Twitter, i dont just tweet about hamilton, ben said this shows two strands of the investigation which we thought of as separate things are really the same thing. That is, the obstruction of justice question is essentially, is trump a compromised russian asset, maybe unwitting, maybe witting. Thats the same question that has to be asked on the obstruction of justice investigation. So whereas last week i would have answered your question the same way chuck did, look, you can break off obstruction pretty easily, mueller could write an interim report, its not that easy. Hearing you put the question, is the president an agent of a foreign power, can you believe were having this discussion . I think its mindblowing, quite honestly. It does underscore two things, number one, how important this Mueller Investigation is to the future of our democracy. This is something republicans wanted to shut down and call a witch hunt and here we now know, because of mueller, the president S National Security adviser has pled guilty to a felony involving the russians, the president s Campaign Manager pled guilty, manafort, and now that plea is being unraveled because of the same stuff, cooperation with the russians and so on. It also demonstrates the importance of that election back in november because now finally congress is going to fulfill its madisonian responsibilities and start to ask these questions and not just have it be within the shrouded Law EnforcementCommunity Run by bob mueller. Cynthia, can you believe this is the conversation . No, i cant. Every once in a while i say, no, that cant be right, its too scary. It really is, its threatening to our democracy. To pick up on the obstruction question, in addition to Benjamin Wittes obstruction is the collusion, there is the other aspect that the president is completely unpredictable. As pressure is applied to him, he has a tendency to do really stupid things which can be obstruction. We saw that first with the firing of comey. We saw that with flynn. Weve seen that in a lot of different ways. If something happens with a member of his family, with roger stone, he may reimbursemeact in way that he blows up and is even more dangerous. I see the potential, given his behavior and demeanor, to continue. Do you chalk that up to the fact that hes run a Family Company and is not used to living with consequences of his actions . There is no evidence that hes ever lived with any consequence of any action. And couple that with the fact that hes a bully and a liar, thats the recipe for future obstruction. One thing i would say about that, though, he may be a liar, but god, i hope hes not a russian asset. Oh, me too, absolutely. I think we all share that. That would be so devastating for the country if we found that out. Im with you. Thats why we need to know the facts. Thats why barr is so important too, because he is i mean, like it or not a lot of this is going to rest a lot of it is going to rest on him. Look, i think the point cynthia made about obstruction is exactly right. I dont know how you wrap the obstruction piece up while the rest of the investigation is going, given the way the president behaves. The obstruction of justice investigation of the president has expanded. The president called Matt Whitaker after the sdny investigation and put pressure on him and asked why more wasnt being done to rein in the prosecutors who are investigating the president , the president s family, the president s personal business. Thats probably the most damning evidence weve seen against the president. You could make a plausible case his intervention with mike flynn was because he thought mike flynn was a good guy, or the strong article ii argument on behalf of the president. Theres no argument for the president to intervene in the sdny investigation other than to stop investigation of his own criminality. The prosecutors in the Southern District of new york, they saw that report, and theyre not going to let that go. Theyre not just going to be investigating the president of the Campaign Finance crimes. Theyre going to be expanding that into whether he tried to obstruct their investigation. Whether they do it or it goes to a new prosecutor or mueller does it, i guarantee we have not heard the end of that report. Its amazing, he gives this interview on fox where he says, you know, i think you have to go after Michael Cohens take a look at Michael Cohens fatherinlaw and see whether hes committed various crimes. Then the trump defenders say, they always say take a look at the guy who is ratting me out and so forth. But the president is different than everyone else. He cant even be indicted because he controls the prosecution power. Everyone else, we can all do that if were under suspicion, but the president can do it because he has an awesome tool to go after anyone, prosecute remember and investigate to the hilt Michael Cohens fatherinlaw. Whats amazing is he doesnt learn anything. You would think, after everything youve been through in this investigation, that somebody would have gotten through to him that you cannot threaten other witnesses. And yet he has not learned that basic question. Thats why i think hell do more, if theres more pressure applied to him, because he learns nothing. To bring it back to the barr hearing, one of the interesting answers that we havent discussed is this question of whether the president could pardon someone in exchange for trying to silence their testimony, would it be a crime. Its an important question, most of the conversation about barrs memo has been around his argument that fire jim comey would not in itself be an act of obstruction of justice. But he also made the case that the president had a right to fire people who were witnesses against him. But what barr made clear today is if the president was pardoning someone to silence him, that would be a crime. Thats so important because we know the president s attorney, john dowd, had conversations with Paul Manaforts team, with mike flynns team, the president has dabbled with the idea of pardoning roger stone and others. I thought it was very interesting that the potentially incoming attorney general was willing to endorse that. Now, if hes asked about the specific factual nature of the president s behavior, im sure he wont answer that, it would probably be irresponsible for him to do so. But that was an important thing for him to say, especially given we know the president s behavior and we know, there have been reports that the special counsel is investigating the president s offering of pardons. Lets take a quick shot of the hearing room, if we can, just to show you. It is remarkable that were supposed to be back under way in seven minutes. Its also remarkable just how much food can be consumed by that many people. But theyre all taking advantage of this break. High above that room is our own ari melber, our chief Legal Correspondent and host of the beat on this very network. Ari, notable in this conversation, in addition to what were talking about where mr. Barr is concerned, is the fact that our nations former solicitor general just said, god, i hope the president isnt a russian asset. I heard it. It is the particular situation we are in that hangs over this entire hearing, which in some ways is why this is always, in the worst case scenario, felt potentially bigger than watergate, because its an international watergate, because its a National Security watergate, because its a watergate that implicates a former nucleararmed power that already, according to this mueller probe, was actively taking these measures to both intrude in the election, interfere, and try to coopt americans. All of that hangs over here. I think thats why this week feels very real. When you look at what happened behind me, and as you said, well see how quickly the senators refill their seats, one thing that we havent touched on much had our coverage which i think is significant is bill barr trying to explain or clean up his conflicting accounts of the James Comey Firing and the james comey handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Theyre obviously linked, because during the campaign barr backed up comey, and afterward, trump said he fired comey because of the way he handled clinton, i backed trump up. That firing remains an issue in the mueller probe. Barrs offered reason for the discrepancy is because he thought originally comey had doj approval for what he did but of course comey made very clear when he announced the findings of the Clinton Probe that he acted alone, thats what made it such a big deal. That was a discrepancy today that i think well hear more about in the future questioning. I also want to go to chuck rosenberg, chuck, it struck me today, and i was thinking about you, Lindsey Graham, as chairman of this committee, started his presentation with dual attacks on the department of justice and the fbi, and further, ill quote Gregg Jarrett on fox news last night about the fbi, quote, this is an allpowerful, out of control agency, rogue agency, and frankly its time that it be halted in its tracks, reorganized, and replaced with a new organization. It is time that the fbi be halted. Let me presume, chuck, you disagree with that premise. I do, brian, that is deeply and maliciously false. And other words come to mind that probably would not you would prefer me not using on television. Let me tell you this about the fbi, because i had the privilege of working there. They are deeply tethered to the rule of law and to the constitution. In particular with respect to counterintelligence investigations. They are among the most highly regulated investigations in our federal government. The means of overseeing them are multiple and manifest. For instance, just for a counterintelligence investigation, in the executive branch you have oversight through the foreign intelligence Advisory Board and the president s Civil Liberties and oversight board. Congress overcea ceassees the w. The Inspector General oversees the work. In some respects the media oversees the work, although not formally. And of course anything the fbi does, they will have to account for in the years to come. The rule books, the manuals, the guidelines for counterintelligence investigations are significant, theyre complex, and they are adhered to. And so the things that the fellow on fox had to say or the new chairman had to say are deeply wrong. Theyre offensive. Theyre malicious. And they undermine the work of the men and women of the fbi. It really breaks my heart to hear. Cynthia, can you believe in your time in and around the law that were witnessing this direct a frontal attack on the fbi and its reputation . No. And i would echo, it breaks my heart, because the people who work there are so wellmeaning and work so hard for very little pay to try to make this a more perfect union. And its offensive. And i have to tell you, Lindsey Graham opening this hearing, going after these agents, you know, this is a guy who apparently no longer has any commitment to the truth at all. Hes mr. Trump. And during the campaign he called him a racebaiting, xenophobic bigot. He called him a cookook. He said he was the worlds biggest jack ass. He called him one of the worlds biggest liars. I have no tolerance for him at all. He lies with impunity. Im sick of him. Neal katyal, somewhere in the United States someone is hearing the words fbi at their door. Theyre serving a warrant, doing their jobs, somewhere out there an fbi agent is a witness in a courtroom acting as the governments investigator. Thats right. President trump has accused people who cooperate with the fbi as being rats, i cant imagine anything more demoralizing to the prosecutors and agents. President trump is going after the fbi and saying they shouldnt have had this counterintelligence investigation. Theres a hypothetical that maybe some people are going to climb his wall and arm the United States. And here the fbi has information that the president may be a compromised russian asset. What would he want them to do . Of course its the most important National Security question facing the question. Of course you have to have an investigation. How could you do anything else . Anything else would be undemocratic, unamerican, and irresponsible. Here is the problem. People think, oh, this is just washington, its a mess, you just kind of want to dismiss it. But recognize this. To bring up your to follow up on your point about fbi agents in cases, all over the country we are relying on these men and women to bring criminals and drug dealers to justice. And if you go into the courtroom and you say, this fbi agent says this criminal did x and nobody believes him, these guys are all going free. So it isnt that this is a washington problem. This loss of trust in the fbi and at the same time when we have a loss of trust in the church, at the same time that we have a loss in trust in congress, its not a washington problem. Its a National Problem that is ripping the fabric of our country. And so when trump says this and when Lindsey Graham says it, we have to push back. We cant just say, oh, its washington. Its not just washington. Were losing something in our country. And a good president , i dont care if its george bush, barack obama, they build up the institutions that are under threat. They dont win at all costs. They say, whats the right thing to do long term for the good of the country. Matt, one second, this is an interesting conversation were witnessing on the screen. Again, were minutes away from the hearing getting gavelled back into order. Sheldon whitehouse on the right, the democrat from the state of rhode island, is having we would love to have a microphone on this, is having a spirited conversation with Lindsey Graham, the new chairman of the Judiciary Committee on the left. Whitehouse, a former u. S. Attorney himself, is an aggressive questioner and he will again start off the next half of this hearing. Matt, go ahead. I think youre right, its a very interesting conversation. Hes about to be up, and he has signaled to bill barr what he plans to ask him about. He had a private meeting with him, he sent him a letter saying hes going to press him very much on the disposition of the Mueller Investigation when its done. And i suspect what you see Lindsey Graham is giving him a little bit of preemptive pushback and a little sign of how hes going to exercise his discretion as chair. One thing about the republicans, they have a much more capable chairman now. The Lindsey Graham that you saw at the kavanaugh hearing, he was completely able to hijack the hearing when the witness got in trouble, thats what you saw at the beginning of this hearing. There are real concerns about this nominee and some of his actions. You saw chairman graham try to kick off the hearing by a little bit hijacking the hearing and instead attacking someone else. It wasnt a witness against the nominee at this point. It was the fbi. And as cynthia and neal both point out, it was a very cynical move that along with the president s delegitimatezation of the institution, it will have long term ramifications and impacts on this country. What you saw was a sin scall at a bit a cynical and strategic way to redirect attention. Theyre about to gavel back in. The hearing will come to order. And i recognize senator whitehouse. Thank you, mr. Barr. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This is my first chance at a Committee Hearing to congratulate you on taking the gavel here. We worked well together when you were chairman of the crime and terrorism subcommittee and i hope that that will continue here. Mr. Barr, welcome. Did you make it a condition of taking this job that Rod Rosenstein had to go . Just to be clear so were not bandying words here, did you request or signal or otherwise communicate in any way that you wanted Rod Rosenstein to go . No. The president said that the decision on the deputy was mine, anything i wanted to do on the deputy. So we will find no william barr fingerprints on rosensteins departure . No. Rod and i have been talking about his plans. He told me that he viewed it as a twoyear stint, and would like to use, if im confirmed, my coming in as an occasion to leave. But we talked about the need for a transition. And i asked him if he would stay for a while. And he said he would. And so as of right now, i would say theres no he has no concrete plans, i have no concrete plans in terms of his departure. Were going to sort of play it by ear and see what makes sense. And you have not undertaken to run him out in any way . Absolutely not. That leaves an opening at the dag position, whenever you work this out. Can you tell us, since attorneys general are very often defined by the immediate appointments around them, chief of staff, dag, criminal chief, what are the characteristics and qualifications that you will seek as you fill particularly that position but all three that i mentioned . Im sorry. The deputy and what was the other one . Chief of staff and criminal chief. There is already a criminal chief. I know, yes. Theres already a Deputy Attorney general, but hes leaving. Well, for a deputy i would like someone who is a really good manager and who has had Good Management experience running government programs. And i want a first rate lawyer and someone whose judgment i feel comfortable in. Experienced in the department . Not necessarily. But experience in government, at a high level. When we met i gave you a letter that you have seen, just so none of these questions would be a surprise, so i hope it is no surprise to you that im going through some of them. If youre confirmed, what will be the departments rule regarding communications between white house and department of justice officials regarding criminal and investigative matters . Who at doj will be allowed to have those conversations at the white house and who at the white house will you entertain those conversations from at doj . Ive looked through the existing regime. And my instinct is to keep it, maybe even tighten it up a little bit more. I remember when george w. Bushs administration was coming in, my advice was start tight and then as you realize who has judgment and so forth, you can go back to they went the other way and it was a bad day for attorney general gonzales in the hearing room when that was brought to his attention. What is your understanding right now of who at the department of justice is authorized to have communications with the white house regarding it depends it depends what it is. On criminal matters i would just have the ag and the deputy. And what do you think the rule is now in the department . I think thats what it is. Okay. So if the reports are true that as chief of staff, mr. Whitaker was involved in conversations with the white house about bringing criminal investigations against the president s political enemies, that would not be consistent with your understanding of that policy . Well, it would depend on, you know, what his understanding is with the attorney general i mean the attorney general was recused. So hard to step into the shoes of a recused attorney general on that matter, right . Well, i dont know what the Communications Related to. Im not really sure what youre talking about. Okay. I hope youll become sure when you get there, because there is a fair amount of i think questionable behavior that has gone on that does not reflect well on the department, that i hope will get your attention. I also ask you about the special counsel investigation and to give us a clear exposition of how that memo came to be, who you talked to, when, who was involved in it. There are a number of questions about that letter that at this point you have not answered. You have, i gather, told the chairman the names of some dozen or so people whom you contacted, as i understand it, once the memo was written. But its not clear. Do you have any objection to answering the question is that i wrote as questions for the record so that the committee can understand who you worked with, who you talked with about this idea, who you worked with in preparing the memo, who helped you with things like citations that people at your level dont often do yourselves, and where it was circulated and vetted and what edits were made and so forth . No, i have no objection to that. Great. Just to be clear, no one helped me write the memo, and i know how to do legal citations, which i do. A lot of people know how, which doesnt mean they do it. I do it. You might want to get out of that habit, you may have other things to look at. I like to have some fun in life. If you think citations are fun, youre not going to have the problems some other nominees have had. My letter to you also asked about the bork order that set out a series of protections for the thenindependentcounsel operation. Do you have any objection to any of those rules or principles applying and should we see those rules and principles, which i gave to you then, as being more or less adopted into the statement that you made earlier about your protection of the Mueller Investigation from political interference . I looked at them. I think the current regime is what im happy with. In other words, i wouldnt i wouldnt change the current rule. Those rules were put in place at the end of the Clinton Administration. And sort of i think reflects the back on back experience of the reagan bush years and then the clinton years and then sort of Justice Departments thinking under the Clinton Administration as to how to balance all the equities. And i think its working well. So anything that you would disagree with in the socalled bork rules, i would ask you to explain that in a followup . In a followup. Okay. Almost in my letter to you i expressed my concern that mr. Whitaker was paid 1. 2 million through what i consider to be a front group that has very little reality to it, and that the funding that came to that front group to pay him the Million Dollars came through another entity that is essentially an identitylaundering operation that has no independent business operation. And the result of all of this is that somebody out there arranged to get over a Million Dollars to mr. Whitaker, and we have no idea who that somebody is. And as i mentioned to you in our conversation, i dont see how the department can do a proper recusal and conflict analysis for somebody when the player who delivered the Million Dollars is still hidden behind the curtain. Is that something that you will help us fix . First, i dont think there was anything wrong done. I dont know that yet, we dont know what the facts are. Just the facts you said doesnt necessarily mean anything wrong was done. What youre saying is that if the ultimate financial backers are behind some entity and the current ethics laws require only the reporting of the entity, youre not really sure where the money is coming from. And that you know, i think that that raises a very interesting point that i think i would like to review with the ethics people and experts in even oge to talk about that, because the more i thought about that, the more i thought that the trick is going to be deciding what kind of entities and how far back you go, because that can be said of a lot of different kinds of entities. Yes. If the departments Money Laundering folks looked at this operation, they would see it as almost amateurish and simple and something quite easy to penetrate. And it would be quite easy simply to ask mr. Whitaker what he knew, to ask whoever is still at f. A. C. T. What they knew, and to ask them to cough up the identity of the donor, and if they refuse to do that, nothing guarantees jobs at the highest level of government who is not willing to provide those disclosures. My first conversation always is, where do you draw the line and also what are the implications for other kinds of entities. Because theyre membership groups, First Amendment, you dont want to disclose memberships and my point was, if your Money Laundering folks took a look at that, they would be able to help show this is something that looks a little different than that. My time has expired. See you on the second round. Senator sasse. I believe filling in for senator cruz next. Thank you, chairman. Thank you. Mr. Barr, i want to commend you for stepping forward. Thank you very much. And i want to say thank you to your family as well for being so supportive in this endeavor. Im really pleased to have all of you here, so thank you for doing that. Mr. Barr, later this month i do plan on reintroducing sarahs law which is a bill that would require the detention of illegal aliens who have been charged with a crime that resulted in the death or serious injury, Bodily Injury of another person. That sounds pretty common sense but ill give you a little background. This bill is named after sarah root. She was a resident of council bluffs, iowa. Sarah was killed by an illegal alien who was driving drunk. That alien had a blood alcohol content of more than three times the legal limit, yet he was allowed to post bond and has not been seen since. Its important to me that congress act to close these loopholes in our immigration system and do better to enforce the laws that are already existing on the books. And i know that attorney general sessions, he had a real passion for this. And he had a strong record of trying to make sure were kreth correcting wrongs in the system. How will you as attorney general make sure that were restoring the rule of law in our immigration system . Well, first, that sounds like a very commonsensical bill. Thank you. And something that i would certainly be inclined to support. I think one of our major problems, as the president says, is that the immigration laws just have to be changed to provide sensible and common sense ways of processing immigration and claims of asylum. Right now this goes all the way this goes back 27 years. We were facing exactly the same kind of problem, maybe on a smaller scale. But congress has to where people are abusing the asylum system, coming in, theyre being coached as to what to say, and then once they come in we dont have the facilities to keep them and theyre released into the population. And this was a big abuse, as i say, 27 years ago and its gotten worse. So we need to change the laws to stop that kind of abuse and enable us to run a lawful immigration system where we process people into the country who are entitled to come into the country and we keep out those that are flouting our laws. And its long overdue. And the president is right that until were able to do that, were just not going to be able to get control over ilLegal Immigration, and it creates a lot of unsafe conditions for many people. Absolutely. And i appreciative your thoughts on that. This is a very important issue. I think all of us understand that immigration is so vital to our country, but it has to be done in the right manner. And for those that are causing Bodily Injury and death to those here in the United States, we want to make sure theyre brought to justice. And in this case, that illegal undocumented was not brought to justice. And i feel a lot of empathy for that family. Ill move into another situation thats really important to iowans. According to the u. S. Department of health and human services, after drug dealing, Human Trafficking is tied with arms dealing as the second largest criminal industry in the world. And it generates about 32 billion each year. The department of justice has said that 83 of sex trafficking victims identified in the United States are u. S. Citizens with the average age of a victim being between 12 and 14 years. 12 and 14 years. Since 2007, there have been over 300 cases of Human Trafficking in iowa alone. And iowa is a very rural state. 300 cases, thats very concerning to my constituents back home. What do you see as the main contributor to Human Trafficking here in the United States, and then how can the doj impact and combat and prevent those heinous crimes . This is an area that frankly wasnt very much on the radar scope of the department of justice when i was last there. I know its and its an abhorrent area of criminality that i know the department and attorney general sessions have been focused on and have put in place various programs and entities within the department to focus on it and work with state and local Law Enforcement on it. Im not sure what the major contributor to it is. Its an area that im going to have to study when i get into the department and see what are the factors contributing to it. Okay, i appreciate that. And as i mentioned in my question as well, drugs and drug trafficking, that is also a very, very big industry. And in fiscal year 2017, 65 of drugrelated prison sentences in iowa were related to methamphetamine. We talk a lot about the opioid crisis, but in iowa it still is meth. In 2016, iowa reported over 1,500 founded child abuse reports related to methamphetamine being found in the childs body. According to the dea, most of the meth available in the United States is being produced in mexico and smuggled across our southern border. How do you see the situation at our southern border contributing to the prevalence of controlled Substance Use here in the United States . Well, as has been pointed out earlier, it is the major avenue by which drugs come into the country. Heroin, fentanyl, all the serious drugs are coming across that border. And again, i feel it is a critical part of Border Security that we need to have barriers on the border. We need a barrier system on the border to get control over the border. And i think obviously theres some places that more of the traffic comes over than others. But unless you have a system across the border, youre not going to be able to deal with it because youll just displace it. If you build a barrier in one place youll just displace it to another. So we need a barrier system across the border to part of that is ilLegal Immigration, but a big part of it also is preventing the influx of drugs. Absolutely. And you stated earlier that really the head of the snake lies outside of the United States. Is there a way that doj can be working with additional ideas, methodology, with other departments, that you might think would help . Yes. This is an area, again, because im out of the government, i dont know how its functioning, how the drug war is being coordinated. But i think justice can play a big role in pushing for partners like the state department, defense department, the intelligence agencies, and so forth to help deal with this. I want to me, not just a Law Enforcement problem. Its a National Security problem. And you mentioned as well that the situation on the border where we do need barriers in place to control the influx of whether its drugs, Human Trafficking, gun trafficking, so forth, do you believe that sanctuary cities play a role in harboring some of those activities . Yes, i do. I think there are a number of sort of you know, of factors that have a hydraulic effect in that they pull people into the United States or induce them to take the hazards of coming into the United States, coming up hundreds of miles through mexico and so forth. And things like sanctuary cities, where they feel that theyll be able to come up and hide and be protected, is one of those factors that i think is irresponsible, because it tracks the illegal aliens coming in. And obviously i think that the main problem with sanctuary cities is that theyre not giving us information about criminals that they have in their custody. This is not chasing after, you know, families or anything like that. This is going after criminals who the state and local Law Enforcement have in custody and not allowing us to take custody of them and get them out of the country. Thats the problem with sanctuary cities. Correct, which could be the situation that edwin mejia, who killed sarah root, we would love to see that young man brought to justice. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Just follow up, senator klobuchar, i wont count this against your time, youre saying you want access to people who commit crimes or are accused of criticizing crimes outside of a status violation . Thats right, senator. Senator klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Barr. I take it as a positive that your grandson has gotten out a pen and a pad of paper to take notes during my questions. Im also impressed by your daughters and they all chose to go into public service. Employees at the Justice Department, as you know, are furloughed or are working without pay. Ive talked to a number of them at home and its an outrage. Very briefly, what do you have to say to them . I, uh, i would like to see a deal reached whereby congress recognizes that its imperative to have Border Security and that part of that Border Security , s a common sense matter, needs barriers. Youre aware that in the comprehensive senate bill that we passed there was literally bills of dollars for Border Security back in 2013 . Im generally aware of that. And that also we had an agreement earlier last year which would allow the dreamers to stay legally, that also had money for Border Security . The point is we need money right now for Border Security. Yes, we including a barrier, walls, slats, anything that makes sense in different areas of the border. In different areas, thats a good point. So president george h. W. Bush said back in 1980 that he didnt want to see 6 and 8yearold kids being made to feel that theyre living outside the law and you were his attorney general. You also said that immigration is not just a link to americas past but its a bridge to americas future. Do you agree with those statements . Yes. I think, as i said, i think Legal Immigration, we have a great system, potentially i think it needs reforming, but Legal Immigration has been good for the United States. Its been great for the country. Thats why we were trying to work on that comprehensive reform. I want to just briefly turn to fbi leadership. The president has made statements accusing the fbi of making politically motivated decisions. Many of us up here and in the senate have confidence in director wray and the leadership at the fbi and believe they can do their jobs without politics getting in the way. Do you agree with that . Uh, im looking if im confirmed, im looking forward to getting to know chris wray. From what i know, i think very highly of him. Okay, thank you. In the memo from back in june, the one comment that senator grassley made, he talked how much the Mueller Investigation was costing. I actually did a little googling here. There was a cnbc report that it could actually bring in more money than it costs because of the wealthy people being prosecuted that manaforts assets could be well over 40 million, i dont know if that includes that ostrich jacket, but do you think thats possible, based on your experience with White Collar Crime . I dont know enough about it. Okay. In your memo, you talked about the comey decision and you talk about obstruction of justice, and you already went over that, which i appreciate. You wrote on page 1 that a president persuading a person to commit perjury would be obstruction, is that right . Yes. Okay. Well, any person who persuades another. Any, okay. You also said a president or any person convincing a witness to change testimony would be obstruction; is that right . Yes. Okay. And on page 2 you said that a president deliberately impairing the integrity or availability of evidence would be an obstruction; is that correct . Yes. Okay. And so what if a president told a witness not to cooperate with an investigation or hinted at a pardon . You know, i i would have to know the specifics. I would have to know the specific facts. Okay. And you wrote on page 1 that if a president knowingly destroys or alters evidence, that would be obstruction. Yes. Okay. So what if a president drafted a misleading statement to conceal the purpose of a meeting . Would that be obstruction . Again, i would have to know the i would have to know the specifics. All right. You would seek the advice of career ethics officials in the department of justice for any recusal, and i appreciate that. And you said in the past that you commended attorney general sessions for following the advice of those ethics lawyers. But you didnt commit today to following that advice, is that right . No, i didnt i didnt commend him for following the advice. As the agency head, he makes his hes the one responsible for making the recusal decision. I dont know why he said locked himself into following the advice. Thats an abdication of his own responsibility. So what did you think about what acting attorney general whitaker did when he rejected the Justice Department ethics advice to recuse himself out of an abundance of caution . I i havent seen the advice he got. And i dont know the specific facts. But abundance of caution suggests that it could have gone either way. Youve committed to recuse yourself from matters involving the law firm where you currently work. Are you aware of any of your firms clients who are in any way connected to the special counsels investigation . Im not im not aware. You know, i to tell you the truth, im of counsel there, and i have one client which im representing, and i dont pay very much attention to you can also supplement. Ill supplement. No problem. Will you commit to make public all of the reports conclusions, the mueller report, even if some of the evidence supporting those conclusions cant be made public . You know, that certainly is my goal and intent. Its hard for me to conceive of a conclusion that would run afoul of the regs as currently written. But thats certainly my intent. Secure elections, you and i had a talk about that in my office. Do you think backup paper ballots are a good idea . This is a bill that senator langford and i have introduced with senator graham and senator harris. I dont know whats a good idea, whats a bad idea right now, because i havent gotten into this area. Ill just tell you, backup paper ballots is a good idea. We can talk about it later. Audits, along the lines of voting, state Election Officials in north carolina, as you know, contacted the Justice Department about the integrity of their elections. The Justice Department may have failed to take action in a timely manner. What steps would you take to make sure these failures dont occur again . Not specifically with respect to north carolina, youre talking generally . Mmhmm. Yeah. As i say, i want to make one of my priorities the integrity of elections. So this is not an area i have been involved with deeply before. When i get to the department, if im confirmed, im going to start working with the people and making sure that those kind of things dont happen. Part of this of course is Voting Rights and our concern about some of the changes in department policy. And i hope you will seriously look at that, because the last thing we should be doing is suppressing voting, and thats what weve been seeing under this current administration. My dad was a reporter, so i grew up knowing the importance of a free press. We obviously have the tragic case of a journalist who worked right here at the washington post, jamal khashoggi, and its of particular concern. So i want to ask you something i asked attorney general sessions. If youre confirmed, will the Justice Department jail reporters for doing their jobs . Umm, i think that you know, i know there are guidelines in place. And i can conceive of situations where uh, you know, as a lasting resort, and where a News Organization has run through a red flag or Something Like that, no knows that theyre putting out stuff that will hurt the country, there could be a situation where someone would be held in contempt. Attorney general sessions had said he was going to look at potentially changing those rules at one point. So i would like you to maybe respond in writing to this, because that was very concerning. Last, when you and i were in my office, we talked about your work with time warner, with this major merger on appeal from the Justice Department. And i just wanted you to commit today to what you committed to me in the office, that you would recuse yourself from any Matters Regarding that appeal. Absolutely. Okay. And as you know, you were on the board of time warner at the time, and you signed a sworn affidavit questioning whether the Justice Departments decision to block the merger was politically motivated, given, and this is from the affidavit, the president s prior public animus towards the merger. Are you talking here about his view on cnn . What did you mean by prior public animus . Im sorry. Can you mmhmm. Can you repeat that . Sure. You were on the board of time warner, and you signed a sworn affidavit questioning whether the Justice Departments decision to block the merger was politically motivated, given th prior public animus toward the merger. Uhhuh. And so what did you mean by that . Um, i mean, the affidavit speaks for itself. In that at that meeting, i was concerned that the antitrust division was not engaging with some of our arguments and i got concerned that they werent taking the merits as seriously as i would hope they would. But i have i have no im not sure why they acted the way they did. Very good. Ill ask you more on antitrust policywise in the second round. I appreciated the discussion we had on that. Its very important. Thank you very much. Thank you. The senator did a good thing by allowing senator ernst to go because she had a no good deed goes unpunished around here. You do have a credit with the chairman so i appreciate that. Senator cruz, youre next. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator holly as well. Welcome to the committee. Welcome to all new members of the committee. Congratulations, mr. Chairman. Were looking forward to the Lindsey Graham chairmanship judiciary theyll make a movie about it im sure. Im certain whatever else happens, it will not be boring. Welcome, congratulations on your nomination. Yet again. Let me say thank you. You and i have visited before about this. But the past two years have been a difficult time at the department of justice. You and i and many on committee hold the Justice Department in very high esteem. I would say revere the department. Its century long tradition of enforcing the law without regard to party and without regard to partisanship. I commend you for your willingness to go back, go back and serve once again. I think that is a good step for the department. A good step for strengthening the department. I would note 27 years ago, when you did this previously, when you were last nominated to be attorney general, i think you may have been about liams age at the time. It was a different time. Then chairman of the Judiciary Committee joe biden said at the time he found you to be, quote, honest, and that you, quote, understand and are committed to the dual responsibility of the office of the attorney general. Chairman biden also said that, quote, this commitment to the Public Interest above all else is a critical attribute in an attorney general, and i will vote to confirm mr. Barr. Senator ted kennedy likewise noted your dedication to public service. Senator Fritz Hollings said, quote, mr. Barrhood a distinguished academic background and extensive experience in private sector as well as in public service. Most important, bill barr is a known quantity. He has done a truly outstanding job as Deputy Attorney general for the last year and a half, during which time he has worked with many of us in this body, earning our respect for his professionalism and competition. And competence. Senator kohl said a refreshing change in the confirmation process and it would be wise of future nominees to follow mr. Barrs example. At that hearing, you were confirmed by this committee unanimously, as you had been twice previously for senior appointments to the department of justice. We all recognize that was a different time. Given the environment were in now, few expect this Committee Vote to be unanimous. I would hope the voices from the past, respected by members of this committee, heard today as well. One of the questions is if i might paraphrase is why on earth would you take this job. And your answer, if i recall correctly, concerned your commitment to both the department and the rule of law. Would you tell this committee in your judgment why the rule of law matters . Why is that important . Well, you know, as our framers said in the federalist papers, the art of setting up a government is to have a government Strong Enough to perform the functions a government has to perform. While at the same time not being so strong that it can suppress its own people. And the rule of law ensures that precisely that the government does not oppress its own people. And when people are accused of wrongdoing, our system essentially gives them the benefit of doubt and gives them rights to bring them up essentially to the same level as the government. And the process we go through is there to ensure that justice is not arbitrary but its done a cording to a set of rules. And the basic protections we have is the rule that applies to one applies to all. That, at the end of the day, is what keeps us all free. That is the protection of individual freedom. And to me the rule of law is exactly that. That we dont allow special rules to go into effect for a particular individual. A rule has to be universalized. Anything we do against a has to be universalized across anyone whos similarly situated. Thats our basic protection. To me, thats what the rule of law is. So i dont want to see a Republican Department of justice or a Democratic Department of justice. I dont want to see a republican fbi or democratic fbi. What we should see, what the American People have a right to see and a right to expect is a department of justice that is committed to and faithful to the constitution and the laws regardless of Political Party and a core lilarry to that is, regardless of whatever partisan interest there might be, would you agree with that . Yes. I would note as well during the Previous Administration there was concern by many, including me on this committee, the Previous Administration and the irs had targeted individual citizens and citizen groups for exercising their First Amendment rights and had abused its power in doing so. The current Justice Department id been dissatisfied with their the degree of scrutiny they had given to that potential abuse of power. Ill ask you Going Forward if youre confirmed to examine that conduct. Let me shift to a different topic. One of the most important safeguards of our liberties is the bill of rights. And the attorney general has a unique responsibility defending the constitution. Can you share the importance of free speech . Of the protections that the First Amendment provides. And even to speak on popular and politically disfavored topics. I think free speech is at the core of our system because we believe in the democratic process and power shifting through the processes of voting by an informed electorate. Free speech is foundational to the ability to have a democratic process. The framers i think believe that the dialectic, the clashing of ideas in the public marketplace is the way to arrive at the truth and that is one function. Another function of free speech is that its the substitute for other means of settling differences. In some ways, its a safety valve. People are allowed to speak their mind. And persuade their neighbors of their position. And i think that performs a very important function in keeping the peace within a community. And if speech is suppressed, it can lead to the building up of pressures within society that sometimes can be explosive. How about your views of religious liberty . Would you share your thoughts on the importance of the rbleligio liberty . And protecting our diverse and Pluralistic Society . Yes. I think i think the framers believe that the our system, they said that our system only works if the people are in a position to control themselves. Our government is an experiment in how much freedom we can allow the people