Transcripts For MSNBCW MSNBC Live With Velshi And Ruhle 2017

Passengers and crew. Annexing crimea, killing journalists, propping up assad, the butcher of damascus, imposing an iron wall, and conspireing and doing a sabotage of the american president ial election in 2016. Perhaps our friends on the other side of the aisle can show more respect for the fbi and the doj as so many of us do including myself. So let me ask these questions and with my limited time i really need just a yes or no. Are you in the business of helping to secure the elections in 2018 and making sure that there is an infrastructure in the doj to help states have secure elections, yes or no . Yes. Special counsel mueller, im reminded some of us would say we read it in the history books, of the saturday night massacre. I know you must be aware of it. During the meeting of may 8th, 2017, with you sessions and the president the bay before comey was fired, what did you discuss regarding the fbi investigation . Congresswoman, as i explained priestly im not going to be discussing anything related to that until after the investigation. Thank you very much. Let me then go forward with the question of the protection of the special prosecutor. Do you have in place a protection scheme or system that would void a potential saturday night massacre . Do you in fact have the authority to stand up against the president who is putting out the right wing media to taint the Mueller Investigation . As ive explained, if he hasnt violated yes or no mr. Deputy attorney general. I wont take any action unless hes violated his duties. Let me show you these individuals here. It says that the trump accusers want a day in court or at least want to be heard. The president is a chief executive and Law Enforcement officer of the United States. Therefore he is an officer of the United States. What the department of justice, what intentions do you have to allow these women who are accusing these women of Sexual Misconduct and have never been heard in terms of a public setting as many of us on this committee, women on this committee, Democratic Women on this committee have asked this committee to hold a hearing with this women. What does the department of justice intend to do . I dont think i have any position on that. If they file a lawsuit, theyre free to do so. It wouldnt be a department matter. Would you not believe that its important to give these women a forum to be heard . The department of justice, the fbi investigates. I gave a list of the department of justice. If theres anything tho warrants federal investigation, wed look at it. So can we refer these women to the department of justice if they walked up to the department of justice would there be an intake officer, fbi officer that would take their complaints . If somebody wants to file a complaint of a potential federal crime, yes, they can report that to the fbi or they can write. Anybody can do that at any time. Let me publicly say to these women, you have one option at this time. To go to the department of justice as the Deputy Attorney general just said to us to file a complaint. I encourage them to do that. I would also encourage this hearing as well to do this this committee to have hearings. Let me ask this question. And of course the memo by sessions that rescinds memos regarding the charging and sentencing policy and also the use of private prisons. That was by eric holder. What is the position of the u. S. Department of justice as it relates to a fair and just commutation program and the issues with dealing with overprosecution and the sentencing policy that was offered by eric holder which was considered fair and just and the use of private prisons have been known to be abusive to prisoners and do not allow requests to go forward. What is your position on that . Time has expired. The gentleman may answer the question. You raise a number of issues, congresswoman. I dont know i have time to respond to them all, but i want to clarify anybodys free to report to the department of justice when they believe a crime is committed. Its not a complaint in the way you might file a complaint in some local police departments. Youre free to report any allegations and the department will conduct appropriate review as we do with any allegations of alleged criminal conduct. We initiate investigations, though, only if we determine theres proper predication under our policies. Well, im yielding back, mr. Chairman. But he did not answer my questions. The time has expired. The chair recognizes mr. Issa for five minutes. Thank you. Mr. Deputy attorney general, if someone comes in to make that complaint or to file that information, theyre going to have their identification checked for who they are, right . To get into the building . Im not certain. If they were admitted to the building, you actually can walk into most fbi offices i think without going through security. But you wouldnt consider it draconian if theyre filing a complaint or allegation, their drivers license was looked at would you . If were conducting an investigation, we need to know who the witnesses are. Thank you. I wanted to know that wasnt draconian. In the case of mr. Struck, there was an appearance of impropriety that people are observing. But youd said well there may not have been the reason. But if it wasnt the appearance of impropriety based on his numerous rather strident tweets not tweets but texts commenting adversely on the president , what was it . It wassed a ver tent to move him off that case the decision was made by mr. Mueller based on the circumstances to him. Its important to understand, though, those Text Messages were uncovered in the course of an Inspector General thats not complete. We wont be able to make a determination about let me go to the Inspector General now. This is michael horowitz, right . Correct. He has repeatedly complained that he cannot, in fact he doesnt have the authority to look for impropriety by lawyers as to their conduct as lawyers. Because the office the opr has that authority. Thats still true, isnt it . Its true, but he does have authority for misconduct by lawyers. Okay. So we have a situation in which he can look at some of the misconduct, not others. One he could not look at is the appearance of bias in their investigations in how theyre conducting decisions. That is uniquely excluded to the Inspector General in your cabinet position versus all other cabinet positions. Im not certain about that. And if i may, ill check and get back to you on that. But he is excluded. It would be opr or the Inspector General. I believe certain of those are within the jurisdiction of the Inspector General. But id have to ver if ifverify. You can get back to me on that. These political views that mr. Chabot mentioned, its clear its people with a strong preference. But notwithstanding that, lets be very candid. Nobody up here is going to claim to be without their political bias. So one of the reasons that and one of the reasons we look to a special prosecutor and that you appointed a special prosecutor was to not only pass the politics on this dais but to get past the appearance of any conflict by the department of justice. Is that fair to say . To minimize any bias, correct. Okay. But the special prosecutor is under any statute how its done, is a group for wrong doing. Theyre not looking for right doing. Theyre looking for wrong doing. Like any prosecutor, youre not looking for innocence . The way i would characterize it is theyre looking for the truth. Then theyll make the determination about whether or not its appropriate to prosecute. Okay. So my question to you is if thats the case, if we accept that my assumption that theyre looking to if they can to hang on them. There isnt a problem with having people that are dead set on trying to find anything that would incriminate the administration in a russian connection which is some of what theyre charged. So ill posture to you that maybe its not that bad to have people who really dislike the president would like to hang him. Having said that, when theres impropriety such as mr. Struck, when there is, in fact, a history at the fbi of withholding information from congress, when there is the appearance of impropriety by the department of justice and when the Inspector General is limited under the statute both because he doesnt have full access and because certain portions are out, wouldnt you say this is a classic example where in order to investigate the fbi and the department of justice, a special prosecutor who is equally looking for the truth if it exists adversely is within your charge and responsibility to see that it happens . Time of the gentleman has expired. My simple answer to it would be that that if we believe there was a basis for an investigation or special counsel, we could act. I would say since we already had dismissals from wrong doing, the elements necessary to ask for a special prosecutor already exist. The time of the gentleman has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee mr. Cohen. First i want to thank you for your service to the country and accepting the difficult position under the difficult circumstances that you have. Has President Trump ever communicated with you about removing Robert Mueller from the role of special counsel . I am not going to be discussing communications with the president , but i can tell you that nobody has communicated to me a desire to remove Robert Mueller. You said youre not going to relate your conversations with President Trump. How many conversations have you had since your appointment with President Trump . Its appropriate for me to talk to the president about Law Enforcement issues. I dont believe thats an appropriate issue for discussion. When you chose Robert Mueller to be the special counsel, what were his characteristics, his history, and the reasons for you to have chosen him for this important position . I think it would be very difficult, congressman, for anybody to find somebody Better Qualified for this job. Director mueller has throughout his lifetime been a dedicated and respected and heroic public servant. He after college volunteered to serve as a marine in vietnam where he was wounded in combat. He attended law school and devoted most of his career to serving as a federal prosecutor with the stints in private practice. He served as United States attorney in two districts. He served in many other as head of the Criminal Division when president clinton was elected in 1992. Then he went back and in an entry level position as a homicide prosecutor trying to help with the Violent Crime prob in the District Of Columbia in the 1990s. R rose through the ranks and protected this nation after 9 11 and then when his tenyear term expired, he was so well respected that his term was extended i believe also almost unanimously for another two years. So i believe that based upon his reputation, his service, his patriotism, and his experience with the department and with the fbi, i believe he was an ideal choice for this task. Thank you, sir. I agree with you. Fbi director wray agrees with you. He said he was well respected within the fbi. I think everybody on the other side of the aisle agreed with you when you appointed him and everybody in this Judiciary Committee and probably everybody in this congress agreed with his appointment as fbi director which was unanimous, his reappointment which was unanimous by republican bush and democrat obama. Everybody respects that man in this country. Obviously we knew that would be an exception. But the fact is they didnt start to dislike him until he started to get issues that affected the president that currently serves this country. And because of that they said the fbi was in tatters, that the fbi, the chief Law Enforcement, top Law Enforcement folks in this country are questionable. Some of their allies on television said theyre like the kgb. Theyve questioned you. Theyve questioned the Justice Department. Theyve questioned some of the most loyal, dedicated, fearless people in our country who served the rule of law. And i find it repugnant and awful. I wonder what you think about it when you hear about the fbi which works under you being suggested its in tatters and that theres something wrong with the fbi and that theyre somehow like the kgb. Well, congressman, as i know youre aware, ive expressed concern with certain aspects of certain things done by the fbi, but in general throughout my experience working with fbi agents over the decades, i found them to be an Exceptional Group of public servants. Very loyal, faithful, and dedicated. And i believe some of the finest people i know are agents of the federal bureau of investigation. I thought about them, sir, when i watched the army navy game. I thought about them because i have the honor as everyone up here has of recommending folks to be at west point and annapolis. Those are the cream of the crop. And the people in the fbi are cream of the crop. And Justice Department attorneys are too. Its not easy to get a job in justice. No matter where you went to law school and what you did. You hired the best. You always have. I compliment you on that. I know you will continue to hold the department of justice up as a pantheon of outstanding lawyers and take justice where it should go as truth demands and justice dictates. I yield back the balance of my time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa mr. King for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you mr. Rosenstein for your service. A number of things im curious about here. First of all, in the interview of Hillary Clinton that took place reportedly july 2nd of 2016, how many people were in the room for that . How many people had the opportunity to question her . I do not know the answer to that. We may have additional information, but i personally do not know. And would you know who selected that team . No, i do not. Okay. I recall the testimony here by comey and lynch that testified one of the two of them that there were three represents of the fbi and three representatives of the doj in that room. Would that be normal in practice you anticipate . Am i going to hear ig again . Typically we would have at least two agents conduct an interview. And there may be any number of those on a case. I dont know the details of that particular decision. And the practice in an interview like that, would there be records kept of that interview . Yes, if there were fbi agents present, typically they would take notes and summarize the interview. Would there be a videotape, audiotape, or a transcript . Generally no. Uhhuh. And why not . Well, its not practice to do it. It needs to become the practice. Practice across the countryside with many local Law Enforcement, if youre a county deputy, you record that. Now were sitting here with a mystery on when that went on in that interview of july 2nd and many questions have been asked about that before and after. They will trickle through history until we get to the bottom of it. We dont know yet who was in the room. Do you have any knowledge that peter struck might have been one of those people . I do not know. Its been reported in the news he was one of those people. Are you aware of that . I may have seen that in the news. But i personally do not know. And when i look through just a timeline here, just quickly to put this into the record. April may of 2016, peter struck interviews huma abedin and cheryl mills. Who happened to be in the resume with Hillary Clinton and her chief of staff and a subject to the investigation. Then on may 2nd, comey emails fbi officials a draft statement. A couple of months before his recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. In that chain strucks name showed up. Hes the one that swapped out the references from the gross negligence to carelessness. Do you have any knowledge about that . No. But its the Inspector General review that has turned up. I thought that was going to be the answer. Also skipping forward to july 24th, fbi interviews Michael Flynn on russia. Its reported in the news that peter struck is in that interview. No knowledge to disagree with the reports in the news. Correct. Then we get the news later on in summer peter struck had been removed from muellers Investigative Team but we find out december 4th that that took place publicly. I understand that if that had drifted into the jet stream, perhaps we wouldnt be in the middle of this controversy. What about if his hands are in so many things and ive not touched them all by any means, but what about the fruit of the poisonous tree . This is the reverse of this. This is the voids of the fruit of the poisonous tree. And im looking at what was reported this morning. I just took a picture of the Television Set on my iphone just so we all know what im talking about here. A quote from 2016 text. Lisa page to peter struck and theyre talking about President Trump. And maybe shes speaking to peter struck. Her lover, i hear. And maybe youre meant to stay where you are because you are meant to protect the country from that menace. And strucks response is thanks, its absolutely true that were both very fortunate and of course ill try and approach it that way. I just dont know it will be tough at times i can protect our country at many levels. Does that sound like a declaration he would use his job to leverage his work against the president of the United States . Congressman, the Mueller Investigation<\/a> . As ive explained, if he hasnt violated yes or no mr. Deputy attorney general. I wont take any action unless hes violated his duties. Let me show you these individuals here. It says that the trump accusers want a day in court or at least want to be heard. The president is a chief executive and Law Enforcement<\/a> officer of the United States<\/a>. Therefore he is an officer of the United States<\/a>. What the department of justice, what intentions do you have to allow these women who are accusing these women of Sexual Misconduct<\/a> and have never been heard in terms of a public setting as many of us on this committee, women on this committee, Democratic Women<\/a> on this committee have asked this committee to hold a hearing with this women. What does the department of justice intend to do . I dont think i have any position on that. If they file a lawsuit, theyre free to do so. It wouldnt be a department matter. Would you not believe that its important to give these women a forum to be heard . The department of justice, the fbi investigates. I gave a list of the department of justice. If theres anything tho warrants federal investigation, wed look at it. So can we refer these women to the department of justice if they walked up to the department of justice would there be an intake officer, fbi officer that would take their complaints . If somebody wants to file a complaint of a potential federal crime, yes, they can report that to the fbi or they can write. Anybody can do that at any time. Let me publicly say to these women, you have one option at this time. To go to the department of justice as the Deputy Attorney<\/a> general just said to us to file a complaint. I encourage them to do that. I would also encourage this hearing as well to do this this committee to have hearings. Let me ask this question. And of course the memo by sessions that rescinds memos regarding the charging and sentencing policy and also the use of private prisons. That was by eric holder. What is the position of the u. S. Department of justice as it relates to a fair and just commutation program and the issues with dealing with overprosecution and the sentencing policy that was offered by eric holder which was considered fair and just and the use of private prisons have been known to be abusive to prisoners and do not allow requests to go forward. What is your position on that . Time has expired. The gentleman may answer the question. You raise a number of issues, congresswoman. I dont know i have time to respond to them all, but i want to clarify anybodys free to report to the department of justice when they believe a crime is committed. Its not a complaint in the way you might file a complaint in some local police departments. Youre free to report any allegations and the department will conduct appropriate review as we do with any allegations of alleged criminal conduct. We initiate investigations, though, only if we determine theres proper predication under our policies. Well, im yielding back, mr. Chairman. But he did not answer my questions. The time has expired. The chair recognizes mr. Issa for five minutes. Thank you. Mr. Deputy attorney general, if someone comes in to make that complaint or to file that information, theyre going to have their identification checked for who they are, right . To get into the building . Im not certain. If they were admitted to the building, you actually can walk into most fbi offices i think without going through security. But you wouldnt consider it draconian if theyre filing a complaint or allegation, their drivers license was looked at would you . If were conducting an investigation, we need to know who the witnesses are. Thank you. I wanted to know that wasnt draconian. In the case of mr. Struck, there was an appearance of impropriety that people are observing. But youd said well there may not have been the reason. But if it wasnt the appearance of impropriety based on his numerous rather strident tweets not tweets but texts commenting adversely on the president , what was it . It wassed a ver tent to move him off that case the decision was made by mr. Mueller based on the circumstances to him. Its important to understand, though, those Text Messages<\/a> were uncovered in the course of an Inspector General<\/a> thats not complete. We wont be able to make a determination about let me go to the Inspector General<\/a> now. This is michael horowitz, right . Correct. He has repeatedly complained that he cannot, in fact he doesnt have the authority to look for impropriety by lawyers as to their conduct as lawyers. Because the office the opr has that authority. Thats still true, isnt it . Its true, but he does have authority for misconduct by lawyers. Okay. So we have a situation in which he can look at some of the misconduct, not others. One he could not look at is the appearance of bias in their investigations in how theyre conducting decisions. That is uniquely excluded to the Inspector General<\/a> in your cabinet position versus all other cabinet positions. Im not certain about that. And if i may, ill check and get back to you on that. But he is excluded. It would be opr or the Inspector General<\/a>. I believe certain of those are within the jurisdiction of the Inspector General<\/a>. But id have to ver if ifverify. You can get back to me on that. These political views that mr. Chabot mentioned, its clear its people with a strong preference. But notwithstanding that, lets be very candid. Nobody up here is going to claim to be without their political bias. So one of the reasons that and one of the reasons we look to a special prosecutor and that you appointed a special prosecutor was to not only pass the politics on this dais but to get past the appearance of any conflict by the department of justice. Is that fair to say . To minimize any bias, correct. Okay. But the special prosecutor is under any statute how its done, is a group for wrong doing. Theyre not looking for right doing. Theyre looking for wrong doing. Like any prosecutor, youre not looking for innocence . The way i would characterize it is theyre looking for the truth. Then theyll make the determination about whether or not its appropriate to prosecute. Okay. So my question to you is if thats the case, if we accept that my assumption that theyre looking to if they can to hang on them. There isnt a problem with having people that are dead set on trying to find anything that would incriminate the administration in a russian connection which is some of what theyre charged. So ill posture to you that maybe its not that bad to have people who really dislike the president would like to hang him. Having said that, when theres impropriety such as mr. Struck, when there is, in fact, a history at the fbi of withholding information from congress, when there is the appearance of impropriety by the department of justice and when the Inspector General<\/a> is limited under the statute both because he doesnt have full access and because certain portions are out, wouldnt you say this is a classic example where in order to investigate the fbi and the department of justice, a special prosecutor who is equally looking for the truth if it exists adversely is within your charge and responsibility to see that it happens . Time of the gentleman has expired. My simple answer to it would be that that if we believe there was a basis for an investigation or special counsel, we could act. I would say since we already had dismissals from wrong doing, the elements necessary to ask for a special prosecutor already exist. The time of the gentleman has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee mr. Cohen. First i want to thank you for your service to the country and accepting the difficult position under the difficult circumstances that you have. Has President Trump<\/a> ever communicated with you about removing Robert Mueller<\/a> from the role of special counsel . I am not going to be discussing communications with the president , but i can tell you that nobody has communicated to me a desire to remove Robert Mueller<\/a>. You said youre not going to relate your conversations with President Trump<\/a>. How many conversations have you had since your appointment with President Trump<\/a> . Its appropriate for me to talk to the president about Law Enforcement<\/a> issues. I dont believe thats an appropriate issue for discussion. When you chose Robert Mueller<\/a> to be the special counsel, what were his characteristics, his history, and the reasons for you to have chosen him for this important position . I think it would be very difficult, congressman, for anybody to find somebody Better Qualified<\/a> for this job. Director mueller has throughout his lifetime been a dedicated and respected and heroic public servant. He after college volunteered to serve as a marine in vietnam where he was wounded in combat. He attended law school and devoted most of his career to serving as a federal prosecutor with the stints in private practice. He served as United States<\/a> attorney in two districts. He served in many other as head of the Criminal Division<\/a> when president clinton was elected in 1992. Then he went back and in an entry level position as a homicide prosecutor trying to help with the Violent Crime<\/a> prob in the District Of Columbia<\/a> in the 1990s. R rose through the ranks and protected this nation after 9 11 and then when his tenyear term expired, he was so well respected that his term was extended i believe also almost unanimously for another two years. So i believe that based upon his reputation, his service, his patriotism, and his experience with the department and with the fbi, i believe he was an ideal choice for this task. Thank you, sir. I agree with you. Fbi director wray agrees with you. He said he was well respected within the fbi. I think everybody on the other side of the aisle agreed with you when you appointed him and everybody in this Judiciary Committee<\/a> and probably everybody in this congress agreed with his appointment as fbi director which was unanimous, his reappointment which was unanimous by republican bush and democrat obama. Everybody respects that man in this country. Obviously we knew that would be an exception. But the fact is they didnt start to dislike him until he started to get issues that affected the president that currently serves this country. And because of that they said the fbi was in tatters, that the fbi, the chief Law Enforcement<\/a>, top Law Enforcement<\/a> folks in this country are questionable. Some of their allies on television said theyre like the kgb. Theyve questioned you. Theyve questioned the Justice Department<\/a>. Theyve questioned some of the most loyal, dedicated, fearless people in our country who served the rule of law. And i find it repugnant and awful. I wonder what you think about it when you hear about the fbi which works under you being suggested its in tatters and that theres something wrong with the fbi and that theyre somehow like the kgb. Well, congressman, as i know youre aware, ive expressed concern with certain aspects of certain things done by the fbi, but in general throughout my experience working with fbi agents over the decades, i found them to be an Exceptional Group<\/a> of public servants. Very loyal, faithful, and dedicated. And i believe some of the finest people i know are agents of the federal bureau of investigation. I thought about them, sir, when i watched the army navy game. I thought about them because i have the honor as everyone up here has of recommending folks to be at west point and annapolis. Those are the cream of the crop. And the people in the fbi are cream of the crop. And Justice Department<\/a> attorneys are too. Its not easy to get a job in justice. No matter where you went to law school and what you did. You hired the best. You always have. I compliment you on that. I know you will continue to hold the department of justice up as a pantheon of outstanding lawyers and take justice where it should go as truth demands and justice dictates. I yield back the balance of my time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa mr. King for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you mr. Rosenstein for your service. A number of things im curious about here. First of all, in the interview of Hillary Clinton<\/a> that took place reportedly july 2nd of 2016, how many people were in the room for that . How many people had the opportunity to question her . I do not know the answer to that. We may have additional information, but i personally do not know. And would you know who selected that team . No, i do not. Okay. I recall the testimony here by comey and lynch that testified one of the two of them that there were three represents of the fbi and three representatives of the doj in that room. Would that be normal in practice you anticipate . Am i going to hear ig again . Typically we would have at least two agents conduct an interview. And there may be any number of those on a case. I dont know the details of that particular decision. And the practice in an interview like that, would there be records kept of that interview . Yes, if there were fbi agents present, typically they would take notes and summarize the interview. Would there be a videotape, audiotape, or a transcript . Generally no. Uhhuh. And why not . Well, its not practice to do it. It needs to become the practice. Practice across the countryside with many local Law Enforcement<\/a>, if youre a county deputy, you record that. Now were sitting here with a mystery on when that went on in that interview of july 2nd and many questions have been asked about that before and after. They will trickle through history until we get to the bottom of it. We dont know yet who was in the room. Do you have any knowledge that peter struck might have been one of those people . I do not know. Its been reported in the news he was one of those people. Are you aware of that . I may have seen that in the news. But i personally do not know. And when i look through just a timeline here, just quickly to put this into the record. April may of 2016, peter struck interviews huma abedin and cheryl mills. Who happened to be in the resume with Hillary Clinton<\/a> and her chief of staff and a subject to the investigation. Then on may 2nd, comey emails fbi officials a draft statement. A couple of months before his recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton<\/a>. In that chain strucks name showed up. Hes the one that swapped out the references from the gross negligence to carelessness. Do you have any knowledge about that . No. But its the Inspector General<\/a> review that has turned up. I thought that was going to be the answer. Also skipping forward to july 24th, fbi interviews Michael Flynn<\/a> on russia. Its reported in the news that peter struck is in that interview. No knowledge to disagree with the reports in the news. Correct. Then we get the news later on in summer peter struck had been removed from muellers Investigative Team<\/a> but we find out december 4th that that took place publicly. I understand that if that had drifted into the jet stream, perhaps we wouldnt be in the middle of this controversy. What about if his hands are in so many things and ive not touched them all by any means, but what about the fruit of the poisonous tree . This is the reverse of this. This is the voids of the fruit of the poisonous tree. And im looking at what was reported this morning. I just took a picture of the Television Set<\/a> on my iphone just so we all know what im talking about here. A quote from 2016 text. Lisa page to peter struck and theyre talking about President Trump<\/a>. And maybe shes speaking to peter struck. Her lover, i hear. And maybe youre meant to stay where you are because you are meant to protect the country from that menace. And strucks response is thanks, its absolutely true that were both very fortunate and of course ill try and approach it that way. I just dont know it will be tough at times i can protect our country at many levels. Does that sound like a declaration he would use his job to leverage his work against the president of the United States<\/a> . Congressman, the Inspector General<\/a>s investigation includes interviews of numerous witnesses and i anticipate hopefully in the near future well have a report with the Inspector General<\/a>s conclusions. Would you have any opinion on the lack of the fruit from the poisonous tree that might have been erased by peter struck . As a legal matter, congressman, i can tell you if evidence is tainted, then that would raise a concern for me. Typically our cases will be prosecuted based upon witnesses and documents and not upon the agent unless the agent personally were a witness in the case. That would certainly concern us if there were tainted evidence in the case. Thank you, mr. Rosenstein. I yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. Johnson for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you for your service to the country, mr. Rosenstein. Based on the special order appointing the special council. Does the special counsel have the authority to investigate any individual who may have obstructed the investigation that director comey confirmed on march 20th of this year which was the russian interference with the 2016 elections. The special counsel does have authority to investigate any obstruction related to his jurisdiction. Does this authority to investigate possible obstruction include investigating President Trump<\/a> . I hope you wont take an inference, but thats something we do not do. We do not discuss who may or may not be under investigation. Im not asking whether or not the president is under investigation. Im just simply asking whether or not your order appointing the special counsel authorizes the special counsel to investigate the president. Authorizes him to investigate anybody who theres predication to believe obstruct of justice. And that includes the president , correct . It would include anybody who was suspected of obstructing justice. All right. Do you think its appropriate for the president to comment publicly on any pending investigation . Congressman, the decision about whether people in political positions comment on investigations is not mine. My responsibility is to ensure that our investigations are not impact eed improperly by any opinion. Whether its a member of congress or anybody else. It would not be appropriate for you to comment about any pending investigation, isnt that correct . Correct. And the president is the chief Law Enforcement<\/a> officer. He considers himself in the country. It would be inappropriate for him, then, to comment on a pending investigation, would it not . Congressman, i believe over the years there have been president s who have made comments about investigations and its simply not my responsibility to make that decision. Well, do you think its appropriate for the president to publicly call for the investigation of specific individuals . Im simply not going to comment on that other than to tell you its my responsibility along with the attorney general to make sure that those decisions are made independently by the department based upon the facts of the law. Has the president ever contacted you to urge action in any pending investigation . Congressman, i have not received any improper orders. Im not going to be talking about particular communications i may have which are appropriate communications with the white house. What would be your legal basis for refusing to answer the question whether or not the president has contacted you to urge any action in any pending investigation . What would be your legal basis for refusing to answer this question . Congressman, this is not a partisan issue. I worked on an investigation where the previous president encouraged the department to do an expeditious investigation and so, you know, the question for me is are we or are we not making an appropriate determination regardless of who comments on it. Well, my question i respect your question. But my question is has the president ever contacted you to urge action in any pending investigation . Yes or no . I have nothing further to say about it, congressman. So youre going to refuse to answer a question from a member of congress seeking to do oversight. I told you i have not received any improper orders and im simply not going to talk about communications. I think in every Administration Senior<\/a> Law Enforcement<\/a> officers have to be able to communicate with the president and his officials about appropriate matters within their responsibility and not comment on it. So you shouldnt draw an inference. Its simply not appropriate for me to talk about communications i may have with the administration. So it would be i would tell you if something happened that was wrong and somebody urged me to do something improper. But that has not happened. Well, it would be improper for the president to ever contact you about initiating on investigation of someone, would it not . Weve discussed this previously, congressman. President s have commented publicly and no, no, no. My question is, it would be improper for a president to contact you about initiating a investigation of someone. It would be improper, wouldnt it . It would be improper for the president to order me to conduct an investigation that wasnt justified. It would be improper for the president to ask you to initiate an investigation, would it not . If it were for improper reasons, yes. So is it your testimony today that the president has not asked you to investigate someone specifically . Congressman, i understand what youre getting at, but as i said, i was in the last administration and the president last administration commented on matters. Theres nothing wrong about that. Youre being very artful in jumping around and evading answering my question and so youre not going to answer it. Im not evading. Thats unfortunate. Are you afraid of President Trump<\/a> firing you . No, im not, congressman. With that, i will yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. Gohmert for five minutes. Thank you. Did you ever tell special counsel Robert Mueller<\/a> that in essence everything you do must not only be just and fair but must also appear beyond reproach. In essence, yes. Yes. Well, since attorney general sessions recused himself, you are effectively the boss of the special counsel and staff, correct . That is correct that i am effectively the boss. Well, we all know that fbi director james comey was fired. We know of your letter. We know of your public statements. But heres a question. To your knowledge, who first proposed the idea of firing james comey as fbi director . Congressman, im not going to comment on that. The president has explained that he made the decision and im not going to comment beyond that. At the time you wrote the letter suggesting the firing, did you believe what you put in that letter . Yes, i did. All right. If an fbi employee goes into a meeting as part of his job, someone in the government, and he comes out and he makes a memo memorializing the meeting, perhaps in the future, past memory refreshed, is that memo doj property . Generally, congressman, i would think that it would be. Might depend on whats in the memo, what the subject matter is. Generally the answer would be yes. Well, fbi employment agreement in a statement says that and this is a person agreeing to work for the fbi. All information acquired by me and all official material in which i access remain the property of the United States<\/a>. I will not reveal material from or related to the fbi files or by virtue of my official employment. If you make a memo of things that were discussed as part of your job, then it would be a violation of that agreement to send that to someone to leak to the press. Isnt that right . It well may be. All right. The question im about to ask im not asking what you may have told attorney general Jeff Sessions<\/a>. I dont want to know any words used or ideas conveyed nor sources referenced, in fact, im asking a question that could not have possibly any other answer rather than yes or no. You are completely free to wholly answer those questions with one of those two words. Heres the question. As attorney general Jeff Sessions<\/a> deputy, did you give Jeff Sessions<\/a> any advice regarding whether or not he should recuse himself in the matter of the Russian Investigation<\/a> . Yes or no . No. And can i give a little bit of an explanation . I appreciate your asking that question. I wasnt there. I was confirmed, i believe on april 25th and took office on april 26th. I was not there at the time of the recusal. All right. And you ever talk to bruce orr . Yes. Wasnt he four doors down from yours . I havent counted, but he was down the hall. All right. And of course hes been demoted over relationship with fusion gps and of course then found out his wife nelly was a russian expert and was paid by fusion gps through summer and fall of 2016 helping the Clinton Campaign<\/a> get apparently a dossier from the russians. How well do you know the people that work on your hall . Well, it varies, congressman. I think thats precise. It varies. All right. Of course everybody has some opinions, political opinions or otherwise. The key is not having those affect or bias you in the department of justice. Correct. Well, here are some of the texts talking about trump. Hes an idiot like trump. And Martin Omalley<\/a> said, well, a d word. Im not watching. I cant tell you how little i care right now. Talking about the republican convention. So much more substantive than the representative debates. He goes on, at some point the Republican Party<\/a> needs to pull their head out of their blank, shows no sign of occurring any time soon. Of course hes, you know, the f we were told stands for fidelity. But these were made in the course of infidelity. Then he makes slurs against kasich. Its just unbelievable. I truly hate these people, talking about the republicans. No support for the women who actually has to spend the rest of her life rearing this child, but we care about, quote, life. And then aholes. How can he how the f can he be a republican and on and on it goes. America will get what the voting public deserves. And thats what im afraid of. Hillary should win 100 million to zero. Did you hear him make the comment on the size of anyway. This is not just political opinions. This is disgusting, unaccountable bias. And theres no way that could not affect a persons work. Were you aware of just how bias mr. Struck was . No, i was not. Thank you. One final thing. You im going to ask you a question. The answer is not classified. Based on information to the best of your knowledge, has the fbi used product which was paid for by a political campaign, political party, political candidate, or prepared on a candidates behalf . Congressman, the issue that youre the time of the gentleman has expired. Witness may answer the question. I know were working with one committee that has access to that information. I believe theyll get whatever sir, im asking a general question. Im not the time of the gentleman has expired. Witness may answer the question in the form it was presented. Im not representing i dont know everything about the fbi. And mr. Chairman, point of personal privilege, since my character was slandered by mr. Cohen who said that i never we never challenge mueller until he came after the administration when he knows how tough i went after fbi director mueller. Hes been here when i went after mueller. While bush was president. He knows i have been after him the gentlemen because of the damage he did and what he stated about me is a lie. And i need the record to properly reflect that. The gentlemans comment is duly noted. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california ms. Bass for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. According to an august 17th fbi intelligence assessment titled black identity extremists likely motivated to target Law Enforcement<\/a> officers, quote, it is very likely that black identity extremist Police Brutality<\/a> spurred an increase in retaliatory violence. So ive tried to get to the bottom of where this report came from, who did it, what its status is. Ive asked attorney general sessions. Ive asked director wray. And now i want to ask you. Did you order the fbi to conduct this assessment . Im sorry, what was the date . August 2017. August of this year. No, i did not. Do you know who authored the record . Are you familiar with the report . Im not familiar with the report. Im familiar with the general issue. And so maybe you could talk a little bit about the general issue in particular when the fbi began tracking black identity extremism . I think its important for me to explain, congress womwoman, the fbi does not make a determination to investigate them based upon their First Amendment<\/a> views. Or their affiliation. It bases its decisions on evidence of a propensity to violence. So with regard to members of any ideology domestically, the fbi would only be investigating if there were some indication. Do you believe theres a Political Movement<\/a> in the country called black identity extremism. What they do is they try to categorize different threats that they identified. So you said investigate. But before you do an investigation, theres surveillan surveillance, correct . Generally, no. There may need to be a determination first that theres a basis for information typically before surveillance. So how does that determination take place and where has it taken place . If you want details, i need to get back to you. But the fbi has strict guidelines. As you know several decades ago there was controversy about this issue and the fbi has very detailed guidelines for when they initiate investigations. Im not aware of any departure from those guidelines. So one thing that and i am aware of the fbis history from many years ago. And many people are looking at this document, black identity extremism. One of the concerns that has been raised and that i raised with attorney general sessions and director wray is that this document for whatever reason was mass distributed to Law Enforcement<\/a> offices around the country. Are you aware of that . No, im not. So when we talk to director wray, it wasnt clear how this term was even developed. In other words, what evidence was it based on to come up with a term like that and then to write a document about it and then to distribute it to Law Enforcement<\/a> around the country . I dont know the answer to that, congresswoman. But ive been in this job for eight months, i havent seen any indication that the fbi is approaching this in a biased way. Theyre conducting investigations where they believe the person who is the subject represents a potential threat. Not simply because they believe in an ideology or associate with an ideology but because they represent a particular threat. I believe the fbi guidelines are designed specifically to ensure that there are no abuses. So what im hearing from activists around the country particular those targeting Police Brutality<\/a> or deaths at the hands of Law Enforcement<\/a>, is theyre being visited by the fbi. That the fbi is leaving business cards. Then the concern about that is if they do engage in a conversation with an fbi agent and perhaps make a mistake or Say Something<\/a> that didnt true, then theyre to be prosecuted for lying to a Law Enforcement<\/a> officer. So the activists that have received visits have not been involved in violence at all. Are you aware of that . No. Let me express a concern about this. When a document that doesnt seem to have any scientific basis creates a category black identity extremism which nobody can say whether or not it exists. When you send a document like that to Law Enforcement<\/a> around the country, in some places i will worry that they will take that to say any time there is an officerinvolved shooting and there is a protest, that the people that protest might be black identity extremists. Congresswoman, to the best of my not to my knowledge, they are not investigating people who are peacefully protesting. Ive not read that document. Ill review it and ill see what it says. I would appreciate it if you would. If there is no basis for this firm, then the fbi retract the document and send a message to Law Enforcement<\/a> around the country that no such category exists. I yield back my time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio mr. Jordan for five minutes. Did the fbi pay Christopher Steele<\/a> and was the dossier the basis for securing to File Americans<\/a> associated with the Trump Campaign<\/a> . Really when you sum it all up, it boils down to those fundamental questions. Did you pay the guy who wrote it and did you use what he wrote, discredited paid for by the Clinton Campaign<\/a> did you use it to get warrants on spying on americans . Youre the guy that can answer those questions. Yesterday i was convinced that the answer to those questions was probably yes. But today im even more convinced the answer is yes based on the Text Messages<\/a> we got to read early this morning. You know peter struck, are you fla familiar with that name . Yes, i am. Peter struck, that one. He had a significant role peter struck ran the campaign, changed the exoneration letter from gross negligence interviewed mike flynn. Peter struck selected by mr. Mueller to be on his team. That peter struck weve learned had all these Text Messages<\/a> we got to read some early this morning. Some of them are, you know, they show he didnt like trump. He and miss page are exchanging Text Messages<\/a> sharing they dont like the president. But thats nothing new. No one on muellers team likes trump. We already knew that. I want to focus on one in particular. One in particular. And this is a text message from mr. Struck to miss page recalling a conversation at a meeting that took place in Andrew Mccabes<\/a> office, Deputy Director<\/a> of the fbi, recalling a meeting earlier. And mr. Struck says this. I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in andys office. Then theres a break. Dash, it says that theres no way he gets elected. No way trump gets elected. He said, i want to believe that. You said that in a meeting in mccabes office. I want to believe that. But im afraid we cant take that risk. This goes to intent. The people of this great country might elect donald trump president , we cant take this risk. This is head of counterintelligence of the fbi. This is peter struck who i think had a hand in that dossier that was all dressed up and taken to the court. He said we cant take the risk. We have to do something about it. Dont forget the timeline here either, mr. Rosenstein. Peter struck january 10th, hes the guy who changes the exoneration letter from gross negligence, criminal standard, to extreme carelessness. July 2nd, hes the guy who sets in on the clinton interview. July 5th, 2016, thats when comey has the press conferences. Were not going to prosecute. And then august 2016 we have this text message. The same month that the Russian Investigation<\/a> is opened at the fbi. August 2016, and my guess is thats the same month that the application was taken to the court to get the warrant to spy on americans. Using this dossier, fake news all dressed up taken to the court. So i got really just a couple basic questions. Because it seems to me if the answer to any of those two questions. If the answer is yes, if you guys paid Christopher Steele<\/a> at the same time the Democrat Campaign<\/a> was or if you took the dossier to the court and used it as the basis to get warrants. Now we have intent in this text message saying theres another text message. My colleague referenced it earlier. Where mr. Struck says i can protect our country at many levels. Says it with all the humility he can muster. This guy thought he was super agent james bond at the fbi. This is obvious. Im afraid we cant take that risk. Theres no way we can let the American People<\/a> make donald trump the next president. Ive got to protect our country. I think the public trust in this whole thing is gone. Youre the guy in charge. Youre the guy that picked mueller. You can disband the prosecutor and do what weve all called for. To look into peter stzok and everything we learned in the last few weeks. Yes, congressman. And i can assure you that i consider it very important to make sure the thorough review is done. Thats how we found those Text Messages<\/a>. Youve given that answer like 15 times. Let me ask this. Are you concerned i mean, this is what a lot of americans are believing right now and i certainly do. That the comey fbi and the obama Justice Department<\/a> worked with one campaign to go after the other campaign. Thats what everything points to. Think about what we learned in the last several weeks. We first learned they paid for the dossier. Then we learn about peter strzok. This is unbelievable. Whats it going to take to get a Second Special<\/a> counsel to answer these questions and find out what peter strzok really up to what we think he was . I think its important to understand, we have an Inspector General<\/a> who has 500 employees and this is what he does. He looks at allegations of misconduct that review he is conducting is what turned occ e those Text Messages<\/a>. And we met with mr. Horowitz and were anxiously awaiting that report. That doesnt miss midismiss the the country thinks we need a different special counsel. All kinds of senators think we need a special counsel. What fact pattern do you have to have . What kind of text message do you have to see before you say its time for a Second Special<\/a> counsel . I want to say sure you, i think the attorney general explains we take seriously the concerns of 20 members of this committee or 1 member of this committee. But we have a responsibility to make an independent determination and we will. I thank the chair. The chair recognizes the gentleman from new york mr. Jeffreys for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Rosenstein, there are approximately 14,000 special agents within the fbi, is that correct . 37,000 total employees. It fair to say many are registered republicans . I havent asked them and i wouldnt want to speculate. Fair to say the majority of the 14,000 fbi special agents have conservative leaning political views like much of the Law Enforcement<\/a> community throughout the entire nation . If many of them do, i havent counted. Now, the department of justice apparently last evening invited a group of reporters to its offices to view the private Text Messages<\/a> that were sent during the election by peter strzok and lisa page, is that correct . I believe thats correct. Now, who exactly authorized bedepartment of justice in advance of a congressional hearing to invite reporters to come view private Text Message Communications<\/a> between two department of justice employees who were the subject of a pending investigation . I think its an important question you ask, congressman. Because that was one of my concerns about this issue is what is the status of these messages and is it appropriate to release them . And the determination was made that it is. So we gave notice to their attorneys. We notified the committee. And our goal is to make sure its clear to you and the American People<\/a> we are not concealing anything thats embarrassing to the fbi. Is it extraordinary you would invite reporters for a private viewing in advance of a congressional hearing . Only if its appropriate for public release. If its not appropriate, its never appropriate to disclose it to reporters. A fox News Reporter<\/a> tweeted last night that fox news producer jay gibson has approximately 10,000 Text Messages<\/a> between peter strzok and lisa page. My understanding is only 350 or so were released to this committee, is that correct . There are others being reviewed and we will produce them as soon as we have them available. Redactions need to be made. How is it possible that fox news apparently has 10,000 Text Messages<\/a> . I wouldnt assume thats true just because it was in the news c c can congressman. Im sure were going to get to the bottom of it. Hopefully the chairman would be. Im sure the chairman would be interested in what would be a violation of law in the department of justice proceedings. If there is any evidence that we disclosed evidence to a reporter that wasnt appropriate for release or disclosed to the congress, i would agree with you. Im not aware of that. Now, the department of justice investigation should be free of interference, is that true . Absolutely. Can we put up a tweet from donald trump at 3 57 a. M. In the morning . God knows what he was doing at that time other than tweeting. It says, everybody can we put that tweet up . The clock stopped while we were trying to what was the gentlemans request . The committee had been given notice of a tweet that i wanted displayed on the screen last evening, and ive been asking for that to be put up. And there is some technical difficulty in doing that . Yes. We will suspend. Mr. Chairman . I believe the gentleman had a minute and 45 seconds. Well make sure he has plenty of time. Thank you, mr. Gates. In the interest of time, mr. Chairman, ill just read what was written by the president. He said, everybody is asking why the Justice Department<\/a> and fbi isnt looking into all of the dishonesty going on with crooked hillary and the dems. Let me ask you a question. Is it ever appropriate for a president , any president of the United States<\/a>, to encourage the department of justice to launch criminal investigations against his or her perceived political enemies . Im not going to comment on that, congressman. As ive explained previously, the president has put a team of experienced folks in charge of the department of justice, and we are not going to be influenced by anything other than the facts of law. Was that an appropriate tweet for the president of the United States<\/a> to send . Its not my role to opine on that. Did the president s repeated attempts to encourage criminal prosecutions against perceived political enemies concern you, sir . Congressman, as i said, we understand our responsibility, and were going to continue to conduct our responsibility in accordance with the facts of the law, and i am grateful that the president has put an experienced team in charge of the Justice Department<\/a> who understand what to do. Thanks. On june 20, the New York Times<\/a> published a wideranging interview with donald trump and the president criticized you for being from baltimore saying, there are very few republicans in baltimore, if any. Sees from baltimore. Thats true. Are you able to be fair and impartial since youre from baltimore . Im not from baltimore. I did work in baltimore for 12 years. Its true that there arent many republicans in baltimore. That part was true. He was an attorney for the Southern District<\/a> of new york, true . Yes. And he was fired by donald trump in march, is that correct . Along with a lot of city attorneys. They have jurisdiction over trump tower, correct . They have jurisdiction over everything in their jurisdiction. As has been reported to be the case for hills s replacemen for President Trump<\/a> to conduct the interview, it would be inappropriate, wouldnt it . Im not sure it was done in the last two administrations that im familiar with. And you were appointed by president bush and then continued in that position as u. S. Attorney for maryland by barack obama. Thats correct . Thats correct. As a matter of law, i was appointed and never removed. Have you ever asked president bush for a loyalty pledge . No. Were you ever asked by president barack obama to take a loyalty pledge . No. Is it ever appropriate for the president of the United States<\/a> to demand that a department of justice official or fbi director take a loyalty pledge . I dont have any opinion about that, congressman. Nobody has asked me to take a loyalty pledge other than oath of office. Thanks. I yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. Poe, for five minutes. Thank you, chairman. Thank you for being here. Just so its clear, im one of the numerous members of the Judiciary Committee<\/a> that have asked for a Second Special<\/a> prosecutor based on what mr. Jordan earlier said. The Justice Department<\/a> is responsible for investigating criminal conduct. Would that include criminal conduct by the nsa . Yes. Okay. We all learned under the prison that was happening years ago by the nsa that the nsa was doing, in my opinion, unconstitutional surveillance on americans in their emails by tracking it and hacking in to see those emails. It came to light under snowden after snowden, who i care nothing for, brought that to americas attention. Nsa said, were not going to do that anymore, which, i think, is appropriate, because i thought it was unconstitutional. And weve heard reports through the media that there has been unmasking of information. What i mean by that is, classified information is seized on somebody, and someone else, an american, that their name is called up in the communication, and if someone leaks who that was, unmask that individual, my understanding is if its classified information, whoever does that unmasking has committed a felony. Is that correct . The only distinction i would make, congressman, is the unmasking. Typically something done in the course of the intelligence analysis. The leaking would be a violation. Thats what im talking about, the leaking of that information. And as of today, has anybody been indicted under prism . Has anybody been indicted under leaking information on unmasking up until today . Has the Justice Department<\/a> indicted anybody under those two scenarios and events . We have indicted prosecuted people for leaking. Im not certain i dont believe any of them related to unmasking. So nobody has been indicted, to your knowledge. Which i want to bring up now the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act<\/a> that has been discussed by this committee numerous times. Its the law that allows secret courts to issue secret warrants to try to go get terrorists that are operating overseas and get their information. Does the Justice Department<\/a> present those fisa warrants to a fisa judge . In situations where a warrant is required, yes, it needs to be obtained from a federal judge. But the Justice Department<\/a> is responsible for that, is that correct . Correct. Also under fisa, once again, americans are brought into the scenario because you target a foreign terrorist, and then you go after their emails and then you find emails of americans and those are inadvertently caught in the surveillance of the target. According to the Washington Post<\/a> recently, 90 of those inadvertent emails are on americans. And my question to you is, has why hasnt the Justice Department<\/a>, the fbi, the Intelligence Community<\/a> presented to congress under our request that took place years ago, how many of those inadvertent emails, communications, Text Messages<\/a>, conversations had been on americans . We asked for the number. Do you know why that has not been brought to our attention . Let me just follow up with this reason. Heres the reason wee ne need i. Were getting ready to reauthorize 702 which i have a lot of problems with. I think its unconstitutional in many ways, but beside the point, here we are at a deadline getting ready to reauthorize it and still the Intelligence Community<\/a> refuses to tell us how Many Americans<\/a> information has been seized. Can you tell us why we havent gotten that information that weve asked for for years . No. I testified at a hearing with director coats who i think would be a more appropriate person to answer that because he has access to the data and he has explained it. But i would simply point out you use the term inadvertent. Its a term we use incidental. My point is if youre investigating a foreign terrorist, knowing with whom that person is communicating helps your investigation. That wasnt my question. My question was, were getting ready to maybe reauthorize 702. I dont think we should reauthorize it until we find out from the Intelligence Community<\/a> where there are no indictments that have been issued against the Intelligence Community<\/a> based on the statements you have made to see whether or not theyre violating the law, and they refuse to give this committee the information about how many people have been caught up in that, and its been stonewalled by the Intelligence Community<\/a> saying, we just cant do it. Why cant the Intelligence Community<\/a> get some geek over at best buy and have them come in and answer that question with a few little taps into the big Computer System<\/a> . We just want the number. The time for the gentleman has expired. The witness may answer the","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia800100.us.archive.org\/23\/items\/MSNBCW_20171213_160000_MSNBC_Live_With_Velshi_and_Ruhle\/MSNBCW_20171213_160000_MSNBC_Live_With_Velshi_and_Ruhle.thumbs\/MSNBCW_20171213_160000_MSNBC_Live_With_Velshi_and_Ruhle_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240617T12:35:10+00:00"}