Briefed on the special counsels investigation. Do you believe the involvement of the hostile foreign entities interfering with the elections is more severe than the false representations of voter fraud in elections . Do you believe that a foreign interference with the elections is more severe . Congresswoman, i think foreign interference in our election system in the United States is a very serious and ongoing concern. I also believe that voter fraud is a serious concern. After you left office, you pursued a series of other political offices, one of which was the United States senate. Yes or no if in pursuit of that Office Someone contacted you to offer dirt on your opponent which at the same time included other candidates such as steve king and nowsenator joni ernst . Would you have contacted the fbi . Congresswoman, i am nothetic questions. Im here for an oversight hearing. I dont believe you know, i was very unsuccessful in my just answer the question yes or no. Would you have contacted the fbi if you were asked to get dirt on your opponents . Congresswoman, if i was contacted by a Foreign National or foreign country when i was candidate for United States senate, i most likely would have reached out to the fbi, but it didnt happen so its hard for me to answer your hypothetical question. With respect to sifcivil rig, you have not prosecuted one voters rights case, is that correct . The time for the congresswoman has congresswoman, just so i have a complete answer on this, well follow up in writing as to the Voting Rights cases. Thank you. Mr. Chairman . Why did Rod Rosenstein send a memo to bob mueller in 2017 requesting the scope of the special counsel investigation . That question. I know this is of great interest to you and i hope we can have a discussion about this today. The special counsel regulations require a scoping of the special counsels investigation that identifies the subject and the targets of the investigation, so i am certain that it would have identified the scope of the investigation pursuant to the special counsels my question is not ill get to that. My question is why. Because it was two and a half months after the special counsel was formed. So lets go back to the beginning document which you told the chairman earlier you are completely briefed on the special counsel investigation. This is a onepage document. Order 1152017 says this. The special counsel is authorized to conduct the special investigation including any matters that arose or ma may arise directly from the investigation. Thats pretty broad. Would you agree . Yes, and in my mind is consistent with other appointments of special counsels. Thats fine. It may be too broad, but as broad as you can get, one page ordered, go do your investigation and anything that arises out of it, you can investigate it as well. But then two and a half months later, we get this threepage memo from Rod Rosenstein, acting attorney general to Robert Mueller, special counsel. Scope investigation definition of authority. This is what confuses me. Because in this memo that only mr. Mueller and my guess is you and mr. Rosenstein and a few people at the Justice Department have seen, most of it is blacked out n th out, in this memo it says this. The following authorizations are within the scope of the appointment and are within the scope of the order. If thats true, why do you have to say it . If you could do it all along, why do you have to put it in a memo . Congressman jordan, first of all, i was because of general sessions recusal from the special counsels investigation, i was also recused from that investigation, and so i was not im asking. You said you were fully briefed youre asking me why at the time Rod Rosenstein im asking you why two and a half months after the broadest order you can have, why did Rod Rosenstein say, hey, you could do this all along but now im putting it in a memo. What really troubles me, mr. Whitaker, right after that statement the final orders were within the scope of the allegation and within the scope of the order. Right after that, you know what happens . Everything is redacted. Look at this. The whole darn thing. So if you could do it all along and you have to send a memo to him two and a half months later, and then you redact everything after it. You know whats under the redactions, mr. Whitaker . I do, sir. You do. Are there names under the redactions, mr. Whitaker . In my experience with investigations generally, you would not have a Public Document identify targets or subject matter of an investigation, especially if someone is not ultimately charged with a crime. Let me frame it this way. Did Rod Rosenstein give the special counsel the authority to investigate specific americans . Congressman, mr. Rosenstein acting as the attorney general, because of mr. Sessions recusal, gave authorization and jurisdiction to the special counsel, and so yes, under the special counsel regulations, thats the whole purpose of the special counsel. You said yes, so there are specific names two and a half months into the investigation that Rod Rosenstein gave the special counsel, specific american names to go investigate . Congressman, as you know if thats the case, i hope i want to know yes or no. This is the subject of an ongoing investigation, and i spoke to you generally about investigations. Let me ask it this way. Can you give us assurances that there are not specific names under this 70 redacted memo that Rod Rosenstein sent to the special counsel . Congressman jordan, i know this report you know why im asking you this, acting attorney general. Because in this country we dont investigate people, we investigate crimes, and if there are specific american citizens crimes in this redacted i asked mr. Rosenstein to see this and he got all mad and huffy in his office and wouldnt show it to me. If this alters specific names of americans in the scope of the investigation of the special counsel, dont you think its appropriate for the american citizens to know the full parameters of an investigation into the guy they made president of the United States . Congressman, let me be very speck about this, because you are right. We investigate crimes, not individuals. Thats why im asking the question. I would like a yes or no answer. Are there names mentioned under this redacted portion of this memo . On that as i mentioned before, that memo crops up a confidential investigation, as is every department of investigation. Are there specific names mentioned in this 70 redacted memo that happens two and a half months after the special counsel gets his order to start his investigation where he was gifren tgifven the broadest latitude he could possibly have . The time for the gentleman is expired. The witness may answer the question. I would just refer the congressman to the general practices of the department of justice that we investigate crimes and not individuals. Mr. Cohen. Thank you, mr. Chair. Mr. Attorney general, the Inspector General of the gsa had a rather scathing report on the gsas decision not to address specific issues concerning the governments post office and its lease to the trump family concerning the emollient clause. He told them they knew about the post office lease and it was up to them to do something. Are you aware of anything the Justice Department did to look into evaluation of an emolluments clause . That clause to the subject fortunate hotel is related to a number of litigation matters. Right. So while i can say im aware of the subject you describe but generally the litigations around the emolluments clause, im unable to specifically talk about those cases. You cant recall anything about the emolluments clause violations or limitations . As i sit here today, as it relates to the trump hotel is the subject of ongoing litigation. And the president is having you represent him around these, is he not . Is that appropriate when he is under litigation with regard to the hotels and not reporting to congress as hes supposed to according to the constitution . Shouldnt he have lawyers representing him for this nefarious conduct . Congressman, i can understand this is an important issue to you, but as it relates to the emolluments clause and the Justice System of the United States, it is well within our purpose to be involved in that case. You said if the special counsel investigation looked into that, it would be unethical. He was told he could go into any matters that arose from the investigation. If matters arose from the investigation direct oral indirectly that the trump family owed lots of money to oligarchs and president putin on behalf of the United States of america, would you agree that is not crossing a red line but, in fact, was a red line from moscow that we need to look into . Congressman, when i made that statement, i was a private citizen and had no publicly available information. I only had publicly available information, and so i made that as a commentator and not as the acting attorney general of the United States. I am very familiar with the responsibilities of my office as acting attorney general, and we make our decisions based on the law and the facts on a casebycase basis. Thats no longer your opinion . Its not crossing a red line for him to look into the finances if they might have interfered with objective judgment of the president concerning his duty of trust to the United States of america and not to his personal financial interest or his families . Congressman, as i mentioned earlier, at the department of justice and as long as im acting attorney general, were going to follow the law and the facts wherever they may lead, and were going to do our jobs with fidelity. Thank you, sir. Let me ask you this. Theres been a conviction in the special counsel investigation of mr. Manafort. Jury trial, conviction. There have been guilty pleas from flynn, manafort, papadopoulos and Michael Cohen and dozens of indictments concerning 13 internationals and roger stone. Would you say the special investigation is a witch hunt . Are you overseeing a witch hunt . Congressman, as ive mentioned previously, the special counsels investigation is an ongoing investigation, and so i think it would be inappropriate for me to but you wouldnt oversee a witch hunt, would you . You would stop a witch hunt, wouldnt you . Congressman, it would be inappropriate for me to talk about an ongoing investigation. You said you were not interfering with the special counsels investigation. Have you denied him any funds hes requested at all . Congressman, i can tell this is an important issue for you its an important issue for the American Public and for the whole world. Congressman, to answer your question directly, i have not denied any funds to the special counsels investigation. Have you denied him going into any areas he wanted to investigate or any matters of investigation . Congressman, as i previously testified, i have not interfered with the special counsels investigation. I kweeld bayield back the ba my time. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Govert. Acting attorney general, thank you for being here today. Good to see you again, congressman. I was amazed you would be coming since your successor is apparently going to be confirmed next week and youll no longer be acting director, so i dont know what kind of suicide wish you had or whatever, but its good to see you. One thing i wanted to hit first was a statement that you had pthese are your words, and i hat quote, there is no doubt in the Law Enforcement community that the vast majority of the Illegal Drugs in this country is coming over our southern border. A pattern that is true for all crimes generally and there is no doubt that criminals and cartels seek to exploit weaknesses in our southern border. Are those your words . Well, i dont know which speech or statement youre quoting. It sounds like something i would have said, yes. And you wouldnt have said that if you didnt believe that, correct . Oh, i believe what youre saying. The drugs and the general illegality thats pouring in to our southern border is having a negative effect on our country. I want to get to this issue of career officials since colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made such a big deal about it. They accuse you of not following the advice of career officials. Do you know the backgrounds of the people that are working directly under you and directly under Rod Rosenstein . Congressman, i sit on top of an organization that has a 115,000 employees. Im talking about people directly to you and directly to Deputy Rosenstein. I am familiar with the people that report to both of us, yes. Although i will tell you, i think Rod Rosenstein as Deputy Attorney has over 100 direct reports as Deputy Attorney general. That was something i recommended to attorney general sessions, that he needed to reorganize and have some of those people reporting directly to him, but one of the mistakes, i think my dear friend Jeff Sessions for whom i have immense respect, one of the mistakes i saw him making, he was listening to people who love sd sally yat, loved her efforts to disrupt anything President Trump tried to do, they loved what president obama did through the Justice Department, and, in fact, i had informed jeff that his contact at the with the nsc was sitting on his notices, so he either developed conflicts or wasnt properly prepared, and that was tashina gahar. And she reported directly to rosenstein. The a. G. Should have someone that a liaison of the nsc should report directly to the a. G. And not go directly to Rod Rosenstein, and especially when theyre setting the attorney general up to be harmed. And then anthony feranti, apparently hes the senior managing director of fti consulting. He was another one that some considered a career position at the doj. He had jordan kelly there. Hes currently director of Cyber Security policy and response at the nsc, at the white house. There are reports that she met routinely with the mueller investigators. You know, between these people who like tashina gahar just thought yates was wonderful, i would hope that wisdom and you as acting director, wisdom in the incoming attorney general, would be to look at the backgrounds, look at the people who are political hacks and figure out, oh, theyre giving me advice on this . This is not for my wellbeing, this is to hurt the president of the United States. And i know you may just have another week, but i would encourage you that as people make a big deal about career, look beyond career. Look where their loyalties are, because even though they may be in a career position, if their loyalties are not to the attorney general and not to the president of the United States and are more political than they are constitutional, disregard what they say. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Johnson. Thank you. General whitaker, do you agree with the president s statement that the russia investigation is a witch hunt . As i mentioned previously, congressman, i think it would be inappropriate for me to comment about an ongoing investigation. Well, you commented about the roger stone investigation which is ongoing, did you not . Congressman, just to be clear about this i mean, i heard you comment on the roger stone investigation. Why would you comment on the roger stone investigation but you are reluctant to answer our questions about the Mueller Investigation . Thats a good question, congressman. And my comments about the roger stone investigation were merely to acknowledge that i was aware that cnn had appeared to receive or was acting you dont know whether or not the cnn reporter was camped out with no advance knowledge or whether or not he was tipped off or not. Congressman, that is true, but im very concerned let me move on. Hold on, sir, im controlling the time. Let me move on. Id like to take a moment to better understand your decision not to recuse yourself from the supervision of the special counsels investigation. Isnt it a fact, sir, that you received your final ethics guidance on this matter on december 19, 2018 . I appreciate this question, and im glad this is an opportunity its a pretty direct question. Did you receive your final guidance on that question . As you know, we have communicated with congress the entire process that i went through to address any recusal questions that i might have, and i had no conflict of interest. I had no financial i understand you take that position, but my simple question is, isnt it a fact that you received your final ethics guidance on that question on december 19, 2018 . Congressman, we laid out very explicitly the process that we went through, and ultimately the decision whether or not to recuse was my decision. Im very comfortable with that decision. Mr. Whitaker, you were asked a direct question, and its getting a little tiresome hearing you stall and wasting the members time. The member only has five minutes. He asked you a specific question. Did you last receive advice on that on october 18 . The answer should be yes or no or some other date or i dont remember. We dont need a speech. The gentleman may repeat the question. Mr. Chairman, if were going to counsel the witness and act as his attorney are you answering the question or is the witness answering the question . Ive asked witness not to stall. Weve endured that many times as hes trying to ask the question the way its asked. The gentleman is out of order. Mr. Johnson has the floor. Your time will be restored. Thank you, sir. Sir, isnt it a fact that career officials at doj recommended to