Good morning, everyone. Im john berman. Im poppy harlow. Were following major developments this morning on capitol hill. Take a look whats going on right now on your left. Deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein is going to appear before the House Judiciary Committee for a hearing that might have been routine, except for, well, except for a lot of things. Except for the mueller investigation, that more and more republicans are seeing as, well, not totally independent. So theyll pose some tough questions to him. On the right of your screen, at any moment, a News Conference from top senate democrat, chuck schumer. What schumer is going to do is suggest that the senate push back the final vote on the republican tax plan. Why . He wants to see the freshly elected or the next democratic senator from the state of alabama, doug jones, he wants him seated. Which would reduce the republican majority to one. So were waiting on those two live events. While we wait, lets go down to alabama right now. Our Kaylee Hartung is there. This race is what is causing this news this morning, kaylee. Reporter yeah, absolutely. The sense of urgency and the republican effort to get that tax bill passed. Because as the secretary of state of alabama has explained it to me, its going to take a couple of weeks to certify the results from this election. It will happen after christmas. Some time between december 26th and january 3rd. So it is very likely that doug jones wont be sworn in until after the new year. Last night, with just that 1. 5 margin of difference between the two candidates, you know, roy moore refused to concede the race. We still havent heard such a concession from him today. He hasnt so much as called doug jones, as far as we know, at least not last night. But last night, doug jones had the confidence that the people of alabama had spoken. Alabama has been at a crossroads. We have been at crossroads in the past and unfortunately, we have usually taken the wrong fork. Tonight, ladies and gentlemen, you took the right road reporter doug jones was able to pull off this stunning upset with the help of a special coalition of voters and alabama africanamericans who turned out in greater numbers than they did for barack obama in 2008 or 2012. Our numbers show 30 of the electorate here made up of the black vote. And also, women in this state, educated white women, who turned out 5742 in favor of doug jones. Well be standing by with you guys to see what happens on capitol hill today. John, poppy . All right, Kaylee Hartung for us in alabama. Again, were watching for chuck schumer, who will come out right now and say what he thinks the impact of this election should be. The white house, President Trump, after endorsing roy moore, campaigning for roy moore, is now trying to put some the distance between himself and roy moore. Our joe johns at the white house with that. Joe . Reporter john, one of the takeaways from last night, almost immediately, is that flawed candidates do not win, even when they have the backing of the president of the United States. The president acknowledging that, more or less, in a tweet this morning, without mentioning roy moores name. The tweet says, if last nights election proved anything, it proved we need to put up great in capital letters republican candidates to increase the razorthin margins in both the house and the senate. And that is something that did not happen. Because, as we know, roy moore had a lot of baggage that ended up apparently taking him down in alabama. The president also tweeting this morning a number of other things, pointing out that he picked the right candidate, if you will, in the primary. The fact of the matter is, the president picked losing candidates in both the primary and the general election, really raising questions about his choices, as well as the partys choices. Cnns jim acosta, of course, reporting just last night that people at the white house were using words like devastating, calling this an earthquake for the president. And also suggesting the president has egg on his face, because of his former adviser, steve bannon. Of course, steve bannon campaigned in alabama for roy moore and encouraged the president to do as well. This, of course, is a problem for them in a number of different areas. They are saying, of course, this morning, that, look, he had no choice, had to back roy moore, because thats the guy who came out of the primary. Back to you, john. Reporter all right. Joe johns at the white house. Before you go, though, there has been quite a departure from the white house. Omarosa manigault, who works in the white house. People may know her from the apprentice, as well, when donald trump was hosting that. Shes gone, why . Reporter its not clear why shes gone, in fact. What we do know is sarah sanders, the White House Press secretary, put out a Statement Today indicating that her resignation is effective january 20th. That will be exactly one year since donald trump was sworn in. She did do outreach to groups, including minority groups for the white house, through the office of liaison and now shes on her way out. One of the big questions, of course, is the extent to which this had anything to do with the election in alabama last night or any other drama as april ryan put it, just a little while ago, here on cnn. Omarosa Manigault Newman is now out. We now also that she got married recently. Her husband lives in the south, works in the south. Hes a minister there and shed been traveling every weekend or so to be with him. A difficult situation. So weve reached out to omarosa and she has not responded to calls and emails so far. Back to you. All right. Joe johns at the white house. Thank you. All right. I want to bring in our panel right now. Joining us, Washington Bureau chief for the chicago suntimes, lynn sweet, and matt lewis, cnn political commentator, senior columnist at the daily beast. What were looking at right here, were about to hear from the Senate Majority leader, chuck schumer. And what this is is the First Political fallout that the democrats would like to see or are pushing from the alabama election last night, lynn. Schoournlg is going to argue that the tax vote should be delayed until doug jones seated in the senate. Now, its not going to happen. My question to you, though, is why, lynn, hes making this case. Okay, the democrats hope to get more leverage in influencing the vote. Because once doug jones is seated, republicans still have the majority, but its only 51 vote. That makes any one republican very important, because they could make demands that have to be met. It means that the democrats are in a far better bargaining position. Thats why the republican senators have every incentive to try to make their deal, make peace with their House Republican counterparts and get this bill through, because sooner or later, doug jones is going to be seated. Now, the secretary of state of alabama said it wont you know, will take a few weeks. So even in even if things go well, it gives the republicans a few weeks to get their will done. There seems to be no political reason for them to delay, unless we hear from schumer, unless he has some arrow in his quiver we dont know about. Guys, stand by. Lets go to this big hearing on the hill. Rod rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney general, about to testify before house judiciary, the chairman, mr. Goodlatte, making his opening remarks. To all citizens who expect a system of blind and equal justice. The department of justice investigations must not be tainted by individuals imposing their own political prejudices. We are now beginning to better understand the magnitude of this insider bias on mr. Muellers team. First, we have fbi agent peter struck and fbi lawyer lisa paige, exchanging information showing extreme bias against mr. Trump. A fact that would be bad enough if not for the fact that these two individuals were employed as part of the mueller dream team, investigating the very person for whom they were showing disdain. And calling it mere disdain is generous. According to the documents produced last night to this committee, mr. Struck refer to the president as a loathsome human and awful while continually praising Hillary Clinton and the obamas. These Text Messages prove what we all suspected. Highranking fbi officials involved in the clinton investigation were personally invested in the outcome of the election and clearly let their strong, political opinions cloud their professional judgment. And this was only an initial disclosure containing heavy redactions. Second, former embattled fbi general counsel and current mueller prosecutor, andrew weismann, expressed his awe of a former doj official for shunning the president and failing to faithfully execute the law. However, we are now in awe that someone like mr. Weismann remains on an Investigative Team that looks more and more partisan. Third, we have learned that a top mueller prosecutor, genie rhee, in addition to the other actions that would normally justify recusal, served as an attorney for the clinton foundation. Arent department of justice employees advised to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. A former clinton employee is now investigating President Trump. This seems to be the very definition of the appearance of impropriety. We have just now learned that another Top Department of justice official, bruce othre, s been reassigned because of his wife and his connections with the infamous dossier, and the company from which the document originated. We hope to hear your assessment of the foregoing conflicts, whether individuals are being held accountable, and whether you still have confidence in the judgment of the special counsel you named and supervise. Regarding the clinton email scandal, you along with attorney general sessions have, to date, declined to appoint a Second Special counsel to investigate the improprieties that continue to surface, related to the handling of the clinton email investigation and other events surrounding the 2016 election. These are some of the important issues on which we will focus our energy and questions today. We want to understand your skprp participation and the departments involvement in addressing both investigations. Mr. Deputy attorney general, the department of justices reputation as an impartial arbitrator of justice has been called into question. This taint of politicization should concern all americans who have pride in the fairness of our nations justice system. While we continue to call on you to appoint a Second Special counsel, as you are aware, we have also opened our own joint investigation with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to review fbi and the department of justices handling of the clinton email investigation. I want to thank you and attorney general sessions for recently committing to provide us relevant documents to enable robust congressional oversight of this matter. I implore you to continue to work with us on these and other important matters facing our nation. One of these matters involves a Critical Program for our National Security. Fisa section 702. This committee passed on an overwhelming, bipartisan basis, the usa liberty act, which maintains the integrity of the program, while protecting cherished Civil Liberties. This overwhelming vote occurred despite the departments lobbying efforts against our bill. The usa liberty act was characterized as bad for the program. Highly problematic, unworkable, and a proposal that would effectively dismantle section 702. However, the reality is that this committees legislation struck a balance that promotes National Security and Civil Liberties. I hope to hear from you why the department of justice felt it necessary to oppose a bill that would reauthorize 702 skpand instill confidence in the American People that their privacy and Civil Liberties are respected by a government whose duty it is to protect them. The department of justice must reacquire the trust of the American People. I know there are thousands of department of justice employees and line agents in the department, in the bureau of federal bureau of investigation, that are dedicated individuals, that are dedicated to upholding the rule of law and protecting the American People. And i hope that we can come to a conclusion about those people who have not met that standard in this hearing today. Thank you, mr. Deputy attorney general, for appearing today. I now yield to the gentlemen from new york, trahe Ranking Member of the committee, mr. Nadler, for his comments. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Before i begin my statements. First, let me wholly endorse the comments of the chairman with reference to section 702 and to the legislation that we reported out of this committee. And second, i want to acknowledge a letter the chairman and i received last night from the Democratic Women of this committee. Our colleagues have asked that we convene a hearing regarding the serious accusations of Sexual Misconduct leveled against mr. Trump by 19 women. Without objection, i ask that this letter will be made a part of the record. It will be made a part of the letter. And i unequivocally endorse this letter. This is an opportunity for us to lead and show the country this kind of behavior is unacceptable at any level of government. Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying, welcome to the House Judiciary Committee, mr. Rosenstein. For the better part of a year, my colleagues and i have implored this committee to conduct real oversight of the department of justice. On january 24th, 2017, we wrote to chairman goodlatte, insisting that the committee hold hearings on President Trumps conflicts of interest, at home and abroad. Citing to experts across the political spectrum, we showed the administrations attempt to address its ongoing flisconflicf interest are wholly adequate. We have not held a single hearing on the issue of conflicts of interest. On march 8th, we wrote again to the chairman, encouraging him to call hearings on, quote, russias alleged interference in the u. S. Election. Again, no such hearings were ever held. In fact, this committee, which during the Obama Administration held half a dozen hearings around operation fast and furious, received testimony from fbi director comey three times in 13 months, and detailed staff and resources to a benghazi investigation that cost the public almost 8 million, this committee, from Inauguration Day until four weeks ago, was largely silent in terms of oversight. We havent lifted a finger on election security. Attorney general sessions told us on november 14th that he has done nothing to secure the next election from threats from at home and abroad. We have not once discussed the president s abuse of the pardon power. While the hurricane bore down on houston, President Trump sidelined the office of the pardon attorney to pardon a serial human rights abuser who bragged about running a concentration camp in arizona. And we have not held a single hearing on allegations of obstruction of justice at the white house. Not for lack of evidence, but because of the chairmans words, quote, there is a special counsel in place examining the issue, unquote, and quote, several other congressional committees are looking into the matter, and the committee, quote, does not have the time to conduct this critical oversight. I ask my colleagues to keep those excuses in mind. Now with the year coming to a close, with the leadership of the department of justice finally before us, what do my republican colleagues want to discuss . Hillary clintons emails. Let me repeat that. With all of these unresolved issues left on our docket, a week before we adjourn for the calendar year, the majoritys highest oversight priority is Hillary Clintons emails and a few related Text Messages. As we saw in our recent hearings with the department of justice and the fbi, my republican colleagues seem singularly focused on their call for a Second Special counsel. And failing that, on the need to investigate the investigators themselves. Ourselves. The white house has now joined the call by House Republicans for a new special counsel to investigate the fbi. The president s private lawyers have done the same. I understand the instinct to want to change the subject after the flynn and manafort indictments, but this request is grossly misguided for a number of reasons. First, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the special counsel regulations work. Some criminal investigations pose a conflict of interest to the department of justice. The russia investigation is such a case. Because of the attorneys ongoing recusal and because Department Leadership insisted in the removal of director comey for many reasons. In cases like these, the attorney general may use a special counsel to manage the investigation outside the ordinary chain of command. But the key here is the criminal investigation. Thats what special counsel does. The department cannot simply assign a special counsel to look at things that bother the white house. There has to be enough evidence to have predicated a criminal investigation in the first place. Then and only then, if the facts warrant, can a special counsel be assigned to the case. So far, there has been no credible factual legal claim that anybody at the department of justice violated any law by deciding not to bring charges against Hillary Clinton or by attempting to meet with fusion gps. In other words, there is no investigation to which the department could even assign a new special counsel. Second, the list of grievances raised by the majority for review by a new special counsel also seems wildly off the mark. For example, there is nothing unlawful about directors comey sitting down to draft an early statement about the clinton investigation. Nor, would it have been unethical to outline his conclusions before the investigation was over, if the clear weight of the evidence pointed in one direction. Nor is there anything wrong with fbi agents expressing their private political views via private text message, as peter strzok and lisa page appear to have done in the 375 Text Messages we received last night. In fact, the regulations expressly permit that kind of private communication. I have reviewed those Text Messages and i am left with two thoughts. First, peter strzok did not say anything about donald trump that the majority of americans were not also thinking at the same time. And second, in a testament to his integrity and situational awareness, when the office of the Inspector General made mr. Mueller aware of these exchanges, he immediately remove Police Department strzok from his team. To the extent we are now enganled with oversight of political bias at the fbi, this committee should examine evidence of a cooperated effort by some agents involved in the clinton investigation to change the course of a campaign in favor of President Trump by leaking Sensitive Information to the public and by threatening to leak Additional Information about new emails after the investigation was going closed. On monday, Ranking Member cummings and i sent a letter to the department asking about these leaks and that these may have been related to rudy giuliani, michael flynn, and other senior figures of the campaign. On the one hand, the president s old lock her up cheer seems quaint after a couple of guilty pleas by trump associates. On the other, has former attorney general, michael mukasey, no fan of Hillary Clinton has said, the president s continued threats to prosecute his political opponents is, quote, something we dont do here. If the president were to carry out his threat, again from general mukasey, it would be like banana republic. And this investigation into the investigation cannot credibly be a priority for this committee at this time. I understand the instinct to want to give cover to the president. I am fearful that the majoritys effort to turn the tables on the special counsel will get louder and more frantic as the walls continue to close in around the president. But this committee has a job to do. President trump has engaged in a persistent and dangerous effort to discredit both the free press and the department of justice. These are the agencies and institutions under our jurisdiction. Every minute that our majority wastes uncovering for President Trump is a minute lost on finding a solution for the d. R. E. A. M. Ers or kucurbing a vicious spike in hate crimes or stopping the president from further damaging the constitutional order. I hope my colleagues will use todays hearings as an opportunity to find their way back to the true work of the House Judiciary Committee. I thank the chairman and i yield back the balance of my time. We welcome our distinguished witness. If you would please rise, ill begin by swearing you in. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god . Thank you, let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative. Mr. Rod rosenstein was sworn in as the 37th Deputy Attorney general of the United States on april 26th, 2017, by attorney general Jeff Sessions. Mr. Rosenstein has had a distinguished career in public service. He began his legal career in the Public Integrity section of the department of justices Criminal Division and later served as counsel to the Deputy Attorney general and principled Deputy Assistant attorney general for the tax division. Until his appointment by President Trump, mr. Rosenstein served for 12 years as the United States attorney for the district of maryland. He holds a bachelors degree in economics from the Wharton School and a j. D. From from harvard law school. General rosenstein, your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety, and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Welcome. Chairman goodlatte, Ranking Member nadler, i would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify in your oversight of the department of justice. I appreciate your support and concern for the department of justice. I know several of you are alumni of the department. Two, in fact, served alongside me are as United States attorneys. And im very grateful for the opportunity to with you today. As Deputy Attorney general, my job is to help the attorney general to manage our departments components, including seven main justice litigating divisions, 94 u. S. Attorneys offices, the federal bureau of investigation, the Drug Enforcement administration, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, the uited States Marshal service the office of justice programs, the federal bureau of prisons, the office of the Inspector General, and many others. Our department includes over 115,000 employees. And tens of thousands of contractors, stationed in every state and territory, and in many foreign nations. We prevent terrorism and violent crime, illegal drug distribution, fraud, corruption, child abuse, civil right violations, and countless other threats to the American People. We enforce tax laws, antitrust laws, and environmental laws. We represent the United States in the Supreme Court, the courts of appeal, and the district courts, and in state and territorial courts. We protect federal judges, manage federal prisons, review parole applications, oversee the bankruptcy system. We manage we assist tribal governments and we adjudicate immigration cases. We provide legal advice to the president and to every federal agency. We implement Grant Programs and support state and local Law Enforcement. We combat waste, fraud, and other misconduct involving employees and contractors. We resolve foreign claims and represent our government in International Law enforcement forums. We collect, analyze, and disseminate Law Enforcement data. And we perform countless other important functions for the American People. The department of justice employees are united by a shared understanding that our mission is to pursue justice, protect public safety, preserve government property, defend civil rights, and promote the rule of law. The mission attracted me to Law Enforcement, but the people who carry out that mission are what i treasure most about my job. With very few exceptions, they are honorable, principled, and trustworthy. Americas federal, state, and local Law Enforcement agencies are more professional today than ever rigorous scrutiny by external oversight agencies has resulted in increased accountability and higher standards. When wrongdoing occurs, we are more likely to discover it, and we remedy it. That is critical to building and maintaining public confidence. Over the past eight months, ive spoken with thousands of state Department Employees around the country. I remind them that justice is not only our name, justice is our mission. Justice requires a fair and impartial process. And thats why we have to follow ethical standards. Robert jackson said that the citizens safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, seeks truth and not victims, serves the law, and not factionable purposes, and approaches the task with humility. Under the leadership of attorney general Jeff Sessions and an experienced team appointed by President Trump, the department of justice is working tirelessly to protect american citizens and to uphold the rule of law. Today, i look forward to discussing some of our departments important work. Following the u. S. Attorneys manual and the examples set by past department of justice officials, we always seek to accommodate congressional oversight requests, while protecting the integrity of our investigations, preserving the departments independence, and safeguarding Sensitive Information. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, mr. Rosenstein. Ill start by recognizing myself. Last week, director wray acknowledged that the normal procedures were not followed with respect to secretary clintons email server. He said it was not normal to have witnesses sit in the room during the interview of the target of an investigation. If he discovers that normal protocol was not followed or that the investigation was closed or tainted for political purposes, would that be a justification in your mind to reopen the investigation . Mr. Chairman, we are certainly anticipating the outcome of that Inspector General investigation. As you know, thats been ongoing for some time. Im hopeful it will be concluded within the next couple of months. And when we get those results, well take appropriate action. I dont know exactly what the findings are going to be, but its always appropriate for us to review any findings of impropriety or misconduct and take appropriate action. When you announced your decision to terminate the employment of fbi director comey, in that decision, you announced some practices that i took it to mean you thought were inappropriate actions on the part of the former fbi director. Do you think those actions on his part would merit further investigation into how that whole matter was conducted . As youre aware, the Inspector General is conducting an investigation into the handling of that Hillary Clinton email investigation and i believe the matters that youve referred to are part of his investigation. The memo that youre familiar, that i provided reflects my personal opinion. Its not an official finding of misconduct. Thats the Inspector Generals job. Hell reach his own independent determination. But as you pointed out, my views about it are already known. Are you aware of any prior efforts by the judiciary committee, this committee, to unduly restrict the ability of the Intelligence Community to do its job of our protecting our National Security . Im not personally aware of any, no, sir. Are you aware that this committee has primary oversight of the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act, due in part to the significant constitutional and legal questions that government surveillance raises . Mr. Chairman, i i respect the Congress Decision about which committee has oversight. I know that both this committee and the Intelligence Committee have an interest in that issue. El witwell, given that you understand this committees jurisdiction, why would we, in the words of the department, attempt to, quote, dismantle section 702 of our nations most important Surveillance Program . I certainly would hope that wouldnt be the case. I dont know who made the statement youre referring to. I know the department, obviously, has expressed its opinion about the reauthorization, which we think is critically important, of section 0702. I respect torture differenhere of opinion. But weve made it clear that its essential that 702 be authorized. We agree with you. And we also believe its essential that the Civil Liberties of american citizens be protected and that a standard be imposed on the examination of information about u. S. Citizens, incidentally gathered as a part of the section 702 program with the surveillance of nonu. S. Citizens outside the United States, but incidentally, gathering information about u. S. Citizens and then being looked into by agents of the federal bureau of investigation without a warrant. Im not aware of that being appropriate in any other type of investigation that they might conduct. And were not talking about terrorist attacks. Were not talking about National Security, because we have clearly distinguished that. Were simply talking about crimes that have already occurred, that are being investigated, as they should be investigated, by the department. But under the procedures that the American People would expect that they would follow, to protect their Civil Liberties and other circumstances. Mr. Chairman, as you know, ive had the advantage over the last eight months of having a role in overseeing our National Security operations. I discussed this with director wray yesterday. And if you would like, i could give you a detailed explanation. It might take a couple of minutes, but i would be happy to give you some details. But the bottom line is that it really is critical to National Security that the fbi have the ability to query the data. Thats the issue here. And our legislation allows them to do that. But if the query provides a hit that they want to read an email, they want to see other documentation, they want to see in its full form, theyre required to get a warrant under those circumstances. And i discussed this with director wray and what happens when the fbi conducts these queries, mr. Chairman, is that typically, there are leads that are not necessarily based on probable cause, but based on a lead, a suspicion. And the ability to query that data and follow up on it gives the fbi to put two and two together, to connect the dots. There are lots of leads that any Law Enforcement person would like to pursue, but we have protections against them pursuing it without appropriate standard for doing it, in a whole lohost of other ways to protect people from unreasonable searches. And this is a search of information about a United States citizen. Well, its a query. Allow the initial query, once that results in something the agency wants to look at, i dont see how you distinguish further readings of emails or other things from a search. If i could take a couple of minutes, i could explain to y you i talked to director wray about an appropriate way to explain this publicly. Hypothetically, lets say a local Police Department receives a call that somebody has purchased a large quantity of Hydrogen Peroxide and something made the clerk at the store suspicious about that, so he contacts the local police. Theres no probable cause. Theres nothing illegal about what the person did, but something that caused concern. The general polilocal Police General rosenstein, let me interrupt you. Because the very specific incident that you are citing was cited to us during our discussions with the fbi and that very specific protection for the fbi was added to our legislation. Well, the example im providing is a situation where there would not be probable cause, but appropriate for the fbi to follow up. What were trying to avoid is the resurrection of a law that would prevent the fbi gaining access to information that might allow them to connect a lead that implicates National Security. My time is expired. Mr. Nadler is recognized for five minutes. Thank you. On monday, Ranking Member cummings and i wrote you a letter about the investigation into former secretary clinton. Without objection, i ask anonymous consent that our letter be made a part of the letter. It will be made. The first part of our letter, yes or no, will you commit to ensuring that the minority, equal access in the future . Yes. And i believe we my understanding is that that information may have been provided im not interested in the past at this point. Thank you. Thats all i wanted. I have a lot of questions. The majority of this committee, the white house, and President Trumps private attorneys have all called for the department of justice to appoint a new special counsel to investigate a number of Hillary Clintonrelated matters. I think we could benefit from your experience on how the special counsel regulations work. The regulations say the attorney general or in your case tacting attorney general, will appoint the special counsel when you determine that, one, criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted. And two, the investigation either presents a conflict of spr interest to the department or some other strong Public Interest requires you to appoint a special counsel. That first part, is that part of the regulations optional . No. Thank you. So a criminal investigation must first be determined to be warranted before you can assign a special counsel . Yes. And at the department of justice, a criminal investigation requires an initial assessment and a preliminary view of the evidence . Correct. Has that assessment been made with respect to former director comeys handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation . Im not going to comment on any investigations in the normal course before we made a determination, we would conduct an appropriate review. And i assume your answer would be the same if i asked you about the fbis interaction with fusion gps . It would be the same for anything, yes. Okay. Then presuming for a moment, presuming for a moment that the department has conducted an initial assessment and found no predicate for a criminal investigation. So in plain english, there is no ongoing criminal investigation, with under this presumption, could you or the attorney sessions simply appoint the special counsel to look into these matters . No. As i said earlier, to my knowledge, theres been no credible factual or legal claim that anybody at the department violated any law by deciding not to bring charges or by attempting to meet with fusion gps. If that is true, if there is no underlying criminal investigation, because this is insufficient evidence of a crime, in this or any other case, do the regulations permit you to appoint a special counsel . No. Thank you. According to the department, the office of the Inspector General ne informed special counsel mueller of the existence of these Text Messages between peter strzok and lisa page in 2017. Mr. Mueller immediately concluded that mr. Strzok could no longer participate in the investigation and he was removed from the team the same day. Did mr. Mueller take appropriate action in this case . Yes, he did. In testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee, you said you would only fire special counsel mueller for good cause. And that you had nve not seen ay et. Several months have passed since then. Have you seen good cause to fire special counsel mueller . No. Thank you. If you were ordered today to fire mr. Mueller, what would you do . As ive explained previously, i would follow the regulation. If there were good cause, i would act. If there were no good cause, i would not. And you have seen no good cause so far . Correct. Thank you. On may 1st, the office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion arguing that ranking minority members do not have the authority to conduct oversight, unquote. Shortly thereafter, politico reported that the white House Counsel instructed federal agencies not to cooperate with oversight requests from democrats. Since then, democrats on this committee have written more than 40 letters to the administration, without any meaningful response thus far. Can you clarify your current position on responding to letters from the minority . And are you concerned that the departments may 1st position suggests a policy of stonewalling by the administration . My position, congressman, is that we make every effort to respond to any legitimate inquiry from a member of congress. Obviously, we prioritize inquiries propounded by the chair on behalf of the committee. But well make an effort to respond to any inquiry. We get a lot of letters. Im sure. So i apologize if theres but would you prioritize after letters from the chair, letters from the minority . Our goal is to respond to all of those letters in a reasonable matter. When our new assistant attorney general, steven boyd, took office, there was quite a backlog would you encourage the office of legal office to withdraw its may 1st opinion . Ill take a look at it, congressman. But as i said, the without with regard to what the law may require, our policy is to try to i understand that, but would take a look at whether you would encourage the office of Legal Counsel to withdraw that may 1st opinion . Im not committing to do anything, but i will agree to look at it. Okay, thank you. Finally, i want to say and follow up with what the chairman was saying about section 702. The bill that this committee reported specifically said basically said, where youre going a counterintelligence or foreign or terrorism investigation, you dont need a warrant to query section 702 data. But where youre conducting an investigation of domestic crimes, then, like any other investigation of domestic crimes, you would need a warrant. So that the danger that i think you were referring to is taken care of by the bill, and i endorse the comment of the chairman to that effect. And i think you should take a look at that. I urge you to take a look at that. Thank you. I yield back. Chair, thanks, gentlemen, recognize the gentlemen from texas, mr. Smith, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Rosenstein, i am concerned that the special counsel may be casting too wide a net. That he is trying to catch all the fish in the ocean, not just the soviet sharks. And if the special counsel were to obtain information not directly related to russian interference with the election, and he wanted to investigate that further, would he need to obtain your authority to expand the investigation . Yes, he would. Has he ever asked to expand the scope of the investigation . I appreciate that question, congressman. If i can explain briefly. There are a lot of media stories speculating about what the special counsel may or may not be doing. I know what hes doing. Im appropriately exercising my oversight responsibilities. So i can assure you that the special counsel is conducting himself consistently with our understanding of the scope of his investigation. That wasnt my question. My question is has he asked you or consulted with you about a desire to expand the investigation beyond the original scope . The consultation is actually much more detailed than that. He consults with he, his Office Consults with me about their investigation, both within and without the scope. So i know what theyre authorized to do. I know you know what theyre doing. But has he requested to expand the scope of the original investigation of the original jurisdiction . The scope of the original jurisdiction, as you know, is publicly set forth in that order. But the specific matters are not identified in the order. So i discuss that with director mueller when he started. And weve had ongoing discussion about exactly what is in the scope of his investigation. And to the extent there was any ambiguity about it, hes received my permission to include those matters within his investigation. So he has asked to expand the scope and youve given him permission . Youre characterizing it as an expansion. Its a clarification, in most cases. But he understands that this is a special counsel. Its not an independent counsel. And im accountable for what theyre doing, and i need to know what theyre doing. Yeah. A clarification may be an expansion and we may be caught up on the meaning of those words. But i do think, regardless, i think the American People have a right to know if the original jurisdiction has been expanded. Do you agree with that . The difficulty, congressman, is that i have a responsibility not to talk about whats being investigated and thats why the original order doesnt identify any persons or charges. But we know whats under investigation. Im not asking you to go into any specifics or to name names or to even talk about the subject, just whether or not the request has been made to expand it. You said you clarified his jurisdiction. I assume that would include an expansion, as youve zpsuggeste. I want to make sure im 100 accurate and i need to check and get back to you as to whether or not we considered specific issues to be a clarification or an expansion. But whatever it may be, im responsible for and i know what hes investigating. Okay. Please do get back to me on the difference between those two. Do you feel that the special counsel is authorized to investigate the personal finances of the trump family members . Congressman, that would implicate the concern that ive expressed that we just dont talk about whats under investigation. So i hope you dont draw any inference, pro or con. Were simply not going to discuss it. Well, with do you think the personal finances come under the original jurisdiction of direct involvement of russian interference with the election . I certainly appreciate your concern, congressman. But i hope you appreciate my position that if i start answering what is and isnt, ive gone down that road that i dont want to go down of discussing whats under investigation. There have been four persons that have been charged. Those are known, and ordinarily the department of justice, thats what weve publicize. If we charge somebody with a crime, we publicize it. If we dont charge anybody with a crime, we dont talk about it. Some of the people charged have been charged with crimes not directly connected to russian interference with the election. The crimes with which theyre charged are publicly known. Okay. So in other words, you do feel that the special counsel can go into the personal finances not connected to russian interference . I hope ive been clear, congressman, i am not commenting on the scope of the investigation. All right. What about, can the special counsel investigate the personal actions of staff unconnected to the russian interference of the with the election . Only if i determine that its appropriate for him to do so. Okay, so thats your determination, not the special counsels . As i said, congressman, i know what hes doing. If i felt he was doing something inappropriate, i would take action. Right. Let me just maybe summarize by saying, i think that the American People deserve to know who is being investigated and why pitch one final question in my last couple of seconds here. As you know and many of us know, in the lawyers code of ethics, attorneys are supposed to avoid not just the actual impropriety itself, but the appearance of impropriety. The special counsel has hired at least eight attorneys who have direct connections to both the to either the obama or Clinton Campaigns. Dont you think that creates an appearance of impropriety . And im not saying whether you think they can do their jobs. Dont you think it creates an appearance of impropriety the time of the gentlemen has expired. The witness is permitted to answer the question. I do not believe im not aware of any impropriety. We do have regulations, the special counsel is subject to all the departments rules. And subject to oversight by the department, including the Inspector General. Im not aware of any violation of those rules by the special counsel employees. So you dont think it creates the appearance of impropriety . Well, appearance is to some extent in the eye of the beholder. We apply the departments rules and regulations and make determinations and we do have career ethics advisers who provide us counsel about that. Thank you, mr. Rosenstein. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The chair recognizes the gentlemen from california, miss lofgren for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, mr. Rosenstein, for being here with us today. Youre a career attorney in the department, isnt that right . I would say i was a career attorney. Was a career attorney. You spent your whole life working for the people of the United States, as a career attorney, until you were asked to fulfill durthe current function for the past 12 years, ive been a political appointee. 15 years prior to that as a career attorney. So let me ask you, i in taking a look at the individuals who are working on the matters that we are discuss iing, are ty career attorneys in the department who are working on this . Some of them are, and under the regulation, the special counsel is permitted to request the detail of attorneys in the department who he believes will be helpful. He also has the authority to hire attorneys from outside the department and he has used both approaches. So wouldnt they be subject to the principles, the merit system principles in the Service Service reform act . Yes, i believe they are. So weve been on the committee a long time, and i remember back in 2008, there were allegations that the department of justice had used politics a basis for hiring and firing in the department. And the office of Inspector General and the office of professional responsibility issued a report, outlining the impropriety of using politics in personnel decisions. One of the things they said was that the departments policy on nondiscrimination includes the department of Justice Needs to seek to eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, political affiliation and the like. So wouldnt that policy be governing the action of the individuals working on this. You couldnt discriminate based on this whole list, including their political affiliation. Congresswoman, one of the advantages that i bring to the job, having been in and around the department for a while, ive seen mistakes that have been made in the past. That is one of the issues ive discussed with up with of our political appointees, we are not going to do that. Were not going to improperly consider political affiliation with respect to career appoin e appointees in the department. Thank you very much. I wanted to ask about a couple of concerns. And you may or may not have responsibility for this. If so, just let me know. I am concerned that the department has had a change in position on certain important Voting Rights issues. One has to do with the purging of roles in ohio. The department had previously argued against purging those rol rolls, because the National Voter registration act prohibits the purging of voters simply because they havent voted in a given period of time. Its my understanding that the department is now arguing that ohio can purge individuals from roles, even without evidence that they have move d. Additionally, the department had argued that the state of texas i. D. Law had discriminated against individuals and the department had changed its position on that. And the law is currently drafted probably excludes up to 600,000 americans from being able to vote, because of the i. D. , the draconian i. D. Laws. Can you give us any insight into why the department changed its position on these key Voting Rights issues . Congressman, im generally familiar, i dont know all the details of both of those matters, but as a general matter, its important to understand that the determination about the ultimate determination about what the law means is made by a judge. Department officials obviously need to make a decision based upon a good faith analysis of the facts and the law. What position to take. It may be that new leadership of the Department Takes a different position. But i can assure you, thats based on a good faith analysis and there may be legitimate ambiguity in some of these positions. And were responsible for making our determination, just like the Prior Administration made theirs. But ultimately, it will be up to a judge to decide what that law means. Let me just ask a final question. Its my understanding that under the order appointing him, mr. Mueller has the authority to investigate matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation, which would include crimes uncovered while he is investigating the main mission. So, for example, if he is looking at the russia investigation and he finds out that the person hes looking at committed a bank robbery, he isnt required to ignore a bank robbery. Would that be a Fair Assessment of his responsibilities . Its a Fair Assessment the time of the gentlewoman has expired. Mr. Rosenstein may answer the question. Its important to recognize, because its a special counsel, not an independent counsel, those issues are worked out with the department. So in the event he came across evidence that was not appropriate for him to prosecute, he could refer it to other components of the department. So we wouldnt allow Something Like that to slip through the cracks, but we would make sure to route it to the appropriate prosecutor. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The chair recognizes the gentlemen from ohio, mr. Shabbat for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Rosenstein, you already indicated that mr. Strzok was removed for impropriety. Its beyond me how the other people that were mentioned by the chairman and mr. Smith were not removed for impropriety, as well. Let me ask you, first of all, i assume the team you put together, you felt was going to be that mueller put together, was going to be fair and unbiased, correct . Correct. I selected mr. Mueller and and he selected the team. Right. Let me just review a few facts about the supposedly unbiased group of people that mr. Mueller pulled together. 9 of the 16 have made political contributions. To be fair, lets just go through them in alphabetical order. First, greg anders gave 1,000 to the democrat running to hold the seat, the senate seat, previously held by barack obama. He gave 2,600 to democrat senator gillibrand, who just this week led the charge of Democratic Senators demanding that President Trump resign. And oh, yeah, mr. Anders gave zero to the Trump Campaign or to any republican, for that matter. Next, again, in alphabetical order. Rush atkinson, he donated to the Clinton Campaign last year, again, zero to the Trump Campaign. Third, kelly freeney contributed to both obama campaigns and to Hillary Clintons campaign, zero to the Trump Campaign. Next, andrew goldston. He donated 3,300 to both obama campaigns. Again, zero to the Trump Campaign. Fifth, elizabeth frelogger, who clerked for liberal Supreme Court justices, ginsburg and kagen, contributed to both the obama and Clinton Campaigns, and zero to trump. Next, james quarles. Hes contributed to the democratic president ial campaigns of dukakis, kerry, obama, and Hillary Clinton, and gore, as well. He did contribute to former congressman chaffetz and senator allen, but he contributed over 20,000 to Democratic House and senate candidates. And again, gave zero to trump. Seventh, gen jeannie rhee, she actually represented, as praefspraefs previously mentioned, Hillary Clinton in several lawsuits. Contributed 5,400 to the Clinton Campaign, and zero to the Trump Campaign. Eighth, brandon van grak contributed to act blue, the fundraising outfit organized to elect Democratic Congressional candidates. Contributed to the obama president ial campaign and of course gave nothing to trump. Finally, andrew weismann, he contributed 2,000 not to the Democratic National convention, 2,300 to the Clinton Campaign and zero to donald trump. Hes also the guy who praised the holdover acting attorney, susan yates, for defying President Trump on the travel ban. Now, my question to you is how can you with a straight face say that this group of democrat partisans are unbiased and will give President Trump a fair shake. Um, well, congressman, i think its important to recognize that when we talk about political affiliation, that all demonstrates political affiliation. The issue of bias is something different. I have discussed with director mueller. And we have a lot of experience managing offices in the department of justice. We recognize we have employees with political opinions. And its our responsibility to make sure that those opinions do not influence their actions. Pardon me. And so i believe that director mueller understands that and that he is running that office appropriately. Recognizing that people have political views, but ensuring that those views are not in any way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office. Well, when you say, running it appropriately. I think putting the committee, the people, these investigators together to begin this investigation in the first place is part of the investigation and how these people, the group he put together is considered unbiased, i dont know how anyone can possibly reach that conclusion. When this whole russia was involved in our election surfaced and you picked Robert Mueller to lead the investigation, i was at first encouraged. It seemed like a serious matter and it deserved a serious investigation. And i suassumed, as many of us did, that mr. Mueller would pull together an unbiased team. But rather than wearing stripes as umpires and referees might wear, i would submit that the mueller team overwhelmingly ought to be attired with democratic donkeys on their jerseys or im with hillary tshirts, certainly not with lets make America Great again. And i think thats a shame. Because i think the American People deserve a lot better than the very biased team that theyre getting under Robert Mueller. And i think its really sad. I yield back. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, miss jackson lee for five minutes. Deputy attorney general, thank you. Welcome. And thank you for your service to the nation. Allow me just for a moment, as i move to my questions, to indicate that i am shocked and baffled the way some in the rightwing media and some of our friends on the other side show such contempt for the department of justice and the fbi and so much skepticism or mistrust of the russian government. Let me briefly review for the record, the fbi and doj brought to justice and put away timothy mcveigh, domestic terrorist who killed 168 americans. Cla klansmen, terrorists who bomb u. S. Embassies in kenya and tanzania, organized family kingpin, the pan am 103 bombing, soviet diplomat that had a spy ring during world war ii, alder ames and others for espionage. World trade Center Bombing in 1993. Twa47 hijacking, lindbergh kidnapping, beltway snipers, klansmen who killed four little girls in a 16th Street Church in birmingham. And of course, on the other hand, the russians are known for shooting down a civilian airline,