His decision abo im not any discuss. Because youre evoking executive privilege. My understanding is, you took an oath, you raised your right hand here today and you said you would solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Now youre not answering questions. Youre impeding this investigation. So, my understanding of the Legal Standard is that you either answer the question thats the best outcome. You say this classified, cant answer it here. Ill answer it in closed session. Bucket number three is to say im evoking executive privilege. Its not a Legal Standard. Can you tell me what are these longstanding doj rules that protect conversations made in the executive without evoking executive privilege. Im protecting the president s constitutional right by not giving it give away before he has a chance to secondly, im having the truth in answering your question in saying its longstanding policy of the department of justice. Are those policies written . To make sure the president has a full opportunity to decide these issues. Can you share those policies with us . Are they written down at the department of justice . My judgment that it would be inappropriate for me to answer and reveal private conversations with the president when hes not had a full opportunity to review the questions and make a decision on whether or not to approve such answer, one, there are other privileges that could be invoked. One of the things involves the investigation of the special counsel. Were not asking questions about that investigation. If i wanted to ask questions about that investigation id ask those of Rod Rosenstein. Im asking about your personal knowledge from this committee which has a constitutional obligation to get to the bottom of this, there are two investigations here, special counsel investigation, also a congressional investigation. And youre obstructing that congressional investigation by not answering these questions. And i think youre silenced, like the silence of director coats, like rogers, speaks volume. I have consulted with career senior attorneys. This is consistent with my duty and senator risch asked you a question about appropriateness if you had known anything untoward with regard to russia and the campaign, would you have headed to the exits. Your answer was maybe. Why wasnt it a simple yes. An illegal relationship in an effort to impede or influence this campaign i absolutely would have departed. Thats a good question. I find it strange neither you nor Deputy Attorney general rod ros rosenstein brought up performance issues with director comey and mccabe has refuted any assertion there were performance issues, this is proubling because it appears that the president decided to fire director comey because he was pursuing the russia investigation and had asked you to come up with an excuse, when your assessment of director comey didnt hold up to public scrutiny, he finally admitted he fired comey because of the russia investigation. It appears that his firing was directly related to russia. Not departmental mismanagement. How do you square those two things . Well, a lot in that question. Let me say first, within a week or so, i believe may 3rd, director comey testified that he believed the handling of the clinton deckly nation was proper and appropriate and he would do it again. That was a great concern to both of us because it did not that represented something that i think most professionals in the department of justice would totally agree that the fbi Investigative Agency does not decide whether to prosecute or decline cases of the responsibility of the attorney general. So, thats how we felt, that was sort of additional concern that we had heading the fbi someone boldly asserted to make those decisions. Thats one of the things that we discussed. That was in the memorandum and also an important factor for us. Before i recognize senator blunt. Id like the record to show that last night admiral rogers spent almost two hours in closed session with almost the full committee fulfilling his commitment to us in the hearing that in closed session he would answer the question and i think it was thoroughly answered and all members were given an opportunity to ask him. Senator blunt. Thank you, general. Its good to see you here together and know that your family continues to be proud and supportive of what you do. Thank you, ive been blessed, indeed. I agree with that. Let me get a couple of things clear in my mind here, notes i have taken. And you were talking on the april 27th, 2016, event, thats the Mayflower Hotel speech that the president ial candidate gave on foreign policy, you didnt have a room at that event where you had private meetings, did you . No, i did not. As i understand it, you went to a reception that was attended by how many people . I think two to three dozen. Two to three dozen people. You went and heard a speech and might have seen people on your way out. Correct. When you said you possibly had a meeting with mr. Kislyak, you possibly met him . I didnt have any formal meeting with him. Im confident of that. But i may have had an encounter during the reception and thats the only thing that i cant say with certainty i did not. Thats what i thought you were saying. You might have met him at the reception. Could you have met other ambassadors at that reception as well . I could. I remember one in particular that we had a conversation with, whose country had an investment in alabama. I remember that. Otherwise, i have no recollection of a discussion with the Russian Ambassador. All right, so you were there, you read he was there but you had no room where you having meetings with individuals to have discussions at the playflower hotel that day . No. Well, on when you talked to mr. Comey after he had his meeting with the president , you think that was probably the next day you didnt stay afterwards and see him after he left the oval office that night . No, it happened right afterwards. But it was either the next morning which i think it was, or maybe the morning after that. We had threetimes a week on National Security briefing with the fbi that i undertake and so it was after that we had that conversation. Now, what im not quite clear on is, did you respond when he expressed his concern or not . Yes, i did respond. I think hes incorrect. He indicated, i believe, that he was not totally sure of the exact wording of the meeting. But i do recall my chief of staff was with me and we recall i did affirm the longstanding written policies of the department of justice concerning communications with the white house. We have to follow those rules and in the long run youre much better off if you do. They dont prohibit communications, oneonone, by the fbi director with the president , but if that conversation moves into certain areas its the duty the rules apply to the department of justice. Its a duty of the fbi agent to say, mr. President , i cant talk about that. Thats the way that should work. And apparently it did, because he said he did not improperly discuss matters with the president. When mr. Comey talked to you about that meeting did he mention mr. Flynn . No. He mentioned no factses of any kind. He didnt mention to me that he had been asked to do something he thought was in improper. He said he was comfortable, i believe. After that discussion with mr. Comey actually, i dont know if he said if he was uncomfortable. Maybe it was what he testified to was the exact wording. I dont dispute it exactly, what i remember from him, you didnt react and you kind of shrugged. I took it as a concern that he might be asked something that was improper and i affirmed to him his willingness to say no. Or not go in an improper direction. Finally, im assuming you wouldnt talk about this because it would relate to the may 8th meeting, but my sense is, no decision is final until its carried out. My guess is, there are people here they would let someone go or fired somebody who never did that, the fact the president said that on may 8th doesnt mean that the information he got from you on may 9th was not necessary or impactful and im sure youre not going to say how many times the president said we ought to get rid of that person but im sure thats happened and chairman, ill thank you. Attorney general, thank you for joining us today. I respect your willingness to be here. You testified im not able to invoke executive privilege. Has the president invoked executive privilege in this testimony . No, hes not the president has a constitutional but the president hasnt asserted it. You say you dont have the power to assert the power of executive privilege. What is the legal basis . Im protecting the right of the president to assert if he chooses and maybe other privileges that could apply in this circumstance. Well, i dont understand how you can have it both ways. You testified only the president can assert it and yet i dont understand the legal basis for your refusal to answer. What we try to do, i think most cabinet officials, others that you questioned recent ly officials before the committee, protect the president s right to do so. If it comes to a point where the issue is clear and theres dispute about it, at some point, the president will either assert the privilege or not. Or some other privilege can be would be asserted. But, at this point, i believe t its premature for youre asserting the privilege of the president it would be premature for me to deny the president a full and intelligent choice about you testified a few minutes ago that, quote, we were asked for our opinion. Who asked for your opinion . You mean you testified, we were asked for our opinion. My understanding is, i believe im correct in saying that the president has said so. He didnt ask you directly . I thought you were asking about the privilege. No, no, im sorry. Im saying, you said, quote, we were asked for our opinion, you and mr. Rosenstein. I believe that was appropriate for me to say that because i think the president no, im just asking you, who asked you for your opinion . Who asked you for your opinion . Yes, right, the president asked for our opinion. So you just testified as to the content of the communication with the president . Thats correct but i believe he has already revealed that. I believe im correct in saying that. Thats why i indicated that when i answered that question. But if he hasnt and im in error, i would have constricted his constitutional right of privilege. So youre being selective about the use of no, im not intentionally. Im doing so only because i believe he made that in any of your discussions with the president about the firing of james comey abodid th question of the russia investigation come up . If any such occurred, it would be a communication that he has not waived. But he has not asserted executive privilege . He has not asserted executive privilege. Do you believe the russians interfered with the 2016 elections . It appears so. The Intelligence Community seems to be united in that. But i have to tell you, senator king, i know nothing but what ive read in the paper. Ive never received any detailed briefing on how a hacking occurred or how information was alleged to have influenced the campaign. Between the election, there was a memoranda from the Intelligence Community on october 9th that detailed what the russians were doing after the election, before the inauguration. You never sought any information about this rather dramatic attack on our country . No, i was you never asked for a briefing or attended a briefing or read the intelligence reports . You might have been very critical of me if i, as an active part of the campaign, was seeking intelligence relating to something that might be relevant to the campaign. Im not sure that would have been im not talking about the campaign. Im talking about what the russians did. Youve received no briefing on the russian active measures in connection with the 2016 election . No. I dont believe i ever did. Lets go to your letter of may 9th. You said, based upon my evaluation and for the reasons expressed by the deputy. Was that a written evaluation . My evaluation was an evaluation that had been going on for some months. Is there a written evaluation . I did not make one. I think you could classify Deputy Attorney general rosensteins memoranda as an evaluation, one that and he was the direct supervisor of the fbi director. His evaluation was based 100 on the handling of the Hillary Clinton emails, is that correct . Well, and a number of other matters as i believe, but he did explicitly lay out the errors that he thought had been made in that process by the director of the fbi. I thought they were cogent and accurate and far more significant than i think a lot of people have i didnt understand stood. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator lankford. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Attorney general sessions, good to see you again. Thank you. You speak as a man eager to set the record straight. You have spoken very plainly from the very beginning from your Opening Statement all the way through this time. I am amazed at the conversations as if an attorney general has never said there are private conversations with the president and we dont need to discuss those. It seems to be a short memory about some of the statements eric holder would and would not make to any committee in the house or the senate and would or would not turn over documents, even requested that had to go all the way through to the court system until finally the courts having to say, no, the president cant hold back documents and the attorney general cant do that. So somehow, some accusation that youre not saying every conversation about everything, theres a long history of attorney generals standing beside the president saying there are some conversations that are confidential and can be determined from there. It does seem as well that every unnamed source story somehow gets a hearing. I was in the hearing this morning with rod rose enstenste we dealt with the appropriations request which originally you were scheduled to be at, that Rod Rosenstein was taking your place to be able to cover. He was peppered with questions about russia during that conversation as well. He was very clear that he has never had conversations with you about that and that you have never requested conversations about that. Had was also peppered with questions of the latest rumor of the day, that is somehow the president is thinking about firing Robert Mueller and getting rid of him and was very clear that rosenstein himself said i am the only one that could do that and im not contemplating that, nor would i do that, and no one has any idea where the latest unnamed source story of the day is coming from but somehow its grabbing all the attention. I want to bring up a couple things to you specifically. One is to define the word recuse. I come back to your email that you sent to jim comey and others on that day, on march 2nd. This is what you had said in your email. After careful consideration following meetings with Career Department officials over the course of the past several weeks are the attorney general has decided to recuse himself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for president of the United States. The attorney generals recusal is not only with respect to such investigations if any but also extends to the Department Responses to congressional and Media Inquiries related to such investigations. Is that something you have maintained from march 2nd on . Absolutely. Actually, i maintained it from the first day i became attorney general. We discussed those matters and i felt until and if i ever made a decision to not recuse myself, i should not, as abundance of caution, involve myself in studying the investigation or evaluating it, so i did not. Also, i would note that the memoranda from my chief of staff directs these agencies, and one of the people directly it was sent to was james b. Comey, director of the fbi. You should instruct members of your staffs to not brief the attorney general or any other officials in the office of the attorney general about or otherwise involve the attorney general or other officials in the office of the attorney general in any such matters described above. And you havent requested proper and firm and Crystal Clear position that recusal meant recusal. Relating to this april 27th meeting nonmeeting in the same room at the same time. The National Interest was asked about this specifically at the time who was the host of that event. They stated this in writing. The center for National Interest decided whom to invite and the Trump Campaign did not determine or approval the list. Guests included both democrats and republicans with some among the latter supporting other candidates. Center for National Interest invited Russian Ambassador kislyak and several others. We regularly invite ambassadors and others to our events to facilitate dialogue. They stated we seated all four in the front row in deference to their diplomatic status. The center for National Interest extended equal treatment to the four investors and were invited to a short reception prior to trumps preach. The reception included approximately two dozen guests and a receiving line. The line moved quickly. Any conversations with mr. Trump were brief and could not be private. A recollection is that the interaction between mr. Trump and ambassador kislyak was limited to polite exchange of pleasantries. Were not aware of any conversation between ambassador kislyak and senator Jeff Sessions at the reception. However, in a Small Group Setting like this one, we consider it unlikely that anyone could have engaged in a meaningful, private conversation without drawing attention from others present. Do you have any reason to disagree with that . No, i think thats a very fair description of the reception situation. I appreciate them having made that statement. Great. I yield back. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you, mr. Sessions for being here. Thank you. I want to follow up a little on what senator king had asked concerning you and i are about the same vintage. We remember back in our li