Private religious thoughts, but to exercise their religious freedom. Thats what the constitution says. You should have a right to Congress Shall make no law to establish a religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. You have raised that in the past and it was a big part of what we did that the legislation that you in Congress Passed was a big part of what we were i believe to do. Well, thank you. I would like to just make a couple of comments. First, a comment on the supreme courts recent decision to grant cert in the microsoft case. I know the department and i have different views on this case and the topic remains controversial if thats why i introduced the International Communications privacy act to provide a clear framework for determining when Law Enforcement may access an individuals electronic kmup communications, regardless of where those communications were restored. No matter which way the court rules, i believe this is a policy question that Congress Needs to decide. Congress, not the court, should be the body that determines our data privacy laws. But im grateful to the department thus far for its work with me and i hope youll continue to work with me and others on this committee to refine the bill so it can be enact sbed into law. I know my time has run. I appreciate that time. Senator leahy . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Welcome, attorney general and thank you, senator leahy. I look forward to you also coming to the appropriations committee, talking about your budget. When you appeared before the committee in january, after your testimony, i was concerned about it and i asked you in writing whether you had been in contact with anyone connected to the russian government about the 2016 election. You answered emphatically no. We later learned about several meetings between you and Russian Ambassador kislyak. We didnt hear this from you, we got it from the press. During the height of the 2016 campaign, you reportedly met with kislyak at a Trump Campaign event on foreign policy. At a Republican NationalConvention Event and at your senate office, all as serving as chairman of then candidate Trumps National security team. N now, ive never accused you of colluding with russians, but you clearly in your answer had known, you concealed your own contact with russian officials, at a time when such contacts were of great interest to the committee. So one thing i do know. We have known each other for decad decades. Weve worked together on many issues. If senator Jeff Sessions was in my shoes, and he asked a question, he wouldnt tolerate being misled. So do you understand why members of this committee believe your answer no, was false testimony . Mr. Chairman, i appreciate the opportunity to talk about that. I believe my answer was correct. I have the question you asked. You started off in the preamble, by the way, that said the Intelligence Community has concluded that russia intervened in the 2016 election in an effort to help elect donald trump. The report is available. Russian interference in our elections is larger than any accompani candidate or political party, its about protecting our democracy. And i greed with that. And you asked a series of subparts, a, b, c, d. The question im referring to, i asked you if you had any contact with the russians, and you answered emphatically no. I just wanted to say the spire context of all of your questions dealt with interference in the campaign by the russians. I asked specifically, did you meet with any russians. So the last the question youre referring to is subparagraph e. And it says, several of president elects nominees or senior advisers have russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day. And i took that to mean, not any casual conversation, but did i participate with russians about the 2016 election, that something was wrong. Every one of your previous questions talk about improper involvement. Skpif and i felt the answer was no. I did not meet with them in any way about the well, let me ask you about that. Because later in march, when you did disclose such meetings, you said you did not recall what was said at the meetings. Now, your answer to my question was an emphatic no. It wasnt, i dont recall. Now, youre a lawyer, im a lawyer. Youre, in fact, our nations top lawyer. Is there a difference between respond i responding no and i do not recall . Is that legally significant. Yes, but thank you. Certainly it is, mr. Senator leahy. Okay. So then if you could not recall, then you could not advanced my question, my first question yes or no, if later you said you dont recall what was discussed. Now, the reason i asked that, u. S. Intelligence intercepts reported in july appear to reveal that you did, in fact, discuss Campaign Issues with the Russian Ambassador, including candidate trumps position on russianrelated issues. So let me ask you this. Since the 2016 campaign, have you discussed with any russianconnected officials any of the following, emails, russian interference, sanctions like the magnitsky act, the socalled adoption issue, or any policies and positions of the campaign or the Trump Presidency . This is since the 2016 campaign. Senator leahy, i want to be accurate, so i dont want to have any ambiguity about your questions, but thats a lot of questions. So lets think about this. I have never had a meeting with any russian officials to discuss any kind of coordinating Campaign Efforts thats not my question. I know youre shaking your head. So i want to first say lets take it piece by piece. Have you discussed any of the following . Emails. Repeat the question again about emails. Since the 2016 campaign, have you discussed with any russianconnected official anything about emails . Discussed with them . I dont recall having done any such thing. Have you discussed with them russian interference in our election . No. Have you discussed anything like sanctions, like the magnitsky act, what they call the adoption issue . I dont believe ive ever had any discussion, at any time about the magnitsky act. Have you discussed with them any policies or positions of the campaign or the Trump Presidency . I im not sure about that. If i met with the Russian Ambassador after i gave a speech at the republican convention, he was right in front of the speakerphone, and we had a few we had an encounter there. And that he came, he asked for an appointment in my office later. I met with 26 ambassadors in the last year. And he was one of them. He came into my office with two of my Senior Defense specialists and met with me for a whale. And i dont recall any conversation about what was the last subject . Let me get it right, you asked me, um i think he wants you to repeat something. Any policies or positions of the campaign or Trump Presidency . I dont think there was any discussion about the details of the campaign, other than, it could have been that in that meeting, in my office or at the convention that some comment was made about what trumps positions were. I think thats possible. Well, have you been interviewed or have you been requested to be interviewed by the special counsel, either in connection with director comeys firing, the russian investigation, or your own contact with the russian officials . Youll have to ask the special counsel. No, im asking you. Repeat the question then. Have you been interviewed or been requested to be interviewed by the special counsel, either in connection with director comeys firing, the russian investigation, or your own contact with russian officials . Well, i would be pleased to answer that. Im not sure i should without, uh, clearing that with the special counsel. What do you think . Im just saying, have you been interviewed by them . No. You havent been interviewed by the special counsel in any way, shape or matter . The answer is no. Thank you. Chairman, ive gone over my time, i appreciate the courtesy, but i have a lot more questions along this lain. Senator lee . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, attorney general sessions for your service and for being here today. In may, you implemented a new charging policy for federal prosecutors. The policy requires, as i understand it, that prosecutors must be required to, quote, pursue the most serious, readily provable offense. The policy does permit prosecutors in some circumstances to apply for approval to charge sthuk less th than the most serious offense that is readily provable. Can you tell me, attorney general sessions, what factors the department will be considering in deciding whether or not to grant approval to those prosecutors in those instan instances, who want to charge somethingless th lesles less th serious, readily provable offense. Senator lee, the decision that memos decision reestablishes the longheld position of the department of justice that a prosecutor should charge the most readily provable, serious, readily provable offense. It was altered by the previous Obama Department of justice. I believe attorney general holder, in which he declared that you should not and even directed you should not charge what congress has set as a serious offense that carries a minimum sentence. So you were restoring what was previously known as the ashcroft policy . It was restoring what was previously set. And i was determined to have a simple directive to our capable assistance of the United States attorneys. Not have a lodng sixpage memorandum. It says, if you think its not just and you clear it with your u. S. Attorney or the designee, you can charge the most less all right, hello, everyone. Im kate balduan. Thank you so much for joining us. Weve been listening in to attorney general Jeff Sessions. He is back in the hot seat before his former senate colleagues. Its his first trip back to capitol hill since june. A lot has happened since then. Hes been questioned before the Senate Judiciary committee before. In june, he was being questioned my the Senate Intelligence committee. Since then, a few things have happened. President trump, of course, publicly raking him over the coals for recusing himself from the russian meddling investigation. Sessions, reportedly, even offering his resignation. That russia investigation, though, ramping up a lot since that june hearing, as well. And weve been hearing just some of it so far in this hearing. Donald trump jr. s emails. The revelation of that nowinfamous 2016 meeting with the promise of dirt on hillary clinton. Also since that june hearing, the last Time Sessions was on the hill, russianlinked facebook ads have come to light. Thats to name a few of the developments. Democrats have been grilling sessions on his meeting with the Russian Ambassador and about his role in the firing of former fbi director, james comey, and already today, asking about his conversations with the president about all of the above. Attorney general sessions making very clear in his Opening Statement, hes not going there. It is well established that a president is entitled to have private, Confidential Communications with his cabinet officials, his secretary of state, his secretary of defense, his secretary of treasury. And certainly, his counsel and the attorney general of the United States, who provides counsel. And that such communications are within the core of executive privilege, until such time as the president makes a decision with respect to this privilege, i cannot waive that privilege pius, or otherwise compromise his ability to assert it. As a result, during todays hearing and under these circumstances today, i will not be able to discuss the content of my conversations with the president. That is almost word for word, for what sessions told the Senate Intelligence committee when he was pfr them back in june. A lot to get to. Cnn justice correspondent, evan perez. He is here. Cnn chief political analyst, Gloria Borger is here as well. Cnn legal analyst, michael zeldin, who is also bob mueller, the special counsel, a former special assistant at doj in the past. And cnn political analyst, kerstin powers. Joining us in a little bit, manu raju, hes been watching this hearing very carefully from the inside on capitol hill. Gloria, what just played out between senator leahy and senator sessions . When senator leahy asked very specifically, have you been interviewed or has there been a request to interview you by the special prosecutor, special counsel, bob mueller. And sessions, after kind of this awkward moment, he said, no. But he said, no. Right, he did say no. He seemed to be unsure about whether he should actually answer that question, but ali havock leahy asked the it again and sort of made the case, either you have or you havent. He said no. That doesnt mean at some point in the future perhaps he wouldnt be interviewed. But i think that was kind of the news that came out of this morning, that he has not been interviewed by the special counsel. As we know, the special counsel has been interviewing people like former white house chief of staff, reince priebus, and former White House Communications director, sean spicer. And at this point, he has not he has not interviewed the attorney general, who as we know, gave the president legal advice about comey, as he testified that he was asked to write a memo. Rod rosenstein was asked to write a momentemo. He would not talk, however, about his conversations with the president regarding this matter. Saying that the president has the right to invoke executive privilege. One point here, we know from our reporting that at this point, the president s attorneys have not done so, at any point. They reserve the right to do so, to redact documents, et, but at this point, theyve given us no indication that they intend to invoke executive privilege, regarding the mueller investigation. And i want to get to executive privilege in just one second. But evan, to you, on the mueller investigation, is it where what have you obviously, theyre very tight lipped, understandably so on their list of all who has been interviewed. Does it surprise you jeff session has not been interviewed . Do you think thats on the list . It is surprising, we know Rod Rosenstein already has had a conversation with robert mueller. We dont know whether thats something that hays going to come back to, whether Rod Rosenstein is going to be formally interviewed a second time by the special counsels team. So, just the fact that the fact that the attorney was involved in the firing of comey and the fact that he was a big part of the campaign. He was one of the first major members of congress who gave his backing to then candidate trump. So he was an important part of the campaign. And as you noted, he had those meetings with Sergey Kislyak, the former Russian Ambassador. So it is surprising they havent interviewed him, but we fully expect before this is all said and done, he will be. But if you watched the body language from Jeff Sessions, you see a lot more confidence, you see him actually standing up to a lot of the criticisms and the questions from democrats. This is a man who the president has called him beleaguered, hes called him weak. Hes called him names we cant say on television. But behind the scenes, hes been very consequential for this Justice Department. Hes been behind the immigration decisions, the hbgt decisions. The health care law. Theres a lot that Jeff Sessions has been doing behind the scenes that a lot of people have not been paying attention to. What you see there is a very confident attorney general. The problem is, of course, that none of this will matter to donald trump if bob mueller and this cloud of the russia Investigation Continues to sort of loom over the president , because he blames Jeff Sessions for the appointment of mueller. And getting to things like daca, that will come and well be listening to it and bring everyone the important moments that play out. Dick durbin has been on the forefront of the cause of dreamers. That isforefront of the cause o dreamers. That is where he has said his line of questioning is going to be. Theres a lot more fireworks to come. Were going to be were listening in and going to bring us thesis big moments as they play out, but as we are sitting here together, you said, theres actually knew answer as to how Jeff Sessions answered the question on has he been interviewed by bob mueller. Thats right. Leahy said, have you been asked to be interviewed and have you been interviewed, and then he said, i havent been interviewed. But leahy didnt follow up by saying, have you asked to be interviewed. So we dont know that. But in the don centric circles around an investigation like this, you work your way in. And i still think that sessions is a few circles in before mueller gets to him. Do you think ultimately he has to be interviewed . Yes. As part of this investigation. I think he has to be because of the comey firing and that Oval Office Meeting where session was sort of asked to leave. And comey complained to the attorney general, that, please dont do that, dont leave me there alone. I think, yes, that has to be answered, just as the president has to be interviewed. I dont see how you close an investigation. Whichever way it turns out, without interviewing those guys