Mr. Rosenstein sir, i dont want to comment on any more of my work with the independent counsel. Ill make sure that people with relevant information is questioned. I dont care who it is. If you name a special prosecutor, will you come before this committee and explain why . Mr. Rosenstein senator, i really appreciate your cannedor with me yesterday about that issue. You know, i had a meeting scheduled with you yesterday afternoon and somebody brought to my attention on sunday afternoon that you had your office had issued a tweet suggesting you would try to obstruct my nomination if i wouldnt agree to do this. I was reluctant to go to your meeting. I appreciate your candor and civility. I think a lot of you have in common, including our affection with david margolis. Attorney ome deputy general, we can talk about issues of mutual concern. I thought a lot about this issue, senator. You view it as an issue of principle that i need to appoint a special counsel in a matter i dont even know if its being suggest investigated and i view it as an issue of principle as nominee for Deputy Attorney general i should not promise to take action on a particular case. I feel if you need to oppose my nomination on that basis i respect it. I shared with you i view Robert Jackson as a model for me and his view and Robert Jackson actually addressed that in the speech i referred to where he said it was important for u. S. Attorneys to i view this as part of its a political issue and its completely relet jit issue for you and legitimate issue for you and i have a responsibility if i become Deputy Attorney general i cant take it conditioned upon committed how i will hand alparticular case. If i do it in this case some future Deputy Attorney general nominee will be asked to make a similar case and say rosenstein did it, why shouldnt you . I think its important, senator, to take the position that Robert Jackson said the purpose of this process is to determine whether the nominee has the appropriate character for the job and not how he or she will rule in particular cases. The white house hasnt asked me that question and i simply cant answer it to you. I apologize. I regret it. I hope you and i will be able to Work Together if i get the job. We have a tremendous amount in common. I have Great Respect for your affection for the department and i believe we will have a constructive relationship. Thank you. Senator from hawaii. Ms. Hanabusa thank you, mr. Speaker. With the Early Morning tweet from President Trump accusing president obama of ordering a wiretap, thank you, mr. Rosenstein, for your clear no on the question of whether president obama on his own ms. Hirono and maybe putin cant do that but the president of the United States cannot do that and i know that ms. Brand would not answer the same question, characterizing the question as a hypothetical. It is not a hypothetical question. It is a question of law. Mr. Nt in your prosecutorial discretion and duties at the department of justice . Mr. Rosenstein yes, i will. Ms. Hirono as the president indicates he wouldnt want a support counsel in the investigation into russias interference in our elections and if you determine that such counsel is warranted, will you be willing to deny the president his request . Mr. Rosenstein i believe i would, senator. It would depend on the context. Certainly if the president had a conflect in a particular matter i would not take any advice from the president. Senator hirono so youd make your own determination because you are the lawyer for the snuss mr. Rosenstein your hypothetical and, again, its difficult for me to answer hypotheticals as a lawyer. If the president has committed a crime and the president is culpable, i wouldnt follow the president s advice. That happened in the nixon era. There was a question about whether president s can wiretap without legal process. I dont believe its happened recently and i certainly hope it hasnt. Senator hirono ms. Brand, you mentioned to preserve the integrity of elections. To many that is double speak for Voter Suppression. States have justified Voter Suppression laws by claiming rampant voter fraud. In fact, President Trump continues to claim that three million to five million votes were cast illegally during the general election. Do you agree with his assessment that three million to five million votes were illegally cast . Ms. Brand well, senator hirono, i think when we met yesterday, you asked me about importance of the Voting Rights act as well as voter fraud and i think what i said its important, that both are important. Senator hirono could you respond to my question which is, do you believe that three million to five million votes were cast illegally in the recent general election . Brand if i might just finish that point, i think its critically important for the department to do both. Their work in enforcing the cases ights act and if arise, if there are allegations of voter fraud, the Criminal Division would pursue those. Senator hirono i know mr. Rosenstein didnt answer that question saying he didnt know. A comprehensive 2014 study published in the wash post found 31 instances of voter fraud from 2000 to 2014 out of more than one billion votes cast. So even this small number is likely inflated as the studys author accounteds all credible claims whether or not they were found to be valid. So other studies done at the Arizona State university in 012 and 2016 found similar negligentable rates of imper nation fouad. Imperson nation fraud. Will you submit to prioritizing d. O. J. Resources to where the problems lie . The problems do not lie in voter fraud. The problems appear to lie in these Voter Suppression laws that states have been very busy passing after the shelby case. Id like to know whether you would prioritize d. O. J. Resources going after the Voter Suppression laws or certainly looking at these laws . To see whether in fact they suppress votes . Ms. Brand well, senator hirono, i understand your concern with this and i share concern for any anything that would violate the voting right act and suppress votes. I view enforcement of that statute to be a core Law Enforcement function in the civil rights division. I would approach that issue like i would approach any issue which is if an issue is raised in a particular case i would look at the facts and i would look at the law. I would, of course, be consulting with the lawyers in the civil rights division. I dont they would be doing the work in the first instance, of course. I dont intend to be micromanaging that work. In my supervisory capacity i would talk to them, exercise the law and look at the best judgment. Senator hirono mr. Rosenstein, i hope you would have that same approach. Ms. Brand, you said protecting peoples right to vote and access to voting is a core function and would you agree with that, mr. Rosenstein . Mr. Rosenstein absolutely yes, senator. Senator hirono thank you. Under the obama administration, expedited removal was used only when an immigrant was arrested within 100 miles of the border and had been in the country less than two weeks. Under a new executive order issued by President Trump, expedited removal will now include all those who have been in the country for up to two years where a lot of things could happen. They could marry citizens, they could have citizens children, no matter where they are caught in the u. S. So mr. Rosenstein, how can the d. O. J. Ensure that expedited removal doesnt threaten the Due Process Rights of those not brought before an immigration judge . Mr. Rosenstein senator, ive had no direct involvement in immigration in my 27 years in the department. As u. S. Attorney we have occasionally civil cases that arise out of immigration disputes. I believe that issue that you referred to is really a matter primarily in the jurisdiction of Homeland Security rather than justice. So i regret i am just not in position to comment on it. Senator any roneo wouldnt the d. O. J. Be prosecuting these kinds of cases or not . Are you saying because it doesnt come before a judge thats not within your purview . Mr. Rosenstein no. I meant to say i think what you have in mind is an administrative removal or civil removal rather than criminal prosecution. If thats criminal prosecution thats just the type of case i would prosecute as a u. S. Attorney. I have not been involved in civil removals. The decision about which i believe the decision about which immigrants to remove is in the first instance to Homeland Security but ill certainly if i become deputy im sure ill study up on that issue and consult with the experts in the department and ill be happy to senator hirono certainly because the d. O. J. Has the responsibility to protect everyones civil rights and Due Process Rights i would think. Thank you. Thank you, chairman. First, let me say i agree with mr. Rosenstein he should have a chance to familiarize himself with the matter before he makes the call about a special counsel but i would like to add to the record these proceedings then senator sessions oped in which he stated, and i quote, the appropriate response when the subject matter is public and arises in a highly charged political atmosphere is for the general attorney to issue a prosecutor at indisputable independence to ensure the public will be handled without partisanship. Senator whitehouse theres a matter on which senator sessions and i agree. Id also like to add that if senator sessions, mr. Chairman, had answered truthfully and accurately, the question that has been the subject of so much debate, there would have been followup questions. Followup questions such as, well, what was the content of those communications you had with the Russian Ambassador . What were the circumstances that led to those meetings . What communications did you have with the Trump Campaign about those meetings, if any . And i think those are legitimate questions and i dont think the committee should be deprived of the ability to followup on those questions simply because we were deprived of an accurate and truthful answer. So i join my colleagues in hoping the attorney general will reappear before us. Mr. Rosen stein as a matter of law is it correct the act has precedence over an executive order that might direct agencies to the contrary . Mr. Rosenstein i regret that may be the case. Im not familiar with that. Im not a regulatory lawyer. I do not know the answer to that. Senator whitehouse doesnt the laws of the United States superconvenient executive orders . Dont the laws of Congress Super convenient executive orders . Mr. Rosenstein yes. Senator whitehouse a right wing commentator has compared Department Staff to filth and urged that they be cleaned out like manure from the aegean stables. The attorney general has questioned whether secular attorneys at d. O. J. Can fully understand the truth. So how will you defend the department from partisan religion based, or edelogical hiring practices . We have a Great Department that has steered away from that stuff by and large through its history. How will you protect that . Ms. Brand i have a great deal of respect for the lawyers in the department of justice. I think discrimination on the is of religion in hiring illegal anywhere. With respect to the impact of partisanship on hiring, we have the civil sr. Viss protection laws, which govern the department of Civil Service protection laws, which govern the department of justice. Everyone who is in a hiring capacity understand what the rules are. I think train something a big part of that. I believe every employee of d. O. J. Is supposed to be trained in a whole variety of laws that govern their conduct, including the Civil Service protection laws. Senator whitehouse will this be a priority for you to assure the department does not fall back into the predicament it fell into under attorney general gonzalez . Ms. Brand yes, senator. Senator whitehouse science denial, specifically cly gnat denirblingse has been propagated by the fossil fuel industry for years through an array of front groups. The chamber of commerce, which you worked for, has been a relentless enemy of Climate Action and has trafficked regularly in climate denial. You have been their lawyer in environmental cases. Can we trust on Climate Science as related issues come up in the department . Ms. Brand senator, my role if im confirmed to be associate a. G. Will be to enable the officials in the department of justice to engage in their Law Enforcement functions, which include enforcing the cheap air act, clean water act, endangered species act, so on. The scientific and policy judgments tend to be made by the e. P. A. Or department of the interior, noaa, any number of agencies around the government who deal with those questions. D. O. J. Doesnt make those decisions in the first instance, but the policy, whatever it is, the law, whatever it is, should be enforced by the department of justice. Im absolutely ready to take that on. Senator whitehouse you said that when you were working for the chamber you had a private client that had private interests and that you as their attorney were obligated to advocate for their private interests, but that in Public Service what would be important would be to serve the Public Interest. Is there a Public Interest in addressing Climate Change . Ms. Brand senator, i think that there is a Public Interest in the department of justice enforcing the laws that congress has enacted senator whitehouse that wasnt the question i asked. Is there a Public Interest in addressing Climate Change . Ms. Brand senator, i think youre asking me for a personal judgment on the policy question and im not sure thats relevant to the way i would do my job as a Law Enforcement official. My job would be to enforce the law whatever it is. Senator whitehouse there are a lot of policy calls that get made and there is a difference between somebody who doesnt think there is a Public Interest in doing something and somebody who does. It is a simple question highly relevant to your duties. Is there a Public Interest in addressing Climate Change . Ms. Brand all i can tell you is i think there is significant Public Interest in the department of justice enforcing the laws passed by congress and in defending rules promulgated by the agencies entrusted by Congress Making those policy judgments. That would be my job. Senator klobuchar thank you very much. State and local leaders from maryland have commented on your good working relationship with the Law Enforcement our u. S. Attorney in minnesota, has a lot of respect four. We talked about that when we met. I have seen firsthand the Important Role of having police on the beat to keep our community safe. I lead the bill to reauthorize the cops program along with republican senator Lisa Murkowski of alaska. I raise this issue in attorney general session confirmation hearing with the president of the fraternal order of police and he agreed its a very important program. Id like to hear your views on the cops program and the support that will it provides to state and local Law Enforcement. Would you support this program as Deputy Attorney general and, ms. Brand, i would like to hear your views how youll be involved in grants. Mr. Rosenstein certainly to the extent there is funding for the cops program, i want to make sure its spent appropriately to achieve the objectives of the program. And i have seen benefits from the cops program. Obviously there are budgetary issues. Every budgetary decision is a tradeoff in terms of where the resource also g as a general proposition i do think that money has in some instances been spent effectively to help drive, Reform Police departments that are eager to do it and want to work with the department and bring in experts who can help them update their policies and procedures. Senator klobuchar thank you. Ms. Brand. Ms. Brand i know how interested you are in this program. I have a loft experience with the cops program. I couldnt add much to what mr. Rosenstein has said. Certainly in my capacity as associate a. G. Ill be overseeing the cops office and it will be a priority of mine to get up to speed on those issues. Im sure they are putting that money to the best use. Senator klobuchar mr. Rosenstein, protecting National Security of the u. S. , of course, is the top priority of the Justice Department. We have worked very hard on going after extremism and recruitment in our state. We have a number of cases, as you know, brought by the u. S. Attorneys office. Could you talk about how you would approach that issue, not prosecuting the cases, i know youll be devoted to