My Senate Colleagues and i called on the department of justice inspector general, and office of responsibility to investigate the way you have handled the Mueller Report. I wanted them to determine whether your actions then complied with the departments policies and practices and whether you have demonstrated sufficient impartiality to continue to oversee the 14 other criminal matters that the special counsel referred to in other parts to other parts of the department of justice. Now we know more about your you have betrayed that trust. America deserves better. You should resign. I have some questions for you. Is the white house exerting any influence on your decision whether to allow special counsel mueller to testify in congress and when . No. Now youve been clear today that you dont think that any of the ten episodes of possible obstruction that the special counsel outlined is a crime. I disagree. But you seem to think that if its not a crime, then theres no problem. Nothing to see here. Nothing to worry about. With apologies to adam schiff, do you think all the things that President Trump did are okay . Are they what the president of the United States should be doing . Do you think its okay for the president to fire an fbi director, to stop him from investigating links between his campaign and russia . It may not be a crime but do you think its okay . Well, i think the report is clear that no, im not talking about the report or the analysis of whether a crime occurred. Im asking you, this is not a crime but do you think its okay for the president to do what he did, to fire the special counsel to keep them from investigating . I dont think the evidence supports the proposition. So you think its okay . To stop the investigation. Do you think its okay for a president to ask his white House Counsel to lie . Well, im willing to talk about whats criminal. Weve already acknowledged that you think it was not a crime. Im just asking if you think its okay, even if its not a crime. Do you think its okay for the president to ask his white House Counsel to lie . Which look, if youre just going to go back to whether or not, then youre telling me its okay. Let me ask you the last question i have in 17 seconds. Do you think its okay for a president to offer pardons to people who dont testify against him, to threaten the family of someone who does . Is that okay . Uh, what when did he for a pardon to i think you know what im talking about. Please. What do you mean . Please, mr. Attorney general. Give us some credit for knowing what the hell is going on around here. Not really. This line of questioning, listen, youve slanderred this man. What i sort of want to know is how do we get to this point . I do not think that im slanderring anyone. All i can say mr. Chairman, i am done. Thank you very much. And you slanderred this man from top to bottom. So if you want more of this, youre not going to get it. If youre going to ask him questions, you can. Certainly have your opinion. I have mine. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, general barr, for being here today. We really appreciate your time. I want to talk with you just a little bit about some of your bottom line conclusions, because i think theres one that we need to kind of circle back to a little bit. As ive listened to a lot of the conversation here today, one of the things weve not discussed is what seems to be the culture at doj and the fbi. And i know there are a lot of good people that work there, and were grateful for their service. But every organization has a culture. Whether its a Corporate Culture or a church or schools or whatever. And what seems to have happened at the fbi is there is a seedy, cynical, political culture within a group that developed. And these individuals, collectively, seem to think that they could work within the power of their jobs and roles. There was an elitism and an arrogance there. And it speaks to a very unhealthy work culture within that agency. And i will tell you this. When i talked to tennesseeans, they talk a lot about what they want to see with the department of justice and the fbi post all of this. And a restoration of trust and integrity. And accountability. And really in tennessee theyll talk to me about four things. They talk a lot about health care, jobs in the economy. Theyre going to talk about getting federal judges confirmed and about reigning in government and holding it accountable. And theres been a lot of hysteria. This is something that grew within the ranks of the fbi. What are you doing and what is your plan for rebuilding that trust and integrity so that the American People can say when the fbi does its job, when the doj does its job, we know that is a job done right . I dont think there is a bad culture in the fbi, and i dont think the problems that manifested themselves during the 2016 election are endemic to the institution. The fbi is doing its job. Just th case out in california where they interdicted this wouldbe bomber. They do great work around the country every day. I agree with senator kennedy who said its the premier of Law Enforcement institution in the world. I believe that to the extent that there was overreach i dont want to judge peoples motives and come to a conclusion on that. To the extent that there was overreach, what we have to be concerned about is, you know, a few people at the top getting it into their heads that they know better than the American People. And that is the problem. And that is what we hope that you are yep. Youre addressing. Lets go back to this. Because to reput e to the report. I think mr. Mueller assembled what would be called a dream team, deputy solicitor general, fluent russian speaker, who cloaked for two Supreme Court justice justices, former head of the enron Investigative Task force, chief of the public corruption unit in the manhattan u. S. Attorneys office, federal prosecutors who have taken down mob bosses, the mafia and isis terrorists. Do you consider these lawyers to be the best and brightest in the field . Not necessarily. Are they the warriors you would want on your side in the courtroom . I mean, you know, there are a lot of great lawyers in the department of justice. He assembled a very competent team. Are they meticulous investigators who will hunt down every witness and every piece of evidence . I think they are tenacious investigators. Are they devoted to finding the truth . Uh, yes. Are they masters at taking down hardened criminals, foreign and domestic . Yes. If there were evidence to warrant a recommendation for collusion charges against the president , do you believe the special counsel team would have found it . Yes. And if there were evidence to warrant your recommendation for obstruction of Justice Charges against the president , do you believe the mueller team would have found it . I think they canvassed the evidence exhaustively. They didnt reach a decision on it. The question has just been asked and raised as a point i wanted to say when senator hirona was talking. How did we get to the point here where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the russians and accused of being treasonous and accused of being a russian agent, and the evidence is now that was without a basis, and two years of his administration have been dominated by the allegations that have now been proven false . And, you know, to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think that the Mueller Report had found the opposite. And, you know, mr. Attorney general, i will tell you, that is what tennesseeans say. They say how did we get here . How is there this allowance and acceptedness of saying thats okay . Because its not. And people want to see government held accountable. They want agencies to act with accountability to the American People. And they dont want to ever see this happen again. It doesnt matter if a candidate is a democrat or republican or an independent. They never want to see this happen again. Because they know that this was pointed at using the power that they had to try to tilt an election or to achieve a different outcome. And the American People want equal justice. They want respect for the rule of law and they want fairness from the system. I have one other question, dealing with social media. Tennessee Republican Party had a ten underscored gop account that was set up by the russians and, you know, either i think as we look at social media, either they were willing to turn a blind eye and allow these accounts to go up because they knew they were being paid in rubles on some of these accounts or there was just negligence. So my hope is that with all the bad actor states, whether its russia, iran, north korea or china, that you all have a game plan for dealing with these platforms in a way that youre willing to reign them in for the 2020 election. I yield back. Thank you. Senator booker . A moment in American History that there is a considerable amount going on when you actually take time and read this whole report that shows that were sort of at a crossroad. And i fear that were descending into a new normal that is dangerous for our democracy on a number of levels. And i fear, unfortunately i hope we have a chance to discuss this that you not only put your own credibility into question, but seem to be giving sanction to behavior through the language that you used in that press conference you held. The language you used in your summary that stimulated mueller to write such a strong, rebuking letter. I fear that you are adding normalcy to a point that we should be sounding alarms as opposed to saying theres nothing to see here. So, one, this 448page report that has a deep litany of lies and deceit and misconduct, president of the United States instructing people to lie and be deceitful, evidence of people trying to cover up behavior that, on its face, is morally wrong, whatever the Legal Standard is. I found it, number one, by saying that this kind of obstructive conduct was acceptable not only acceptable, but your sentence literally saying that the American People should be grateful for it, that is the beginning of normalization that i want to explore. And the second thing i want to explore well explore this but i want to make my two statements at the top. One, thats problematic. General, the second problem i have is that you seem to be excusing a campaign that literally had hundreds of contacts with a foreign adversary that i think theres a conclusion, and a bipartisan conclusion that there was a failure to even report those contacts, that we engaged in behaviors that folks knew that were wrong, that they tried to actively hide. They seemed to have capitalize on this foreign interference. I mean, in our country, we know it is illegal for a campaign and wrong for a campaign to share polling data with an american superpac. But we have here documented a level of coordination with a foreign adversary, sharing polling data. And we seem to be and your conduct seems to be trying to normalize that behavior. And thats why i think we are in such a serious moment that is eroding the cultures of this democracy and so lets get into some of this specifically. You said, quote, we know that the russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of President Trump or the Trump Campaign. That is something that all americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed. The things i just mentioned, a willingness to meet with russian operatives in order to capitalize on information, i dont think thats something that should be grateful. I find your choice of words alarming. I think it calls into question your objectivity when you look at the actual context of the report. And so should the American People really be grateful that a candidate for president sought to benefit from material and information that was stolen by a foreign power in an effort to influence an election . Im not sure what you mean by seek to benefit. Theres no indication that they engaged in the conspiracy or ability to hack. You used the words obstruction over and over again in the press conference. Its a legal term. You pulled into his words and im asking you specifically im sorry, collusion was the word i was looking for. You used the word no collusion over and over again. And you said the American People should be grateful that the president sought to benefit from material and information but you know they did seek to benefit from that material. Donald trump jr. In his own email seemed to celebrate that he might have access to information from a foreign adversary. Is that correct . Is that something the American People should be apparently, according to the report, he was yeah. Apparently, he was interested in seeing what this russian woman had in the way of, quote and did not report it, as i think everybody who is in politics knows is something you should do. Should the American People be grateful that in the face of our attack on our democracy that the president of the United States made several documented attempts to thwart you used that word grateful again. That the American People should be grateful. Is that something we should be grateful for . Im not sure what youre talking about. Sir, im talking about the attempts that this president made that mueller pointed to, at least 10 attempts to thwart an investigation between the links of his campaign and russia. Should we be grateful for those 10 welldocumented attempts by mueller . Are you talking about the obstruction part of the report . Im talking about the second volume but let me continue. Should the American People be grateful that trump had more than 215 documented contacts between russianlinked operatives and lied about them and tried to hide them . Is that something that the American People should be grateful for, this president or any down the road . As i mentioned earlier, during a campaign, Foreign Governments and foreign citizens frequently make a lot of attempts to contact different campaigns. If we, right now, were to go and look at, for example, Hillary Clintons campaign during the same timeframe sir, i then you would see a lot of Foreign Governments, chinese, trying to establish. Sir theyre what im trying to say to you. We right now have a new normal in our country. We have a document that shows over 200 attempted connections between a president ial campaign and a foreign adversary, sharing information that would be illegal if you did it with a super pac. We know that. What information was shared . Polling data was shared. Its in the report. I can cite you the page. With who . My point is that your willingness to seem to brush over this and use words like the American People should be grateful with whats in this report, nobody should be grateful. Concerted efforts for deception, for misleading, inappropriate action after inappropriate action that is clear. And then on top of that, at a time that we all recognize that we had a foreign power trying to undermine our election you, the chief Law Enforcement officer not only undermines your own credibility as an independent actor when theres Ongoing Investigation still, using the president s own words, having being criticized by mueller himself. But the challenge we now have is that we are going into an area where you seem to not even be willing to be in the least bit critical in your summarizations. I believe that call s in your credibility and again my time is up. Senator tillis . Thank you, mr. Chairman. General barr, thank you for being here. In the last sentence on page one of your fourpage memo, it states that the special counsel issued more than 2800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained 230 orders for communication records, issueded almost 50 orders, made 13 request of Foreign Government force evidence, interviewed approximately 500 people. That seems like a pretty extensive investigation to me. Took about 22 months. Right . Right. It was summarized in a little over 400page document. Volume two was under 200 pages, as i recall. Ive read volume two word for word and ive read most of volume one. The new normal that seems to be created here is that even after all this investigation and you havent found any conduct worthy of indictment that you can bounce back for political reasons and indict somebody. Thats a rhetorical statement or question, not a statement. Now i want to go back to the other part i find interesting here. The New York Times already issued a headline that says mueller pushed in letter for barr to release the reports summary. Now the narrative. A lot of people in the press are coming out. And the narrative is, doesnt general, because mueller wanted the executive summaries issued . Now i want to go back to what you said in your opening statement. You said that, i believe, using your words, the body politic was unrestful. You had gotten the report. You didnt get the 6e information. You had to do the redacting. You knew it was going to take time. It would have been helpful had you gotten that when the report was transmitted to you. And it took however long it took. You used the analogy of announcing the verdict and waiting for the transcript. Uhhuh. Did you ever, at any point say, you know what i really want to do is issue this letter and let the news media play with it for three, four weeks and then well get the redacted version out . Did that ever cross your mind . No. We were pushing to get it done as soon as possible . To get the report out as soon as possible. At any point in time when the president had an opportunity to issue their own advice on redactions or assert executive privilege over the course of the weeks that you were doing the review of the report, did you ever get advice from the president or anybody in the white house to assert executive privilege or redact any portion of the document . No. None . And so the narrative between the letter and the redaction process was were going to get a report that is 80 redacted. Now would you give me the numbers again on the version thats available to the leadership of congress, the numbers again . I think you said onetenth of 1 . Were skimping over volume one and spending time on volume two. Yes. Did i hear you say that the legislative leaders have access to all but onetenth of 1 of the entire report . Approximately, yes. Okay. So, guys, you can go out and spin this any way you want to, but the data is there. There was no underlying crime and insufficient evidence to indict the president on obstruction of justice. You said Something Else thats interesting to me in the report about we found no evidence that was sufficient to indict. Why would somebody put Something Like that in the report . I dont know. And so it would follow, if thats uncommon, that you would not have actually included that in a summary before the full context of the report could be produced. Is that a fair statement . Thats a fair statement but i did put in the sentence about not exoneration. Yeah. The thing that frustrates me, number one i should have started by saying this. The vast majority of people in the department of justice and the fbi are extraordinary people. The chairman is right. Starting with strzok and paige and everybody else leading up to the investigation, i hope theyre being investigated. I have a question, a few. The scope of the aig, do you understand or know what the scope of that report will be . Will it be purely on this investigation or extend to other acts that may have somehow influenced this investigation . Well, i dont want to be too specific. I talked to mike carr a few weeks about it. Its focused on the fisa, basis for the fisa and handling of the fisa applications. But by necessity, it looks back a little earlier than that. The people helping me with my review will be working very closely with mr. Horowitz. Im clear in this report there was no underlying crime. Is that correct . Yes. And insufficient thats the conclusion of the report. And insufficient evidence to assert that the president obstructed justice and a lot of that evidence was in the public eye. Were talking about tweets and other things that were trying to assert for evidence of obstruction of justice. It seems odd to me that people on this committee that pound and pound over again that youre innocent until Proven Guilty with the extent of this report, with the number of resources, nearly 30 million, when the facts dont lead to the outcome that you wanted, the outcome that the Marketing Department wanted to use this as a Political Tool for the next 20 months, it seems odd to me that we go down the path of saying that well, in spite of all the wo work, were going to indict him all the way. If we cant indict him, were going to impugn your integrity and call you a liar. I find that behavior on this committee despicable. Thank you. Senator harris . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Attorney general barr has the president or anyone at the white house suggested that you open an investigation of anyone . I wouldnt, uh yes or no . Could you repeat that question . I will repeat. Has the president or anyone at the white house ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone . Yes or no, please, sir. The president or anybody else . Seems you would remember Something Like that and be able to tell us. Yeah, but im trying to grapple with the word suggest. I mean, there have been discussions of matters out there that theyve not asked me to open an investigation. Perhaps theyve suggested . I dont know. I wouldnt say suggested. Hinted. I dont know. Inferred . You dont know . Okay. In your march 24th summary, you wrote that, quote, after reviewing the special counsels final report i dont know if im asking a question. In your march 24th summary you wrote, quote, after reviewing the special counsels final report, Deputy Rosenstein and i have concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense. Now the special counsels investigation produce aid great deal of evidence. Im led to believe it included witnesses notes and emails, witnesses testimony, interviews which were summarized in the fbi 302 forms, former fbi director comeys memos and the president s public statements. My question is in reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence . No. We took an did mr. Rosenstein . No. We accepted the statements in the report as factual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. We accepted it as accurate. And made our so you accepted the report as the evidence . Yes. You did not question or look at the underlying evidence that supports the conclusions in the report . No. Did mr. Rosenstein review the evidence that underlines and supports the conclusions in the report . To your knowledge . Not to my knowledge. We accepted the statements in the report and the characterer characterization of the evidence as true. Did anyone in your executive Office Review the evidence supporting the report . No. No . Yet you represented to the American Public that the evidence was not, quote, sufficient to support an obstruction of justice or facts. The evidence presented in the report. This is not mistherious process. We have declaration memos every day coming up and we dont go and look at underlying evidence. We take the characterization of the evidence as true. As the attorney general of the United States, you run the United States department of justice. If in any u. S. Attorneys Office Around the country, the head that have office, when being asked to make a critical decision about, in this case, the person who holds the highest office in the land and whether or not that person committed a crime, would you accept them recommending a charging decision to you if they had not reviewed the evidence . Thats a question for bob mueller. He is the u. S. Attorney. He is the one who presents the report. But it was you who made the charging decision, sir. You made the decision not to charge the president. In a cross memo and declaration memo. You said it was your baby. What did you mean by that . It was my baby to let to decide whether to disclose it to the public. Who had the power to make the decision about whether or not the evidence was sufficient to make a determination of whether there had been an obstruction of justice . Prosecution memos go up to the supervisor. In this case, it was the attorney general and the Deputy Attorney general who decide on the final decision. And that is based on the memo as presented by the u. S. Attorneys offic office. You have made it clear you didnt look at the evidence and we can move on. Will you consult doj officials about whether the recusal is necessary . I dont see any basis on it. You have consulted with them about the 14 other investigations . About the mueller case. Have you consulted with the career doj ethics officials about the appropriateness of you being involved or recusing yourself from the 14 other investigations that have been referred out . On what basis . Conflict of interest, clear conflict of interest. Whats the conflict of interest . The American Public have seen quite well youre biased in this situation and have not been objective. I havent been the only Decision Maker here now. Lets take the Deputy Attorney general Rod Rosenstein, approved by the senate 946 with specific discussion on the floor that he would be responsible for supervising the russian investigation. Im glad you brought that up. Thats a great topic. 30 Years Experience and a number of senior prosecutors in the department involved in this process, both career and noncareer. Yes, ive read the process, sir. I have another question. And im glad you brought that subject up, because i have a question about that. Earlier today in response to senator graham you said, quote, that you consulted with rosenstein constantly, unquote, with respect to the special counsels investigation and report but Deputy Attorney general rosenstein was director comey. Did you consult with doj ll, thats ethics officials before you enlisted Rod Rosenstein to participate in a charging decision in an investigation for the subject of which he is also a witness . My understanding is that he had been cleared already to participate in it . You had consulted with them and they cleared it . No. I think they cleared it when he took over the investigation. Thats my understanding. You dont know whether he has been cleared of a conflict of interest . He would be participating if it was a conflict of interest. Why your saying it did not need to be reviewed by the career ethic officials to determine if it was appropriate . Well, i believe it was reviewed. And i also point out this seems to be a bit of a flip flop. When the president s supporters were flip flop in this that youre not answering the question directly. Did officials in your office and the department of justice approve the appropriateness of Rod Rosenstein be part on making a charging decision on a case in which he was also a witness in . My understanding is that he had already been cleared before i arrived. Of making a decision on the Mueller Report . Yes. And the charges of obstruction of justice . He had been cleared on that . He was the acting attorney general on the mueller investigation. Had he been cleared . I am by your side, a decision i am informed that before i arrived, he had been cleared by the ethics officials. As what . Serving as acting attorney general on the mueller case. How about making a charging decision on obstruction of justice when the underlying offenses include him as a witness . Thats what the acting attorney generals job is. To be a witness and make the decision about being prosecuted . No but to make charging decisions. I have nothing else. My time has run out. Senator, lets see. Senator cruz. I would like to do short second rounds. Ive got to go to another hearing at 2 40. Were going to take four votes. To my colleagues on the other side i would like to do a very short second round and wrap it up. Oh, im sorry, senator crepo. I apologize. Attorney general barr, i know you have gone through almost everything that could have been asked today. Im going to go through a few things that youve already talked about but i appreciate you going through it with me. The letter of march 24th from mr. Mueller. First, could you tell me, who released that letter to the public . Um, who released it to whom . How did it get released . Was that a decision that you made to release that letter . I think the department provided it this morning. Excuse me. I mean to the Washington Post. How did the Washington Post get the letter . I dont know. Thats what i thought. Lets talk about the letter for a moment. You indicated that i think the Washington Post got it from the department of justice. You need to find that out but we can get into that later. If youre not aware, lets move on to other aspects of the issue. You indicated that you did not feel you needed to release as much as mr. Mueller thought you needed to release at the outset. You gaev a summary of the conclusions and he apparently wanted to see the summaries of each section that he put together released. Correct . Yes. Could you go over again the reason why you responded to him when he asked you to release portions of the report before you released it in its entirety . Yes. This was in a conversation on thursday, the day i got his letter. And i said that i didnt want to put out it was already several days after we had received the report and i had put out the fourpage letter on sunday. And i said i dont want to put out summaries of the report that would trigger all kinds of frenzy about what was said in the summaries and then when more information comes out, it would recalibrate to that. I said i want to put it out one time, everything together. And i told him that was the game plan. All right. And i think its important to point that out again, because theres been a lot of spin about the letter and what it was that was being requested and what your response to that was. Right. It was important to help get that out again and get clarified. The reason i asked who released the letter is because there have been a lot of releases of documents from the fbi that were basically leaks. I was curious as to whether that letter was a leak. Im not asking you that. I think what happened i mean, i hope my people correct me if im wrong on this. I think the fact that the information about muellers concerns were leaked as conversations were starting to ask about that and in that context the letter was provided. Is that accurate . There were leaks, at least about the concerns and conversations that you had had . Yes. That gets back to the broader question of leaks i want to get into now. Youve had a number of people, senators that have asked you about perceive d its been pretty clearly shown in a number of different ways that there are some individuals at the fbi at high levels who, in the past few years, have not been holding up the standards of the fbi that the American People expect of them. Im sure youre familiar with the report of the dojs inspector general, michael horowitz, where he looked at bias in the fbi. A and, in fact, he found it. He indicated that he did, in fact, find there was buy as at the fbi and that but he said he wasnt able to prove that the bias affected the employees work product because, in questions i asked him, he said i found that there was clearly bias, but in order to prove whether that affected the work output of those who were biased, i had to ask them whether they impacted it. Of course, i said no. I didnt have other evidence to prove otherwise this gets back to a conversation you had earlier about whether it was the fbis business or his business was to prove a negative or whether it was to find some actionable conduct. My reason it going through this with you is that i want to get at what we can do that there is a problem of bias in the fbi or on the part of some individuals at the fbi and whether you are undertaking activities to address that. Well, you know, you mean political bias . Yes, whether there is political bias resulting in biased conduct by fbi agents. I havent seen that since ive been there. I think that chris wray, the new director, has changed out the people who were there before and brought in not brought in from outside but promoted and developed new Leadership Team that i think is doing a great job. And i think he is focused on ensuring that the bureau isnt biased. Do you believe its Inappropriate Conduct for an fbi employee to leak politically Sensitive Information to the public for purposes of impacting political discussion . Yes. Yes. And i think some leaks are maybe for political purposes. I think probably more leaks are because people handling a case dont like what their superiors or supervisors are doing and they leak it in order to control people up the chain. And i understand you have some investigations into that type of conduct . Yes. Just another couple of quick questions. When did the doj and the fbi, if you know, when did the doj and the fbi know that the Democratic Party paid for Christopher Steeles dossier, which thefisa . I dont know the answer to that. Are you investigating to determine that . Yes. Lastly, did the department of justice, fbi and other federal agencies engage in investigative activities before an official investigation was launched in july of 2016 . I dont know the answer to that but thats one of the youre also investigating that . Yes. Thank you very much, attorney general. Senator cruz . Thank you mr. Chairman. General barr, thank you for your testimony. And let me start by just saying thank you youve had an extraordinarily successful legal career. You didnt have to take this job. You stepped forward and answered the call yet again, knowing full well that you would be subject to the kind of slanderous treatment, the kavanaugh treatment that we have seen of senators impugning your integrity. And i, for one, am grateful that you answered that call and are leading the department of justice both with integrity and fidelity to law. That is what the nation rightly expects of our attorney general and i believe you are performing that very ably. I think this hearing has been quite revealing to anyone watching it, though perhaps not in the way the Democratic Senators intended. One thing that is revealing, a word that occurred almost none at all is the word russia. For 2 1 2 years, we heard Democratic Senators going on and on and on about russian collusion. We heard journalists going on and on about russia collusion. Alleging, among other things, some using extreme rhetoric, calling the president a traitor. We heard very little of that. Instead of the principle attack that the Democratic Senators have marshalled upon you concerns this march 27th letter from Robert Mueller and its an attack that i want feem to understand how revealing it is. If this is their whole argument, theyve got nothing. Their argument is as follows. Let me see if i understand it correctly. Initially when you sooved the Mueller Report, you release d a report. Then mr. Mueller asked you to release an additional 19 pages, original summary that he had drafted. Indeed in the letter what he says is, quote, i am requesting that you provide these materials to congress and authorize their public release at this time. And the reason he says that is, is to fully capture the context, nature and substance of the conclusion. You did not release those 19 pages at that time. Instead a couple of weeks later you released 448 pages, the entire report, which includes those 19 pages. Do i have that timeline correct . Thats right. So their entire argument is, general barr, you suppressed the 19 pages that are entirely public, that we have, that we can read, that they know every word of it, and their complaint is it was delayed a few weeks. And that was because of your decision not to release the report piecemeal but rather to release those 19 pages along with the entire 448 pages produced by the special counsel . Yes. If that is their argument, i have to say that is an exceptionally weak argument. If youre hiding something, attorney general barr, youre doing a lousy job of hiding it because the thing they suggest youre hooirding, you released. If anyone wants to know whats in those 19 pages that are being so breath less li bob mueller said release the 19 pages. Did you. You did it a couple of weeks later but we can read every word of the 19 pages along with the full report. In your judgment was the Mueller Report thorough . Yes. Did they expend enormous time, energy and resources in investigating and producing that report . Yes. And the Mueller Report concluded, flat out, on the question of russian collusion the evidence did not support criminal charges . Thats right. And, indeed, the Mueller Report, if i have these stats right, was compiled by approximately 40 analysts, professional staff, special counsel issued more than 2800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants, more than 230 orders for communication records, almost 50 orders authorizing the use of pen registered, 14 requests to Foreign Government for evidence and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses. Is that correct . Thats right. So we have investigated over and over and over again and the substance of the accusations that have been leveled at the presses for 2 1 2 years have magically disappeared. Instead the 19 pages that could have been released a few weeks earlier. Oh, the calamity. Let me shift to a different topic that has already been addressed already quite a bit. I believe the department of justice under the Obama Administration was profoundly politicized and was weaponized to go after political opponents of the president. If that is the case would you agree that that is an abuse of power . I think its an abuse of power regardless of who does it. Of course. Yeah. The position today appears to be that it began in july but i do not know the answer to the question. It is an unusual thing, is it not, for the department of justice to be investigating a candidate for president , particularly a candidate from the posing party of the party in power . Yes. Do we know if they investigated any other candidates for president . I dont know. Im sorry. I guess they were investigating Hillary Clinton for the email. Do we know if there were wire taps . I dont know. Do we know if there were efforts to send investigators in, wearing a wire . I dont know. So, general barr, i would urge, youve had remarkable transparency, you promised this committee you would with regard to the Mueller Report. You promised this committee and the American People you would release the report publicly. You have. Anyone can read it. I appreciate that transparency. I would ask you to bring the same transparency to this line of questioning about whether and the extent to which the previous strag targeted their political rivals and used Law Enforcement and intelligence assets to surveil them thats the end of the first round. We have votes at 3 00. I think there are four votes. What id like to do is can you go for a few more hminutes . Are you okay . Well do three minute, second rounds. Senator feinstein noted she felt the fbi would be direlect of its duties. The Trump Campaign knew russia stolen democratic emails before the victims do. They were told the russians could assist in that with the stolen emails. It resulted in 37 indictments. Let me ask you in your letter you claim the lack of evidence of the underlying crime appears on whether the president had the intent to commit obstruction of justice. There are numerous reasons someone might interfere with investigation. It may prevent the discovery of an underlying crime. The special counsel did uncover evidence of special crimes including one that implicated the president. Wlem we learned that donald trump is known as individual one in the Southern District of new york. Directing hush payments as part of a criminal scheme to violate Campaign Finance laws. That matter was discovered by special counsel referred to the Southern District of new york. Is that correct . Yes. Thank you. We have the Mueller Report references a dozen Ongoing Investigations stemming from the special counsels investigation. Will you commit you will not interfere with those investigations . Excuse me . Do you commit you will not interfere with the dozen Ongoing Investigations . I will supervise those investigations as attorney general. Will you let them reach natural conclusion without interference from the white house . Yes. As i said when i was up for confirmation, part of my responsibility is to make sure there is no political interference in cases. Well, youve testified a number of things and thats why im double checking. The Appropriations Committee asked you whether mr. Mueller expressed any expectation or interest in leaving the instruction decision to congress and you testified it didnt say that to you. Actually you said he didnt say that to me. Right. Then he has numerous references in his report to congress playing a role in deciding whether the president committed obstruction of justice. You testified many times but that was not correct. Thats not correct. I think it is correct. He has not said that he conducted the investigation in order to duturn it over to congress. He included numerous references of congress playing a role in it. Volume 2, page 8. Congress may apply obstruction of whether president exercises powers of office of our constitutional system and justice. I dont think bob mueller was suggesting the next step was for him to turn this stuff over to congress to act upon. Thats not why we conduct grand jury investigations. President trump, am i correct, in my earlier statement never allowed anybody to interview him directly under oath, is that correct . I think thats correct. Even though he said he was ready to testify. Thank you. Could i sure. The point you raise about the absence of a underlying crime, one point i was trying to make earlier is the absence of an underlying crime doesnt necessarily mean there would be other motives for obstruction although it gets a bit harder to prove and speculative as to what the motives might be. The point i was trying to make earlier in the situation of the president who has Constitutional Authority to supervise proceedings, if a proceeding was not well founded, if it was groundless, based on false allegations, the president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate that proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused. He would be worried about the impact on his administration. Thats important because most of the obstruction claims that are being made here or episodes do involve the exercise of the president s Constitutional Authority. We now know that he was being falsely accused. I dont agree with that but thats okay. I have two questions if you dont mind. General barr, i have two questions. The Mueller Report describes the reasons why the fbi opened a Counter Intelligence investigation in july 2016 into Russian Election interference. Theres been many references to why they would do such a thing. By that date, the Democratic National committee server had been hacked and russians deemed responsible. Some of the stolen remails were released by wikileaks. The Australian Government told our fbi that trump Foreign Policy aide George Papadopoulos said he was contacted by a person on russias behalf offering to assist the campaign to release information damaging to Hillary Clinton. That was in the Mueller Report. Do you believe it was appropriate for opening a Counter Intelligence to determine kwhether russia targeted people in the Trump Campaign . Id have to see what the report was for the downer and exactly what he quoted papadopoulos for saying. Im not sure what the correlation is of the russians having different and that suggested foreknowledge of the hacking. According to mr. Mueller this involvement of trump foreign aide George Papadopoulos had something to do with their conclusion. Id like to ask the separate issue. Its been reported on april 16th, you received waiver to participate in the investigation and litigation of the so called 1mdb matter. This is into a Malaysian Company from alleged Money Laundering. U. S. Attorneys office for the Eastern District of new york is investigating whether a Malaysian National illegally donated to the Trump Inaugural Committee with money taken. You sought a waiver to participate even though your former law firm represents anst. How many waivers have you received to allow you participate in matters or investigations involving trump businesses, the Trump Campaign or the trump inaugural commit e committee . None. S you did seek a waiver in this case . As i recall it didnt come from me. I was asked to seek a waiver in this case. Do you see the problem if the issue is whether or not Money Laundering operation is sending money to the Trump Inaugural Committee that as attorney general of the United States you may not want to involve yourself in this . Well, no i dont. I dont. I was not involved with the inaugural. Why would you seek a waiver to participate in this . I guess the conflict was not because of any relationship i had to the inaugural committee, which i didnt. Its to goldman sachs. Its the law firm. Their client goldman sachs. I dont understand why you would touch that hot stove. Its a good you sought the waiver. Thats why im asking the question. The Criminal Division asked me to get waiver because of the importance of this investigation. I was requested by the Criminal Division. I didnt seek it. It did not come from me. Who would that be that made the recommendation to you . Im told it was the Criminal Division. He was was head of the Criminal Division but they discussed it with career ethics official and made the recommendation. Thank you. Senator whitehouse. Mr. Barr, a couple of timing questions. You said that on march 5th, mr. Mueller came to you and said that he was going to not make a decision on obstruction and leave that to you. He didnt say he was leaving it to me. He was not going to make an obstruct on march 24th, you sen the letter describing your decision. Somewhere between march 5th and 24th, you made that decision. When was that . We started talking about it on march 5th and there had already been a lot of discussions prior to march 5th involving the