Well, if i might to make sure we are not making a mistake senator coops. It is my hope that if you are confirmed and we do make progress on bipartisan criminal Justice Reform that as Attorney General you will carry out whatever legislative decisions might be made by this body. Last let me say in my six years here in addition to not working on a number of bipartisan proposals on criminal Justice Reform you have repeatedly voted against congressional attempts to prohibit torture in the military on text or the interrogation context and to defend enhanced interrogation practices. Are you clear now that our statutes prohibit torture and if the president were to rover yid that clear Legal Authority what actions would you take . On your previous question i would note the federal prison population has already dropped 10 or more percent and will drop
another 10,000 this year. What is happening now is reducing the federal population. This law only dealt with the federal prison population. And that represents the most serious offenders, our federal dea and u. S. Attorneys are prosecuting more serious cases. With regard to the torture issues, i watched them for some time and have been concerned about what we should do about it. The bill that passed last time was a major step. I thought it was really not the right step. Senator graham, i know, has been an opponent of torture steadfastly and supported a lot of different things, opposed it. It basically took what i was teaching the young soldiers at the Army Reserve Unit as a lecturer as a teacher, the army field manual. Listening to democratic senator after democratic senator give speeches in praise of the rule of law. I am heartened by that i am encouraged by that. Because for eight years its been absent. For eight years, weve seen a Department Of Justice consistently disregarding the rule of law. When eric holers Department Of Justice allowed illegal gun transactions, illegally sold guns to mexican Gun Traffickers as part of fast and furious, guns that were later used to murder Border Patrol agent brian terry, the democratic member of this committee were silent. When eric holder was found in Contempt Of Congress for refusing to cooperate with congresss investigation into fast and furious, once again the democratic members this committee were silent. When the irs illegally targeted United States citizens for exercising the First Amendment views for exercising their roles
in the political process, democratic members of this committee were silent. When the Department Of Justice refused to fairly investigate the irs targeting citizens and indeed assign the investigation to a liberal partisan democratic who had given over 6,000 to President Obama and democrats, democrats on this committee were silent. When numerous members of this committee called on the Attorney General to appoint a Special Prosecutor to ensure that justice was done on the irs case democrats on this committee were silent. When the Justice Department began using Operation Choke Point to target lawabiding citizens that they disagreed with politically. You are a racist you are ties in the kkk. You are [ inaudible ] black lives matter, black lives matter, black lives matter
guantanamo terrorists without the notification of congress, the democrats on this committee were silent. That pattern has been dismaying for eight years but i take today as a moment of celebration. If once again this committee has a bipartisan commitment to rule of law, to following the law, that is a wonderful thing and it is consistent with the tradition of this committee, going back centuries. Now if we were to play a game of tit for tat, if what was good for the goose were good for the gander then a Republican Attorney general should be equally partisan, should disregard the law, should advance political preferences favored by the republican party. Senator sessions do you believe that would be appropriate for an torney general to do . No, i do no i believe you and i think we do have to be aware that when Something Like this is done and some of the things im familiar with enough to agree with you that i thought were improper, i do believe it has a corrosive effect on Public Confidence in
the Constitutional Republic of which we are sworn to uphold. I think you are exactly right. You and i are both alumni of the Department Of Justice, and it has a long bipartisan tradition of staying outside of partisan politics, of simply and fairly enforcing the law. I will say right now if i believed that you would implement policies, even policies i agreed with, contrary to law. I would vote against your confirmation. The reason im so enthusiast enthusiastically supporting your confirmation is i have every degree of confidence you will follow the law faithfully and honestly. And this is the first and most important obligation of the Attorney General. Now, earlier in this hearing Senator Franken engaged you in a discussion that i think was intended to try to undermine your character and integrity. And in particular, Senator Franken suggested that you had
somehow misrepresented your record. It is unfortunate to see emembes of this body impugn the integrity of a senator with whom we have served for years. It is particularly unfortunate when that attack is not backed up by the facts. Senator franken based his attack primarily on an op ed written by an attorney, gerald hebert. There is an irony in relying on mr. Hebert, because as you know, 1996 mr. Hebert testified then and attacked you then, making false charges against you. Indeed i would note in the 1996 hearing two days later mr. Hebert was forced to recant his testimony to say he had given false testimony to this committee and to say, i apologize to any inconvenience to this committee or mr. Theation and with noncriminal civil rights cases was to provide support for the Civil Rights Division attorneys. I reviewed signed and Cosigned Briefs and others filed during my tenure. I provided assistance and guidance to the civil rights attorneys, had an Open Door Policy with them and cooperated with them on these cases. For the cases described in 6, i supervised litigation and sign the pleading. That is consistent with the 1986 testimony that you provided help every step of the way; is that correct . I think, yes. There is no question you have been forthright with this committee and i would note that members of this Committee Dont Have to search far and wide to know who Jeff Sessions is. Weve known every day sitting at this bench alongside you. I want to shift to a different topic, and its the topic i opened with which is the politicization of the Department Of Justice. The office of Legal Counsel has a Critical Role of providing sound, legal and constitutional
advice both to the Attorney General and the president. In the last eight years we have seen a highly politicized olc. An olc that has given politically convenient rulings whether on recess appointments, whether on executive amnesty. And early on, perhaps that was started by 2009 Attorney General holder overruling olc concerning legislation trying to grant the District Of Columbia representation in congress. And it may well be that that sent a message to olc that its opinions were to be political and not legal in nature. Tell me, senator session what will you do as Attorney General to restore professionalism and fidelity of the law to the office of Legal Counsel. Senator, i think any shortterm political agenda gapes that come from the abuse of the Law Making Processes and requirements of the Department Of Justice just dont
make sense. It will always in the long run be more damaging than the shortterm gain that one might have. The office of Legal Counsel, all of us who have served in the department know, is a bigtime position. You need a mature, smart, experienced person who understands this government, who understands the laws and is principled and consistent in their application of the laws. That will help the president. It will help the congress. It will help the american people. I do believe we need to work hard to have that, and i will do my best to ensure we do have it. One final question. In the last eight years the deputy of justices slit for General Office has also i believe been unfortunately political sized. It and it sustained a unprecedented number of losses before the United StatesSupreme Court. Indeed, President Obamas Justice Department won less than half of its total cases before the Supreme Court, which is the lowest president ial win rate
since harry truman. The average historically for the last 50 years has been about 70 . Snum rouse of those cases were unanimous with indeed both Obama Supreme Court appointees voting against the lawless positions of this Justice Department including their assertion that the government has the authority to supervise and direct the appointment and the hiring and firing of clergy in the church. What will you do as Attorney General to ensure the integrity of the office of Slitter General that it is faithful to the law and not advancing extreme political positions like the obama Justice Department did that have been rejected over and over again by the Supreme Court . I think the problem there is a desire to achieve a result sometimes that overrides the commitment to the law. In the long run, this country will be stronger if we adhere to the law even though somebody might be frustrated in the shortterm of not achieving an agenda. The Solicitor General should not
advocate to alter the meaning of words to advance an agenda. That is an abuse of office and i would try to seek to have a slit for general who is faithful to the constitution, serves under the constitution, does not feel that its that power to rise above it and make it say what it wants it to say. Thank you Senator Sessions. Weve been watching this hearing now since the morning hours. We want to get a quick accounting of what our correspondents have been able to learn, starting with Kelly OdonnellWho Covers Capitol Hill for us and has been stationed outside the hearing room. Kelly, what have you picked up . Brian, this is of course the entrance to the Kennedy Caucus Room where this hearing and many others in history have taken place. And i think what is particularly striking today is how you see republicans trying to prepare and protect Jeff Sessions in terms the criticism coming his way, and democrats who are working to elicit areas where they think there are weaknesses
in his testimony or discrepancies in his record or thing they can try to ship a light on because democrats dont have the numbers to block this confirmation but they want to expose forward barring any unforeseen circumstance. You really get a sense today of the mood here. As the first confirmation hearing, one with high stakes, a huge role, and nominee who does have some controversy in his past, the energy here in the Russel SenateOffice Buildings with protesters, with International Media here, and with all the People Associated with staging a hearing like this, putting this on, it has been a day where you really get a sense that this is when congress can do its work with the nation paying attention. And these are real issues that are raw nerves for many americans. And they are getting a hearing today. Sessions has been put through a lot of practice. We could hear that in some of his responses where he knew that there might be some areas in his record or his past statements that needed to be fixed a bit. And some of the republicans have tried to give him a forum to answer the critic. And weve seen that unfold today. Kelly odonnell on the hill. To Pete Williams we go next. Pete, the folks that havent watched a hearing, a highprofile hearing like this for long time would be forgiven for forgetting that this is really a team sport. Various members of both teams go up, take their turns, make their points, try to score some points. So it would be so unusual indeed for this committee to knock down, to reject a nominee for a cabinet job. Correct. And i think what you are seeing here is exactly that a well coordinated evident here among
the democrats. All of them seem to be asking about a different facet of Jeff Sessions either of his time as the u. S. Attorney and prosecutor in alabama and his time as a u. S. Senator. And they are not repeating each other for the most part although there have been several questions here about for example, what if donald trump insists on trying to reimpose Water Boarding . Would you advise him that thats against the law . Sessions has said several times that he would. The question of Voting Rights has come up repeatedly today as well. Senator sessions seemed to go out of his way although only with one sentence, to say that he believes civil rights are very important, specific voter rights. Voter id has been a controversial issue, its one that the Justice Department has been suing states over what they consider to be restrictive Voter Id Laws. Senator sessions said on the surface it did not appear to him
that state Voter Id Laws actually suppress the minority vote. So elections have consequences. There are going to be many case ways in which in Justice Department under donald trump is different than under barack obama. I think today is an effort both to try to tease out his views that will be different but also to try to set some markers here and putting himself on the record on issues like civil rights and the Voting Rights act. We are starting a busy week. While weve been talking, up with of two other hearings have been going on. The nations Command Structure and intelligence has been appearing over in front of Senate Intelligence. What has been gained or learned from that hearing . I dont know, brian, because i have been watching this one. But Senator Sessions was asked today about the Intel Committee report, which as you know donald trump has shown some skepticism about its conclusion. And what mr. Session said today is he has no reason to doubt the Intelligence Report about russian hacking. And he has seen no evidence to the contrary. Nothing to indicate that the report is wrong. In other words, hes not exactly embraced it, but nothing we wont distance himself from night Pete Williams sharing with our viewers a fundamental truth. While watching one hearing we cant be expected to watch another at the same time. Never been done as far as i know. Pete, thank you very much. And thanks as always for your honesty. Were going to take a break in our coverage on the other side katie tur is here and standing by in our new york studios to take this hour the rest of the way. Turns out that Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions and Chuck Schumer have a similar morning routine. Do you work out in the gym with Senator Sessions . What does he do and what do you do. We are on the bikes next to each other oftentimes watching morning joe and making
diametrically opposed comments about whats going on. No fights have broken out yet. Thats a good thing. Ch this moe to worry about a cracked windshield. So she scheduled at safelite. Com and