Consequences, were also watching this. Getting ready, you see them live there for chuck schumer, where the senator is expected to ask to slam the brakes on taxes until Democrat Doug Jones gets to town. Chances seem slim, but it all comes just hours before President Trump makes his final big push for his plan. We have a very, very busy hour ahead. But we start with alabama and the shockwaves still being felt right now after doug jones victory over roy moore. Heres the top three things you should watch for today because we are. Number one, will roy moore concede . He didnt last night. He said he wanted to sleep on it. As he wakes up this morning, where does he go from here . What is the republican reaction . We are getting some in. They were set to meet if roy moore had won, obviously, that didnt happen. So the scramble in the senate is something we are looking for today. And how will democrats capitalize if at all . What are they going to try to do . And how does that unfold . We are talking about all those things over the next 60 minutes here and starting on the ground in alabama and over at the white house. I want to begin in montgomery with gabe gutierrez. The hardest working guy in tv right now. What are you hearing about a roy moore potential session now that a recount is no longer in the realm of possibility . Reporter good morning, hallie. When will roy moore concede . He surprised folks last night by saying this was not over, that he still planned to, you know, possibly contest the results of this election. But when he came out and said that, the result was much closer. It was a. 70 difference. Now a. 50 difference. So Election Officials here say an automatic recount wouldnt kick in unless it was onehalf of a percentagen poi e point. The doug jones camp is elated. Lets listen to what he had to say last night. Folks, ive got to tell you, i think that i have been waiting all my life and now i just dont know what the hell to say. At the end of the day, this this entire race has been about dignity and respect. When the vote is this close, it is not over. And we still got to go by the rules about this recount provision. Weve got to wait on god and let this process play out. Reporter so now were waiting to see exactly when the concession will happen. Hallie, speaking with several moore supporters last night, we did get the sense that they are still very upset how this went down from the perspective of the republican establishment. They really blame senator Richard Shelby for his comments that he was writing in an unnamed candidate. And that alabama deserved better in his words. They really saw that as a betrayal. And they said they are so upset with just him but Mitch Mcconnell, something we have been hearing from over the last couple of weeks of the race. This anger towards the gop establishment, hallie. This is definitely setting off the battle even more than we have seen, gabe, thank you. Well talk more about the shelby factor and the writeins coming up with steve kornacki. First to Kristen Welker at the white house. Kristen, roy moore supporters in alabama arent the only one who is are upset about this. I know that you and i have this piece out about new reporting of what is going on inside the white house, including we just learned a bit of a staff shakeup. Reporter thats right. Lets get to the staff shakeup first and then we can get look at some of the fingerpointing going on behind the scenes here at the white house. We just learned moments ago that Omarosa Mangault Newman resigned. She resigned yesterday to pursue other opportunities. Her departure wont be effective until january 2018. We wish her the best in future endeavors and are grateful for her service. She was the Communications Director for the office of public liason and did a lot of the outreach to the Africanamerican Community here at the white house. In fact, she was in mississippi over the weekend when the president stop there had for the opening of the civil rights union. No indication over the weekend she was going to resign, somewhat a surprise, but maybe not to folks behind the scenes at the white house. Well drill down on that today. But in terms of the fallout from alabama, in terms of what they are saying here behind the scenes at the white house, a lot of finger pointing particularly for the political shop, bill stepian, who heads the operation, a lot of folks here say that he perhaps dropped the ball. Should President Trump have endorsed roy moore in the first place . Thats type of debate that is going on behind the scenes here. But there is some real concern that this may be an indication that President Trumps political strength has been damaged and certainly calls into question go ahead, hal. Well, donald trump is a political toxin we are told right now. Reporter look at the numbers in alabama. Stunning. In terms of his popularity there, a state that he won overwhelmingly just a year ago. 48 approve, 45 disapprove. Its the intensity of the numbers. 1 strongly disapprove. Speaking of the numbers, you are teeing us up nicely for steve cokornacki to walk us through the data. I know you have been buried in it at the interactive board of 30 rock. It seems to be that kristen talked about the low Approval Ratings in alabama, but what seemed to have made the difference were people, suburban women, specifically, and members of the Africanamerican Community not voting for roy moore. Yeah, exactly. When you are a democrat and win in alabama, you see how narrow the margin is, you cant say it is one group, one thing, was phenomenon. Everything had to come together and it really did for jones last night here. The highlights, though, of what his coalition entailed. Number one, it was black voter turnout, particularly in this part of the state in the city of birmingham as well. You had, not just strong support, i mean, the exit polls said 96 of black voters going for jones, but you had turnout, a share of the electorate of those black was higher than when barack obama ran. That turnout alone is not going to do it because barack obama had great black turnout in alabama and he still got crushed. If youre a democrat, you need defections from traditionally republican voters. And we saw two very different types of things going on with this. Number one was in the suburbs, particularly a great example is right outside of birmingham. Shelby county. Republicans should be getting 75 in this county. Roy moore only got 56 . This counts as a catastrophe to republicans to only get 56 . You should be getting a huge number of votes out of here. Again, if he just performed, if moore just performed as a republican, normally does in shelby, he could win the race statewide. That could make a difference as you saw in the suburbs and across the state. One other thing quickly, the two college counties, lee county, where Auburn University is, donald trump got almost 60 of the vote here. Roy moore could barely crack 40 . We saw it across the state in tuscaloosa, young voters, collegeaged, a little older than college, young professionals, another big defection from the Republican Party there. Steve, you mentioned shelby county, and it brings up the shelby factor. Richard shelby coming out over the weekend saying hes writing in somebody, he did not back roy jones or roy moore. That seemed to play a factor in the writein part of this. Yeah, we can show you statewide, 22,000, about 2 of the vote, is a writein vote in this election. This is an unusually high number, this is a very high number for alabama. You can see here, its basically the margin in this race. I think, look, in the president ial election in 2016, there were about 20,000 writein votes. That was also very high. A lot of people didnt like the choice then. A lot of them obviously didnt like the choice last night. The question here was, i think, it probably was where these were typically republican voters. A good guess is they were. Does that mean they otherwise would have voted for moore . Who knows. Maybe they were close to voting for jones and the writeins saved them from doing that. Theres a lot of commentary looking at the margin and said, thats the difference. I wouldnt be so sure we know how the writeins would have been split if they had a gun to their head. Steve kornacki, such a pleasure to have you on the last couple of days. I really appreciate it. Good luck to you later in the day. Well be checking back in with you. But before we do, i want to talk about what youre seeing on the screen right now, Rod Rosenstein is testifying in front of the house judiciary committee. This could be interesting and there could be fireworks. We are keeping a really close eye on that and will dip back in to bring you news as it develops. But when we talk about the alabama race, because that is our other big headline, there are clearly winners and losers here. So i want to show you what we think the winners and losers are. Winners include, of course, doug jones and the democrats. That is an obvious one. Africanamerican voters, big turnout, big enthusiasm. Well have a big commentary on why the Metoo Movement may have come out ahead of alabama. And Mitch Mcconnell says well put him in the win category now. Because it saves the republicans from having to answer for roy moore every day in 2018. But the republicans are in the loser column, too. Because now action in the senate just became a little bit more difficult with doug jones in. Other losers in this race, donald trump, after endorsing roy moore. Hes trying to save face as Kristen Welker mentioned tweeting, hey, he backed Luther Strange originally. And youve also got steve bannon and the rnc in that column, too. Well talk about steve bannon with peter king from new york who graciously agreed to join us on the show. He tweeted that the gop must do the right thing and dump steve bannon. What do you mean by that . And isnt that not your call to make . Well, listen, im a voice within the Republican Party. More important than that, im an american. And i was not putting that out as a political tweet. It was governmental. I dont think steve bannon adds anything positive at all to the dialogue in the country. I dont know who can identify with him. And to see him on the stage this week with a big American Flag behind him, he looked like a disseveraled drunk that wandered off the face. For him to be a major voice in politics is wrong. We should shut him, we should cut him off. I would say this whether he was a democrat or republican. I dont see what he adds to he encourages Racial Division. Again, with the charges against roy moore, theres no way of knowing whether they are true or not. The fact is they were serious allegations. And roy moore never answered them. He gave some halfhearted denial on the sean hannity show. And bannon was attacking the allegations. To me, it was wrong. And after charlottesville, he was saying Racial Division could be good for the country. This is wrong. He has no role in the party or politics as far as im concerned. Covering steve bannon in thissed a mrpgs and during the campaign, i can only imagine that hes gleeful that a republican like yourself, someone considered an establishment republican, is taking aim at him. Isnt this what he wants . Im not the phony type from Goldman Sachs like steve bannon. I grew up on the street of new york, my father was a community cop, im no establishment guy at all. I will fight anybody and steve bannon posing as some kind of above the establishment, hes more establishment than anyone but a phony. If he wants to fight, im all set for him. I dont care about that. But the fact is, i also want President Trump to succeed. And this summer, i was one of the first to call to steve bannon to be removed from the white house. He was undermining the president , he was undermining the president s foreign policy. And he did not belong in the white house. We spoke to one of your colleagues on the other side of the capital, bob corker. Heres what he had to say. Listen. Ive tried to reach duke shelby this morning to let him know how proud i am of his state and for what he did. And again, i know this is not something that i know were supposed to cheer for our side of the aisle, if you will, but im really, really happy with what happened for all of us in our nation, for people serving in the senate, to not have to deal with what likely we were going to have to deal with should the outcome have been the other way. Congressman king, are you really, really happy that doug jones got elected . Well, im certainly glad roy moore lost and the only alternative to that was doug jones. Ive been there several times on the show before the election, asked if i would support doug jones and i said no. My wife is in georgia and told me the last thing people want in alabama is a guy from new york telling them what to do. But i made it clear i was opposed to roy moore. Senator shumer is in the next couple of minutes calling for republicans to push back the tax bill vote until jones gets seated. You can see senator schumer there. Will the gop consider delaying a vote on the tax bill until after doug jones gets to town . Im sure they wont. Im going to vote no on the tax bill, but on the other hand, the rules are the rules. And doug jones, i dont know when hell be sworn in, but listen, it was the other way around, the democrats would do the same thing. So im not saying change the rules or bend the rules, even though, again, im against the tax bill. So i hope it goes out. Congressman peter king, thank you for joining us on the show with that perspective. Appreciate it. I want to bring in now members of the panel, folks joining me here to talk about everything that has happened over the last 24 hours. Weve got john archibald, come a columnist from aol. Com, tamron keith, host of the npr politics podcast, and carol lee, nbc National Political reporter joining me here onset. Guys, thank you for being here. Lets blast through the winners and losers here and what were watching for today. John, i want to start with you because you have written now about the Metoo Movement and what this election means for them. Right. You know, last night as things were getting close, i had to write two columns ready. And the column i wrote about roy moore winning was the most depressing thing i had seen because it essentially said what this says to women in alabama who have been abused, who have been assaulted, who have been harassed, who finally had a moment where they feel like they can open up and talk about it. Or basically are being told they dont want to hear you. But, on the other hand, a doug jones win gives people hope. And its quite a different statement. And theres a lot of relief from people here. I want to bring in tamara and carol on this. One of the pieces we are watching come into play is hearing congressman king say he wouldnt support pushing a tax bill vote down the road. But when you look at what is going to happen come 2018, this election, again, has consequences here for both democrats and for republicans, tamara. And certainly, the margin is much narrower. It was already a narrow margin. Already tight. But how often does the Vice President have to go over to break the tying votes . Hes not always someone a guaranteed yes vote for the next year. I was on the phone overnight with the white house sources, people close to the administration, talking about what this all means. And talking about how this plays into policy now. And there is an acknowledgment that yet, this is not ideal, but obviously i think bob corker, susan collins, these are people not afraid to criticize the president and may be the most powerful republicans in congress right now. Right. And the president really needs them for his agenda. And they have, as you said, been on the fence. And this does not help. Look, this is two things, there are policy implications in terms of the president s legislative agenda, obviously, and then theres a perception implication. In the sense that the president is undoubtedly weakened. And if people arent afraid of him he doesnt want to say that, carol. He doesnt want to admit hes weak. He is. Hes a twotime loser on this one race. One special election. One special election. And so, you nope, if they get through tax reform, what next . At what point do republicans really start and you hear it with the attacks on steve bannon, because that is not something we were hearing a few days ago. Now everyone is freer to do it. Speaking of attacks on steve bannon, the former Vice President said this who is very close with doug jones. Heres what the former vp has to say. Probably some of the most happiest people today are the republicans in the senate. And the divisiveness that was i know the majority of the members of the senate on the republican side and they are decent people. Hey, john. Is joe biden right . Did republicans dodge a bullet here . Oh, yeah, i absolutely think so. Having roy moore in your midst is a poison that would have affected everybody. It would have dragged them down there. And lets remember the senate seat was open in the first place is because donald trump appointed Jeff Sessions to be the attorney general. Is that, when we look back, after this administration, is that going to be among the greatest regrets of Donald Trumps administration . Its certainly going to seem like for a number of reason thats the thing that sticks. It just keeps haunting him. Its alabama, the doj, the special counsel. Its everything. Its recusing himself and then the special counsel being appointed. Jen archibald, thank you for joining us from alabama after a late night. And Rod Rosenstein is expected to be in a fiery hearing, probably mostly focused on the special counsel investigation. We just got through some of the opening statements. Remember, rosenstein, directly oversees the special counsel inquiry with bob mueller. And ahead of that hearing, the Justice Department has sent congress 19 new pages, 90 new pages of Text Messages exchanged between an fbi lawyer and an agent we now know was pulled off bob muellers team. A lot of the messages were pretty tough on donald trump. I want to bring in our nbc news justice correspondent Pete Williams who is monitoring the rosenstein hearing. We talk with you and Christopher Ray with the oversight hearing. Jeff sessions asked about the special counsel probe when they were on the hill. What do you expect to see today, particular lip givly given rose role . Reporter a lot about the special counsel investigation from republican who is are concerned it is politicize. Lots about President Trump from the democrats, hallie. And will rosenstein have satisfactory answers, pete . So far it seems as though neither side has been overly thrilled. Well, i think that is right. Hell say theres an independent counsel investigation going on into how the clinton email investigation was handled, but now there are these new emails that have become public from an agent who worked on that and was assigned to Robert Muellers team. Heres a look at those. The emails were exchanged between fbi agent peter strock and an fbi lawyer lisa page, the two were romantically involved. Most were exchanged before either party secured its nominee. But many of them were harshly critical of donald trump. One sent by page to strock reads, god, trump is a loathsome human. On july 14, strock wrote, its clear hes capturing the white poor voter who is the mainstream republicans abandoned and all but named in the request for the almighty dollar. The couple shared proclinton views telling page, god, hillary should win 1 million to nothing. After she was nominated, he wrote, congrats on a woman Mom International airported for a woman in a Major Political party. About damn time. And after announcing Jeff Sessions for tone general, he said sessions for ag. To which page responded, good god. When he remove d him from the team last fall. This shows that theres bias in the clinton email investigation and the mueller investigation. But the ranking democrat jerry nagler is saying theres nothing wrong about saying these things. It may be bad judgment, but its not unethical. It doesnt even violate Justice Department rules on political activity. And theres been a call from republicans for a special counsel if you are investigating. But you have to have evidence of a crime to call for a special counsel. And while this may be bad judgment, theres no evidence that any laws were broken. The president s legal team calling on that Second Special counsel to oversee the doj. Pete, ill let you get back to watching that hearing for us and monitoring. Well bring you back with any news. I want to bring in our panel. Security analyst matt miller, the former chief person for the Justice Department. And he was just in the process of delivering his open statement live, thats Rod Rosenstein. Well hear from rosenstein. It looks like from the movement on the photographers on the house floor there, hes getting ready to begin. Getting sworn in now. So hes going to speak for a little bit. And then we expect the real fireworks to start, matt. Yes, absolutely. The texts will be a big part of it. Something fishy is going on at the Justice Department. These texts if you look at them, the fbi agents are allowed to have political opinions, the doj employees have political opinions, but this affects their work. Theres no sign yet, of course, it is under generation, but what is strange that has happened over the last 24 hours. Theres an ongoing inspection generation about whether the agents acted appropriately. But thats not all they did. They brought reporters over to the Justice Department last night, gave these texts to reporters, these are career fbi agents who have due process rights, and they leak them out to the press in advance of the hearing. Why do you think that . I dont know if it was to get rosenstein a place on the committee, or if the doj is committed to undermining the bob mueller investigation. Either way, it is something doj never does and its a pretty inappropriate thing for them to have done here. You worked at doj . And i never did anything like this. There is a growing sense that this effort is, while in some ways, legitimate to scrutinize, a roundabout way to attack the russia investigation. And you cant separate the two. The president s legal team has tried to. And you just cant. They overlap. They are related. And theres a growing perception that it is all just designed to do, rather than go correctedly at the russia of Robert Mueller, to go around it. Well, let me ask you this, how are you advising Rod Rosenstein. If you were still there, what would you say . Follow the rules, dont leak anything out about the investigations or what they are doing. And defend the work of career agents. Defend the special counsel and say, look, if there are questions, you need to let the special counsel speak in court and stop the political attacks on it. He needs to handle this the way the previous attorneys general handled the situations. The multiple Congressional Republicans called for an investigation into the doj, Second Special counsel basically on top of the doj, on top of the fbi. If, presumably rosenstein will, get asked about this, does he flat out say, nope, no need for it . Can he say that . He can say theres an investigation going on and thats the correct venue. Heres the call for special council. They dont look into things that the department on the hill doesnt like. They look into criminal violences. If all the republicans are complaining about inappropriate texts, people having attended Hillary Clintons victory party, none of those are criminal acts. People on the hill are unhappy about political issues. Rod rosenstein right now is delivering his opening statement. Then when he takes questions, thats when we expect things to get thwarted. But heres a little bit of video from an hour ago, donald trump jr. Leaving a hotel in washington and headed back over to the hill. This is a little bit of deja vu. We just saw this last week, but trump jr. Again going presumably to speak to members of the senate intelligence. Remember last time . He said, is he going to use that again with the argument in the senate . I think he probably can. He will say it again. He will. Heres the thing, he almost certainly that almost certainly was an inappropriate assertion but he asserted it so it worked. He can get away from it with the hill committees because they dont have to go to court. They are talking about not relying on the Attorney Client privilege. It would take so long to litigate it in court. It would be months and months from now. It comes up when hes interviewed by bob mueller and mueller wont put up with that. The two of you nodding. Thats exactly right. When we went before the house, why wouldnt you try to get away with it . Just like matt said, it would take months for them to enforce this. So, of course, hes going to try to do it. Anyone representing him would tell him to do that. Its not just donald jr. Waiting on the staff. People in the interviews are speaking about this investigation. He says, all the white house interviews are over. Now, i will tell you in private conversations with sources in the white house, they expected the interviews to be wrapped up by the end of november to early december. The Campaign Hopes the official Councils Office brings its probe to an appropriate conclusion. Your reaction . You know who hasnt been interviewed yet but the special counsel . Donald trump . Thats right. This investigation wont be going. Mike pence hasnt been interviewed. We are nowhere near the end of this. That statement is not a statement of hope. Thats a statement saying, Robert Mueller, hurry up. We want to go back to what youre looking at the screen, the first question to deputy Rod Rosenstein. Well listen to how this is unfolding for a minute. Would that be a justify in your mind to reopen the investigation . Mr. Chairman, we are certainly anticipating the outcome of that Inspector General investigation. As you know, thats been ongoing for some time. Im hopeful it will be concluded in the next couple of months. And when we get those results, well take appropriate action. I dont know exactly what the findings are going to be, but its always appropriate for us to relook at the negotiations. In that decision by fbi director comey, you announced some practices that i think you thought were inappropriate actions by the former director. Do you think those actions on his part would merit further investigation into how that whole thing was conducted . Mr. Chairman, the special general was conducting an investigation into that handling of the clinton email investigation. And i believe that the matters you have referred to are part of his investigation. The memo that youre familiar with that i provided reflects my personal opinion. Its not an official finding of misconduct. Thats the Inspector Generals job. Hell reach his verdict and as you know, my opinions are wellknown. Are you aware of prior efforts by the judiciary committee, this committee, to undow and restrict the ability of the Intelligence Committee from doing its job in protecting National Security . Im not personally aware of, no, sir. Are you aware that we have surveillance over the legal questions that government raises . I respect the canswer. Given the jurisdiction and history of providing the Intelligence Community with the tools it needs, why would we in the words of the department attempt to, quote, dismantle section 702 of our nations most important Surveillance Program . I certainly would hope that wouldnt be the case. I dont know who made the statement youre referring to. I know the department obviously has expressed its opinion about the reauthorization, which is critically important. I expect there are differences that need to be authorized. We agree with you that section 702 be reauthorized. And we believe that the Civil Liberties of the american citizens need to be protected and the standard imposed on the examination of information about u. S. Citizens incidentally gathered as a part of the section 702 program with the surveillance of nonu. S. Citizens outside the ey being looked into by agents of the federal bureau of investigation without a warrant. Im not aware of that being appropriate in any other type of investigation that they might be conducting. We are not terrorist attacks and National Security. We have clearly distinguished that and are looking at crimes that have occurred and are being investigated by the department of justice. But under the procedures that the American People would expect for them to follow to protect their Civil Liberties and other circumstances. Mr. Chairman, as you know, i have had the advantage over the last eight months of having a role in overseeing our National Security operations. I discussed this with director ray. And i can give you a detailed explanation that would take a couple minutes, but i would be happy to give you details. The bottom line is it is critical, the National Security, to query the data. If the query provides a hit to read an email and do it that way, i discussed what happens is typically their leads that are not necessarily based on proximate cause and to followup on it to put two and two together to connect the dots. There are a lot of leaves that any Law Enforcement person wants to pursue. But we have protections against them pursue iing the protection people in unreasonable searches. This is a search of the United States system. Well, its a query as a con. I dont see how you further distinguish the emails from a search. If i can take a couple minutes, i can explain to you to explain this publicly. Hypothetically, for example, a local Police Department received a call that somebody larged a quantity of hydrogen peroxide. Theres nothing illegal that the person did buzz t it causes concern. General rosenstein, let me interrupt you. Because the specific instance you are citing was cited to us in our discussions with the fbi, and that very specific answer is what we are looking for. What we are trying to a avoid is a sichindication to a lead t could implicate National Security. Thank you, my chair expires. Now we are going to recognize mr. Adler for five minutes. Thank you. On monday Ranking Member cummings and i wrote you a letter, sir, about the majorities Ongoing Investigation into the yes or no, will you commit to ensuring that the minority we receive equal access to materials that you provide to in committee in the future . Yes. And i believe we my understanding is that information may have been provided back in november. Thank you. I have a lot of questions. The majority of this committee, the white house and President Trumps private attorneys wont coat for the number of Hillary Clinton matters. I think we can benefit from your regulations of work. The regulations say the attorney general or in your case the acting attorney general will appoint the special counsel when you determine a criminal warranty is if warranted, or two, this is a conflict of interest to the department. The first part, when he or she determines the criminal investigation of a personal matter is warranted, is that part of the regulation that is optional . No, that is not. Before you can address the special counsel matter . Yes. Reporter and this acquires that this is being held in the clinton investigation . Im not going to comment on any investigations in normal course. Before we made a determination, we would kunconduct an appropri review. And i assume your answer would be the same if i asked you about the fbis interaction with fusion gps. It would be the same for anything. Presuming for a moment that the department conducted an initial threat for criminal investigation, and theres no ongoing criminal investigation under this presumption. Could you or the attorney Jeff Sessions appoint the special counsel to look into these matters . No. Theres been no crime that the department decided to meet if theres no evidence of a crime, do the regulations permit you to appoint the special counsel . No. Thank you. According to the office, the office of the special counsel mueller in the existence of methods on july 17, 2017, those are the facts you sent us last night. He said mrs. Strutd could no long longer be on the case. You said that you had not seen any good cause. Several months have passed then. Have you seen good cause to special counsel, mule her . No. If you were ordered today to fire mr. Mueller, what would you th do . I would fire him if i have seen good cause. And you have seen no good cause. Correct. Thank you. The federal agencies decided not to cooperate in request of the democrats. Can you clarify your current position on responding to letters from the minority . And are you concerned that the first opinion justifies policy of stonewalling by the administration . My position, congressman, is that we make every effort to respond to any legitimate inquiry. A member of congress, we prioritize inquiries provided by the chair on behalf of the committee, but make an effort to respond to any inquiry. We get a lot of letters. Im sure. So i apologize for a delay. You have to prioritize after letters of the chair and letters from the minority . Our goal is to respond to them in a reasonable manner. Ill take a look at it, congressman, but as i said, without regard to what the law may require, our policy is to try you would take a look at and encourage the office of leave o to i would take a look at it. Okay, in section 702, the bill that this committee reported specifically said, basically said, where you are doing a Counter Intelligence or foreign or terrorism investigation, you dont need a warrant to query section 702 data. But when you are conducting an investigation of domestic crimes, then like any other investigation of domestic. The danger you were referred to is taken care by the bill. And i endorse the comment of the chairman to that effect and you should take a look at that. I urge you to take a look at that. Thank you, i yield back. Thank you. Recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. Smith, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Rosenstein, i am concerned that the special counsel may be casting too wide of a net. That hes trying to catch all the fish in the ocean, not just the soviet sharks. And if the special counsel were to attain information, not directly related to this investigation, would he need to retain your authority to expand the investigation . Yes, he would. Okay. Has he ever asked to expand this investigation . I appreciate that question, congressman. If i could explain briefly, there are a lot of media stories speculating about what the special counsel may or may not be doing. I know what hes doing. Im appropriately exercising my oversight and responsibilities. And so i can assure you that the special counsel is conducting himself. I have the scope of the investigation. That really wasnt my question. My question was about the desire to expand the investigation beyond the original scope. Well, the con stillation uil consultation knows what they are supposed to do. Has he requested the scope of the original jurisdiction . The scope of the original jurisdiction is publicly set forth in that order, but the specific matters are not identified in the order. So i discussed that with director mueller when he started. And we have had ongoing discussion about exactly what is within the scope of this investigation and to the extent there was ambiguity about it. He can include those in his investigation. So hes asked to expand the scope and you have given him permission . Yeah, youre characterizing it as an expansion. Its a clarification in most cases, but he understands that this is a special counsel. Its not an independent counsel. And im accountable for what they are doing and need to know what theyre doing. Yeah. Clarification may be an expansion. We may be caught up on the meaning of those words, but regardless, the American People have a right to know if the original jurisdiction has been expanded. Do you agree with that . The difficulty, congressman, is that i have a responsibility not to talk about what is being investigated. And that is why the original order doesnt identify any persons or charges. But we know what is under investigation. Im not asking you to go into specifics or name names or talk about this subject, just whether or not the request was made to expand it. You said you clarified his jurisdiction. I assume that would involve an expansion as you suggested. I want to make sure im 100 accurate. And ill need to check and get back to you as to whether or not we considered particular issues to be a clarification or an expansion. But whatever it may be, im responsible for. And i know what is investigated. Please do get back to me on the difference between those two. Do you feel that the special counsel is authorized to investigate the personal finances of the trump family members . Congressman, that would implicate a concern that i have expressed that we just dont talk about what is under investigation. Dont draw inference, pro or con. We are not going to discuss it. Do you think the personal finances come under the jurisdiction of direct involvement of a russian interference with the election . I certainly appreciate your concern, congressman, and i hope you appreciate my position. If i start answering what is and isnt, ive gone down that road that i just dont want to go down of discussing what is under investigation. There have been four persons charged. Those are known. And ordinarily the department of justice, thats what we publicize. If we charge somebody with a crime, we publicize it. If we dont charge anybody with a crime, we dont talk about it. Some of the people charged have been charged with crimes not directly connected to russian interference with the election. The crimes with which theyre charged are publicly known. Okay. So in other words, you do feel that the special counsel can go into the personal finances not connected to russian interference . I hope ive been clear, congressman. Im not commenting on the scope of the investigation. All right. What about, can the special counsel investigate the personal actions of staff unconnected to the russian interference of the election . Only if i determine that its appropriate for them to do so. Okay. So that is your determination, not the special counsels . As i said, congressman, i know what hes doing. If i thought he was doing something inappropriate, i would take action. Right. Let me just maybe summarize by saying that i think the American People deserve to know who is being investigated and why. I have one final question in my last couple of seconds here. As you know, and as many of us know, in the lawyers code of ethics, attorneys are supposed to avoid not just the actual impropriety but the impropriety itself. They directed these to the obama or Clinton Campaigns. Dont you think that creates an appearance of propriety . And im not asking if you think they can do their jobs, but dont you think it appears to be propriety . The gentlemans time has expired. Im not aware of propriety. We have regulations in the special counsel subject to all the departments rules and subject to oversight by the department, including the Inspector General. Im not aware of any violation of those rules by the special counsel employees. So you dont think it creates the appearance of impropiety . Appearances to some extent is in the eye of the beholder. We apply the departments rules and regulations and make determination. We have career ethics adviser who is provide us counsel about that. Thank you, mr. Rosenstein. Thank you, mr. Chair. The chair recognizes the woman from california, miss lawman, for five minutes. Thank you,rosenstein. You were a career attorney. You spent your whole life working for the people of the United States as a career attorney until you were asked to fulfill the current function that youre performing. As a u. S. Attorney, for the past 2 je12 years, i was a care attorney. So let me ask you, i in taking a look at the individuals who were working on the matters that we are discussing, are they career attorneys . They are not permitted to discuss the details in the department that he believes will be helpful. We are looking at the principles in the Civil Service format. I remember back in 2008 there were allegations that the department of justice had used politics as a basis for hiring and firing. And the office of the Inspector General and the office of professional responsibility issued a report outlining the inpropriety of using politics and personnel in the decisions. One of the things departments nondiscrimination includes the department of Justice Needs to seek to eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, political affiliation, age, and the like. So wouldnt that policy be governing the actions of the individuals working on this . You couldnt discriminate based on this whole list including their political affiliation . Congresswoman, one of the advantages i bring to the job is having been around the department for awhile, ive seen mistakes made in the past. That is precisely one of the issues ive spoken with our appointees that we are not going to do that. We are not going to consider political affiliation. Thank you very much. You know, i wanted to ask about a couple of concerns. You may or may not have responsibility for this. If so, just let me know. I am concerned that the department has had a change in position on certain important Voting Rights issues. One has to do with the purging of roles in ohio. The department had previously argued against purging those roles because the National Voter registration act prohibits the purging of voters simply because they havent voted in a given period of time. And its my understanding that the department is now arguing that ohio can purge individuals from roles even without evidence that they have moved. Additionally, the department had argued that the state of texas i. D. Law had discriminated against individuals and that the department has changed its position on that. And the law is currently drafted probably excludes up to 600,000 americans from being able to vote because of the draconian i. D. Laws. Can you give us any insight into why the department changed its position on these key rights issues . Im generally familiar i dont know the details of both of those matters, but as a general matter its important to understand that the ultimate determination about what the law means is made by a judge. Department officials obviously need to make a decision based upon a good faith analysis of the law, what position to take. New leadership takes a different position. But thats based on a good faith analysis and there may be some ambiguity in these provisions. Were responsible for making our determination just like the Prior Administration made theirs. But ultimately it would be up to a judge to decide what that law means. Let me just ask a final question. Its my understanding that under the order of appointing that may arise directly from the investigation which would include crimes uncovered while he is an investigating the main mission. So for example, if he is looking at the russia investigation and he finds out the person hes looking at committed a bank robbery, he isnt required to ignore a bank robbery. Would that be a Fair Assessment of his responsibilities . Its a Fair Assessment. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. Gentleman may answer the question. Those issues are worked out with the department so in the event he came across evidence that was not appropriate for him to prosecute, he could refer it to other components of the department. So we wouldnt allow Something Like that to slip through the cracks. We would root it to the appropriate prosecutor. Mr. Shabbot for five minutes. Thank you. Mr. Rosenstein, you already indicated that mr. Struck was removed for impropriety. Its unclear to me how others mentioned by the chairman and mr. Smith were not removed for impropriety as well. Let me ask you first all, i assume that the team you put mueller put together was going to be fair. Correct. Let me review facts about the socalled unbiased group of people he pulled together. 9 of the 16 have made political contributions. To be fair, lets go through them in alphabetical order. First greg anders gave a thousand dollars to hold the seat previously held by barack obama. He gave 2600 to democrat senator gillibrand who just this week is led the charge demand trump resign. And gave zero to the trump campaign. Rush atkinson. He donated to the Clinton Campaign last year, again zero to the trump campaign. Third, kelly freeney contributed to both obama campaigns and Hillary Clintons campaign. Zero to the trump campaign. Next, andrew goldstein. He donated 3300 to both obama campaigns. Zero to the trump campaign. Fifth, elizabeth preluger who worked for ginsburg and kagan, contributed to both the obama and Clinton Campaigns and zero to trump. Next, james quarrels. Hes contributed to democrat president ial campaigns of dmany. But he contributed over 20,000 to Democratic House and senate candidates. And again gave zero to trump. Seventh, jeannie ray. She represented Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in several lawsuits. Shes donated 16,000 to democrats, contributed 5400 to the Clinton Campaign, and zero to the trump campaign. Eighth, brandon van isgrak contributed to those to elect democratic candidates. Contributed to the obama president ial campaign. Gave nothing to trump. And andrew wiseman, he donated 2300 to the obama campaign, 2300 to the Clinton Campaign. And zero to donald trump. Hes also the guy who praised the holdover acting attorney general susan yates for defying President Trump on the travel ban. Now, my question to you is how with a straight face can you say that this group of democrat partisans are unbiased and will give President Trump a fair shake . Well, congressman, i think its important to recognize that when we talk about political affiliation, that all demonstrates political affiliation. Issue of bias is something different. Ive discuss eed this with director mueller. He and i recognize we have employees with political opinions. Its our responsibility to make sure those opinions do not influence their actions. And so i believe director mueller understands that and hes running that office appropriately. Recognizing the people have political views but ensuring that those views are not in any way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office. Well, when you say hes running it appropriately, i think putting them in the first place you know when this whole russia was involved in our elections flap surfaced and you picked Robert Mueller to lead the investigation, i was at first encouraged. It seemed like a serious matter that deserved a serious investigation. I assumed that many of us did that mr. Mueller would pull together an unbiased team. But rather than wearing stripes as umpires and referees might wear, i would submit that the mueller team overwhelmingly ought to be attired with democratic donkeys on their jerseys or im with hillary tshirts. Certainly not with lets make America Great again. And i think thats a shame. Because i think the American People deserve a lot better than the very biased team theyre getting under Robert Mueller. And i think its really sad. I yield back. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas for five minutes. Deputy attorney general, thank you. Welcome and thank you for your service to the nation. I am shocked and baffled the way some in the right wing media and some of our friends on the other side show such contempt for the department of justice and the fbi and so much skepticism or mistrust of the russian government. Let me briefly review for the record, the fbi and doj put away Timothy Mcveigh who killed 168 americans. Klansmen who murdered civil rights workers. The unabomber. Organized crime family kingpins. Panam 103 bombing. A World Trade Center bombing in 1993, twa 47 hijacking. Beltway snipers. Klansmen who killed four little girls in the 16th Street Church in birmingham. And of course on the other hand, the russians are known for shooting down a civilian airline,