Question of obstruction. Barr just revealed that mueller did not indicate that he wanted congress to make that decision on obstruction of justice. He also said that mueller did not specifically ask the attorney general to make that decision. He said thats generally how it works, the Justice Department makes that decision about charges with obstruction of justice. Now theres been lots of questions about the redactions. Hes making it clear that he plans to hand over a redacted version of this report but has not discussed overruled redactions with the mueller team and has not discussed redactions with the white house. Little more information than yesterday but still democrats want to see that full report. No indication thats going to happen. Kate . Manu, thank you very much. Joining me right now and well add other players to this, but let me bring in evan perez. This was some of your reporting this morning, about how bill barr was assembling a team to look into origins of the russia investigation, something he suggested yesterday and you had more on it today. What did you make of his, i guess, further explanation of what hes interested in looking into and why today. Yeah. Kate, i think that was a little bit of a cleanup in the fisa aisle there at the hearing. But then the attorney general seemed to wave more deeply and cause more spills in that aisle. Here is what he said to jean shaheen. I think we have the sound about what exactly hes trying to do with regard to the origins of the fbi investigation. News just broke today that you have a special team looking into why the fbi opened an investigation into russian interference in the 2016 elections. I wonder if you can share with this committee who is on that team, why you felt the need to form that kind of a team and what you intend to be the scope of their investigation. Yeah. As i said in my confirmation hearing, i am going to be reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activity activities directed at the truch campaign during 2016. And a lot of this has already been investigated in a substantial portion of it has been investigated and is being investigated by the office of Inspector General at the department. But one thing i want to do is pull together the various investigations that have gone on, including on the hill and in the department. And see if there are remaining questions that need to be addressed. Can you share with us why you feel the need to do that . For same reason were worried about foreign influence in elections, we want to make sure that during i think spieg on a Political Campaign is a big deal. Its a big deal. Generation i grew up in, the vietnam war period, people were all concerned about spying on antiwar people and so forth by the government and there were a lot of rules put in place to make sure theres an adequate basis before our Law Enforcement agencies get involved in political surveillance. Im not suggesting that those rules were violated. Youre not suggesting, though, that spying occurred . I dont well, i guess you could i think spying did occur, yes. I think spying did occur. That was quite a statement from the attorney general. And i think youre going to hear, there will probably be phone calls from the fbi to the attorney general to clarify exactly what hes trying to do. This is a highly political issue. The president today called the beginning of the investigation illegal. As far as we know, it wasnt illegal. The fbi was investigating whether or not certain people who were associated with the campaign who were doing things we with russians and thats the job of the fbi. Whether as a result of this there are changes in the way the fbi, what the standard is for the fbi to begin a counterintelligence investigation. That seems to be where the attorney general is looking at. Huge deal. If thats the case, thats a huge deal. Right, exactly. And, again, political leaders, members of congress, the president , everybody has to get together and say if we change the standard we have to understand what the consequences of that need to be. If something in the future happens and the fbi says you missed this, they will say you told us we have to change the standard to start an investigation. We can talk more about this later on but members of Congress Last year exposed the fact that there was a fisa. Those are not supposed to be ever known publicly. And so thats the result of what has happened here. And now it looks like the attorney general is calling for a broader look at this. And i think, again, its going to be a big deal going forward. We dont know exactly he said later on, our colleague manu raju tweeted about it, he has concerns about various aspects of the fbi investigation or how it was launched. Hes not being specific, nor should we really expect him to be, considering what weve been seeing, about which aspects hes talking about. Is it the fisa surveillance for carter page, the Campaign Adviser that they distanced himself from . Theres been saga about that. When you talk about the origins that launched the counterintelligence investigation that then led to the russia investigation, it had to do with george papadopolous. Thats exactly right. So far everything we know about what the fbi did, including about george papadopoulos, if youre the fbi, you have to look that the and investigate that. None of that is supposed to become public if it ends up at nothing but some of this stuff became public because republicans in congress decided they needed to make public the fisa application on carter page. And then that sort of because they believed that was done nefariously. So far, everything weve seen, it was not. Again our political leaders have the ability to change the law, if they want to increase the threshold for the fbi, they can do that. What bill barr was feeling around this dark room and i think he caused himself more problems there in trying to explain this, later on he also said there was no panel. Not yet. It sort of is very unclear exactly what he means. Absolutely. All right. Ev evan, weve got much more to come on this. Stick with me. Let me bring in deplora borger on this. I want to get your take on what you heard from barr. It is quite a statement when he says he believes spieg on the Trump Campaign did occur. Right. It is a huge statement. And i think that, as he said, he doesnt have evidence but does have questions about it. Compare that with what the president said this morning. The president said that what occurred with illegal and was treasonous. So you have the president of the United States saying, you know, this never should have begun. This was illegal. This was you know, this was because you had all these angry democrats, et cetera, et cetera, and the president gave a list of names, you know. He talked about lisa page, mr. Strzok, mccabe and went on and on. You see what the attorney general is saying, i have questions about this and im going to look into it. The question i have about this, is he listening to the president , who clearly wants this investigated and republicans in congress, who clearly want this investigated or is this something that the attorney general looked at a little bit and said wait a minute, maybe we have to change the way things are done here . His line is, but the question is, was it adequately predicated . I believe there was spying. My translation was, was everything kos hechlt r when they were issuing the fisas . That may be something that he wants to get to the bottom of. He may end up saying, you know, yes, it was completely fine, that they had real reasons to worry about whether spying was going on and they had an obligation to follow up on, which would put him in conflict with the president of the United States. Thats a great point, gloria. It seems there will be a long road to get to that conclusion, if you will. Sure. Stick with me. Elie honig and Jennifer Rodgers are with me as well. Is it fair if we dont know. If what bill barr is talking about, that spying did occur on the campaign, if that has to do with the fisa warrant on carter page, theres a universe where spying did occur and it was entirely appropriate. Hes saying theres a universe where if spying occurred and it was appropriate. Am i getting that right . I think really he means surveillance, the carter page fisas and other that kind of thing that went on. On one hand hes saying we have the doj, Inspector Generals report coming down, there are areas where there was pieces of information. I want to look and see if anything more needs to be done. Meanwhile the president is yelling in my ear this is treason, illegal and i have to appease him by doing that. The question, of course, then is does he open an investigation . Review is short of investigation. Yes. Do you think with all the information that he would be gathering, do you, and the fact that the ig is also investigating this, do you think its appropriate for the attorney general to be launching a review or an investigation . I think what he has actually said he is doing to date is fine, which is collecting the information that is being gathered by others and has been gathered by others, and taking a look at it to see whether anything is warranted. The problem is we, of course, dont have all the information that he will have access to, right . Some of what has been learned is not public. Its hard to say whether it would be appropriate to open an investigation beyond that. Thats what we dont know. He did Say Something that troubled me, which is after saying, you know, that he really was just looking at other information, he didnt know where it was going to lead, later he said he didnt have any evidence, he just had concerns but he did say he thought there was a failure of leadership at the top of the fbi. The fbi is great, blah, blah, blah, but we saw a failure of leadership. Hes going after comey. Hes saying the opposite in the same hearing. Hes saying a lot of conflicting things at the same time. Thats to appease the president and that troubles me. Yes, i would say so. On the most basic level, elie, why would barr be launching review of his own if the Inspector General is doing i think doing exactly this at the same time . It certainly looks political. Do you think it is . I do. Its not necessary. You have a very competent, nonpartisan, in fact obamaappointed News Reporter general. He issued a scathing report on andrew mccabe. You never want to run two investigation investigations parallel to one another. The idea to investigate the investigators, we know prosecutors and criminal investigators open cases all the time. A lot of times you have to walkway. Maybe theres some evidence, no evidence. Maybe theres not quite enough to charge. The idea that if that happens, now its time to investigate the investigators feels really political, especially when this comes, what, 20 minutes after the president , before hes about to board his helicopter, talks about this was a coup and this was treason. I think its a problematic message thats being sent. No matter what motivations are for bill bar, you can rest assured he didnt hear what the president said on his way out to air force one and doesnt appreciate it. Clarifications giving somewhat different answers and more context than even his hearing yesterday. Well take a quick break and be right back. Pardon the interruption but this is big now at tmobile buy any Samsung Galaxy s10 and get a galaxy s10e free Little Things can be a big deal. Thats why theres otezla. Otezla is not a cream. Its a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. With otezla, 75 clearer skin is achievable. Dont use if youre allergic to otezla. It may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. Otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. Tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. Some people taking otezla reported weight loss. Your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. Upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. Tell your doctor about your medicines, and if youre pregnant or planning to be. Ready to treat differently with a pill . Otezla. Show more of you. Xxxx. There are a lot of questions that the attorney general is taking and answering with regard to the Mueller Report, special counsels investigation and how much he is going to release and went. Evan perez has been following this. Theres a back and forth between senator leahy and bill barr about the redactions and the process that is ongoing, he says, as they speak. Let me play what they what went on be and then we can talk about it. Have you overruled mr. Mueller or his team on any redaction question . No. One way or the other . No. Have you discussed any specific redactions with the white house . No. I think thats an important clarification of whats going on behind the scenes. Look, i think the question of who is making the redactions, one of the things that bill barr has tried to do is to lock arms with Robert Mueller, to sort of present a united front, saying look, this is my letter and this is going to be my version of the report, essentially, my redacted report. But bob mueller is fully on board with this. And im going to cut you off, only to head back into the hearing. Chris van hollen asking questions now. In making that assessment. Thats not a question i really can answer until i think you did. But you have made you looked at the report, right . And you looked at the evidence of the report and you made a decision. And you said that the president is not guilty of criminal obstruction of justice. Im asking you, in your review of the report, did you agree with mueller, that there were difficult issues of law in fact . Im going to give my reaction and comments, you know, about the report after the release. But you put your view of the report out there on this issue of obstruction of justice, right . Nobody asked you to do that. I didnt put my view of the report you put your assessment on you made a conclusion on the question of obstruction of justice that was not contained in the Mueller Report, and im simply asking you, when you looked at the evidence, did you agree with mueller and his team that there were difficult issues of law and fact . As i say, i am going to explain my decision and to the extent that requires any assessment of the Mueller Report did your decision require you to look into the intent of the president of the United States with respect to obstruction of justice . Im not going to discuss my decision. I will lay it out after the report is out. Mr. Attorney general, the thing is, you put this out there. The president went out and tweeted the next day that he was exonerated. That wasnt based on anything in the Mueller Report with respect to obstruction of justice. That was based on your assessment, on march 24th. Now you wont elaborate at all as to how you reached that conclusion . Because im not asking you whats in the Mueller Report. Im asking you about your conclusion. Let me ask you this. It was a conclusion of a number of people, including me, obviously, as the attorney general. It was also the conclusion of the Deputy Attorney general, rod rosenstein. I understand. Ive read your letter. And i will discuss that decision after the report is did bob mueller support your conclusion . I dont know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion. In your june 2018 memo, you indicated that a president can commit obstruction of justice in the classic sense. Did you see any evidence in this report about whether or not President Trump committed what you call a classic sense of obstruction of justice . Im not going to characterize or discuss the contents of the report. The report will be made public next week and i will come up and testify at that point. But the thing about it is, mr. General, you put your conclusion out there, and now you refuse to talk about any basis of your conclusion. Im not asking you for whats in the report. Im asking you how you reached your conclusion. Last question, can you assure us that the key factual evidence relevant to charges of obstruction of justice will be included in the public report . Are you saying can you assure us that the key factual evidence in the Mueller Report related to charges of obstruction of justice will be made available in the public report . I believe it will. Thats one of the reasons why i want to review it after the when the redaction team is done making the redactions, to make sure that theres nothing in there that would prevent that. And, by the way, redactions can cut both ways. My last question relates to redaction process. Youre allowing the mueller team to make the redactions in three of the four areas you mentioned, all of them except for intelligence. Is that a correct understanding of your testimony yesterday . In other words, youre leaving the discretion to them on the three of the four criteria that you mapped out . I have stated what the categories are and the people implementing it are the justice lawyers with the special counsels lawyers. Theyre implementing those categories. And resource thot going to overrule the special counsels judgment with respect to any of those categories, right . I havent. Can you tell us you will not . If an issue comes up, i dont want to prejudge it, but its not my intention. My intention is to allow the team to make the redactions and the people in the department are making those redactions. Senator boden . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for being here. We appreciate your service. We really talked about a lot of things that are very important. I want to talk about one that sweeping the country. As we mentioned briefly before, and thats the opioid epidemic. Not just that. We have an opioid epidemic. We have an addiction epidemic and in arkansas, were number questioning continues, moving on to topic, important ones like the opioid epidemic. I do want to pick up on the conversation what we are learning, this back and forth about attorney general bill barrs decision not to move forward on charges of obstruction. Jennifer rodgers, elie honig this gets back to what the attorney general wrote in his memo, his summary. This is the line that sticks out. The spes counsel states that, quote, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. He is reluctant to talk about what evidence led to the conclusions before the report is out. He doesnt have a lot to fasten on to. This is what people are curious about. It was great they got into this questioning before about how did mueller decide that he wasnt going to decide . What did he tell you about that . Essentially barr says he didnt tell him one way or another. The question has been after this letter came out, elie, did Robert Mueller intend for the question of obstruction to be left to congress to decide . Did he intend it to be decided by the attorney general . And what i gather from what bill barr said, mueller didnt say one way or the other. It solves one of the mysteries. Barr use this had ambiguous language, saying it leaves it to the attorney general to decide obstruction. Did he ask you, attorney general, or are you taking it upon yourself . We have the answer now. Do we have any impression of what the regulation actually requires . Right. When it comes to special counsel regulation, by and large, everything is left up to the attorney general. The regulation actually says the special counsel, mueller, should make prosecute orrial declarations. In absence of that then what . Thats a request he that Robert Mueller may be asked some day or maybe well get clarity in the report. Barr was asked earlier, did mueller ever tell you he intended this to go to congress, the answer was no. But the followup would have been, did he say anything in the report about whether it was intended to go to congress . Im sure he would not have answered. This is an important point on this obstruction question. It is. In an exchange with senator leahy, the attorney general said yes, that mueller has a fuller explanation of this question of obstruction and why he could not decide one way or another in the report, which he also said would be hopefully delivered next week. So, i think that and he believes that will be included in what is released to the public. So, we will get some sense of whether, you know why mueller decided he couldnt decide and, of course, you know, barr made it very clear that he just took the bull by the horns. He said look, this is what the attorney general is supposed to do and that he was never told by mueller, okay, as you folks have been talking about, that its going to be left to congress or its going to be left to me. He said im the attorney general, and thats what i do. But he refused to explain to, you know, senator van hollen about why he did that, because he said i have to wait until you see the whole report and see the whole context in which i was operating as to why i did this along with the Deputy Attorney general rod rosenstein. So he didnt explain his thinking on this at all. Although, weve seen his thinking in that memo that he did send in june of 2018. And i think you hit on what was somewhat of a confusing aspect, is that bill barr in his memo and in his testimony is explaining his thinking, in some respects, like why hes thinking about why hes reviewing the origins of the investigation, but with regard to other aspects, he is not. Still promising he will come back to testify. We will be right back with much more as were watching capitol hill and this very important testimony happening, attorney general bill barr. Well be right back. It was here. I couldnt catch my breath. It was the last song of the night. It felt like my heart was skipping beats. They said i had afib. Whats afib . I knew that meant i was at a greater risk of stroke. I needed answers. My doctor and i chose xarelto®. To help keep me protected from a stroke. Oncedaily xarelto®, a latestgeneration blood thinner. Significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. In a clinical study, over 96 of people taking xarelto® remained strokefree. Dont stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of stroke. While taking, you may bruise more easily or take longer for bleeding to stop. Xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. It may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. Get help right away for unexpected bleeding or unusual bruising. Do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. Before starting, tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures and any kidney or liver problems. Learn all you can. To help protect yourself from a stroke. Ask your doctor about xarelto®. To learn more about cost and how janssen can help, visit xarelto. Com. How janssen can help, visionworks can do more than the right pair of glassesat. Can make you look amazing, too. Get two complete pairs of single vision glasses for 59 or two progressives for 99. And choose from over 500 frames. Visionworks. Were here to help you. My dream car. It turns out, they want me to start next month. She can stay with you to finish her senior year. Things will be tight but, we can make this work. Now. Grandpa, what about your dream car . This is my dream now. Principal we can help you plan for that. Theres a gag order that would be implicated by release. I expect that that will be put in. And are those safeguards likely to be worked out with the chair and ranking of judiciary. Right. Who happens to be for example an easy one, in my view, is classified information. I would want to make sure that there are adequate safeguards and shared with a limited number of people, the thing that we would normally do in this situation. I was struck that the district court, district of columbia has not been discharged and is continuing its investigation. Did anyone pressure the special counsel to conclude his investigation and submit his report before it was complete . I didnt. Did anyone else, to your knowledge . Not that im aware of. Why there are press accounts that members of the special counsels team, his investigators, prepared summaries for public release of sections of the report. Why did you summarize the principle conclusions reached by the special counsel and results of investigation rather than releasing some of these prepared for public release summaries . Right. So, actually, Deputy Attorney general rosenstein and i were expecting a report that would make it very easy for us to determine what had to be taken out and what wasnt. And thats not how the report came to us. So we i immediately recognized that there was going to be some significant lag time between our receipt of the report and when we could actually get it out. And decided that i none of it was releasable, as i received it, because none of it had been vetted for 6e material but every page on it had a warning that it could contain 6e material. Every page had a warning and you were certain that the mueller team had not vetted it . It had not been vetted . There werent summaries . Let me get to other questions if i could. Forgive me. Im saying i felt it was important to just advise the country as to what the bottom line conclusions were. I was not interested, actually, even if i had summaries availab available, which i did not on sunday, that were vetted, i wouldnt have put out summaries, because i think summaries, no matter who is preparing them, are going to be subject to criticism. What people have to remember that generally the department of justice does come out with binary conclusions and so just stating the bottom line on each of those, i think, was entirely appropriate. Who, if anyone, outside the Justice Department, has seen portions or all of the special counsels report . Has anyone in the white house seen any of the report . Im not going to im landing the plane right now, and ive been willing to discuss my letters and the process going forward, but the report is going to be out next week and im not going to get into the details of the process until the plane is on the ground. At what point will you allow congress to know whether or not the white house was it is striking the president claimed complete and total exoneration if he didnt see the report or was briefed on the report. Once the report is out, im happy to discuss the process. I very much look forward to that. My last question, given your unsolicited june 8th letter to the Justice Department, regarding obstruction of justice, did you ever consider recusing yourself from making a conclusion about whether an obstruction of justice should have been made. Chairman graham, attorney general has been very faithful to his insistence that he not disclose anything of significance until hes in front of your committee. Great but you cannot possibly claim that the president would claim exoneration without not having read anything. I hate to talk about appropriations and Appropriations Committee but i will. We will welcome it. If sequestration goes back into effect and is due to do that, how would it affect the fbi and your ability to defend the nation . Can i turn that over to yeah. My trusty sidekick here . Boy, did you pick a Winning Ticket to be here with him. And with the key word of sequest sequestration, we will come back out as we continue to listen to the bill barr hearing. Elie honig and Jennifer Rodgers are here with me. Tell me if you heard this differently. Today, bill barr gvg a bit of a different answer than he did yesterday when it came to what are people going to see . Yesterday it was my intention is to release to the public and to congress a redacted version of the report. Thats why he went into an exhaustive explanation of the four categories of why there are these redactions. Today, bill barr gives something of a different answer. He says that he intends to take it up with the jushry committee of what areas they feel that they need to have more access to and how i can accommodate them and im willing to work with them. Is he giving a different answer today than yesterday . He is. He has been much more for forthcoming today. Thats a welcome thing. This notion that the public and the congress will see the same thing was always ridiculous. And so i think he got pushback on that, started thinking harder about it and realizing he was going to have to work with them. That seems logical, considering its been 24 hours. It seems il logical to me that that wasnt established already when, hold your thought, elie, im going to go back in. Lindsey graham still talking with bill barr. You think thats an appropriate thing to look at and you will look at it . Yes. Do you share my concern that if youre going to open up a counterintelligence investigation against a president ial candidate that you have to have a very good reason . Yes, absolutely. And a counterintelligence investigation is designed to protect the target of foreign influence, is that correct . That is correct. Its not a prosecutorial function, is it . No, unless espionage or some violation of espionage laws develops. Would it be odd that the candidate was never really briefed by the department of justice that your campaign may be targeted by a foreign entity . That is one of the questions i have, is i feel normally the campaign would have been advised of this. Okay. And can you think of a good reason right now why they wouldnt have been . Im interested in getting that answer. They had two former u. S. Attorneys in Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani involved in the campaign and i dont understand why the campaign was not advised. Apparently when senator feinstein had a person on her staff that was supposedly connected to the chinese government, she was briefed. Is that the normal way you do things with a counterintelligence investigation . I think she was briefed about a staff member that they thought might be connected to the chinese government. She took action and fired the guy. Is that sort of what youre supposed to be doing . Thats what i would if i were attorney general and that situation came up i would say, yes, brief the target of the Foreign Espionage activity. Okay. So youre pledging to this committee and i guess to the country as a whole as to find out what happened with the warrant application, find out about the counterintelligence investigation, to make sure that the law was followed and if there was any abuse of the law to report to congress and the public. Is that accurate . Thats accurate. I just, you know, want to satisfy myself that there was no abuse of Law Enforcement or intelligence powers. Im glad youre doing that. When it comes to mr. Mueller, are you talking to him about the 6e material . I havent personally talk ed to him about the 6e, but his people are working on the 6e material. Theres collaboration between your people and mueller people about what to take out and what to leave in on the grand jury side . Yes. As it was described to me, people are sitting at the same time. When it comes to ongoing criminal investigations, youre making sure that prosecutors have a say about whats released because it may jeopardize their cases . Thats right, the people involved in those cases. And when it comes to classified information, youre talking to the Intelligence Community to make sure theyre okay . Yes. Thank you very much. Senator schatz . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, attorney general, for being here. I want to give you a chance to rephrase something you said, because i think when the attorney general of the United States uses the word spying, its rather provocative. And in my view, unnecessarily inflammatory. And i know what youre getting at, because you have explained yourself in terms of answering senator grahams questions and the questions of others. Do you want to rephrase what youre doing . Because i think the word spying could cause everybody in the cable news ecosystem to freak out. And i think its necessary for you to be precise with your language here. You normally are. And i want to give you a chance to be especially precise here. Im not sure of all the c connotations youre referring to, but unauthorized surveillance. I want to make sure theres no unauthorized surveillance. Is that more appropriate in your mind . This is your call. I wanted to give you ay chance to say it how you wanted to say it and make sure you didnt misspeak. You talked for a long time. Had you yesterday. I appreciate it. And use the words you want to use. Okay. On the mueller Team Summaries within the report, i get that on every page there was a sort of admonition that this would contain 6e material. Is it your desire to make hur that the whole thing is intelligible, are these summaries when the report is released going to be intelligible . I assume there may be some redaction redactions, there may be none. The basic question for the public is are we going to get the gist of this or is it going to be on january of 2015 and then you have to flip 15 pages to find the next text . You will get more than the gist. Thank you. I want to ask you about the Cole Memorandum. In your confirmation hearing you said i am not going to go after companies that have relied on the Cole Memorandum. Are you planning on restoring it . Are you planning on establishing your new guidance . I heard what you said about marijuana generally but those are Public Policy questions. Assuming we cant come to an agreement on a new statutory framework, whats the plan for the department of justice . Im going to have to make some difficult choices. Do you care to elaborate . Well, for example, reliance suggests people who have already taken action based on the Cole Memorandum. I mean, one open question in my mind is if states continue to pass these laws, are we going to continue to forbear in those new sta states . I would like to see congress address this issue. Is there any internal guidance regarding these sort of difficult questions . None that ive given. So the department of justice is operating without guidance . The department of justice is operating under my general guidance that i am accepting the Cole Memorandum for now but i have generally left it up to the u. S. Attorneys. Listen to democratic senator brian schatz, questioning the attorney general. Evan, can i bring you back in on this . As we have been talking about, the attorney general said that he, earlier this the hearing, he said he believes that there was some spying did occur on the campaign, and given and he seemed to then tlie to explain it, that it happened. It could have been authorized or unauthorized and thats no. It could have been appropriate or inappropriate in how was launched, predicated, as he said. Then he was asked to clarify once again and he said spying means unauthorized surveillance. It almost seems like now the attorney general is making it even worse. Yeah. He kind of is. Look, the senator there was trying to help him out and suggesting, perhaps, that cable news is going to go crazy on this. But let me tell you, everybody who covers we are so crazy. That is true. Well, thats true. I think everybody who has covered this investigation, everybody who has covered 2016 and on forward thinks that what the attorney general said today is a big deal. Let me tell you that the way he is characterizing this stuff is important, because it suggests that he already has some predisposed notions and perhaps, after he looks at this, will come to a different conclusion. I think its an unusual way for the attorney general to speak. You know, again, those of us in the News Business like when attorneys general say stuff. Were getting an attorney general who says stuff. The question is, what does he mean exactly . Its not exactly clear. Does he have information that indicates that james comey, that people at the top of the fbi did things, had essentially bad intentions when they approved some of these moves . We dont know. But he seems to be saying that theyre going to take a wide look at this and if youre the fbi and youre looking at a campaign that has someone in the periphery, who you met before carter page im talking about. The fbi had discussed with him that he was a target of russian intelligence in a previous case and then they see him surface again. They see him show up in moscow. They hear the candidate mention carter page as an adviser. What is the fbi supposed to do, right . Thats the big question, i wonder, whether the attorney general is sort of fully aware of the power of the words that hes using today and does he understand that, you know, people might be making different decisions just based on the fact that he is saying that something might have gone wrong here. I think thats a big question going forward. Yeah, absolutely. Gloria, Lindsey Graham, this is something that he cares a lot about. He says he is going to champion and he is going to take on and investigate himself as a chairman of the judiciary committee. You can see that in his line of questioning with the attorney general. You can be sure its something that theyve discussed before. Theyve had dinner and a lot of meetings with each other. But when he was also he said to the attorney general, why wasnt the candidate briefed on the launch of a russia investigation . Bill barrs answer was i dont understand why the campaign wasnt advised. Thats right. He said normally the campaign would have been advised and he pointed out that you had both Chris Christie, at that point, involved in the campaign as well as Rudy Giuliani, who are well versed in issues of law. And i think the question here i mean, he made it very clear that what hes trying to get into is whether there was some kind of abuse of power here. Yeah. And i dont know the answer to this. Maybe your lawyers do, but if the fbi had some idea that perhaps some of the some people in the campaign were willing participants in this, would you then have briefed the campaign, or would you have continued your investigation . We dont have the answers to that. Maybe barr will find out. Maybe the Inspector General will find out. Elie, jennifer, what do you think . That whole line of questioning began with a false premise, either its a counterintelligence investigation or its criminal and theres a bright line between the two. The reality is that it can be both at the same time. Gloria was alluding to this. If you are starting an investigation, you know theres wrongdoing and potentially criminal, you might make a decision, lets hold off, not notify people so they can cover their tracks or stop doing what theyre doing if we want to make a criminal case. There could be a legitimate reason to not tip people off. It could have been either . It could have been wrong or completely appropriate, i guess, that the campaign was not on this very specific issue that Lindsey Graham brought up, that the campaign wasnt notified when the fbi launched an investigation into carter page . If you have the situation that graham brought up with dianne feinstein, someone in the campaign who is isolated, thats the only person youre concerned about, you go to the top person and say were concerned about this person. You shall get rid of them. If its infusing beyond that and theyre concerned about other people, then they wouldnt notify them. And we dont know that. Thats speculation, but they may be opening a pandoras box here when they start digging around. Jennifer and i had different takes from what we heard on the question on spying. What do you think is this. You could be a very good litigator. Can you pick out one piece of information and another piece of information and say this is what he meant. When you take the totality of his testimony hes saying im looking at the authorized surveillance was appropriate or not, was the fbi hiding things, not disclosing things to the fisa judge that the fisa judge needed to know . I thmpg thats what hes saying but you would be good in court. Lets hope i never end up there or at least youre my attorney. Investigating the investigators, has asked for a Second Special counsel to be appointed. Do you see a responsibility that that is need heerd . Its a political decision, right . It depends how far the department of justice feels obligate obligated to go. But appointing a special counsel is surrepitous. How it began, does it matter if where it ended up was 34 people indicted, pleading guilty of crimes and in the end it found no evidence of collusion with regard to the president . It would matter of how they open investigations, the oversight at the fbi. That should be fiked no matter what the results were. Those of us who have followed this closely and from what weve learned of the carter page fisas think theres nothing there. Evan, this is very clearly where the focus is turning right now, i do wonder if folks at the fbi and over at justice, theres a seedy attorney general laying this out and how their job also change right now. Thats exactly whats happening right now. Bill barr when he ruved, frankly, people in the because they thought finally we can put all the stuff thats been sort of hanging over us behind us, and what i think is about to happen is the opposite, is bill barr is about to usher in a new period of new clouds, and theres a lot of politics involved in this, and i think thats where this gets a little tricky for the attorney general, is that, you know, the its fine if you believe that there is some wrongdoing. There is already an Inspector General investigation that will tell us a lot of that. If there is a new sort of investigation of the investigators, thats where this has the potential to go really, really bad because of the politics, because the president just before he left today, for instance, talked about how this was an illegal investigation, and nothing we know so far says that it is, so, look, i think the attorney general will a lot of people trust him to carry out this his decisions the right way and well see how that happens. Yeah, and gloria, kind of to what evan was touching on right there, what the president said today, what the president has said all along, you do also hear bill barr, i dont know, walking a fine line with regard to a couple of things and how the president characterizes things and has, right . Right. The president calls it an illegal witch hunt. Bill barr was asked was it a witch hunt . And he says im not going to characterize it, it is what it is. Hold on, gloria, im going to go back to the chairman of the committee. Apologies. What is the basis for reaching that conclusion or a belief that Something Like that occurred and what are the consequences for those who committed unauthorized surveillance . Did you say that i said that it occurred . You indicated i think i tried to at least reflect on what your quote was, that you thought spying on a Political Campaign occurred in the course of an intelligence agencys investigation into russian interference in 2016. I thought the question was did i have any basis for saying that. And im now asking what the basis is or what the facts are that lead you to that thought. Okay. I felt i am concerned about it and i was asked about whether there was any basis for it, and i believe there is a basis for my concern, but im not going to discuss the basis. And whats potential consequences for those who violated the law . It depends what it depends what the facts ultimately prove to be. Which would be determined in a prosecution . Possibly, but, you know, there also can be abuses that may not arise to the level of a of a crime, but that, you know, people might think is bad and want to put in rules against it. I mean, i remember when there was a lot of, you know, people upset at the fbi, you know, spying on or surveilling civil Rights Groups or antiwar groups or Nuclear Freeze groups and so forth, and as a result of that there were a lot of safeguards built in. There were concerns about surveilling reporters so safeguards have been put in. So it doesnt necessarily have to result in a criminal investigation or a finding of a crime. But, you know, part of my responsibility is to protect the Civil Liberties of the american people, and i think i think something that is important is that the Law Enforcement and intelligence agencies respect the limits on their powers. I share that view with you, mr. General, and am of the same generation of which those things occurred and were alleged to have occurred. Senator shaheen. Yes, mr. Chairman, i remember that, too, and i remember when j. Edgar hoovers fbi surveilled student groups as well, having been in one of those student groups that was surveilled. I want to ask a couple of what i hope will be very short questions. Over the past two years, the subcommittee in congress has provided record levels of funding for the office of violence against women. That is true about the recent omnibus as well. We have not yet reauthorized the violence against women act, and i want to be reassured that the Justice Department all right. So as for, again, further clarification on his comment earlier in the hearing that he said that he believes some spying did occur on the campaign. Jennifer, now what . So i think he was a little puzzled by the suggestion that he was saying necessarily that it was unauthorized. Say what you mean and mean what you say. When youre an attorney, youre very good at being careful with your language. Then he said spying and changed it to surveillance. I think he was using spying the same way he was using surveillance and his goal is to find out whether or not it was appropriate or not appropriate. But he did say i have i think there is a basis for concern with regard to call it surveillance, call it spying, call it whatever you want, a basis for concern about how the russia investigation was launched is what he said there, but he wouldnt discuss. Why . That was even a walkback, right . From saying i think spying did occur to a basis for concern. Where is he getting it. He may have evidence. He may have not. He has given us a lot this is a very serious matter and its very confusing what hes trying to say hes even doing. Willing to give some opinion or put some meat on the bone in areas like this and other areas that people want to know about the conclusion on obstruction, i wont address that. There seems to be a little bit of a double standard in the way he is answering questions. This is a way for them to just stall things, i think. He needs to collect information. This keeps this narrative alive for them to say investigate the investigators while we head toward the 2020 election. It gives them a talking point. Gloria, let me get you back in on this because we had to cut you off to go back into the hearing. Sure. What we were talking about is how bill barr is also walking align when it comes to answering what the president has said and giving his take on it. With regard to witch hunt, he said im not going to characterize about it. It is what it is. Totally exonerated. Bill barr said hes not going to discuss it until the report is out. Youre right. Hes clearly walking a fine line. When it regards to what you guys have been talking about a moment ago, the unauthorized surveillance or the spying, he made it very clear where he comes down on this. He said, i would say brief the target, which would be, i presume, donald trump and the campaign. Right. Rudy giuliani or Chris Christie or whomever it was. Very clear where he comes down on it. And then he said there is a basis for my concern, but im not going to talk to you about it. Right. So its clear that hes already started looking at this, and, you know, i dont know that he comes down to the sort of illegal witch hunt of the president of the United States, but as evan perez was saying earlier, if you are working inside the fbi, you are wondering how are you supposed to do a counterintelligence investigation if you believe that perhaps people you were looking at were willing participants . Do you brief them . Not necessarily the president of the United States, but who are you supposed to talk to about this while this is an Ongoing Investigation . I think thats what the Inspector General is clearly looking at. Right. And so the question that i have, and i think evan may have alluded to this before, the question i have is, why would you need two investigations if you already have one . Yeah, i mean, ellie, gloria ellie, jennifer, give me a final take on hat. I think its for sure and i think its political. Its not necessarily investigatively. It sends really confusing messages to people inside the department of justice about what their job is when theyll be second guessed in potentially really consequential ways. All right. I agree. I think hes trying to appease the president. Any Time Congress asks you to do something, you say, sure, ill take a look, ill gather the information, ill take a look. I think that what hes doing here. Guys, thank you so much. Its been a wild hour. Inside politics with john king is going to pick up with this after a quick break. Straight from the worlds best plant scientists, comes miraclegro performance organics. Organic plant food and soil that finally work. For twice the bounty. Guaranteed. Miraclegro performance organics. Itso chantix can help you quit slow turkey. Along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. With chantix you can keep smoking at first and ease into quitting so when the day arrives, youll be more ready to kiss cigarettes goodbye. When you try to quit smoking, with or without chantix. You may have nicotine withdrawal symptoms. Stop chantix and get help right away if you have changes in behavior or thinking, aggression, hostility, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions, seizures, new or worse heart or blood vessel problems, sleepwalking, or life threatening allergic and skin reactions. Decrease alcohol use. Use caution driving or operating machinery. Tell your doctor if youve had Mental Health problems. The most common side effect is nausea. Talk to your doctor about chantix. Welcome to inside politics. Im john king. Thank you for sharing your day with us. We begin the hour with a stunning statement on capitol hill, that there was spying during the 2016 campaign. That amid a big and important debate over the Mueller Report. The promise from the attorney general william barr to the senate that he wont redact information in that report just because it harms the president. First question. Redact information to protect the reputational interests of the president . No. Im talking about people in private life. Okay. Not Public Office holders. Barr not answering many of the questions from senate democrats, saying he doesnt want to explain the report or go more