Theres been no change in how the department has worked with the internal counsels office. Over the past day the department and committee counter exchanged letters concerning the at the prerogatives of the branches. Im pleased we have reached an agreement that allows me to appear here voluntary. Is am pleased that if we have differences well work them out in good faith before resorting to subpoenas or other form am legal processes. I will answer the economiees questions as best i can, but i will continue the longstanding executive Branch Practice of not disclosing information that may by subject to executive privilege such as the contents of conversations with with the president. As the Supreme Court has recognized this executive privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the constitution. I have spent nearly one third of my professional career they department of justice. I am personally economied to its success and integrity. I hope todays hearing will be constructive and help us partner together to address the priorities of the american people. The men and women of this department are proud of our accomplishments, but we know that congress can help us to achieve even more. As our agents and prosecutors have shown you again and again, they deserve your support. Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify today and for your attention to the matters facing the department of justice. Thank you for your testimony. We will proceed under the fiveminute rule for the questions. I will recognize myself first. We continue to examine questions, but part of our job is to make sure that core investigations have not been compromised. So you have had last week ive been fully briefed on the special counsels investigation. I would like to better understand that comment. Yes or no, since your appointment, have you been briefed on criminal or counterintelligence matters within the special counsels purview . Chairman, thank you for the question. As you know, i cannot talk about Ongoing Investigations. You can say whether youve been briefed or not. As you commented about my recent press conference, the special counsels investigation, i have been briefed on it. So the answer is yes. Thank you. Were you briefed on those matters at any point while you were serving as chief of staff to attorney general sessions . Chairman, i know youre very interested in the special counsels investigation, so i want to be very clear about this. Because attorney general sessions was recused, i had no involvement in the special counsels investigation. So the answer is no. Thank you. How many times were you briefed about the special counsels work . And when did the briefings take place . Ive said all that im saying about the special counsels investigation. I think it would be improper to talk whether you were briefed is a subject . No, the number of times ive been briefed and my involvement in the investigation, sir. Its our understanding there was one brief before whats the basis for that question, sir . Yes or no, is it i mean, i its our understanding that one briefing okurt on december 19th and six days later, simp enough, yes or no. Again, what is the basis for your question . Sir, im asking the questions. I only have five mines. No, mr. Chairman, im going to you were asking me a question, it is your understanding. Can you tell me where you get the basis for that . I dont have time to get into that. Im asking if thats correct or not. Is it correct . Were you briefed . In that time period between december 19th and christmas day. A simple question, yes or no. If every member here today asks questions based on their mere speculation and dont have an actual basis for questions, its difficult to answer. Yes or not, have you communicated any information in that briefing to President Trump . Its a yes or no question. Have you communicated anything you learned in that briefing about the investigation to President Trump. Yes or no. Mr. Chairman, as ive said earlier today, i do not intend today to talk about my private conversations with the president of the United States. To answer your question, i have not talk to the president about the special counsels investigation. Thank you, the answer is no. To any other official. As you mentioned in my Opening Statement, i do not intend today to talk about my private conversations with the president nor white house officials, but i will tell you consistent with what ive already said, ive not talked about the special counsels investigation with senior white house officials. To any third party not already briefed who might have conveyed that information to the president or his legal team . Who do you consider thirdparty individuals . Its really for your consideration. To any third party not already briefed about that investigation who you think might have quaid that information to President Trump or his legal team, who i third person who i think may have quaid that flchgs . Yes. You know, as i sit here in this chair right now, mr. Chairman, you know, i dont thats an impossible question for me to answer. I do not believe that i have briefed thirdparty individuals outside of the department of justice. I have received the briefings myself, and i am usually the end point of that information. But you wont answer the question. I just did answer your question. I dont think you did, but let me say this. Your iteration of the departments longstanding policy appears designed to delay answering these questions as long as possible. I find that unacceptable. I understand the role of executive privilege and respect its value. However, congress is a coequal branch of government. This is a responsibilities we take very seriously. I have repeatedly tried to work with your office first in delaying the hearing until february, and then in providing you our questions in advance. I did this because the executive branchs only rules regarding assertion of privilege issued by president ronald reagan, and for himmed ever since, ultimately its you want to the president to decide whether to assert executive privilege. Ive given you a fair opportunity to prepare for the hearing and to speak with the white house in advance so we can avoid this fight in the first place. The departments failure to do its Due Diligence to me is deeply troubling. I do not believe issuing a subpoena would correct the problem, but im going to give you the opportunity to rectify the situation. After todays hearing, well attempt to reach an accommodation, as part of that process, i ask for your commitment to return for a deposition under oath, with an United States that the transcript will be released to the public as soon as practicable therefore. Any questions unanswered today require consultation with the white house, will be asked again at that procedure, and i expect either a clean answer our a proper assertion of privilege claimed by the president. I would ask members on both sides of the aisle to make those questions clear for the record, so we know whats must be addressed at the future proceeding. Now, in your capacity as acting attorney general, have you ever been asked to approve any action or request to be taken by the special counsel . Mr. Chairman, i see that your five minutes is up, so we i am here voluntary. We have agreed to fiveminute rounds, and i think thats a fine place to end of fiveminute rule. The committee will come to it. I will point out we didnt enforce the fiveminute rule on acting attorney general whitaker. I understand. I was just saying it might be a good breaking point at that the attorney general was mountain middle of saying something. Answer the question, please. Regular order. In your capacity. Please ask the question. Let me repeat the question, so people remember what were talking about. In your capacity as acting attorney general, have you ever been asked to approve any request or action to be taken by the special counsel . S. Mr. Chairman, as the acting attorney general, i am under the special counsels rules. I am the person that is ultimately in charge of the investigation, and i have exercised that authority untder the special counsels regular order. I assume youve said yes or no . I want to be very clear what youre asking me. Are you asking me if ive asked the special counsel to do something . Regular order, mr. Chairman. Well, im asking if i think my words were clear enough. Have you ever been asked to approve any request or action to be taken by the special counsel . Last week you commented on the status of the investigation, stating it was close to being completed. This was said despite the fact you recognized it was ongoing, im not going to talk about an Ongoing Investigation otherwise, close quote. Have you been asked to approve or disapprove a request or action to be taken by the special counsel . Point of order, mr. Chairman. Ive asked the question. Point of order, mr. Chairman. Its not were not operating under the fiveminute rule then . The witness will answer the question. I want to be very specific about this, mr. Chairman. I think its going to allay a lot of fears that have existed among this committee, among the legislative branch largely, and maybe among some american people. We have fold the special counsels regulations to a tee. Theres been no event or decision thats required me to take any action, and i have not interfered in any way with the special counsels investigation. Very good. Thank you, my time has expired. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Again, it is playing out exactly as we thought. My colleagues across the aisle, when we had questions about the fbis operation and investigations, it was stay away, we dont want to get close to mueller. In fact the chairman said is it no longer okay to wait for Robert Mueller . So get ready, this is all this is going to be, doj oversight. There are some things that are interesting here that you did point out in your Opening Statement that do need addressing, whether its Voting Rights issues, and i get that, but im also going to deal with something thats directly under your oversight supervise, something ive read in a her and i believe that lying before this body or any body is wrong, but the issue is tactics. And my question is, were you aware of roger stones indictment before it became public . Congressman, thats a as you know, an important question. It is also mr. Stone is part of an Ongoing Investigation, but i have again been briefed on the special counsels investigation. That would have been considered a development that i would have been briefed on, and i was briefed on. Are you familiar, from public boards or other, that a cnn reporter was camped outside of stones outs when the fbi arrested him . Um, this wouldnt be part of the investigation i am aware of that, and it was deeply concerning to me how cnn found out about that. Im glad were going down that road. Did somebody at the department of justice seemingly share a draft indictment with cnn before the finding of a true bill . Ranking member collins, the court had a sealed indictment that, after mr. Stones arrest was unsealed. Consistent with all its prior indictments, dojs basic policy for transparency in criminal cases is that the indictment is posted on the doj web page promptsly after its unsealed and Media Outlets were notified. We do not know of anything. I do not know of any other special counsels Office Notice or doj notice to Media Outlets regarding mr. Stones indictment or his arrest, and otherwise you know, as i sit here today, i dont have any other information i can talk about. Given your answer just then, it does seem concerning that given this reporters knowledge and other things, there seems to have been a gap in that discovery. Just another question. If anybody outside this, would you view this as a problem . Im just going to ask you, in your final days here, would this be a problem for doj, looking at the timing, that it seems to appear this was given pre or prior knowledge. If it was given through normal channels, every media outlet would have been there. I share your concerns that a media outlet was tipped off to either mr. Stones indictment or arrest before that information was made available to the public. One of the other issues, and since were going to go down there, the chairman this is a question that should be familiar, is bruce orr still employed with the department of justice. To answer your question directly, mr. Collins, bruce orr is currently employed with the department of justice. Is there any process that you can comment on are you aware of the discussions and also the implications investigations from congress and from others surrounding his involvement in many of the investigation problems we have seen over the past few years at doj . Mr. Collins, i am generally aware of mr. Orr being questions being raised by his know what you know, and using your past experience and prior knowledge, do you believe mr. Orr was operating outside normal and appropriate channels in which he was operating until, which has been publicly reported . Mr. Collins, this is a very important question for many people, both in this body and the general public, the office of Inspector General is currently looking at the carter page fisa application. Which is very much a concern. And its also being reviewed at the same time by mr. John huber, the u. S. Attorney from utah, who was asked to conduct a review of certain matters. So together with the fact that any situation with regard mr. Orrs employment would be a confidential Human Resources process, i just am unable to talk any more about mr. Orr and his involvement in any matters that could be subject to an investigation. As we now have at part to our play and finding out you may be subpoenaed to come back and do a deposition, which if theres any way around this to attack the investigation of the president , this is again just i want to say one . Your last few days, you know, do your best, do your job and continue to do that part, but theres many on our side of the aisle as well as the other side, that have been very concerned with what we have seen at the department of justice, especially in the fbi and especially over the last few years, that should turn every citizen who could care less about politics, if theres ever a perception, and ive shared this with others who came before you to testify, whenever theres a perception where theres not equal treatment on either side, thats a problem that needs to be addressed. Oil hoping when bill barr comes in, i hope he will this will be a long day when were chasing rabbits, but he at the end of the day, the good men and women of the this is more of a rabbit chase down a lot of holes. With that, i yield back. Mr. Collins mr. Chairman, may i answer . You may. I think its important as we sit here today, that we understand this is not a confirmation hearing, that i am probably going to be replaced by bill barr in the next week. This an oversite hearing for the department of justice. I am surprised as we had both have the chairman and Ranking Member talk about what they want to talk about, that we havent talked anything about the work regarding violent crime, about the opioid crisis, we havent talked about religious liberty, we havent talked about free speech on our college campuses, a whole host of other issues that i know are very important to you, and i like forward to talking about the substance at the work of the department of justice, but it is your five minutes. You can ask the questions that are of most interest to you, but as i sit here today, i would like to talk about the incredible worked weve been doing at the department of justice since i was chief of staff and now acting attorney general. I appreciate that, but if you had been glued to a tv yesterday morning, you would have been found out this wasnt what this was going to be about. Ladies and gentlemen, there are votes on the floor, 11 minutes left. Were infirmed theyre theyre going to strictly enforce that rule. So 15minute rule now, its changed now . The committee will stand in recess until immediately after the last in this series of votes. Great. All right. So that was quite something. You saw the standoff there by the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee jerry nadler there, trying to get Matthew Whitaker to answer key questions about questions about his administration, with the president. Trying to nail him down on dates. He did answer some. Then you saw the Ranking Member, the republican doug collins calling this just a charade and chasing a rabbit down a hole. Lets bring our experts back. Jeffrey s. Let me just all right. Jeffrey let me theyre recessing here to vote for about ten minutes or so. What struck you the most . That hes not going to answer questions about, a, his conversations with the president , and b, any substantive interactions he had with the mueller team. He did say action in a press conference a few weeks ago. He said yes, eventually, to that. We knew that already. He has cited executive privilege for any sort of interactions with the president , so i would say this has been less than illuminating. So far. Were only two members in. Good theater, though. Evan perez, to you, one of the questions he would not answer is how many times hes been briefed by mueller, and whether he spoke to other members of the administration about the Mueller Probe, or even third parties who would have told members of the administration or the president here. I just want to remind our viewers, which is someone who is an acting attorney general, who has a very important job right now, today, overseeing the Mueller Probe. If bill barr is confirmed, he woven be do that in a matter of days, so republicans, you heard calling it a charade. The democrats saying we have important questions we want answered. What is your view . I think we got a lot of information from here. He was briefed. He was prepped. There was a lot of preparation the last few days. The Justice Department went through the likely questions, and they went over with him the answers he should give and how to protect executive privilege, but he pierced that executive privil