Transcripts For CSPAN2 Attorney General Sessions Before Senate Judiciary Committee Part One 20171020

[indiscernible] [indiscernible] [indiscernible] call to order. [indiscernible] attorney general sessions welcome and for all of the people in the audience we welcome you as well. I think dash and i think general sessions for being here for this oversight. Is just one of the critical functions of our branch its is an opportunity for congress to investigate and question the policieses and actions of any executive branch its an opportunity for the executive branch to take responsibility for any of the policies and actions. And check any abuses high and overreaching executive branch. Its been that way for 230 years. Some have complained we havent had oversight hearing with this attorney general. My reason for deferring was that the attorney general attorney general should have his team in place before appearing before us certainly attorney general holder did have the respective teams in place by the time they appeared here. The other side has been blocking executive nominations for the past ten months. Significantly the department of justice. Enforcing laws in ensuring Public Safety against foreign and domestic threats and a lot of other responsibilities. Our citizens look to the department of justice to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime we rely on the department to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior in to ensure fair and impartial administrationf of justice they currently faces many difficult issues our country is challenged with the overgaard rowing threat weve seen them evolving around the world especially impact in europe. In the uk alone. In the past nine months i have a couple of paragraphs here of other things that have gone on both in europe and the United States that to save timeat im going to skip over but there has been a lot of People Killed and terrorist attacks in the western world our something that we ought to be very concerned about their real and we must protect our country by lawful means. Congress has tried to do so by providing lawful authorities such as section 702 of the pfizer amendment act. Congress passed the legislation and president bush signed into law in 2008 after more debate and president obamas support congress reauthorized the law in 2012 on change. The law is again up for reauthorization. Its scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Its up to congress to reauthorize the National Security tool while permit preserving privacy and civil liberties. General sessions i am interested in hearing your the on the important legislation. In september the fbi released its annual crime datath for the second year in a row it increase across the United States. They have seen massive increases in homicides. Baltimore, is on pace to top the homicide number even though the population is almost meet 8 million less. In a National Epidemic of overdose death in abuse of opioids drugs. Over 47,000 people died in 2014. 50,000 died in 2015 and last year 64,000 people. Now that we have a new administration i want to know what the department of justice is doing to reduce Violent Crime to ensure that the citizens around the country are safe i also want to find out, what the department is doing to combat Opioid Crisis a and we all care deeply about this issue. The abusepa of prescription painkillers there destroying lives in communities across iowa. And the nation as a whole i cosponsored the comprehensive addiction and recovery act known as terra it passed through this committee and signed into law last year it addresses the Opioid Crisis in a comprehensive way. By raising almost 900 million over five years just this past weekend reports suggested that Congress Gave a pass to Big Drug Companies making prescription opioids the Patient Access and effective Drug Enforcement act. Last year signed up on this bill. Now the former da employees are really against the law pointing fingers at lawmakers if dea head problems with this bill they were the ones that couldve given that. And have the expertise to Warn Congress and they didnt they signed into law. Im planning on having an oversight hearing that will include gearns department. I dont need to go through the history of that. The aft has recently briefed the judicial staff on the addition to guns called bump stocks we will be looking more at that issue. In september the president announced a wind down of the deferred action against childhood arrival programs. With the sixmonth extension my office received preliminary data showing 200021 individuals who had the status terminated for criminal gang activity. We want to know who they are and what kind of crimes that are committed and if there was any gangs. Separately, you announced earlier this year. Fifty more Immigration Judges were supposed to be added to the bench for this year and 75 more next year. We need to know what steps they have taken and what still needs to be done to reduce the immigration court. There is another issue that i want to address that came up in the news just yesterday. In june 2015 and again last weekek i wrote to the Justice Department about the acquisition of uranium one which was approved during the last administration. It resulted in rezoning 20 of americas uranium mining capacity. It turns out that during the transaction the Justice Departmentnt had ongoing criminal investigation for bribery extortion, Money Laundering they are involved in theco sum close to Vladimir Putin. All of this was going on the Clinton Foundation reportedly received millions of dollars from interested parties. They were one of the agencies that give a thumb up. The Previous Administration to approve the transaction in my letter. Pr they will approved the transaction. If they were aware of the criminal probe. This committee has an obligation to get to the bottom of this issue. The committee is also waiting for responses to 11 oversight letters sent to the Justice Department in which the attorney general has not recused. I expect the letters will be answered and most importantly those from the Previous Administration. I also want to ask about the firing of the former director in james comey. In for this country. They have to know why he was fired in the middle 70 high profile cases. So thank you. For being heree in for your continued service to the country. Thank you very much. Mister chairman. G this is the first time youve appeared before this committee. As a former member you know while the oversight authorityl. That we hold as i mentioned at the confirmation hearing. At the independence of the attorney general. For the attorney general master is the people in the law. Importantly his job is to enforce federal law. This is a trump era. What you mean like that. During the confirmation hearing. Enforcement of laws to ensure access. It would be a quote special priority. The Justice Department for nearly six years of the department of justice had argued that the texas law was unconstitutional. They have a disproportionate effect on minorities. The department dropped its opposition to the texas law. Nt under ohios procedures the voters who had it cast the ballot in six years and failed to return a postcard were removed from state voting rules. This process reportedly had that in one county alone. I hope the county which covers cleveland and the surrounding suburbs. It forbids the state from removing individuals in a post ohios purge some six circuit agreed that the process for removing them. They can cast them in the 2016 a president ial election. However, and now the department is taking the side of removing boaters from the rolls. Even though the last election clearly demonstrated how this eligible voters. I would not like to turn to lgbt rights. I worked to ensure the americans have equal rights and protections under the law and its important to me that we preserve these protections. They should not do that. Enter confirmation hearing you testified and i quote we must continue to move forward and never back down. Their safety. I was very pleased. They were taking that to send with tyler. It was initiated by you. I was concerned to learn that the summer the Justice Department switched its position on title vii. It does not protect the lgbt workers. And then on october 5 just two weeks ago you issued a memorandum and agency heads. That they might take the position that does not protect that. They were urging the courts to discriminate against all algae bt workers. There are other controversial policies the travel ban for example multiple federal courts found the muslim ban unconstitutional. B to the nations commitment. The Justice Department staunchly defends. The program be terminated. Theyve come out of the shadows. Two authorities they seek the opportunity to get it. Most of us believe the dreamers and body the mirror american spirit. They want to hear about the firing of fbi director james comey. Within days however the president admitted to lester holt on nbc news that he actually fired james comey because of the russia thing. Thats also been reported that the day before he fired director comey resident trump summoned his top advisers and told them that he have preparedrm a termination letter. Its important i believe to understand what role you head in that process including conversations with the president and others in the white house. And we expected answers. In conclusion attorney general. Our country depends. That on the independent. With these and other important issues. I think you mister chairman. I do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god . And nothing but the truth so help you god . Since we did not get a copy of the opening remarks. With to get to the question sooner. The Ranking Member in distinguished members of the committee. In honor of a lifetime. To serve as attorney general. You can understand and know. Twenty years and that committee with oversight. I understand the responsibilities i have. To be worthy of the trustd. And reduce Violent Crime. Stop deadly drug dealers and strengthen the rule of law. It is the exciting activity. Dealing with the terrorismus threats that he faced. An important step to ensuring that he is coming. Most may not know the Supreme Court one course injunction against that order. You can do that. We know. We have seen the fastest overall increase in Violent Crime in 25 years. The homicide rate. In 2015. I believe it is a trend that we must confront. One of the First Executive orders. And in simple terms to reduce crime in america. We have heard of that challenge we embrace it and we are setting about to do something about it. We understand the key fact and we all need to understand this. Nd 85 percent of a Law Enforcement officers at america are state and local. They are better trained and more professional than ever. As a huge factor in that decline in crime in my opinion that weve seen previously. And we know crime in america well never be reduced without a partnership between federal and state officers. They professionally applied and in accordance with scientifically proven policies can impact the crime rate. If we look at the cities. You noted. New york. Has dedicated itself over decades to highly effective pro actor policing. They sought 334 homicides last year. Only a third of the size of new york logged more than twice as many murders. The professionals in the department has been intensely studied how the prevent Crime Reduction techniques i was very pleased with their plan. Whatever the Violent Crime might be or have been in the next few years it will be lower if these policies are followed. I can assure you of that. Our aim is to see to focus on the most dangerous repeat offenders. It is one of the most effective tools congress has provided. I know a number of you are concerned about the operations of that program. I hear your concerns. I had established an asset for teacher to oversee the entirety of this program. To ensure that itat operates in an accountable and responsible way and be able to report to you that any time you need information about it. They are committed to protecting the civil rights of all americans. In two prosecute from violence. Every american regardless of who they are must be safe from violence and criminality. We will not shy away from defending First Amendment rights. To protect the right to speak and assemble peacefully. We are in the midst of the deadliest drug epidemic in this country has ever seen. Mi weve seen see nothing like it. Our availability of drugs and lower prices increase purity along with the deadly substance fentanyl has resulted in climbing and death death tolls across this country. Was 502000 last year. And 64,000 died in at 16. They began with Prescription Drug addiction. And then moved to heroin and sentinel. There can be no doubt we need a much stricter accountability in the manufacturing and prescribing distribution. We do not need to delay this any longer. We know that most of thehe heroine cocaine methamphetamine and fentanyl that fentanyl that is feeling bringing balance, addiction and death. An important factor in the longterm success for decades the American People have asked for a just, lawful system of immigration. They are right in their demands. We can and the illegality and present trump has set and on ambiguous message to the world. The flow has been reduced by almost half. A but there is more to do we can end the lawlessness. Legislation is essential. A result and effective plant. Including a border wall. Significant reform. And enhance interior enforcement. With the progress already achieved our country is on its way and whether its in and to sanctuary city policies or a verification system to ensure lawful employment they are supported by the best enjoyment of americans. There has been that in that respect of law. The agendas has been substitutedbe for following the law. This department of justice respects congress and the constitution in the constitution and we intend to enforce the laws as you had written them. To be lawful and contrary to the laws passed by this institution. In congress you now have the ability to act on this issue. I would just note that the president has said he wants to work with congress he is his heart for young people but we have got to have more than just an him in the city for friends. We need a good improvement in the illegality thats going on and there is an opportunity right now im telling you an opportunity now to do something historic. So the department is also directing the taxpayers dollars to the overwhelming number of cities and states that cooperate. It is not an entitlement. Its in allocation of taxpayer dollars to impact the goal. We urge our jurisdictions to cooperate with federal officials. And stop lettingin aliens back on the street that for them victimize the communities. It does not make sense. We are grateful that the overwhelmingly most cities and jurisdictions cooperate fully into those who have heard our message and are now cooperating so after 20 years in this body i understand the responsiveness something you had been vocal about ever since i had been on this committeeho and we are going to do so. We inherited a very significant backlog of unanswered congressional inquiries. Dating back to 2015. And we have already reduced it by halfha you can be sure that we will continue to reduce that. It will remain a priority of ours. A i want to address the latter the letter i received. That letter demanded thaty, i determine by today whether the president will invoke executive privilege about issues on which i maybe ask about today. Vo i have considered this request very respectfully. It is an important matter. But consistent with the longstanding power and policy. With the executive branch i can neither assert executive privilege nor can i disclose today the content of my confidential conversations with the president. Under the administration of both parties it is well established that a president is entitled to have private Confidential Communications with his cabinet officials and secretary of state. The secretary of treasury and certainly has counsel and the attorney general of the United States who provides counsel. And that such communications are within the core of executive privilege. Until such time that the president makes a decision with respect to this privilege i cannot wave that privilege myself or otherwise compromise his ability to assert it. As a result, during todays hearing and under these circumstances. We would not be able to discuss the content of the conversation with the president. I understand you have an important oversight and responsibility today and i hope you will respectct this longstanding practice and respect the duty that i feel and then i face. Mister chairman, thank you and i would be prepared to do my best to answer your questions. I would like to make two points before i start to ask questions. And only because you mentioned the back log of letters. In january the president put we wouldvisory that only answer questions for chairman of committees. That leaves out about 35 republicans at least. Pu republican or democrat. Chairman or not. The other thing is for the benefit of the committees in the long oversight hearing we are going to have today i think you for your cooperation on a request i made last timethi that if you get it at the end of your seven minutes and you start before the last second hits a and you ask a question go ahead and ask that question you get hit and answer it. Some of you noticed i think that there was special consideration given to a couple of different senators i think they deserve that courtesy as foreman chairman of this committee and Ranking Member so they went over a little bitee than thats okay with me. The only one i paid much attention to dont crow about that. You and director colts wrote a letter to the leadership about the importance of 702. You said that reauthorization of section 702 was the top legislative priority. Question, if section 702 were not reauthorized can you tell us what impact that would have on the Intelligence Community and our National Security interests. Having been involved since i had been in the department with many of the daytoday impacts of section 702 i believe it would have a detrimental impact of significance it reduces our ability to identify terrorist acts and potential acts before they happen. That was one of the goals that we have when we passed the patriot act and i know senator hatch and leahy worked very hard on that. With the most rigorous it enables us. The terrorists abroad now that we have this in place. They were able to search the questions. A question if congress were to impose a warrant requirement on assessing information obtained through socalled person queries how would that affect the fbis ability to do its job. Is just not practical and is not legally required in my opinion to have a warrant requirement for this information. It originates w abroad. I do not believe that we can carry out the responsibilities that we are expected to do with the warrant requirement for any of the 702 type material. In congress im sure. Are there any reforms that can be made that would help provide more transparency into the amount and information that the agencies collect or that the amount of searches conducted especiallyy we are open to discussing that with members of this committee. A number of you have. To provide the support and concern as appropriate. I want to ask a question and it looks like history but it was in the news recently. Yesterday i believe. According to government documents in recent news reports the Justice Department have an ongoing criminal investigation for the Company Making the purchase. That purchase was approved during the Previous Administration and resulted in the russians owning 20 of the miningty capacity. To allow it to occur by the Russian Company we will hear your concerns department of justice will take such actions as is appropriate i know. And i would offer that some people have gone to jail and that transaction already but the article talks about other issues. Without confirming or denying the existence of any particular investigation i would say i hear your concerns and they will be reviewed. Ll see mac i think i know why you are probably reluctant to go into some detail on that but i would like to remind you that Deputy Attorney rosensteiny i dont think it will be proper for him to supervise a review of his own conduct. It would be his decision he is a man of integrity and ability if he feels that he has an inability to proceed with any investigation it would be his responsibility to make that determination and should consult as i told you i would and as i have done with that ethics people at the millions of dollars. They began and the uranium acquisition process. They raise serious concerns about improper political influence on the process by the previouss medical and during the Obama Administration. As the Justice Department fully investigates whether they compromised it. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on any investigation. December of last year this Committee Published a majority staff report and criminal referral regarding payment in connection with transferring fetal tissue. It outlined evident from the organizations own financial records that they profited from the sale of fetal tissue was in violation of the law. No one from the department or the fbi replied to my criminal referrals were sought the copies of the evidence outlined in the report seven months after the report with the referral that there is no indication that anyone from the fbi or Justice Department is actually read the referrals. I hope you will commit. With the personnel. With that referral and the majority staff report. And it will be the last one. Thank you mister chairman. I will evaluate the request and make sure it is properly handle. Think you very much. Mister chairman. I wanted to ask you i want to ask a question or two about the firing of the fbi director specifically i have your letter dated may 9 to the president te specifically what was your designated role the president himself has talked about it. And i make a recommendation its been fully understood and all my experience and i have not heard of a situation in which a major case and the department of justice prosecuteof were involved in announces the closure of the investigation. A few weeks before that happened they were testifying before the congress and he thought he did the right thing and would do it again. In twentyseven years in the department of justice. And they served for eight years as u. S. Attorney on under president obama and four years under president bush. He said that was a usurpation of the position of the department of justice and the attorney general positioned in particularly we were concerned that they reconfirmed that he would do it again. I think that was a basis that calls for a fresh start at the fbi. D mister comay had many talents. There theres no doubt about it. No hard feeling about that. But im really excited about the new director who you have confirmed with an overwhelming vote and i believe he is going to be able to do the job of fbi director with great skill in integrity. What exactly did President Trump tell you was his reason for firing re director comey. Me i know he said he thought the department was a mess. And he ask you. And he ask Mister Rosenstein to take a look at it. The two letters were presented from you dated may 9. A response to that request to take a look at the department. That is what i can tell you. He did ask for the written opinion and we submitted that to him. I did not represent any change in either one of our opinion as he is also indicating emily. We were asked to provide it and we did. Did the president ever mentioned to you his concerned about lifting the cloud on the russia investigation that calls for communications that ive have with the president and i believe it remains confidential. But you dont deny that there was a communication. I do not confirm or deny the existence of any communication between the president that i consider to be confidential. When did you first seek with the president about firing director comey what date. I think that was also covered by my Opening Statement the president has the right and i have a duty to meet with him on proper occasions and provide such advice legal or otherwise as im called upon to do i have done that and i believe he has a right to protect that confidentiality until appropriate circumstances exist that he might choose to waive that privilege. Let me go to another aspect. The is that monuments lawsuit. They are facing three different lawsuits alleging he is violating the emoluments cause of the constitution. Strangely to me at least the Justice Department is defending the president. What did the department do to determine that it was appropriate to represent the president t was the office of Legal Counsel consulted i believe so. And i would sayof it is the responsibility of the department of justice in carrying on his activities against charges that are not deemed near torres. Can you believe that thats part of that charge emoluments as part of that charge. Im not able to discuss legally all of the case law and the history of except to say we believe this is defensible and we have taken the position that are top lawyers is believed to be justified. Let me go to another subject and that isns the pardon of sheriff joe a pio. President trump pardoned the former Maricopa County sheriff who was convicted for define a court order to start racially profiling entertaining latina motive for rest based solely on suspicion that they were undocumented immigrants. They reported that before that. They ask you to drop the criminal case against him. Did the president et ask you whether the case against him could be dropped. I cannot comment on the private conversations i may have have with the president i would just say that attorneys in the department of justice at the request of a judge prosecuted the case the federal judge found the defendant guilty of a misdemeanor and for his actions and the president decided to issue a pardon. What was the process then by which the decision was made to parted him. Im not privy to the details of it. I would be pleased to do so. The president has the power to issue pardons with or without the department of justice involved w and that has been done in the past and some very dramatic type pardons. It was well within the power of the president to do. My understanding that it usually goes through the office of pardon attorney. And decisions are made according to certain standards with the governing positions. It has been reported that the process was not followed here as you so indicate so what youre saying in fact there was no process that the president simply made the decision i am not intending to say that at all. Im not personally at this moment prepared to give you an Accurate Answer because i dont know i remember or know what precisely let me get you thathing in writing would be accurate i would prefer to do that. Welcome back to the committee. We are pushing the appreciate the service that you given. H before getting into my questions i just want to set the record straight on something. G over the weekend the Washington Post ran an article accusing the post of that. It insinuates that i senator whitehouse and other bill sponsors put one over on congress. B mister chairman and general sessions Ranking Member. These allegations are complete baloney and we all know it. The committee reported the bill out by the vote. They agreed to the bill by unanimous consent. Every member of this committee supported the bill twice first in committee and then on the floor. I dont want to hear anyone claim that they didnt know anything about the bill. It was seven pages long and took all of five minutes to read. If they want to go to the floor. Its grounds for withdrawing the president s chosen nominee he should remember that he himself supported the bill twice. Once in committee when he was a member of this committee and then again on the floor. We all supported this legislation every one of us. I hope they will do so and i believe i deserve an opportunity to respond. Moving on. It i have a few questions and would appreciate if you would keep your answers brief. It is often offered as a substitute for opioids. Many states across the month nation. From minute medicinal use. There is some medicinal benefits. Or value to be found in it. To be clear ive been up post of the broad legalization of marijuana. But i introduced along with the bipartisan drug study act. They need to study the potential benefits and dangers of marijuana. Im very concerned about recent reports that they are at odds at Marijuana Research particularly when it comes to granting applications to grow marijuana for further research. Can you clarify the position of the Justice Department. Thank you for your leadership and i had been honored to serve on your chairmanship. We have a Research Plan system working now but as one supplier of that Research People have asked that there be multiple sources of the Marijuana Research. And have asked that it be approved. I believe there are now 26 applications for approval of suppliers who would provide marijuana for medicinal research. Each one of those has to be supervised by the dea and i had raised questions about how many and lets be sure that we are doing this in the right way. They cost a lot of money a to supervise these events. It will be healthy to have some more competition but im sure that we dont need 26 new suppliers. That we need to revisit requirements in our law. The requirements in our laws i believe that Many Americans may be unwittingly breaking the law while not having the slightest idea that their behavior may be illegal. To address this problem. I recently introduced that. And unless it explicitly states that it is intended to be a strict liability offense. General sessions would you agree that they need to have a part of that conversation on criminal justice reform. It has to be. I heard you articulate your concerns. Yes i think it should be a part of what we do. And we would be pleased to work with you to evaluate what kind of legislation might be appropriate. Just two weeks ago you issued a memorandum detailing 20 principles of religious liberty as well as guidance for executive departments and agencies. De the very first principle is i think the most important. The freedom of religion is a fundamental right of paramount importance. And it is not a mere policy preference. General sessions would you say. The status of liberty is an impairment right. On the executive branch. I think it does. I would just say this year legislation that you work so hard to pass. The restoration act was a big part of that foundation of the principles we set out at that religious freedom guidance that weve f produced. We believe there is a lack of appreciation that the rights of americans to not only had private religious thoughts but to exercise their religious freedom. M. You should have a right to congress. To establish a religion no prohibit that free exercise thereof. You have a race that in the past and it was a big part of what we did that you and congress passed. I would like to just make a couple of comments. I know the department and i have different views on this case and the topic remains controversial thats is why i introduced the International Communication act to create a clear framework for determining when they may access the individual. Regardless of where those indications are stored. No matter which way the court rules i believe this is a policy question that Congress Needs to decide. Congress not the court should be that body that does that. I hope you will continue working with me and others on this committee. So that they can ben enacted into law. Senator leahy. Thank you mister chairman and markham attorney general we look for to also come into the Appropriations Committee to talk about your budget. When you are here before the committee in january. Ea and i ask in writing whether you had been in contact with anybody connected to the russian government about the 2016 election. You answered emphatically know. Several meetings. We did not hear this from you. We got from the press. You met with the act and the Trump Campaign event. On foreign policy. All while serving as chairman of the National Security team. I would never accuse you of colluding with the russians answered no. Ly you concealed your own contact with russian officials at a time when such contacts were great interest to the committee. We hadng i do know known each other for decades and we had worked together on many issues. If senator Jeff Sessions was in my shoes he would not tolerate being misled. Do you understandat why they believe your answer know it was a false testimony . . I appreciate the opportunity to talk about that waslieve my answer correct i have the question you ask. You started off in the preamble by the way that said the Intelligence Committee has concluded that russia interviewed and that 2016 election in an effort to help elect donald trump and the report is available. The russian interference is larger than any candidate or political party. It is about protecting our democracy and i agree with that. And then i asked a series of subparts. The question i am referring to. I asked if you had have any contact with the russians and your answer was. The entire context j of all of your questions dealt with interference in the campaign by the russia. The question youre referring to is a subparagraph e and it several of the nominees are senior advisers had russian ties have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the russian government about the 2016 election. E either before or after election day. I took that to mean not any casual conversation but did i participate with russians about the 2016 election. That something was wrong. Everyone of your previous question talks about him proper involvement. And i felt like the answer was no. Yo let me ask you about that. Later in march when you did disclose such meetings you said you did not recall what was said at the meetings. Your answer to my question was an emphatic no. It wasnt i dont recall. Your lawyer. Im a lawyer. You are in fact the nations top lawyer. Is there a difference between responding no i do not recall. Is that legally significant. If you could not recall then you could not had answered my question my first question yes or no. If you said you dont recall. What was discussed. Now, the reason i ask that the u. S. Intelligence accessory pointed in july. They did in Fact Campaign issues. Including the position on russian related issues. So let me ask you this. Since the 2016 campaign have you discussed with any russian connected officials any of the following emails, russian interferencewi sanctions like the woman in ski act. Or any policies or positions of the campaign or the trump presidency. This is 20 since i want to be accurate so i dont have any a ambiguity about the questions. Lets think about this. Ive never hads a meeting with any russian officials to discuss any kind of coordinated campaign efforts. I want to first say discuss any of the following emails. Discuss any of the following emails. Since the 2016 campaign did you discuss with any russian connected official anything about emails. Discuss with them. I have do not recall any such thing. G. Have you discussed anything like sanctions like that men in ski act or what they call the adoption issue. Have you discussed with any policies or positions of the campaign or trump presidency. Im not sure about that. I met with the Russian Ambassador after i gave a speech at the Republican Convention he was right in front of the speakerphonen we have an encounter there. He ask for an appointment in my office later. I met with 26 ambassadors in the last year. He was one of them. He came into the office with two of my Senior Defense specialist i dont recall any conversation about what was that last subject. The discussion about the details of the campaign. Other than it couldve been that in that i meeting in my office at the convention that some comment was made about trumps position was. I think thats possible. S have you been interviewed or requested to be interviewed by the special counsel in connection with the Russian Investigation . You have to ask the special counsel. L. Have you been interviewed or requested to be interviewed by the special counsel either in connection with director comeys spot or the own contact with the russian officials. I would be pleased to answer that. Im not sure i should without clearing that with a special counsel. No i do have a lot more questions along this line. Senator lee. Thank you mister chairman and attorney general service. For being here today. In may you implemented a new charging policy for federal prosecutors. The policy requires as i understand it the prosecutors must be required to pursue the most serious approvable offense. They do permit prosecutors. To apply for approval to charge something less than the most serious offense is ratably provable. Can you tell me what factors the department will be considering in deciding whether or not to rent approval for those that want to charge something less than the most serious bodily approvable offense. The decision and the decision reestablishes the longheld position of justice. That they should charge the most readily appear approvable offense it was altered by the previous Obama Department of justice. He declared that you should not and even directed you should not charge what congress has said as a serious offense that carries a minimum sentence. Was previously set and i was determined to have a simple directive to our capable assistance in the United States attorney. Attorney. Not have a long six page memorandum. The one page memo to them and it said if you think it is not just in you new clear it with your u. S. Attorney where the designee of the u. S. Attorney you can charge less than the most serious approvable offense. You will have to call washington or get some bureaucracy. T au i told them i hope that would work. If we have Serious Problems with it we would revisit it. It only requires that the minimum sentence be imposed and it does not require the maximum sentence as some have said. If you commit a serious Crime Congress says should carry a certain sentence you should not fail to charge that because you want to have a different sentencing result. Do attempt to keep track of how long they keep track of that. And which one are departing from this. Yes we well. I dont know that we have a formal process around rosensteins experience supervisor 12 years of assisting the United States attorney. We have discussed this at depth. This is a sound policy for the department of justice and essentially restores us to what it used to be with more flexibly than previous policy. Just as thomas issued a statement in connection with the denial by the Supreme Court in a case called leonard versus texas in that statement they suggested that the modern civil Asset Forfeiture practices may be unconstitutional at least cast some doubt on the constitutionality of those procedures. U in may of this year i wrote a letter to you asking whether the department would review it civil asset policies and practices into like you announced some new policies that expanded the use of civil asset for teacher. Have you asked the office of Legal Counsel or any other component of the department of justice to provide a formal reviewew of civil asset practices of the government and particularly the states and localities that participate in the sharing we have an intent series of discussion. And having utilizes policy. I simply restored that previous policy and the change only occurred two or three years ago. I believe it is the best policy that im aware of the serious concerns you have i have constricted and placed some limits on how we do these. They declare it somehow now not legal. We want to do it right. Im not sure thats clear, one way or another. I understand your position but i think theres a lack of clarity in the Statement Issued by justice thomas, in connection t in leonard versus texas does cast some doubt on iit. One of my questions is have you asked Legal Counsel for an opinion on this . We are simply restoring the law that has been in effect for decades. I dont know that weve asked a formal opinion on the office of Legal Counsel and dont think its necessary to do so. Okay. As you know, the reason im concerned about this is because, in our criminal Justice System in the United States, we havee process for the accused. You are entitled to a jury trial. You have due process protection protections. If the courts can circumvent those rights, at least with respect to the property of an accused, or to the property of someone who may not himself or herself even be accused of a crime but just have some suspicion and the involvement of the property, that presents significant concerns. If the government can seize the property and make it thencov governments property rather than that of the owner, such that it reverses the presumption of innocence and reverses the burden of proof and eliminates the requirement that proof of a crime be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the concern, especially where some states and local governments have adopted legislation restricting the use of this and its been circumvented. With the help of the federal government through this program, i believe. Iend it needo be reviewed and reviewed aggressively. Thank you. Briefly, mr. Chairman, a number of years ago, maybe ten years ago, senator schumer, when he was a member of this committee and i raised an accord when these issues were being raised. We raised the burden of proof so a seizure of assets, often cash, those seizures cannot be affected without probable cause that its either a product of the criminal activity or a facility used to facilitate collectivity, and then, if the person who had the money contests the case, they would have to, the government has to prove on a preponderance of the evidence which is normal civil standard in a civil lawsuit, and the probable cause standard, you can arrest an individual, a grand jury returned indictments on probable cause. It meets the same standard, really that it would take to put somebody inn jail. I think its a sound policy, 80 of the seizures are not even contested when the dea sets up a procedure for claimants to make their claim, and i believe its a sound policy. We will continue to monitor it. I will watch it even closer than we have beforeeoi, and i would be pleased to stay in munication with you and hear your concerns. Senator durbin, i will return before senator durbin is done. I will be out in just a minute. Thank you very much. Attorney general sessions, welcome back to the committee. Your positions on immigration,e. Doctor, dreamers, are welldocumented. Weve gotten any speeches on the floor of the senate, and i think your position in opposition to those programs has been welldocumented over the course of your senate career. But it may not be quite as simple as you might suggest. I will leave the rationale for you to explain but i think i know how you voted consistently. Let me ask you the spread last month, you announce the Trump Administration was terminating be Doctor Program. It is my understanding that according to longstanding Justice Department policy, the office of Legal Counsel is responsible for providing legal advice to the executive branch on all constitutional questions. A olc issued a 33 page memo on november 19, 2014 that concludes that dacaa is waffle. When you go back to the department of justice, after your hearing today, check your website. That opinion is still on your website. Could you please tell me whether you consulted with the career attorneys at the office of legalys counsel before your announcement that terminated doctor. We did. We talked with a large number of experienced lawyers in the department. Senator durbin, what i would say to you, and i believe this is accurate but the socalled approval of doc up by olc, office of Legal Counsel, was based on the requirement that any action that is taken be done on an individual basis. The court has held that it struckck down doctor, individual decisions were not being made an applicant policy was, in effect being carried out under the Doctor Program, in reality, that was not an individualized basis and therefore, thats why the court found it unlawful. That statement is a departure from what is currently on Department Justice website. The olc opinion of 2014, if you have a new olc opinion that was the basis of your letter, we you provide us with a copy of that. Ill be glad to, but i think it is fair to say that the olc document required a Doctor Program might be illegal if it was done on an individual basis. The department of justice cant just wipe out whole sections ofic american law. I would be glad to review it. For the record, each recipient is e individually interviewed goes through an individual criminal background check and determines whether there is individual eligibility. Having said that, i would ask you one last thing. The court found otherwise. I hope you will share that opinion. Did you have any medication with the Texas Attorney general or any other attorney general who was threatening to lawsuit to void daca before the decision was made by the Trump Administration. I would just say, senator durbin, that kind i of legal discussions would be part of the work product of the Attorney Generals Office and i should not reveal it. You cannot tell me, you are saying you are privileged, that medication is privileged, you had a communication with the Texas Attorney general about their threatened lawsuit againstou daca before the administrations announcement. Even the olc can medications we have are in fact privileged so i would say, thats correct. Ill review it if its somethin something, if its something i feel is appropriate for me to reveal to you, i will do so. I think this would have just about been the moment when senator sessions of alabama would have tell us if he communicated with another attorney general in another w state. Ill take it one party your statement that i take personally because i happen to represent the city of chicago and im honored to represent that city. What happened in las vegas was tragic and awful and heartbreaking. Wak 59 People Killed. Over 500 wounded by gunshots and just a brief period of time was the military type weapon. Pofil it was horrific and awful and disgusting. Having said that, so far this year, 3000 people have been injured by gunshots in the city of chicago. Over 500 have been killed. This is not something that is a political debate in my heart. It breaks my heart to think what the families are going through in a city that i represent. H the superintendent of police that work there, he has worked in not Police Department for 30 years but i want to read you what he said. The federal governments plan of to terminating grant funds will hamper policing and undermine the work our men and women have done to remov reduce shootings by 16 . This is the sentence i want to focus on. If i have said it before, ill say it again, undocumented immigrants are not driving violence in chicago. Thats why i want our officers focused on Community Policing and not trying to be Immigration Police. The money we hope to get from the federal government for byrne grants, we are putting in to a program called shot spotter. You probably know what that is. Its block by block, they can tell instantaneously when a gun has been shot. Our pleas can respond instantaneously to try to get the shooters in to save the life of the victim. You want to cut these funds because you want the city of chicago to play the role of Immigration Police on federal, civilo laws. Mr. Attorney general, youre not helping us solve the murder problem in the city of chicago by taking away these federal funds. The superintendent said yo your pursuit of undocumented immigrants has little or nothing to do with gun violence in chicago. Chicago is a great city. It has many good things going for it. I do think this murder rate is a cloud over the city and it looks like this year may be an even higher murder rate than last year. Good communitybased policing is absolutely essential for this. I am worried about the health and morale of the chicago Police Department. We would like to see that improve. I think the politicians cannot say that if you remove are violent criminal from america that illegally in the country and hes arrested by the Chicago Police and put in the chicago jail that once their release they should be turned n over to the federal ice officer so they can be removed from the country. They were here illegally to begin with. Much less commit another crime. How does that make the city of chicago safer when you dont remove criminals. You cant give an Opening Statement and then ignore what the circular attendantt su tells you have nothing to do with gun violence. Its a large number. The United States government can take over Law Enforcement. Were not doing it for new york we do not want to not have grants go to chicago, but we need it support we asked them to call us weve got to work threat some way. Thank you general session. Welcome back. Thank you for your service. Thank you. Did you conspire with russia or an agent of the russian government to influence the outcome. Do you want the special counsel who is investigating thosesu matters to succeed. I want him to complete his investigation professionally. If he asked you for your cooperation, would you give it . If he asked to meet with you to discuss what, if anything, would you agree to meet with them . Attacked you for a second about new orleans. New orleans is extraordinarily important to my state. My first job in government was with a governor and at the time, he took an Economic Development trip to japan. He tells a story, he was meeting with about 200 japanese businesspeople and he started off by asking them, he said how many of you have been to louisiana. He said five japanese businesspeople raise their hand. Then he said, how many of you have been to new orleans. He said 15 raise their hands. Its a big part of our culture and our economy. Weve got a crime problem in new orleans, as you know. We had a Police Officer killed in the line of duty this weekend. The byrne grants are very important to new orleans to help us fight crime. Now, your office wrote a letter to my friend mayor andrew, asking him questions aboutpl the citys compliance with eight usc section 1373. Let me cut to the chase. There have been allegations that new orleans is a century city. You have asked for information. Mayor andrew who is my friend, wrote you back a very unprofessional letter. Im sorry for that. He suggested you are a mere politician, he said you are scapegoating immigrants, he called you a fearmonger, and he basically called you a liar. I dont consider that to be productive discourse. I apologize on behalf of louisiana. Would you agree with me that we are a nation of immigrants . Virtually, a vast majority have immigrated here at some point or another, for sure. But we are also a nation of law, is that correct. Thats correct. If i dont agree with the law, do i have too follow it . Yes. I hate Traffic Cameras. I dont agree with them. Do i have to follow the laws about Traffic Cameras . Yes. What if i dont like the laws about Traffic Cameras. I need to go change them, is that right. Thats correct. Would you be willing, would you make yourself available if i could arrange a meeting with you and your colleagues and if they were about to elect a new mayor to sit down and work with the department of justice to resolve these allegations of being a sanctuary city in a way that the Justice Department is comfortable with so we can keep that money. Absolutely. I would, and i would just say, senator kennedy, there are ten cities during the last attorney general tenure that were noted as being, said were likely to be in violation of federal 1373 cooperative law that requires cooperation on detainers or at least communications with federal law officers. New orleans was one of those. About half of those now have gotten off the list and we would love to see new orleans get off the list, but we are not there yet. The mayor has talked openly about some of these strategies where he describes what we are asking them to do is to go out and arrest people in the city that are here illegally. We are not asking that. We are asking that when the city arrest someone that oregally in the country some other crime, to communicate with us, give us notice before they are released back in the community, because weit may find or our ice officers may find they are due to be deported. They are here illegally and they commit another crime, they ought to be deported. That is what the law says and thats what we intend to do. Its amazing to me that some of the mayors are so reluctant and so hostile for that request. I dont think its my duty to give out grants in a city thats failing in federal state jurisdiction. I dont mean to imply general, that youre picking on new orleans. Think the letter you sent to new york city, and i believe philadelphia, if im not mistaken, and chicago, i think its clear that our mayor of new orleans may not agree with americas immigration law, and i understand that. This is america. You can believe what you want, but my understanding is we have to follow those laws. My understanding, as well, is that all the Justice Department is asking is that the city of new orleans follow federal law. Or, go change it. Is that your understanding. Thats correct. In fact, we should really strengthen 1373. Its a common sense request for partnership with our state and local at we support in any number of ways. I would love to see our relationships continue to get even better than i have been nation wide. Its the key to crimefighting. , the record to reflect, i stayed within my timeith. Thank you very much. Thank youto general. Senator whitehouse. Welcome back. Just to opening questions, over and over again in this committee and others, we have heard the intelligence the National Security professionals of our country and people who study those issues professionally warn us that campaign and election interference by the russians is not going away. We can expect more of it in the 2018 election and we can expect more in the 2020 election. What i would like to know from you is the name of the person in the department of justice whose job it is to look at that and make recommendations toso the senate as to what legislative remedies we should pursue to prevent that warned of activity from happening. Is there such a person, and what is his or her name. I think it probably wouldve been our National Security division which is led by dana 20 who was also appointed u. S. Attorney by president obama in northern virginia. I will be frank. I dont know that we are doing a specific legislative review. Do you think it would be prudent. Well, ill take that as a suggestion and i know that with your time in the department of justice, you can contribute to that discussion. I will be glad to discuss it with you. Similarly there is another statement out of the white house that is a call for information from various departments. To my information there has been no proposed legislation of any kind. My conversations at the white house have not produced any type of liaison or way of Going Forward on this issue. As you know, there are multiple congressional committees that touch on Cyber Security, and it really complicates life if there is not somebody at the departmentt of justice whose job it is to work with us on Cyber Security legislation. The silence has been deafening. If you could get me a name of a person whose responsibility it is at the department of justice ae e to work with the senate on Cyber Security legislation, i think that would help move things forward. I will do that. Theres two levels of it. First, at anytime i hope you would call our legislative affairs and say i want to talk about legislation. I can bring this up with you here right now. We have trouble getting answers for anything out of the department of justice. Have a list of unanswered mail. Januaryil letter, february letter, unanswered. March 2017 letter, unanswered. May 26, 2017 letter, unanswered, renewed july 27, 2017, unanswered. July 11, 2017 letter, renewed september 26 and october 17, unanswered. September 26 letter unanswered. So please dont refer me to the people who are supposed to be in charge of this relationship and they wont even answer my mail. Minute director was justst confirmed recently and weve got the backlog by half and we will continue to cut the backlog and we will get on that. But i guess, another thing, knowing that you are particularly knowledge about issues, he would like to talk to an attorney who is actually working the cases and has dealt with the issues. Yes, im up to speed on that side. The issueto is, there are things we need to fix lat legislatively on Cyber Security, and at the moment i cant find a point of entry into this administration of anyone who is working on Cyber Security legislation or is appointed to or delegated too. Thats the person i need, about legislation, not just an update on cases. I understand. Executive privilege. We talked about it a little bit. Letterson i sent you a is so you would be prepared to talk about executive privilege and this wouldnt be a gotcha moment. Let me ask you the executive order by president reagan in 1982, is that still the guideline under which the department operates or have you changed that guideline . That is part of the principal that we operate t on. It is the document that describess how the executive branch will respond to executive privilege. Its that and case law and other executive documents that have been issued over the years. Heres, let me know if any of this has changed. That rule says that executive privilege will be asserted only in the most compelling circumstances and shall not be invoked without specific president ial authorization. Is that still the rule . Repeat that. Executive privilege will be asserted only in the most compelling circumstances and shall not be invoked without specific president ial authorization. Executive privilege cannot be invoked except by the president. Congressional request for information should be complied with us probably and fully as possible. C unless it is determined that compliance raises a substantial question of executive presen privilege. Is that still the rule. That is a good role. g. To allow questions to be answered and documents to be released as not violating executive privilege. You can make that determination under paragraph three, correct . Im not sure about that. Okay, im reading aloud. So the department has the attorney general, council of the president under the circumstances determine executive privilege shall not be invoked unless the requested information. The attorney general, says it right there. I dont believe they can do it without approval of the president. Of course they have to be able to release information without the approval of the president , you do it all the time i guess youre talking about, not about privileges of the executive branch such as private conversations. Even for that, theres still this rule that the issue has to be presented to the president. We have, you have a moment. What they call a request of the congressional body to hold requests for permission in abeyance. You have a period of bands youre allowed to ask for, why would you let the president ial determination if youre going to assert executive privilege but sooner or later, the claim of executive privilege must be made with the specific approval of the president. My concern is this period of abeyance has turned into a nonassertion assertion of executive privilege. We have questions that weve asked you going back to your Intelligence Committee appearance in june, until june or july. How inlong a period of abeyance do doyou need to get an answer from the white house as to whether these questions are protected or not . You cant have a situation where the president never have to assert that the audience goes on indefinitely, dont you agree with that . I think you make a point but the burden is on those who want to brief a core privilege of the president which is private conversations with his attorney general with show precisely what it is that you would like him to weigh in on. Thats what your letter failed and it was sort of the reverse, that you have to tell us what youre going to do and what youre not going to talk about and i think it needs d. You attend to revert to the questions so wewill follow up with that and you will have more time. But the specific questions i will pursue when i have more time. Let me touch briefly, i have to say that this executive branch is an equal branch and you would not want someone demanding to know who talked to who in your office, your counsel, your chief of staff. Neither would we want to be prowling willynilly through the Supreme Court what their clerks new and what they were told by the justices leading up to some decision thats not popular, so i would just purge us moall to first and foremost respect the legitimacy of any president and their right to seek advice and confidence. Eisenhower is once reported to have said if one of my advisors reports the advice they gave me during the day, they be fired that night. This is not a little matter. Thats all im saying to you and if this isnt legitimate and you make the specific cases, we will review it but it shouldnt be done casually , ive got to say. My time is ups before i call on senator graham, theres a question to you on this very subject, as the Intelligence Committee since you told them similar to what you are telling us today, attempted to compare you to either answer specific questions or claim privilege or subpoenaed you in any way to get answers . I dont believe so, mister chairman. Senator graham. That was more than a little bit. I thought it was important enough to, maybe that will shorten it for other people that may want to add and to say whether it was important but it was in a little bit. Speaking of letters, to be able to claim a little bit. I want my time back. Give him back his time. Speaking of letters not answered, on august 30th senator grassley and i sent a letter to the department of justice wanting information related to drafting of memos exonerating secretary clinton before the july statement of director combing and got nothing back. Do you think will ever get an answer to that letter . If you need an answer, ill explain why it cant be answered. Either way, the fbi. I will take that and make sure it happens. Apparently on the fbis website, they got emails with no content. The suggesting that kobe in may was talking in the title of this thing is what is the title of this thing . The email. Draft of Director Police statement regarding email server investigations. Thats what the title of this thing is. But when you look at it, theres nothing there. Apparently in may, comey was talking to staff about draft memorandums clearing clinton before he ever talked, are you aware of avthis . Im not, i have not been engaged in that, who is engaged because i told the committee that confirmation. But who do i talk to . Would like talk to about getting the letters . I think you should direct your letter to the Deputy Attorney general or to the legislative affairs. The reason we wrote that letter is because there is an investigation of a former fbi director, that the Committee Office of special counsel under the hatch act gave transcripts where two senior people talked about this memo. So we just want to know, did comey instruct his people to draft memos rendering a conclusion about the email investigation of former secretary clinton before july . Before he interviewed her, not before july. If you could have somebody answer that question, we would appreciate it. Thank you. Shall i respond to your inquiry . There are many members of this body, this committee who are looking at trying to reform sentences for nonviolent offenders, would you willing to be worked with us in that endeavor . I would. I know you want to secure the border, count me in for securing the border. When you talk about a wall, the 2200 mile wall. I think the president made clear he doesnt expect that . You know how long the wall will be. It will be 2200 miles. It will not. A security is involved in that issue. Ecdo you support a pathway to citizens for dream kids if we can get Border Security in return . I have not supported explicitly anything about citizenship, but i am repaired to say i think i said previously something could be worked out on this and it cant just be onesided. I agree with that. Now, first thing i want to talk about is russia. Did you ever hear of anybody in the Clinton Campaign talking about having collaborated with the russians . You mean in the media . In any of the campaign did you hear a conversation between you and anybody on the campaign who talked about meeting with the russians . You said the Clinton Campaign, i said the election. I have not seen anything that would indicate a collusion with russians to impact the campaign. Were you aware of a meeting between trump junior, manafort and Jerry Kushner with russians in clocktower . Did they ever tell you about the content of that meeting . Ive never discussed the content of that meeting. No one told you the russians on our side, they want to help us. Know, and thats all i know about is whats in the papers. I havent followed. This is a clinton email investigation, do you know if there was a phone call between the former attorney general mrs. Lynch and the white house regarding whether or not she should take a meeting with the former president clinton on the tarmac . Know. Is there any way we could find that out . Records of that, would there be records available . The inquiries should probably be directed to the Deputy Attorney general. Ill do that. Do you know if the socalled trump dossier was used by the Justice Department to seek a warrant . I have no idea. Could you find out if it did happen. I believe it would need to be directed to someone else in the department. But i think you could tell. You could make that inquiry and youd deserve a yes, sir no response. Secretary comey gave three reasons various times and i cant find my key here about why he jumped into this case in july. First, if thats the main reason the president wanted to fire him, is jumping into the email investigation and taking over, which i agree with, why did he take so long . To fire him . M you mean why did the president . The president s auknew when was inaugurated that comey jumped into the middle of the clinton email investigation, took the job of attorney general over. As the main reason he was fired, why did he wait so long to fire comey . Youd have to ask for the full import of that, he asked theattorney general rosenstein and me for a recommendation and thats the recommendation e we gave him. On something that everybody familiar with the department of justice had been musing about four months. This is important. I know that comey has told other committees that the main reason he got involved in july to take over the investigation was not because of the tarmac meeting. It was because he was worried there have been emails in the hands of the russians between the dnc and the department of justice and i know that testimony exists. And some claim the email was fake. You know anything about this and is there any way for us to find out what actually happened . That is suggesting one way or the other that i know anything about it. I would say that would be improper or me to share this time. Senator clover chart. Thank you chairman and welcome back attorney general. Im going to start a few questions following up with some of my colleagues the president has characterized this special counsels investigation as a witch on. You share that view of the special councils work and do you still have confidence in the special counsel as you stated before the Intelligence Committee in june . People are free in this country to express their views about matters of that kind. Im just all prosecutors, they say the process has to work its will. But back in june you said you have confidence in a special councils work, do you still l have that confidence . I know the special counsel mueller for many years before he became even fbi director so i think he would go a long with at least the work in the way he thinks its correct and history will judge. Are you still saying, your testimony has changed about special counsel mueller . In my mind it hasnt changed. When you appeared before the Intelligence Committee you declined to answer questions as to whether you discussed pardons for any of the people involved in the investigation. Without getting into that for your reasoning, broadly speaking do you believe it would be problematic for an Ongoing Investigation if a president t were to preemptively issue a pardon for someone who we have reason to believe is of interest that investigation before the special counsel had a chance to finish his work. Well, be pardon power is quite broad, i have not studied whetherthat would be appropriate or not. So you dont know, that we can follow up and you could look it back . Is a pretty important. I would respond to a written request. As you know im pleased with your choices and i was there at the ceremony and i also had a good working relationship with director comey and do you believe there are inherent risks in any private communication between the president and the fbi director . This comes out of the fact that director comey said he had nine different conversations with President Trump and also testified that in three years he spoke only twice with president obama and following director comey is testimony that the president improperly raised the subject of an Ongoing Investigation during the friday meeting, have you taken any steps to ensure the Justice Department officials are not being inappropriately approached by the president or anyone in the white house so the two questions are, do you think there are risks in this and what steps have you taken . We have discussed that at some length about the proper procedures. The holder, i believe holder or lynch memorandum on that subject remains in effect. Its probably tighter than previous memorandums on that subject and the Deputy Attorney general and others in the department, i dont think weve completed our new policy but we think there should be a careful policy on that subject. Its not appropriate to say for white house officials to call lower level prosecutors or civil attorneys and carry on conversation. It should be done in an appropriate fashion. Those rules remain in effect and we are reviewing whether they should be altered in any way. Okay, we will look forward to that and im sureyou will let us know. Im on july 11 i sent a letter with senator white house stretching out into someelection issues that was joined by my other Democratic Co colleagues asking about the Justice Departments coordination with the commission. Eethis is the callback Election Integrity commission. Which you know has been controversial. We sent a number of letters about this figure out what the relationship with the Integrity Commission is between the Justice Department because it is the Justice Departments job to ensure that Voting Rights are ouprotected. And a number of us are concerned about this commission that is requesting data from all over the country including from secretary of state, many of whom are republican who have objected to this kind of data going to a computer that is allegedly going to be housed in the white house. And i just wondered if you had communications with members of the commission about their efforts and what kind of coordination is going on. Ive never had a single conversation with any number or a commission. And have people that worked for you been coordinating with them . I dont know that coordinating is the correct word. Weve asked for assistance on several issues. I think its quite appropriate for the president to have a commission to review possible irregularities in elections. You can be sure that the department of justice will fairly and objectively enforce the law. I believe that to be true, im just concerned that this commission is off doing the work and we just found out this week from the Washington Post that one of the employees has been charged with distribution of child pornography. So i just ask that you as the Vice President and the vice chair answer our questions about that. If this staffer thats been charged with horrendous crime access to voter data including data for minors and whats the hiring process for this committee . We would fulfill our responsibilities. This continues to be concerning. I think the direction that should go to the commission. If not the doj. Along the lines of elections, senator warner and i have been working on a bill that we think is important and this is more to bring it to your attention. And i know you recused yourself from the Russian Investigation, i respect that decision and this is just beyond that because its about the ads that were bought during the 2016 campaign. 100,000 were bought on facebook. But also, the estimates are that 1. 4 billion was spent on political ads in 2016 and i like ads that are broadcast on tv or radio or printed in the newspaper, theres no requirement on Online Platforms that they, that any point they register those add or have a way of indicating if they are paid for and how much money is spent. Its a National Security issue because of what weve seen with russia but it is also a completely absurd that we have some kind of ads you can register and check out on public file and these others are completely dark and hidden from view. Even what is going on, do you think that the election laws should be updated as overseeing the department that has jurisdiction over igthe peoples Voting Rights to better protect our democracy. In this new, fastpaced world of technology, perhaps there are needs to update it and iwould be pleased to work with you. I appreciate that, thank you very much. Senator cruise. Thank you mister chairman. General sessions, welcome back. We missed you on this side of the dais. We spent a lot of time in the hearing room together and thank you for your good and Honorable Service as attorney general. And the many positive things the department of justice and last nine months. I want to talk with you about an issue near and dear to veyour heart which is immigration. I want a couple of areas. Colets start with the aca. I want to commend you and the president for doing the right thing d, terminating president obamas illegal executive Amnesty Program. It was contrary to federal lilaw, contrary to the president s responsibility under article 2 of the constitution to take care that the laws be faithfully executed and it directed federal Law Enforcement officers to disregard law so i commend you for announcing the suspension of that program. As you know, the president indicated that it is now for congress to legislate a program addressed to those recipients and they are right now considerable ongoing debates and discussions within congress scabout if and whether to do so and if so, how. My first question is does the department of justice have a position on whether congress should legislate a new Amnesty Program or the aca recipients . The department has not taken a position on that. The president certainly left the door wide open and stated that he would favor Something Like that. And it certainly would be a lawful and proper thing for congress to do. My understanding is that in september 2017, there are 689,800 individuals currently with a the aca registration. There have been estimates done that there are nearly 2 million potential he eligible doctor recipients in the country. In your personal judgment, should those nearly 2 Million People here illegally in this country be eligible to be United States citizens . My best judgment that ive expressed over the years someone who enters the country unlawfully, if they are given some sort of legal status, normal legal status, should not get everything that went to people who properly wait their time in lawfully so im not taking a position that would support citizenship for those who entered illegally. As the senator on this side, i think you have multiple times spoken with great passion on the issue. As attorney general, do you have any view on whetherthose here illegally should be eligible for us citizenship . I havent atstated my view at this point. As attorney general, if those some 2 Million People here illegally their potential Daca Recipients were granted citizenship, do you have concerns about the next step of pain migration of those individuals been bringing in potentially three, four, 5 million relatives as a second step of an Amnesty Program . Yes. That needs to be evaluated and when you use the figure 2 million, it just raises the question that we should think carefully about, like who would qualify fora daca program if one were to be carried out . And the president has made clear, and i think he cares about this. He cares about young people who came here at a young age but he also believes that the nation should have an immigration policy that serves the national interest, and that it should not be, it should be a more meritbased policy likecanada. Thats something that i have believed in for a number of years. Let me ask a different question. In your personal judgment, should those here illegally he made eligible for Public Welfare and for billions of both federal and state and local funds to provide for various needs . If people are here unlawfully, it strikes me as the last thing you would want to do is subsidize that unlawfulness and you would not, it should not be normally eligible for benefits. Maybe some things we will do, no doubt about it but still, fundamentally, persons should not be attracted to enter the country unlawfully and then demand lawful benefits. Let me shift to a different topic which is Border Security. I want to commend the administration. Early on we saw a dramatic increase in illegal crossings in the neighborhood of decrease of two thirds in the opening months of the administration, i commend you for that. I will say i am concerned by reports im hearing from the board. Im concerned, according to the public numbers, in august of this year customs and Border Protection saw a 22 percent increase in apprehensions and inadmissible persons at points of entry. I had a conversation with a rancher in south texas who described to me how he said early in the year the number of illegal crossings dropped significantly but this summer he seen those numbers biking up again. He was concerned that it was returning to the levels that we saw earlier. Are you concerned about that and what is the department of justice and department of Homeland Security doing to prevent this . Im very concerned about it. The president s own leadership resulted in a decline. We believe of all of the attempted entries into the United States. If you make clear the border and we back it up, theres no doubt that the to enter unlawfully will plummet. This is not an Impossible Task for americans to secure the border. But theyre challenging us, there are many problems with our ability to enforce the law, some loopholes and monumental proportions and i strongly believe that legislation from congress is going to be essential toto doing what the American People want. Let me ask one final question, i recently did a townhall with Border Patrol agents and is visited with a significant number of Border Patrol agents along the rio grande. What im hearing from the Border Patrol is that the ri policy to catch and release of the Obama Administration are still continuing in the current administration. It is highly troubling. When i heard those reports in january i told you the administration some time to get their team in place to change policy if you cant turn a battleship overnight. Its now october. Is the administration continuing the policy of catch and release and if so, what is the plan to end that policy . Im glad you asked that question. And in 2011, we had a backlog of immigration cases of 300,000. Its now over 600,000. 5000 people in 2009 who were apprehended at the border. They claim a should not be deported because they have a fear of being sent back home. Last year, it increased from 5000 to 94,000. Those people are basically entitled a hearing. And this is a loophole thats too big and we need to create some sort of control over it. Were looking at their using that we can do effectively short of legislation but theres no doubt mister chairman that we need legislation on this subject and several others. We are adding judges. Weve had i think that the already. We will have another 40 by january and the backlog instead of going up will be going down and we will continue to work at that but the legislation is critical. My time is expired but if i could ask for a direct yes, sir no on whether catch and release is still the policy . Its not the policy, its just a reality that theres so many people claiming being entitled to hearings that we dont have the ability to provide those hearings and they are being released into the community and theyre not coming back for their hearings. Its unacceptable. Senator franken. Thank you mister chairman, attorney general sessions, welcome back. Rf the last time we spoke i asked you about russian de interference in the 2016 president ial election. There is now absolutely no question that the russians meddled in the election and undermined confidence in american democracy, damaged the campaign of Hillary Clinton and produced donald trump, our intelligence agencies haveconfirmed this. We also know there were many contacts , communications between russian operatives, Trump Campaign officials and associates and in order to make sure that this kind of attack never happens again, we need to understand what happened. And whether anyone inside the Trump Campaign assisted the russians efforts. During your confirmation hearing i asked you and i quote, if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump Campaign communicated with the russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do . That was a simple, straightforward question. What will you do have to mark the implication was will you recuse yourself . Rather than answer that question, you replied quote, i have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and i didnt have, did not have communications with the russians. That was on january 10. On february 8 you were wa confirmed and on march 1, the Washington Post confronted with the truth you started to qualify period answer. Later in an answer you said to the committee to disclose to of your three meetings. max i do not recall any discussions with the Russian Ambassador or any other representative of the russian Government Regarding the Political Campaign on these occasions or any other occasion but this summer the washingtonie post reported the americanan intelligence agencies intercepted communication between the Russian Ambassador and moscow in which he described two of the conversations with you. April meeting Mayflower Hotel july meeting at the rnc. Citing both former and u. S. Officials and the intercept reportedly indicate that you had substantive discussions on policy matters important to moscow according to those familiar with support the ambassador was wellknown for accurately relate his interactions with u. S. Officials back to the kremlin. So attorney general sessions and response to this report the Justice Department declined to comment but doj did assert that you did mack not discuss interference in the election which is also you describe your communications to the senate Intelligence Community so the goal post has been moved first it was i did not have communications with the russians which was not true that i never met with any russians to discuss any Political Campaign which mayor may not be true now is i did not discuss interference that narrows your initial denial meeting with the russians. Since you qualified your denial that you did not discuss issues of the campaigns with the russians, what in your view constitutes issues of the campaign . Let me just say this without hesitation that i conducted no improper discussions with russian said anytime regarding a campaign or any other item facing this country that has been the suggestion that you have raised and others that somehow we had conversations that were improper. You had a long time i would like to respond. I am two minutes over they will cut me off. I want to ask questions. No mr. Chairman i do not have to sit here to listen. If you would like me to respond . Give me a break. Goahead. That was not a simple question will begin to your question was very, very troubling and i will answer that was responsive to what you raise did your question and let me read it to you. You said cnn just published a story meaning that day while we were in the hearing and i telling you this about this news story that has been published i dont expect you to know whether or not it is true but cnn just published a story alleging the Intelligence Community of the United States of america provided documents to the president elect last week that russian operatives have compromising personal and financial informationed. Also these documents allegedly continuing exchange of information during the campaign during the trump surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government. Now again i tell you this as it comes out but if it is true it is extremely serious if anybody affiliated with the Trump Campaign so what would you do . Said to be taken aback by this dramatic statement that i have never heard before senator frank and i am not aware of those activities. I have been called a surrogate and by a did not have communications with the russians and i am unable to comment. I dont think that can fairly to be interpreted to say i have never had conversations but that suggestionin between the trump surrogate and those intermarriage we dearies which did not happen. So yes you can say what you want about the accuracy but it was a response to a dramatic event at the time. I dont think that is fair for you to suggest otherwise he took two and a half minutes. How much do you want . I did not take as much time as senator franken. Let me just deal with senator frank and. Minutes please. First of all, you said i did not have communications with the russians with this is Ongoing Communications you had three communications and now you cannot recall answering senator leahy what you discussed. You make a lot of allegations it is hard for me to respond. Can i have more time . [laughter] use said today in response to senator leahy that you dont recall whether you talk about the campaign or issues and trumps views with issues with russia. Those are very relevant to the campaign whether a surrogate from the campaign with the Russian Ambassador with the candidates views on russian policy especially at the rnc, the Mayflower Hotel the day before to give his maiden speech on foreign policy, that is very different not being able to recall what you discussed with him is very different than to say i have not had communications with the russians. The ambassador from russia is russian. How your response has more from i did not have communications to i did not discuss incentive i did not discuss anything for the Political Campaign then i did not discuss interference in the election moves the goalpost every time and readers starting off with an extra point and by the end were at the 75yard field goal. To say i did not discuss interfering with the election if that is your last treatment that is a very different bar then i can tell you why did not me with any russians i hope it is a short answer. To improperly framed the subject. Please proceed. You and i have had a Good Relationship on this committee. I would tell my colleagues i take most of you have known of highlevel love Public Service to reach the High Standard of ethics and decency and to be honest about things so now you have gone through this long talk that i believe is totally unfair. At all rose from this question when he was charged that these documents allegedly say there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trumps surrogates. Allsi of them. Trumps surrogates in intermediaries for the dirussian government. Is and that what you said . It did not say some of it sayson surrogates i responded on the spot within six hours and i am not afraid and i am not i have been called a time or two in did not have communications with the russians and i cannot comment. To have a continuing exchange of information so if i ever met with a russian i am not candid with the committee and i reject that. There was drama there i wasnt paying enough attention on a dump a dr. Pepper on senator cruz. But in the contextto of the long term objective is Vladimir Putin to undermine the american in institutions and there are multiple Ongoing Investigations. So that longerterm goal that theyce have this is not through the prism of who you voted for as important as it is they know that we face a longterm effort to undermine our foreign to undermine confidence in american institutions. Know where do they know that but a rare putin has not tried so this should not we republican verses democratic issue. But that means any partisan or ideological idea is temporary he wants to undermine american it sounds like there is a russian behind everything in america. But other outlets this seems that Vladimir Putin is somebody that we could trust so i think that we know that russia will be back in 2018 or 2018 to undermine the of republican and Democratic Institutions to undermine our confidence and exacerbate on american hatred. We live at a time for propaganda and misinformation is more costeffective to weaken the United States of america that we are under investigating summarized in the since chief lawenforcement officer im curiousnt of your views on this issue but first the you think were doing enough to prepare for future interferencehi by russia and other foreign adversaries . Probably not. We are not. It is so complex for most of us we cannot grasp those dangers that are out there we have penetration by some of the texas partners with a disruption of interference by russian officials and it requires a real review. So what concrete steps has the department take to learn the lessons of 2016 for the of purposes of future election interference . We specifically reviewed the commercial interference to import that data that they have spent decades of developing to have that stolen in a moment. With a National Security of division the department of justice has talented people. The fbi has as good of a group of experts on Computer Technology but whether we are at that level i dont think so. So lets distinguish between first you asked earlier if you have confidence in the january 6 Community Assessment to interfere in the 2016 election . I acknowledge that. I have no reason to deny that. With the integrity of the professionalism there may be an issue of the pipeline is robust do we have enough people if you were writing today to focus onif line and sc on the first 100 days talk as how you would prioritize that space so i feel we are investing way too little to be ready for offense and defense aspects the special with a misinformation campaign. Im not sure were at the bottom of that yet but it needs to continue to be examined. With the Armed Services committee to review with the entire Defense Department situation how vulnerable we are the we have any folder abilities . And then the commercial penetration with some case is better on going to validate that concern. Thatt chiefly look saccharide hardware and software expenditures and to the of to we have to look at thee . Democratic process . If you have legislation i would be glad to hear it. I am not sure we have a specific review under way at point. Of course most test to be coordinated with the Intelligence Community with a director of national intelligence. I i appreciate your responsiveness and i will nott ask president of that 13if minutes and 26 seconds but if i could go over by 32nd suburb like to draw to your attention the fact we have a number of w crimes committed by illegal aliens and nebraska some of these are the most heartrending you could imagine but i want to point out it isnt just a case of cherry picking to isolate bad apples we know some of those crimes were dealing with committed by illegal aliens dealing with threats posted particular by transnational organizationse like ms13 we are at times so instead would you commit to court later briefing on the financing and Payment Systems used by deaf transnational criminal gangs . I would be glad to. Those of having given to west by the president in particular ms13 we would be pleased to discuss that with you. To ask for your accommodation but then i was going to ask if you need a few minutes away. From the table. Ah we have to more than seven democrats on the second round at least 40 minutes. If you want to stay there. I will like to have a break at some point. Okay we will take a 20 minute break. 30 minute break that is what senator feinstein asks and that is what we will do. Senator . This is the first time we have had anrs opportunity from your role as attorney general i appreciate this so far. You have publicly be accused herself from all matters with the ongoing russia investigation i am concerned whether or not you honored that fully. But itta is harder to do that but i wrote to the office of professional responsibility back in july but how the department of justice how they honor yourd recusal i have not got any answer. I took that personally until i realized there are many letters that have not been ouswered. If your department has not answered could you please answer directly how our employees participating to be instructed on your recusal . The day after it took office i said i would meet with the ethics officials if recusal was appropriate at midday after we had my first meeting with a series of meetings i realize there is aib possibility and would need to recuse myself i have received no information whatsoever from that investigation i did not know the true the of lawyers were to read you no documents and then to know something about the case and to send out any mail that with the director comey it would not be involved in the investigation. To receive information about it. Director teeeighteen said he did not gete this. But we did that end i have complied rigorously. So the purpose of the Russian Investigation the attorneygeneral of the United States makes all the decisions to manage the process to guarantee integrity. Te have you spoken with President Trump about the special counsel investigation at any point . I will not comment on the conversations that we have had a that violates privilege. Did the general make the right decision to appoint a special counsel. So was that the right choice . At that depends on the fax aouns circumstances of the case of which he was fully apprised. But he is a talented prosecutor. With the department of justice . And then to promote the rule of law it is important that this investigation in reaching its natural and full conclusion without any interference. Said to remove her fire the special counsel was that an appropriatepr conversation . My have not thought that through. It deals with the special counsel that would need to be directed to those whod supervise seven be the Deputy Attorney general. Would you, consider resigning i will not attempt a hypothetical i think it is best to leave my answer as i gave it. In your confirmation hearing and it would be proper to recuse myself with any questions off raised against secretary clinton. So that means to recuse the decision to the Deputy Attorney general that there is a procedure that i will follow and you said you follow that. The Deputy Attorney general delivered to you in a memo about the conduct during the clinton email investigation to conclude the director that that was handled incorrectly. Yes youre talking about the recommendations. The same day you send a memo relying exclusively on that memo that you recommend it director comey be removed. Correct. If you were recused yourself from any investigation relating to secretary investigation of why did you write a memo to the president . The main reason was the conduct related to the investigation why would you participate directly. He does not recuse himself from supervision of a 7 billion agency and with these matters number two the case had been closed and that discussion whether or not m mr. Director mueller conducted himself properly if there was sufficient evidence to go forward with regard to the charge again secretary clintonit whether not he acted properly to close the case instead of the Attorney Generals Office. So it is quiteey different you discuss that and i am confident i was not required to recuse myself on the decision whether or not. Can i just conclude ibm concluded to deliver scope of justice but that was decided reason. Im very comfortable that i did not violate what i told this committee were proper rules of not recusing myself of the decision because it was not based on the merits or his performance publicly to announce a decision that he was not entitled to announce. I have then a strong supporter of yours and quite honestly i thought the president gave confidence in you and i will continue but thend good news i cant go over even if i wanted to. With the Civil Division the nominees are in the room but that chokepoint is what i am concerned with you responded to a letter that wee sent that the program is effectively over if you talk to businesses they are still concerned what is going on with examiners with those regulatory agencies. So what the doj cando to communicate to transcend us to reawaken the of program to find out that they are doing that the hope that means it costs their job. I want to talk about this subject several times on immigration but to have better clarity through the choke Point Program with that certainty of ben and diameters. Thing to for your leadership we took immediate and strong action to stop it. To officially described the department of justice but in the real world to work with people from birth carolina going down to the name of then people if they dont change their behavior we need to shed light i will push every button that i can to make sure that happens they need to follow your leadership. Does anybody want to throw out good and educated accomplished young people through no fault of their own . Talking about Daca Recipients. Cannot be the policy of the United States that you can bring a person in the country and they cannot be deported. Thate is not a sustainable policy overall. That is a statement from the citizen who also happens to be the United States president so what do say that to him . The president has made clear he would like to deal compassionately who have been here a long time and would like to have reform in that area. I should add mentioned i do always appreciate you characterize a debate club because we have a little bit of difference. You are a great leader. So another question about daca is that yourr opinion is that the executive Branch Overreach . If this is day executive branch over reach . If they would do their job back come on. Eptember 5th with that effort to start the program and need some timeha to wind down that is the appropriate program. They requested and what they feel it is appropriate. I am running out of time so back in Early September we have sixmo months to the elias daca or i will revisit the issue would you agree he has no Administrative Authority . I am not sure exactly in the short statements but i know he wantsn to fix the problem is you do. How many successful outcomes have you observed over 20 years . Not many. I saw some bad things so my line has been with immigration back and actually work but never passed. So if we go down the path there are two extremes in this debate we dont need borders, we need bridges the they entered this country illegally even if miners they need to go home. So with that spectrum what about Immigration Reform . That is not a fair analysis a think the American People are prepared prepared and what i would like to see is is anybody advocating to unlawfully . Absolutely not because you are the attorney general but ato number of you and your staff are actively engaged of the reform strategy. How can we take care of every layer ofou tissue whether the daca population or the Work Visa Program and then illegally present. So we have to gather them get into a constructive dialogue and to be guilty of the same failure and i will work with you for those that produce the outcome. We have an opportunity right now. [inaudible]nt providing specific information 19 resolve the concerns of the attorney generalge unfortunately we are not at liberty to Say Something that was given to us in a secure briefing. But after that briefing we wrote to the fbi and requested they give the fulll committee all 20 members of thett committee from what we know. The fbi did not do that. So now we have conflicts i think could have been avoided if the fbi would have been more transparent with the oversight of this committee. We will adjourn. Two of them have not been i announced. So for the benefit of senator sessions. If it is critical to the schedule i can stay. But i said we would break when we got done with him so we should reconvene at 1 25 p. M. Exactly. [inaudible conversations]