant United States attorney in the District Of Columbia but now has moved up to capitol hill and works for senator brawn. My middle daughter, patricia, who is also an attorney and she has been counsel to the House Agriculture Committee for how long now, patty, ten, 11 years. My daughter, mary, who is a longtime federal prosecutor and is currently the coordinator for opioid enforcement in the office of the Deputy Attorney general, marys husband, mike, who is also an attorney at the department of justice in the National Security division and their son, mary and mikes son, liam, who will someday be in the department of justice, patricias husband, pelham, a Founding Partner of a Consulting Firm and megs husband, tyler, who is also an assistant United States attorney in the Eastern District of virginia. Did i leave anyone out . Think about medical school, liam. Somebody needs to make money in the family. When meg was starting at notre dame, i told her i wanted a doctor in the family. I made her take organic chem. Needless to say, she is now a lawyer. Good morning, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member feinstein and members of the committee. Its a privilege to come before you today, and im honored that President Trump has nominated me for the position of attorney general. I regret that i come before this committee at a time when much of our government is shut down and my thoughts are with the dedicated men and women of the department of justice and other federal workers, many of whom continue to perform their critical jobs. As you know, if the Senate Confirms me, this would be my second time i would have the honor of holding this office. During the four years i served under president george h. W. Bush, he nominated he for three successive positions in the department, the assistant attorney general for the office of Legal Counsel, the Deputy Attorney general and finally the attorney general. This committee unanimously approved me for each of those offices. 27 years ago at my confirmation hearing, i explained that the office of attorney general is not like any other cabinet post. It is unique and has a Critical Role to play under our constitutional system. I said then the attorney general has a very special obligation, unique obligations. He holds in trust the fair and Impartial Administration of justice. It is the attorney generals responsibility to enforce the law even handedly and with integrity. The attorney general must ensure that the administration of justice, the enforcement of the law is above and away from politics. Nothing could be more destructive of our system of government, of the rule of law, or the department of justice as an institution than any toleration of political interference with the enforcement of the law. I believe this as strongly today as i did 27 years ago. Indeed, more strongly. We live in a time when the country is deeply divided. In the current environment, the American People have to know that there are places in the government where the rule of law, not politics, holds sway, and where they will be treated fairly based solely on the facts and the even handed application of the law. The department of justice must be that place. I did not pursue this position. When my name was first raised, i was reluctant to be considered and, indeed, proposed a number of alternative candidates. Im 68 years old, partially retired and nearing the end of a long legal career. My wife and i were looking forward to a peaceful and cherished time with our daughters and grandchildren, and ive had this job before. But, ultimately, i agreed to serve, because i believe strongly in Public Service. I revere the law. I love the department of justice and the dedicated professionals that serve there. I believe that i can do a good job leading the department in these times. If confirmed, i will serve with the same independence i did in 1991. At that time, when president bush chose me, he sought no promises and asked only that his attorney general act with professionalism and integrity. Likewise, President Trump has sought no assurances, promises or commitments from me of any kind, either expressed or implied, and i have not given him any, other than that i would run the department with professionalism and integrity. As attorney general, my allegiance will be to the rule of law, the constitution, and the American People. This is how it should be. This is how it must be. If you confirm me, this is how it will be. Let me address a few matters i know are on the minds of some of the members of this committee. First, i believe it is vitally important that the special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation. I have known bob mueller for 30 years. We worked closely together throughout my previous tenure at the department of justice. We have been friends since. I have the utmost respect for bob and his distinguished record of Public Service. When he was named special counsel, i said his selection was good news. Knowing him, i had confidence he would handle the matter properly. I still have that confidence today. Given his public actions to date, i expect that the special counsel is well along in his investigation. At the same time, the president has been steadfast that he was not involved in any solution with russian attempts to interfere in the election. I believe it is in the best interest of everyone, the president , congress, and the American People, that this matter be resolved by allowing the special counsel to complete his work. The country needs a credible resolution to these issues. If confirmed, i will not permit partisan pal particulars, personal interests, or any other improper consideration to interfere with this or any other investigation. I will follow the special counsel regulations scrupulously and in good faith. On my watch, bob will be allowed to finish his work. Second, i also believe it is very important that the public and congress be informed of the results of the special counsels work. My goal will be to provide as much transparency as i can consistent with the law. I can assure you that where judgments are to be made, i will make those judgments based solely on the law and i will not let personal, political, or other improper interest influence my decision. Third, i would like to briefly address the memorandum that i wrote last june. I wrote the memo as a former attorney general who has often weighed in on legal issues of public importance and i distributed it broad lly so tha other lawyers would have the benefit of my views. My memo was narrow, explaining my thinking on a specific obstruction of justice theory under a single statute that i thought based on media reports the special counsel might be considering. The memo did not address or in any other way question the special counsels core investigation into russian efforts to interfere in the electi election, nor did it address other potential obstruction of justice theories or argue that some have wrongly suggested that a president can never obstruct justice. I wrote it myself on my own initiative without any assistance and based solely on public information. I would like to comment very briefly on my priorities if confirmed as attorney general. First, we must continue the progress we have made on Violent Crime. While, at the same time, recognizing the changes that have occurred since i last served as attorney general. The recently passed First Step Act, which i intend to diligently implement if confirmed, recognizes the progress we have made over the past three decades in fighting Violent Crime. As attorney general, i will insure that we will continue our efforts to combat Violent Crime. Enter the past, i was focused on predatory violence but today i am also concerned about another kind of violence. We can only survive and thrive as a nation if we are mutually tolerant of each others differences, whether they be differences based on race, ethnicity, religion, Sexual Orientation or political thinking. Yet, we see some people violently attacking others simply because of their differences. We must have zero tolerance for such crimes and i will make this a priority as attorney general if confirmed. Next, the department will continue to prioritize enforcing and improving our immigration laws. As a nation, we have the most liberal and expansive immigration laws in the world. Legal immigration has historically been a huge benefit to this country. However, as we open our front door and try to admit people in an orderly way, we can not allow others to flout our legal system by crashing in through the back doors. In order to insure our immigration system works properly, we must secure our nations borders and we must insure that our laws allow us to process, hold, and remove those who unlawfully enter. Finally, in a democracy like ours, the right to vote is paramount. In a period of great political division, one of the foundations of our nation is our enduring commitment to the peaceful transition of power through elections. If confirmed, i will insure that the full might of our resources are brought to bear against foreign persons who unlawfully interfere in our elections, fostering confidence in the outcome of elections also means insuring that the write to vote is fully protected as well as insuring the integrity of elections. Let me conclude by making the point that over the long run, the course of justice in this country has more to do with the character of the department of justice as an Enduring Institution than with the tenure of any particular attorney general. Above all else, if confirmed, i will work diligently to protect the professionalism and integrity of the department as an institution and i will strive to leave it and the nation a stronger and better place. Thank you very much for your time today and i look forward to answering your questions. Sandra you have been watching the confirmation hearing for william barr, President Trumps nominee for the next attorney general. This will continue live on capitol hill. Please stay tuned to Fox News Channel and this fox station for continuing coverage of this story. For sandra smith and bill hemmer in new york, thank you for joining us. Once you go down that road, the rule of law collapses. There is another side to this equation. If i may say a twoway street. What about those in charge of enforcing the law . What about those with the power to bring charges against american citizens, including people up here . I remember senator stevens case in alaska. So we should always be on guard about the politician interfering in an investigation but we should also have oversight of how the Department Works for those with this tremendous power use that power. Are you familiar with the january 11th New York Times article about fbi open inquiry into whether trump was secretly working on behalf of russians . Yes, mr. Chairman. Would you promise me and this committee to look into this and tell us whether or not in the appropriate way a Counter Intelligence investigation was opened up by somebody at the Fbi Department of justice against President Trump . Yes, mr. Chairman. I think there are a number of investigations, as i understand it, going on in the department. Have you ever heard of such a thing in all the time you have been associated with the department of justice . I have never heard of that. Are there rules about how you can do counterintelligence investigations . I believe there are, mr. Chairman. If you want to open up one against the president , are there any checks and balances . Not suit side the fbi. Well, we need to plook look at that. In terms of people that are actually enforcing the law, dont we want to make sure they dont have an agenda . Thats right, sir, mr. Chairman. Do you know a lisa page or peter strzok . I have heard their names. Do you know them personally . No, i dont. This is a message, august 8th, 2016, a text message. Trump is not ever going to become president , right . Right. Strzok responded, no, no, hes not, well stop him. Strzok was in charge of the clinton email investigation, and mrs. Page worked at the department of justice. August 15th, 2016, i want to believe the path he threw out for consideration from andys office that there is no way he gets elected but im afraid we cant take that risk. It is like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40. March 4th, 2016, paige to strzok, god, trump is a loathsome human being. October 26th, trump is an f idiot. To all those that enforce the law, you can have any opinion of us that you like but you are supposed to do your job without an agenda. Do you promise me as attorney general if you get this job to look into see what happened in 2016 . Yes, mr. Chairman. How do these statements sit with you . I was shocked when i saw them. Please get to the bottom of it. I promise you, we will protect the investigation but were relying upon you to clean this place up. Fisa warrants, are you familiar with a fisa warrant . Yes, mr. Chairman. During the process of obtaining a warrant, is there a certification made by the department of justice to the court that the information being provided is reliable . Yes, sir. Are you familiar with bruce ohr . No, im not. Bruce ohr was associate deputy general for organized crime and drug enforcement. His wife worked at fusion gps. Yes, i have read about that. Fusion gps, mr. Barr, was hired by the Democratic National committee and the clinton come pain to do Opposition Research against candidate trump and maybe other candidates. We now know that they hired fusion gps, michael steele, who was a former british agent, to do Opposition Research and produce the famous dossier. Were you aware that mr. Orrs wife worked for that organization . Ive read that. Does that bother you if he had anything to do with the case . Yes. Are you aware that on numerous occasions, he met with mr. Steele while his wife worked with fusion gps . I have read that. The warrant certification against carter page, on four different occasions, certifies that the dossier, which was the main source of the warrant, was reliable. Would you look in to see whether or not that was an accurate statement and hold people accountable if it was not . Yes, mr. Chairman. Mueller, you say you have known mueller a long time. You say you have a close relationship with mr. Mueller. I would say we were good friends. Would you say that you understand him to be a fairminded person . Absolutely. Do you trust him to be fair to the president an the country as a whole in. Yes. When his report comes to you, will you share it with us as much as possible . Consistent with the regulations and the law, yes. Do you believe mr. Mueller would be involved in a witch hunt against anybody . I dont believe mr. Mueller would be involved in a witch hunt. What are the circumstances that would allow a special counsel to be appointed generally speaking . Well, i appointed three, mr. Cha chairman, special counsel. Generally, when something comes up, an issue comes up that needs to be investigated and there are good reasons to have it investigated by a special counsel outside the normal chain at the department, someone usually of public stature that can provide additional assurance of nonpartisan. Do you believe that attorney general sessions had a conflict because he worked on the Trump Campaign . I am not sure of all the facts, but i think he probably did the right thing recusing himself. I agree. I think he did the right thing to recuse himself. Do you know Rod Rosenstein . Yes, i do. Whats your opinion of him . I have a very high opinion of Rod Rosenstein and his service in the department. Why did you write the memo . I wrote the memo because starting, i think, in june of 2017, there were many news reports and i had no facts and none of us really outside the department had facts. I read a lot of news reports suggesting that there were a number of potential obstruction theories that were being contemplated or at least explored. One theory in particular that appeared to be under consideration under a specific statue concerned me, because i thought it would involve stretching the statute beyond what was intended and would do it in a way that would have serious adverse consequences for all agencies that are involved in the administration of justice, specially the department of justice. I thought it would have a Chilling Effect Going Forward over time. My memo is very clear, that is the concern that was driving me. The impact, not the particular case but its impact of a rule over time. I wanted to make sure that before anyone went down this path, if that was, in fact, being considered, that the full implications of the theory were carefully thought out. So i wanted my views to get in front of the people who would be involved and the various lawyers who would be involved in those discussions. So i first raised these concerns verbally with Rod Rosenstein, when i had lunch with him, early in 2008. He did not respond and was sphinxlike had his reaction. I expounded on my concerns. I later attempted to provide a written analysis as followup. I initially thought of an op ed but because of the material, it wasnt working out. I talked to his staff and i said, you know, i want to follow up and send something to rod in writing but is he a onepager kind of guy or how much will he read . The guy said, he is like you, he doesnt mind wading into a dense subject. Dont you think President Trump is a onepager kind of guy . Excuse me . I suspect he is. President trump is a onepage ir kind of guy. Just remember that. Go ahead. So i provided the memo to rod. A provided it and distributed freel among the other lawyers that i thought would be interested. It is very common for me and other former senior officials to weigh in on matters that they think may be illadvised and may have ramifications down the road. For example, a few months before that, i had weighed in repeatedly to complain about the idea of prosecuting senator menendez. Two to sessions and one to ag sessions and one to rosenstein. I didnt know senator menendez. I dont represent him. No one was paying me. I dont sport him politically. My friend was his defense counsel. I was watching it. I thought the prosecution was based on a fell acious theory that would have bad longterm consequences and so i freel weighed in to the department. I did so because i care about the rule of law. The first, thats why we dont like political interference. Political interference means the rule being applied to a isnt the rule you are applying. It is special treatment, because someone is in there exerting political influence. The coralary to that, is what you are driving at, mr. Chairman, is that when a prosecutor is applying a rule to a, you have got to be careful it is not torqued for that case in a way that couldnt be applied down the road or if it is applied will create problems down the road. I think the attorney generals job is to provide oversight to make sure that in each individual case the same rule that would be applied broadly is being applied to the individual. Nang you, mr. Chairman. Six quick yes or no questions. Will you commit to no interference with the scope of the special counsels investigation . The scope of the special counsels investigation is set by his charter and by the regulations. I will ensure that those are maintained. Will you commit to providing mr. Mueller with the resources, funds and time needed to complete this investigation . Yes. Will you commit that special counsel mueller is not terminated without good cause consistent with Department Regulations . Absolutely. If special counsel mueller makes any request about the scope of his investigation or resources for his investigation, will you commit to notifying congress if you deny that request . I think the regulations require notification of congress if there is a disagreement. Thank you. I have two questions from the chairman of the house Judiciary Committee. Will you commit to making any report mueller produces at the conclusion of his investigation available to congress and to the public . P. As i said in my statement, i am going to make as much Information Available as i can consistent with the rules and regulations that are part of the special counsel regulations. Will you commit to making any report on the obstruction of justice public . Thats the same answer. In your june, 2018 memo with obstruction of justice, you repeatedly referred to muellers sweeping and all emcompassing interpretation of section 1512, which is a statute on obstruction. How do you know what muellers interpretation of 1512 is . Well, as i said, i was speculating. I freely said at the beginning i was writing in the dark. Every lawyer, every talking head, everyone who thinks about it or talks about it doesnt have the facts. I spent my saturday reading that memorandum. Are you saying this is all your speculation, a big memo. It was informed to the extend ha i thought that was one of the theories being considered. I dont know how seriously, whether it was being considered or how seriously it was being considered. As a shorthand way in the memo of refers to what i was speculating might be a theory, i referred to it as muellers theory, rather than go in every time i mentioned it. Do you know what muellers interpretation of 1512 is . No, i dont know what muellers interpretation is. Just one point, senator, i think you said in your Opening Statement, i said he was grossly responsible. I think i said if something happens, it would be grossly irresponsible. I was not calling mueller grossly irresponsible. Thank you. I appreciate na. Has anyone given you nonpublic information about muellers investigation . I dont recall getting any confidential information about the investigation. Your 2018 memo, in it, you stated, and i quote, the framers plan contemplates that the president s Law Enforcement powers extend to all matters including those in which he had a personal stake, end quote. Please explain what you base this conclusion on. Yes. Le here is the department of justice right here. Within the department of justice, enforcement decisions are being made. The president is over here. I think of it as there are two categories of potential communications. One would be on a case that the president wants to communicate about that he has no personal interest and no political interest in. Lets say the president is concerned about chinese stealing trade secrets and i want you to go after this company that may be stealing trade secrets. Thats perfectly appropriate for him to do, to communicate that. But whether it is bonafide or not, the department of justices obligation and the attorney generals obligation is not to take any action unless we reach, we, the department of justice and the attorney general, reach their own independent conclusion that it is justified under the law and regardless of the instruction. Thats my quote that everyone is saying it is okay for the president to direct things. All i said was, it is not per se improper for the president to call on the department for doing something, specially if he has no personal or political interest in it. The other category of cases, lets pick an easy, bad example, if a member of the president s family or business associate or something was under investigation, and he tries to interve intervene. He is the chief Law Enforcement officer. You could say he has the power. That would be a breach of his obligation under the constitution to faithfully execute the laws. So in my opinion, if he attempts if a president attempts to interview in a matter that he has a stake in, to protect himself that should first be looked at as a breach of his constitutional duties. Whether it also violates a statute, depending on what comes into play and all the facts are. Including the imminent mol jens klaus of the constitution. I think there is a dispute as to what it relates to. I have not personally researched the imoluments klauclause. I would have said they were essentially a stipend attached to some office but i dont know if thats correct or not. Im sure it is being litigated right now. I dont know why. I am going to try and find out. Well come back another day and discuss it. Your memo stated a fatal flaw in muellers interpretation of 1512 c2, is that while defining obstruction solely is acting corruptly, mueller offers no definition of what corruptly means. My understanding is that there is nothing in the Public Record that sheds light on his definition of obstruction. Do you know what his definition is. Do you know what his definition is . I dont know what his definition is. I read a book where people were asking whether someone i think i dont know if it was accurate but whether someone, the president was acting with corrupt intent. What i say in my memo is that people dont understand what the word correctly means in na statute. It is not meant to mean with the state of mind but the way in which the influence or obstruction is committed. Thats its adverbial function in the statute. What it means is using it in the 19th century sense. It meant to influence in a way that creates something good and fit to something that is bad and unfit, namely, the corruption of evidence or the corruption of a decisionmaker. Thats what it means. Once you disassociate it from that, it means, very hard to discern what it means. It means bad. What does bad mean . Let me go on, because my time is so limited. You argue that, and i quote, the constitutionss grant of those powers to the president also extends to the unitary character of the executive branch itself. Specific pall specifically, you argue, while muellers immediate target is the president s exercise of his discretionary powers, his obstruction theory reaches all exercises of prosecutorial discretion by the president s sub bore den nats from the attorney general down to the most junior line prosecutor, end quote. So if the president orders the attorney general to halt a criminal investigation for personal reasons, would that be prohibited under your theory. Prohibited by what . The constitution. I any it would be a breach of the president s duties to faithfully execute the law. It would be an abuse of power, whether it would violate a st t statute depends on the facts. I certainly think it would be an abuse of his power. Let me just say that the position would that be the same thing if an attorney general fired us attorneys for political reasons . No, because u. S. Attorneys are political appointments. According to news reports, President Trump interviewed you and asked you to be part of the legal team defending him in the Mueller Investigation twice. First, in the spring of 17, when the investigation was just beginning and begin earlier this year. Is that correct . No. I had one conversation with him that related to his private representation. I can describe that for you. That was in june of 2017. Thats the only time i met him before i talked to him about the job of attorney general, which obviously is not the same as representing him. Have you discussed the Mueller Investigation with the president or anyone else in the white house . I discussed the Mueller Investigation but not in any particular substance. I can go through my conversations with you if you want. Not at this time. I may come back to you and ask you about that. I dont want to take any more time. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Bill each senator gets about ten minutes in. That questioning from senator feinstein went to the memorandum written in june of 2018. Seven, eight months ago in which william barr made the case that 19 pages of a written memo about an obstruction theory that he felt was off on behalf of bob mueller. Thats why the questioning is coming from that angle. We are going to take a 60second timeout. We want to get this commercial in and well get ready for Chuck Grassley coming up next, stand by. Sxwrooirks. Since the law passed in 1986 brought in money into the treasury. Most is because patriotic whistle blowers found the fraud and brought the case to the attention of the government. Is the false claims act unconstitutional . No, sen torsoensor. Do you consider it to be an abomination . No, i dont. Does the false claims act benefit the taxpayer, its empower to protect whistle blowers . Yes, senator. If confirmed, do you commit to not take any in . If confirmed, will you continue the Justice Department staff and funding levels to properly support and prosecute false claims act cases. I will diligently enforce the false claims act. With all those positives answered, you would think i would be done with that. Just to show you that there is some forces out there that im suspicious about within the department of justice, we have a new department of justice guidance document out last year, known as the granston memo. It provide a long list of reasons that the department can use to dismiss false claims act cases. Some of them pretty darn vague such as preserving these are their word, preserving government resources. Just think of all the mischief those three word can bring. Of course, the government can dismiss obviously meritless cases. I dont argue with that. Even when the department declines to participate in false claims act cases, the taxpayer can in many cases still recover financially. So it is important to allow whistle blowers to pursue cases even when the department isnt able to be involved. Under what circumstances can or should the Justice Department move to dismiss false claims cases . Senator, i havent reviewed that memorandum. I am not familiar with the people in i think its the Civil Division that did that. If im confirmed, i will review it and i would be glad to come and sit down with you and discuss it. If there are areas you are concerned about, i would be glad to work with you on that. Unless you find that my presumption is wrong, that there are reasons to be suspicious, i hope youll take into consideration my feeling about how in various suspicious ways people that are faceless bureaucrats can undermine this effort . In circumstances where the government doesnt intervene in false claims cases, if confirmed, will you commit to insuring the department doesnt unnecessarily dismiss falls act cas cases . Yes, senator. I will enforce the law in good faith. The Justice Department just talked and i cant expect you to respond specifically to their act but i use it as an example of their uncooperation with the department of congressional oversight. This uncooperative behavior need to change. On december the 10th, last year, the department confirmed a briefing for your staff regarding Asset Forfeiture funds and to do that last week, january the 8th. On january the 7th, department of Justice Office of legislative affairs informed our staff that they will no longer provide the briefing, because they consider the matter closed as a result of the change in chairmanship and because you released a public memo, because i released a public memo on the Marshall Service study or investigation. It is important to gain your commitment on how you would handle this as an example. Let me explain how ridiculous it is to get somebody in this administration saying that they dont have to answer if you arent chairman of a committee. We went through this in january, the first month this president was in office when he said or he put out a memo. We arent going to answer any oversight except for the chairman of the committee. So you are going to write off 500 members of congress not doing oversight. We told them all about this and the constitutional cases of this. We got them up. They wrote a memo two months later that said that they were going to respond to all this stuff. You have people in the bowels of the bureaucracy that they are still saying if you arent a chairman, you aint going to get an answer to anything. How ridiculous. It is our constitutional responsibility. I laid out, ill give you an example. I sent the Justice Department a classified letter regarding information acquired from the Justice Department Inspector General report on the clinton investigation. The department ought to answer for what the attorney Inspector General has found. I havent heard a peep, not a peep on that yet. On december the 10th, the Justice Department im repeating here. The question is, do you understand that if you are confirmed, you have an obligation to insure the Justice Department and particularly the fbi as a problem respond to congressional inquiry and to do it in a timely matter . Absolutely, senator. Do you understand this obligation applies regardless of whether you are a member of congress or a committee chairman. Yes, senator, i do. You and senator lahey, i think, are the only members of the committee now who were here 27 years ago when i was first confirmed. I think you will recall that we were able to establish very cooperative and productive relationships with all the members and tried to respond to their questions and deal with their concerns around work with them on projects they are interested in. That will be the same approach that i will bring to the job if you confirm me. Then, let me be specific on my last question on oversight. You remember when you were in my office, i gave you, as i gave attorney general sessions, as i gave holder along list of things that the department has not answered and one of these was an october 17th, 2018 letter and i would like to have your response to answering that letter and respond to all outstanding and future oversight requests in a timely manner. Then, remember, i said, all you cabinet people come up here to tell us yes when we ask you if you are going to answer our stuff. I said, you better say maybe. If you want to say maybe and be really honest, say maybe. I hope you will answer that october 17th letter once we get you voted into office. Yes, senator. Throughout your career, you have expressed concern with congressional attempts to inact criminal Justice Reform and at times advocated for strict er mandatory minimum sentences. Doj published a report, the case for more incarceration and declared the problem with our criminal Justice System was that we were incarcerated too few criminals. More recently, in 2015, you signed a letter opposing the accept tensing reform and corrections act of 2015. This letter states quite clearly your opposition to sentencing reform, particularly the lessening of mandatory minimum sentences with any sort of retro activity. The First Step Act was signed by President Trump. As attorney general, it will be your job to implement the legislation even though you have opposed criminal Justice Reform in the past. Will you commit to fully implementing the First Step Act . Yes, senator. In 1992, when i was attorney general, the Violent Crime rates were the highest in American History. The sentences were extremely short. Typically, in many states, the time served for rape was three years. For murder, time served, 57 years. It was the system had broken down. I think through a series of administrations, reagan, bush, and clinton, the laws were changed. We targeted violent, chronic violent offenders, specially those using guns and i think the reason the crime rate is much lower today is because of those policies. So i dont think comparing the policies that were in effect in 1992 to the situation now is really fair. I think and ive said that right now we have greater regularity in sentencing. There is broader recognition that chronic violent offenders should be incarcerated for significant period of time to get them off the streets. I think the time was right to take stock and make changes to our penal system based on current experience. So i have no problem with the approach of reforming the sentencing structure. I will faithfully enforce that plau. Dont take it personal if i raise my voice to you. Im not mad at you. If wri yi were you, i would r his letters, as a tip that may help you do your job. Ill take my time away from my second round. Im very curious about the conversations you had. Sandra i will enforce the law in good faith. You have been listening to the a. G. Nominee, william barr, answering questions from Chuck Grassley from iowa. This will continue. We are going to take a quick break. One minute and well be right back. Here he is in the hot seat. My wife and i were looking forward to a bit of ret respite. I didnt want to put my head into the meat grinder. He asked me to briefly go over the next day to meet with the president. I said, sure. I will meet with the president. He brought me over and was squeezing me in. It looked like to me it was before the morning staff meeting because people were grouping by the door to get in. I went in. The ambassador was there, sat through the meeting. It was a very brief meeting where essentially the president wanted to know he said, you know bob mueller. How well do you know bob mueller . I told him how well i knew bob mueller and that the barrs and muellers were good friend and would be good friends when this was all over and so forth. He was interested in that, wanted to know what i thought about muellers integrity and so forth and so on. I said, bob is a straightshooter and should be dealt with as such. He said something to the effect like, so, are you envisioning some role here . I said, actually, mr. President , right now, i couldnt do it. My personal and my professional obligations are such that im unable to do it. He asked me for my phone number. I gave it to him. I never heard from him again. I tried that once. I didnt hear from him until later, about something different, which was the attorney general position. Good to see you gagain. Senator grassley and i were here at your hearing a number of years ago. Let me go back before that. 46 years ago, i wasnt on the senate. I was states attorney in vermont. I watched with great interest at the Elliot Richardson hearings. He had been nominated to be attorney general in the mid of watergate. He made several commitments to the committee, including appointing a special prosecutor. He promised to protect his independence. As one who had total independence as elected prosecutor in vermont, i thought how important it was to have that same independence at the national level. Mr. Richardson said it was necessary to create the maximum possible degree of Public Confidence in the integrity of the process. I have never forgotten that. I think the integrity of our institutions is just as much at risk today. President trump has been declaring views of the Justice Department to the extent of his political power. He has called on it to target his opponents. He obsesses over the russian investigations which looms over his presidency and may define it. He attacks the special counsel almost daily. He fired the previous fbi and attorney general for not handling the investigation as he pleased. That tells me the rule of law can no longer be taken for granted. If confirmed, the president is going to expect you to do his bidding. I can almost guarantee you, you will cross the line at some point. Thats why the commitments you make here today, just like those i watched Elliot Richardson make years ago, matter greatly. Will you commit if confirmed to both seeking and following the advice of the career ethics officials on whether you must recuse from the special counsels investigation . I will seek the advise of the career ethics personnel but under the regulations, i make the decision as the head of the agency as to my own recusal. So i certainly would consult with them. At the end of the day, i would make a decision in good faith based on the laws and the facts that are evident at that time. Same thing if you are talking about a conflict of interest . Well, no. Some conflicts, as you know, are mandatory. I am thinking about attorney general sessions when asked a similar question. He said he will seek and follow the advice. Seek and follow the department of the department of justice designated ethics officials. So let me ask you maybe in a different way. I know you promised to not interfere with the special counsel. Are there any circumstances that would cause you to terminate the investigation or any component of it or significantly restrict its funding . Under the regulations, bob mueller could only be terminated for good cause. Frankly, its unimaginable to me that bob would ever do anything that gave rise to good cause. In theory, if something happened that was good cause, for me, it would actually take more than that. It would have to be pretty grave and the Public Interest would essentially have to compel it. I believe right now the overarching Public Interest is to allow him to finish. I would agree with that. I also think over the past 18 months, you have rather harshly prejudged the investigation in some of your writings. I dont see that at all, senator. When you strip away a lot of the rhetoric, the two things that have been thrown up as me being antagonistic to the investigation are two things. One, a very mild comment i made that, gee, i wish the team had been more balanced. I wasnt criticizing mueller. I believe that prosecutors, and i think you would agree, they can handle the case professionally, whatever their politics are. A good prosecutor can leave their politics at the door and go in and do the job. I think thats what Justice Department prosecutors do in general. You also were very critical of the russian probe. I cant think of anything that would, in your memo, for example, that would jump out more for this president , because of his commitment to it. I ask that because some have said on both sides of the aisle that it looked like a job application. Thats why i want you to refer to it. Thats ludicrous. If i wanted the job and was going after the job, there are many more direct ways of me bringing myself to the president s intention than writing an 18page legal memorandum and sending to the department of justice. But to publicly criticize the russian probe. How have i criticized the russian probe . You dont have any criticism of the russian probe . Not at all. I believe the russians interfered or attempted to interfere with the election. I think we have to get to the bottom of it. So you would be in favor of releasing invest ga tiff report when it is completed . As i said, im in favor of as much transparency as there can be consistent with the rules and the law. Do you see the case where the president could claim executive privilege and say that parts of the report could not be released . Well, i dont have a clue as to what would be in the report. The report could end up being not very big. I dont know whats going to be in the report. In theory, if there was executive privilege, material to which an executive privilege claim could be made, it might someone might raise a claim of executive privilege. That would be pretty difficult following the u. S. Versus nixon when the Supreme Court unanimously rejected president nixons claims of executive privilege over the watergate tape. I ask it, because the president s attorney, mr. Giuliani, said the president should be able to correct the Mueller Report before any public release. So, in other word, he could take it and put his own spin on it before it is released. Could you commit that that will not happen if you are attorney general . That will not happen. Thank you. When you were a. G. , i remember this well, because i was here in the senate at the time, you encouraged president george h. W. Bush to pardon all six individuals who were targeted in the iran contra. The independent prosecutor investigator labeled that a coverup. You and i talked about this in my office and i appreciate you coming by. I found the conversation the two of us had to be well worthwhile. Do you believe a president could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for the recipients promise to not incriminate him . No. That would be a crime. In 1990, you argued that Congress Appropriation power is not an independent source of congressional power to control the allegation of government resources. Only three committees in the senate have a vice chairman, appropriations is one of them. Obviously, as vice chairman, i kind of looked at that. You claim that if a president finds no appropriate funds within a given be category, he may use funds from another category as long as both categories are in his constitutional purview. Now, since the vice chairman of the appropriations committee, dont be surprised if i disagree. Congresss power of the purse, article 1, section 9, i believe is one of the most fundamental and foundational checks and balances on the executive branch. Do you believe the president can ignore Congress Appropriation allocations and conditions through restrictions and law, just ignore them and take the money . Not as a general proposition. That was a good law review article. I gave it as a speech. It was really a thought piece. What i was really saying was, and i say right up front, that the more i thought about the appropriations power, the more confused i got. I was just laying out a potential template, which is this. People frequently say, the power to spend money on this division or this Missile System is part of the power of the purse. What i was actually saying, actually, the power being exercised there is the substantive power that Congress Mass to raise armies. Specific to appropriations on agriculture. For example, could a president just build a wall along our southern border because he wanted to and just take the money whether it was appropriated or not . What about Eminent Domain . What about Eminent Domain . If you are going to build a wall, you have to take a whole lot of land away from landowners in texas and elsewhere . Well, you know, you would have to show me what statute is being invoked and also what appropriations are being used . I cant answer that in the abstract. So you are saying the president may have the power to go into money even if the congress has appropriated it for a different purpose . I didnt say that. Did you mean that . No, i dont mean that. Im saying that there are moneys that the president may have power to shift because of statutory authority. But that would have been because Congress Gave him that authority . Right. Not because he has it automatically . I am not taking that position. Because i said my law review, it was published as a law review article. It was a thought piece exploring what limits there might be to the appropriations power and where Congress Power comes from in certain areas. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Bill interesting line of questioning there. A quick 60second emergency break. John cornyn is next. To take a t to address my fellow veterans, because i know so many of you have served our country honorably. One of the benefits that we as a country give you as a veteran is the eligibility for a va loan for up to 100 of your homes value. If you need cash for your family, call newday usa. With automatic authority from the va, we can say yes when banks say no. Give us a call. Call now 18553761361. Sandra senator john cornyn now questioning william barr. Thank you for doing that and thank you to your family as well. To me, the attorney general is one of the most challenging cabinet offices to hold because, as you point out in your Opening Statement, you are committed to the rule of law and enforcing the laws of the land but you are also a political appointee of a president. If you are serving in another cabinet position, certainly you are committed to implementing the president s agenda or the agenda of the administration. As attorney general, that is not an unequivocal commitment, because that i may be some things that the administration wants you to do that you cannot do consistent with the rule of law, correct . Thats right, senator. One of the reasons i ultimately decided that i would accept this position if it was offered to me, was because i feel that i am in a position to be independent. Over the years, a lot of people have some politicians have called me up and said, i am thinking of going for the attorney general position in this administration and so forth. I say, you are crazy, because if you view yourself as having a political future down the road, dont take the job. If you take this job, you have to be ready to make decisions and spend all your Political Capital and have no future, because you have to do you have to have that freedom of action. I feel im in a position in life where i can do the right thing and not really care about the consequences in the sense that i can truly be independent. Thinking back about the runup to the 2016 election where the nominee of both Political Parties of president of the United States ended up being investigated by the fbi, can you think of any precedent in American History where that has occurred that you know of . No, i cant, senator. Thinking back to james comeys press conference of july the 7th, 2016, where he took the step of talking about the evidence against mrs. Clinton, talking about the Legal Standard that would apply as to whether she might or might not be indicted for committing a crime under the espionage act, have you ever seen a situation where an fbi director would usurp the authority of the department of justice to make that charging decision and hold a press conference and talk about all of the derogatory information that the investigation had gleaned against a potential defendant and then say now we are not going to, no reasonable prosecutor would indict her . Have you ever seen anything like that happen before . No, i have never seen that. I thought it was a little bit more more than a little bit but it was weird at the time. My initial reaction was i think attorney general lynch had said something, she was under pressure to recuse herself because of the socalled tar matt meeting and i think she was going to said she was going to defer to the fbi. My initial reaction to that whole thing was, well, she must have agreed or it must have been the plan he was going to make the decision and go out and announce his decision. Under the normal rules, if the attorney general has a conflict of interest, it would go to the deputy. To the deputy. Not to the fbi director to make that decision. Thats why i thought it was very strange. Later, it became clearer, to the extent there was anything clear about it, that i dont think attorney general lynch had essentially delegated that authority to the director. I think jim comey, as ive said, is an extremely gifted man who has served the country with distinction in many roles. I thought that to the extent he actually announced a decision was wrong. The other thing is if you are not going to indict someone, then you dont stand up there and unload negative information about the person. Thats not the way the department of justice does business. I was shocked when mr. Comey later wrote a letter saying that based on the discovery of Clinton Emails on the weiner laptop that they were reopening the investigation he had already announced closed and finally days before the general election, november the 6th, 2016, said we didnt find anything on the laptop that would change my conclusions based on the press conference of july the 6th. Did you likewise find that to be an extraordinary bizarre but unprecedented event . The whole sequence was very herk, jerky and bizarre. At that time, ways a little of a contrarian in that i basically took the position that once he did what he did in july and said the thing was over, and then found out it wasnt over, he had no choice but to correct the record. So i said that he had no choice but to do what he did. It sort of shows you what happens when you start disregarding the normal procedures and established practice. You sort of dig yourself a deeper and deeper hole. Why is it that the department of justice rules, which also apply to the fbi, make it clear that our chief Law Enforcement agencies in this country should not get tangled up in election politics . Are there policies in place that try to insulate the investigations and decisions of the department of justice and fbi from getting involved in elections . Yes, senator, there are. Why is that . Obviously, because the incumbent party has their hand on among other reasons, they have their hands on the levers of the Law Enforcement apparatus of the country. You dont want it used against the opposing political party. Thats what happened when the Counter Intelligence investigation of the Trump Campaign began in late july and continued on through well, presumably to director comeys firing and beyond . I am not in a position to make a judgment about it, because i dont know what the predicate was for it. I think i said, it is strange to have a counterintelligence investigation of a president but i just dont know what the predicate is and if im confirmed, i assume ill find out. Rod rosensteins memo recommending the termination of james comey as fbi director was dated may the 9th, 2017. It is entitled restoring Public Confidence in the fbi. I take it you have read the memo and do you agree with it its conclusion . I completely agree with Rod Rosenstein. I thought the important point he made from my standpoint was not the particular use that occurred but it was i think he said that director comey just didnt recognize that that was a mistake and so it was going to potentially be a continuing problem, his appreciation of his role visavis the attorney general. As i sid, said, the title of the memo is restoring Public Confidence in the fbi. Do you agree that restoration of Public Confidence in the fbi and department of justice as a political or nonpolitical Law Enforcement organization is important. In. It is critical. Thats one of the reasons i am sitting here. I would like to help with that process. Mr. Barr, i think you are uniquely qualified to do that. I wish you gods speed. Thank i, senator. It couldnt be more important. Mr. Barr, we have never had a chance to meet but i welcome you to this committee. Bill as is the pattern, quick 60second break. Lets take a look at some numbers 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom. Is a stroke. 80 percent of all strokes and Heart Disease . Preventable. And 149 dollars is all it takes to get screened and help take control of your health. Were life line screening. And if youre over 50. Call this number, to schedule an appointment. For five painless screenings that go beyond regular checkups. We use Ultrasound Technology to literally look inside your arteries. For plaque which builds up as you age and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. And by getting them through this package, youre saving over 50 . So call today and consider these numbers for just 149 youll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isnt telling you. Im gonna tell you that was the best 150 i ever spent in my life. Life line screening. The power of prevention. Call now tow to learn more. There was bipartisan consensus when i was last in this position that i acted with independence and professionalism and integrity. I had strong and productive relationships across the aisle that were important in trying to get some things done. I feel i am in a position in life where i can provide the leadership necessary to protect the independence and the reputation of the department and serve in this administration. A number of my colleagues on both sides have asked and ill bet youll hear more questions along the line of what would be your breaking point . When would you pick up and leave . When is your jim mattis moment when the president mass asked y you to do something that you think is inconsistent with your oath . Doesnt that give you some pause as you embark on this journey . It might give me pause if i was 45 or 50 years old. It doesnt give me pause right now. I had a very good life. I have a very good life. I love it. I also want to help in this circumstance. I am not going to do anything that i think is wrong. I will not be bullied into doing anything that i think is wrong by anybody, whether it be editorial boards or congress or the president. I am going to do what i think is right. You have a very nice family behind you. Im glad you introduced them. Thank you. I dont want to give your grandson any career advice. He has received quite a bit this morning already. But he ought to considerate least for some balance, being a public defender. One of the things you alluded to as a major issue of concern is immigration. Im glad you said it. Our government is shut down over the issues of Border Security and immigration. The attorney general plays a central role, which many people dont know as they look at the department of Homeland Security for most of the action on immigration. I was surprised at the exit interview by general kelly when he said, and im paraphrasing, that attorney general sessions was responsible for the zerotolerance policy that was announced in mid 2018 and that it was because of na pthat policy, that was one of the reasons he was being asked to leave. Are you familiar with the zerotolerance policy . Generally, senator, yes. I can tell you it was an effort to take escorted children, infants, toddlers and children and forcibly remove them from their parents at the border. This policy separated up to 2800 of those children and put them into the system, the same system as unaccompanied children. The results were horrible. I saw them firsthand. You have alluded in your Opening Statement to stopping people from crashing through the border, breaking and flouting the laws. Those Young Children for the most part were being brought to this country by their parents to seek asylum. You can present yourself at americas border and seek asylum legally, can you not . Yes, senator, you can. So separating those children from their parents in an effort, as attorney general sessions explained, to get tough with families presenting themselves at the border was a policy decision on his part. Do you agree with that policy decision . Well, im not sure i know all the details because one of the disadvantages i have is im not in the department and dont really have the same backing i did in terms of information that i had last time. My understanding is that dhs makes the decision as to who they are going to apprehend and hold. You can claim asylum but that doesnt mean you can waltz into the country freely. You have to be processed. My understanding is a majority of people do not qualify for asylum. Dhs makes a decision who to hold and charge with the crime of illegal entry. Then, they refer it to the department of justice and i believe the departments policy, when the Department Says zero tolerance, they are saying whatever dhs refers to us, in the way of illegal entry prosecutions, well prosecute. Now, what is being done, because i think the administration has changed the policy, is dhs is not referring for prosecution family units that would lead to the separation of children from the family unit. It is true that the president and the administration abandoned the policy after there was a public reaction to the separation of these children. Im concerned i want to go back to your university of Virginia Miller center speech. Uhhuh. It is a classic. It is a gem, isnt it . It goes back many years. You described your previous tenure as the attorney general and you said after being appointed, i quickly developed some initiatives on the immigration issue that would create more border controls, change immigration rules and streamline processing and further more put the Bush Campaign ahead of the democrats on the immigration issue, which i saw as extremely important in 1992. I felt that a strong policy on immigration was necessary for the president to carry california, a key state in the election. Uhhuh. Thats a pretty revealing statement about a political agenda. There is nothing wrong with that. As ive said, the attorney ive spoken on this a number of times. There are three roles the attorney general plays. One is the enforcer of the law. The role of the attorney general is to keep the enforcement process from political influence. The second one is as legal adviser. That is in the judiciary act of 1789. Legal adviser to the president and the cabinet. There i say the attorney generals role is to provide legal advice as to the right answer under the law. The third role is the policy role which is Law Enforcement policy, which includes immigration policy. There you are a political subordinate of the president and it is okay to propose policies that are politically advantageous. I have to say, that was casual conversation. The point was, i was pursuing a strong immigration policy even when i was deputy, long before the election was on the horizon. In traveling around the country, visiting the border, paying a lot of visits to california, i saw how important the issue was. I thought the administration had to be more responsive to it. Yes, there was a political benefit to it. I just have a short time left. Chairman, our new chairman, congratulations, graham, noted ten years of work by a number of us on the committee on a bipartisan basis to deal with criminal sentencing and criminal reform. The First Step Act signed by the president around christmas is a significant departure. I learned as many have that the approach, the get tough approach that we imposed with 100 to 1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder did not work. The number of drugs being sold on the street increased. The price of the drugs went down. The people being incarcerated went up dramatically and we learned the hard way. That was not the way to deal with the issue. Now, we are trying to clean up 10 years later, 25 years later from the 100 to 1 disparity. I voted the wrong way on 100 to 1. Now, i know in retrospect. You have made some hard line statements about this issue and criminal sentencing in the past. Many of us believe on a bay partisan basis, we have to look at this anew and not repeat these mistakes again. I would like to hear your assurance that you have learned as i have that there is a better way, could be a more effective way and that as attorney general you will help us implement the First Step Act and design the second step . Absolutely, senator. From my perspective, the very drakonian penalties on crack were put into place initially because when the crack incident first hit it was like Nuclear Weapons going off in the inner city. A lot of the Community Leaders at that time were saying, this is killing us, you have to do something. The initial reaction of dr drakonian penalties was trying to help those communities. Over time and now the same leaders are saying to us, this has been devastating, generation after generation of our people are being incarcerated, have been incarcerated and lost their lives because of this and you have to change the policies. I think that we should listen to the same people we were listening to before. I supported generally strong penalties on drugs, because not just crack, because i felt the money involved was so high that you needed something to counteract that. I also said, repeatedly over the years of the drug war, that i felt that the head of the snake is outside the country. The place to fight this aggressively is at the source more than on the street corner. I used to say, we could stack up generation after generation of people in prison and it will still keep on coming. So i always felt that, and i support an adjustment to these sentences and the safety valve and so forth. To me, the core larry is that we have to start thinking and using all our national forms of power in the sense of our diplomacy and our economic leverage and so forth to get better results overseas. So, for example, now, fentanyl is the new crack and fentanyl analogs are the new crack coming in from china. Across the Mexican Border . Correct. At ports of entry, 90 . Correct. So thats a longwinded answer to your question, which is, i understand that things have changed since 1992. I held on a little bit longer to keeping strong sentences maybe than others. Part of that was, i wasnt involved in the business anymore. I wasnt at the Justice Department looking at reports and studies, learning about Different Things in the country. I was arguing with the fcc about telecommunications rules. So mr. Barr, that was a great answer and it was longwinded. Okay. Senator lee . After this, well break until 12 15. Sandra you have been listen tog questioning on capitol hill. Dick durbin, the latest senator to question the ag nominee. We expect ted cruz, the senator from texas will be up next. We will take a quick minute break and be right back. Wday us. We earned a lot of va benefits with our service. But the va home loan benefit is a big one. If you want to use it to get cash, call newday usa. Va loans are all they do. And dont let less than perfect credit hold you back. Even if youve been turned down for a va loan by your bank, call newday usa. Theyve been given automatic authority by the va. They can often help veterans when other lenders wont. By refinancing up to 100 percent of your homes value, you could take out 54,000 dollars or more. You could use that money to pay Credit Card Debt and other expenses, plan for retirement, and get back on your feet financially. Need money for your family . Call newday usa right now and use the va home loan benefit youve earned and deserve. Go to newdayusa. Com, or call 18774235739. Bill we are back. Senator mike lee, the republican from utah. I was encouraged to note in your testimony in 1991 you identified this as an issue. When you testified before this committee, you criticized what you described as the speed trap mentality of forfeiture. Your point was that, quote, agencies should not feel that just because any seize money they are going to get the money, closed quote. Now, since 1991, i have seen our government, our Law Enforcement agencies, actually move more toward this sort of speed trap mentality, rather than away from it as many of us would have preferred. Too often, Law Enforcement agencies, have too strong an incentive to use civil Asset Forfeiture in a way that lines their own coffers outside of the relevant appropriations process. Let me just ask you the question. Do you think that the speed trap mentality is a problem . If so, is that something that you will work to address within the department of justice if you are confirmed . Yes. I think constant vigilance is necessary, because there are incentives there that should be of concern in administering the law. I understand that there are people who are concerned about it, have some Horror Stories. People at the Justice Department have been trying to clamp down. Attorney general sessions put out guidelines that were supposed to address that. I havent gotten into it myself. I plan to get into it and see what the Horror Stories are and where the problems and potential abuses are and also whether attorney general sessions guidelines are providing sufficient protection. At the same time, i think it is a valuable tool in Law Enforcement and the state and local Law Enforcement offices are partners. It is very important to them. I want to make sure we strike the right balance. Once i have a chance to review it, i would be glad to come up and talk to you about that. Thank you. I appreciate that. I understand that its a tool that many consider valuable but a tool that can be considered valuable for some of those same reasons, something thats considered valuable to the government can in many instances jeopardize an individual right that is protected under the constitution. We have to be careful of that, when you refer to the partnership that sometimes takes place between state and federal authorities. This is sometime where we see it abused. In the case of procedure known as equitable sharing, where sometimes state law might prohibit the use of civil Asset Forfeiture under certain circumstances. In those circumstances, those state Law Enforcement agencies might work with federal Law Enforcement for the specific purpose of evading state law that would otherwise prohibit that. I hope thats something you will look into as well. Lets talk about antitrust for a minute. Along with senator klubuchar, i chair the antitrust subcommittee. As im sure you are aware, there are a growing number of people who take the position, embrace the viewpoint that we should use antitrust law to address a whole host of social and economic harms to, among other things, ensure that companies respect the First Amendment or to prevent Large Companies from becoming too big or to shape labor markets or conform industries to a particular aesthetic or achieve some other broadly defined social interest. I would like to know what your view is on their. Are you a believer in the sort of big is bad mentality or do you gravitate more toward the idea na our antitrust laws are there to protect consumers and should focus on consumer welfare and problems that consumers face . Generally, thats where i stand. The purpose of the antitrust laws is to protect competition. It is competition that ultimately redounds to consumer benefits. At the same time, i am sort of interested in stepping back and reassessing or learning more about how the antitrust division has been functioning and what their priorities are. I dont think big is necessarily bad. I think a lot of people wonder how such huge beau he moths that now exist in Silicon Valley have taken shape under the antitrust enforcement. You can win that place in the marketplace without violating the antitrust laws. I want to find out more about that dynamic. In some circumstances, a company that becomes too big has market dominance that impairs consumer welfare anticompetitively. In other circumstances, it can bring about lower prices and increase competition. I assume you wouldnt disagree with either of those statements . No, senator. As you know and as several of my colleagues have mentioned, President Trump signed into law legislation i have been working on in one way or another for eight years and was pleased to team up with senator grassley and senator durbin and senator booker and others to work on that over the course of many years. As you know, the attorney general has an Important Role under the First Step Act in appointing members to something called the independent review commission. That independent review commission will make recommendations concerning which offenders might be eligible for earned credits under this legislation and which programs will be approved. When we drafted this legislation, there were some members who were concerned that whoever was the attorney general at the time of this laws passage and implementation, might be able to undermine the effectiveness of this law by appointing members who didnt agree with or believe in the objectives of the bill. Will you commit to me, mr. Barr, that you will appoint people to that independent review commission who are honest brokers to decide which offenders should be eligible and which programs should be eligible to participate . Yes, senator. Thank you. Are you familiar with the ashcroftsessions policy, namely the policy requiring prosecutors to charge the most significant, ready approvable offense . Yes, senator. Tell me how that should best be balanced out with the discretion of a prosecutor . Most frequently with the discretion of a local u. S. Attorneys office. Well, i was going to say the best way of balancing it out is to have a supervisor who is able to approve departures from that policy based on specific circumstances. There are countless different per mutations of facts that might justify a departure from it. I think it is best handled by supervisory people. I also think it has to be looked at centrally. I am not saying each needs to be approved centrally. There has to be son mme monitor. One of the things that led to the sentencing guidelines was big differences in the way the laws were being applied and enforced around the country. I think we need to try to strive for as much uniformity as we can. You intend to continue that policy . Yes, unless someone tells me a good reason not to. If im understanding you correctly, you are saying if you do follow it, you will defer to the judgment of the office in question in the case of determining when to not charge the most serious readily provable offense . No. I wont defer to my sub bar den nats. Im not going to say i will defer to my subordinates. There might be a case i disagree with. Ill assert myself on it. I see my time has expired. We will take a recession to 12 15 and start a recession when we come back. Bill there we have two hours in the book and many more to come watching the confirmation hearings of william barr. He is expected to many could out have the commit at this time on a vote and go before the Florida Senate as he stand here. A couple of things we have been remarking on and commenting on during the testimony here. Lindsey graham early on, do you think this is a witch hunt referring to mueller . No, i dont think mueller is involved in any witch hunt. I thought that was interesting. The other comment, saying the barr and the mueller family are close, suggesting socially they are close in the washington, d. C. Area. Sandra he went on to say, i believe it is vitally important that the special counsel complete lis investigation. Lindsey graham, the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee there in the senate ahead of this said he will be challenged, william barr and he should be challenged. Dianne feinstein said she was concerned. Barr had a large sweeping view of president ial authority and might undermine muellers work. Barr went on to pledge that there will be no political interference with the Justice Departments work. Bill i think two of the things that came out on the Democratic Senators Patrick Lahey and dick dush durbin suggesting this memo he wrote 18 pages of length seven or eight months ago whether he was trying to influence the president and getting the job as a. G. He called it ludicrous to think an 18page memo written would get the president s attention. He said i have not criticized the russia probe. With regard to the comey letter in 2016, he said he disregarded normal practice and had no chase but to correct the record in reopening the investigation days before the National Election in november, 2016. One other point, dick durbin asked him why he wants to do this at age 68. Remember, he was going down the sunset of his career. You talked about his Opening Statement. He thought he and his wife would go off into a pleasant retirement. He said, i thought i could help in this circumstances. And asked whether he would kowtow, and he said he would not be bullied by anyone. Sandra he said his ali allegiance will be to the American People and this is how it should be. Alan dershowitz is joining us. We continue coverage on capitol hill here. What do you think you have heard so far . It is a home run so far. I think the goal at this point is to get a Unanimous Committee vote even the democrats who were critical and raised questions seemed to be satisfied with his answers. The 18page memo was a brilliant memo. It is absolutely correct on the constitutional law and he assured the members of the committee that although the constitution gives the president the authority to fire comey, to do whatever else the constitution authorizes the president to do, that the president would, however, be violating his constitutional obligation to see that the laws are enforced if he acted in a selfserving way. I think he has given be all the right answers. The majority will vote him in. I think there is a substantial chance that some or all the democrats would or should join. Un an imminentity would be good. He referred to his first confirmation hearing. Bill why would a former a. G. Craft a memo like that this past summer . Well, it was the right thing to do. He felt very strongly, as i did, and what i put in two of my own books, it would be a terrible mistake to investigate a president for obstruction of justice for per performing his constitutional duty, to fire the director of the fbi or recommend the pardoning of casper wine burger and five other people. He had committed himself already to that as the a. G. For first president bush. He feels strongly, as i feel strongly, that a president is not above the law. It is the law under article 2 of the constitution that the president may pardon and may fire and you cant both engage in constitutionally protected activities and also be guilty of a crime. That would raise serious problems. He did the right thing. He sent him to the right people, to the Deputy Attorney general and lawyers within the department, because he wanted to make sure that they didnt go down a path that he thought would disserve the rule of law and the interest of the United States. I think he has explained that very satisfactorily and effectively. Maybe not to all the democrats. This is a time where bipartisan support would be so important. If he got confirmed unanimously or near unanimously, this would be one of the first times since the election that we have seen bipartisan support for somebody who deserves bipartisan support, because he performed with great distinction as attorney general and between that time and this time he has been a lawyers lawyer. Thank you, sir. Alan dershowitz observations after the first two hours. Thank you, sir, from florida. For more, lets bring in bret baier and Shannon Bream. Juan williams is hanging out as well. Bret, ill start with you. The hearing of william barr 27 years ago was described as unusually placid, before cable tv. I think we could say 27 years later, the description probably still fits so far. Thats true, bill. Its amazing. He was brought into that job by a voice vote. Two of the senators on this committee actually were in that hearing the first time. I think after this, you look at this and he is a consummate professional. He has been around washington for a long time, was assistant attorney general, Deputy Attorney general and attorney general. He has handled himself like he has been there before and he will be there again. I think a couple of things that struck me. One, i think professor dershowitz is a little optimistic that any democrats will vote for him in in current political environment. I think it is possible but it doesnt seem likely. I do think that when he said, i will not be bullied into doing anything i think is wrong by anybody, whether it be the editorial boards, congress, or the president. Im going to do what i think is right, was kind of cutanddried. Answering questions that he is going to stand up to this president when he has to but he is going to follow the law as he did when i was attorney general the first time. Sandra shannon, william barr was questioned by senator lahey about the memorandum, some have said it looks like a job application. Went on to answer that question and said thats ludicrous. In his Opening Statement, he said that memo did not question the core issue of the special counsel nor did it suggest that a president could never obstruct justice based solely on public information. How did he do in his defense of that memo for so many law make terse that took issue . They would respect the explanation that he gave if they were being bipartisan. It is not unusual that somebody like that would put together a memo like this and weigh in. He said, nobody asked him for it. He felt it was pours to speak out about the way he saw this going. He didnt get to the heart of special counsels investigation about russian collusion. He said, if you are going to go down this path to attempt to build an obstruction of justice case against this president based on these facts and what i publicly know, i dont think it is going to be a winning case. A lot of folks have said it shows a thorough, reasoned conversation about this. It should go in the plus column. Before that memo broke, i got a tip that it was going to go public. I was told he met with the president and was offered the job to become the nominee. It was after that he flagged for the administration for the president , by the way, i wrote this memo a few months ago. It was likely to come up. It is almost certain it will come up. It shouldnt be a problem but it is going to be ferreted out. He knew it would be something he had to discuss. What im told by somebody very, very close to this process, is that the memo did not come to the attention of the president until after he was offered the job. He said, listen, im in my 60s now, i could just retire. I care about the department have the thats why i am doing this. Otherwise, there is essentially no reason for me to stick my head into the meat grinder of this whole legal process. I think he defended himself in a way that should be acceptable regardless of the side of the aisle they may be on. Bill it is interesting to see the relationships and how they come public. I remarked, the barr family and the mueller family are close. Juan williams, what strikes you . What do you think the headline is of the morning . Obviously, what we are dealing with is whether or not he will allow the Mueller Investigation to go forward and not just go forward, bill but also that the document will be made public, that it wont be edited. We know that rudy giuliani, the president s lawyer, has spoken about the possibility of editing that document. The big news is the one that you are been discussing and that is his statement that this 18page unsolicited memo was not a job application. From the democratic perspective, i think there are lots of people that think he was campaigning for the job as it came out and what shannon just reported, the president never saw this memo. We have also seen reporting that many people in the president s league the office were sent copies of the memo in addition to people at justice. I think from a democratic perspective, people are still questioning whether or not he is being forthcoming. Of course, the democrats dont want Matt Whittaker to stay in that job. They are very open to getting someone as established as barr in there. There didnt seem to be a lot of pushback. You see interviews where they get fired up. This is not one of them. I agree with you. They dont see any advantage in stopping what looks like a runaway train. Thank you juan, thank you, shannon, thank you, bret. Sandra other big news at the white house. President trump set to meet with lawmakers over the government shutdown. Both sides accusing the other of playing politics. The latest on the talks coming up. British Prime Minister theresa may, we are watching what happens in brexit, in london today. What does that mean for the uk, the eu, et cetera . Well get to that after this coming up. Back to the barr hearing in the moment. The president meeting at the white house with regard to the shutdown. John, good morning. What do we expect . Reporter good morning to you. The president will be meeting early this afternoon, about 12 30 at the white house with a number of members of congress, democrats and republicans were invited. We understand it will only be republicans as todays gathering of a couple of democrats that were invited to attend. One said they had an Important Committee assignment they had to keep and the other said, well, if that person is not coming, i dont want to be the only democrat here. Reporter the white house is promising future meetings. They plan to invite the problem solvers caucus. The president telegraphing his position this morning. The increasing urgency to do something about Border Security with a tweet this morning saying, quote, a big new caravan is heading up to our southern border from honduras. Tell nancy and chuck that a drone flying around will not stop them. Only a wall will work, only a wall or steel barrier will keep our country safe. Stop playing games and help or country. The president said he would happily embrace blame for the shutdown. He is now pointing the finger of blame at democrats. Listen here. The government remains shut down for one reason and one reason only, the democrats will not fund Border Security. Our safety, our National Security. Reporter however, the American Public sees it a little bit differently. 53 of respondents blame President Trump and the republicans for the shutdown compared to 29 who blame the democrats. Here is why the president is hanging in mere. 42 of respondents now support a border wall. 54 oppose. Those numbers are coming closer together. Take a look at this. 87 of republicans support it and thats why the reason why the president continues to have his heels dug in. He traveled back to new orleans with the present yesterday, and said the president is definitely dug in deep. Hes not budging. I think he understands what most americans understand, that its ludicrous to think that you can secure a 1900mile border without barriers. Its laughable on its face. The bottom line this morning, its almost 1150. There is no movement on any of this, there is no end in sight. Not even the very faintest glimmer of a light of the at of the tunnel. Bill something else. Thank you, john. Nice to see you there, sir. Good morning, that good afternoon. Sandra all eyes on kuppercaseletter hill as he certifies before the committee. Lawmakers grilling the former ag on his views on the investigation and president ial powers. They are taking a quick recess, we will have more reaction ahea ahead. Do you believe mr. Mueller would be involved in a witch hunt against anybody . I dont believe mr. Mueller would be involved in a witch hunt sandra fox news alert, high drama as Britains Parliament gets ready to vote today on the brexit plan for leaving the e. U. All signs point to a no vote rejecting the deal backed by Prime Minister theresa may. Benjamin locked on my call is life in london. With a big day shaping up, they are. Absolute, sandra. Weve only got three hours left until this major, historic vote. In fact, the Parliament Just behind me. Mps and theresa may are trying to persuade people on the festival with her, but it seems unlikely. This is make or break for theresa may. This is make or break for brexit. For last of the two half years, theyve been trying to negotiate for the e. U. To come to some kid of a divorce deal. So when the slabs on 29th of march, they can move apart as friends. They discussed all the issues including trade relations, security sharing, Immigration Rights, and that 47 billion settlement fee. But the deal is disliked by practically everyone in parliament, and around the country. It is almost certain, as you pointed out, to be rejected this afternoon. Its a huge blow to the Prime Minister. Critics on one side say that it keeps the u. K. Too closely tied to europe, while on the other side those who are totally against brexit see this as an opportunity to overturn it altogether and rejoin the e. U. This is really about numbers, though. If theresa may loses by more than 150, or deal appears dead in the water. Itll be hard to move on. If she loses by less than that, by double digits, she has a chance to perhaps go back to the e. U. And tried to get more concession. And bring this deal back, perhaps, in the coming weeks. Its unclear at this point how much it is going to lose by. At this point, she also is admitting that the deal is not a great one. That was a compromise, and the main thing at least recently does not allow the u. K. To do its own tray dealings outside of the e. U. At the moment shes not sure how this plays out. She is three days to come up with plan b if she loses, and that could be no deal. It could be a hard brexit. It could be a second referendum. It could be a general election. At this point, no one quite knows. A fascinating few hours here in london. Sandra . Sandra that crucial foot. Benjamin hall, thank you. Bill back here at home, in a few moments the ag nominee william barr continues taking questions from senators, from some and want to be the democratic nominee. Stick around is that confirmation hearing continues right after this refinance your home and take out 54,000 dollars or more to pay Credit Card Debt, or just put money in the bank. It even lowers your payments by over 600 dollars a month. As a veteran, youve earned the powerful va home loan benefit that lets you refinance up to 100 percent of your homes value. And with home values rising, that can mean a lot more money for you and your family. And because newday usa has been granted automatic authority by the va, they can say yes when banks say no. And theyll do all the va paperwork for you. We all know some of lifes most important Financial Decisions are made right here at the kitchen table. So, if youre a veteran and need cash, calling newday usa could be one of the best decisions youll ever make. Go to newdayusa. Com, or call 18774235734. Bill before we say good night, on the state ten years ago, the miracle on the hudson. Check it out. Sully sullenberger landed a packed u. S. Airways flight on the hudson river after a catastrophic bird strike. Both engines were lost, and he calmly told air traffic control, we are going to be in the hudson. Meaning the river. 155 passengers and crew on board braced for impact, and 90 seconds later, this is the scene. You get the splashdown between manhattan and new jersey. The fairies and the commuters helped to rescue everybody on board, and that was a great dayr new york. It was a great day for america. Ten years ago today. A lot of heroes that day. A cold day. Ten years ago all right. Thank you very much for doing this. Our coverage of the barr confirmation hearing continues on outnumbered. Melissa fox news alert, the confirmation hearing for President Trumps attorney general nominee, william barr, set to resume just minutes from now. Mr. Barr facing lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary committee, answering a range of questions from whether he will protect the special counsel to how he will handle any potential interference from the white house. Plus, mr. Barr defending his decision to write a memo critiquing the Mueller Probe and even discussed his opinion of robert mueller. Do you believe mr. Mueller would be