you or joints. something for your heart... but do you take something for your brain. with an ingredient originally found in jellyfish, prevagen is the number one selling brain-health supplement in drug stores nationwide. prevagen. the name to remember. >> tech: don't wait for a chip like this to crack your whole windshield. with safelite's exclusive resin, you get a strong repair that you can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace. >> welcome to "inside politics." i'm jaung john king. a busy day here in washington including jeff sessions taking questions. some of them very tough for members of the judiciary committee, a committee which he

once served. amy klobuchar of minnesota asking now. let's go live to capitol hill. >> computer that is allegedly going to be housed in the white house. i just wondered if you have had communication with members of the commission about their efforts and what kind of coordination is going on. >> i don't believe i've had a single conversation with any member or staff of the commission directly. >> and have people that worked for you been coordinating with them? >> i don't know that coordinating is a correct -- we've been asked for assistance on several issues. i think it's quite appropriate for the president to have a commission to review possible irregularities in elections. you can be sure that the department of justice will fairly and objectively enforce the law. >> i believe that to be true. i'm just concerned that this commission is off doing their work. and we just found out this week

from the "washington post" that one of the employees have been charged with possession and distribution of child pornography. and so i just ask that you ask the vice president and the vice chair chris kovach to answer our questions about that. if this staffer that's been charged with in horrendous crime had access to voter data including data for minors and what's the hiring process for this commission. >> well, we would fulfill our responsibility. >> i just continue to be very concerned. >> i think the direction should go to the commission. >> okay, they will. >> not doj. >> i thought maybe you could pass it on. >> thank you. >> along the lines of elections, senator warner and i have been working on a bill we think is really important and this is more just to bring it to your attention. and i know you've recused yourself from the russia investigation. i respect that decision. i truly do. and there is just beyond that

because it's about the ads that were bought during the 2016 campaign. as we know 100,000 were bought on facebook with rubles. but in all total, the estimates are that $1.4 billion was spent on political ads in 2016. and unlike ads that are broadcast on tv or radio or printed in the newspaper, there's no requirement on online platforms that they -- any point register those ads or have a way of indicating if they're paid for and how much money is spent on them. and it is a national security issue because of what we've seen now with russia. but it is also completely absurd that we have some kinds of ads that you can check out and on public file and these others are completely dark and hidden from view. given what is going on, do you think that the election laws should be updated as overseeing the department that has

jurisdiction over the people's voting rights to better protect our democracy? >> well, in this new fast paced world with technology, perhaps there are needs to update it. and i would be pleased to work with you. >> i appreciate that, attorney general. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general sessions, welcome back. >> thank you. >> we miss you on this side of the dias. we've spent a lot of time in this hearing room together. and thank you for your good and honorable service as attorney general and the many positive things that have happened at the department of justice in the last nine months. i want to talk with you about an issue that is near and dear to your heart. which is immigration. and i want to cover a couple of areas. let's start with the daca. i want to commend you, i want to commend the president for doing the right thing terminating president obama's illegal

executive and necessity program. it was contrary to federal law. it was contrary to the president's responsibility under article 2 of the constitution to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. and it directed federal law enforcement officers to disregard binding federal law. so i commend you for announcing the suspension that have program. as you know, the president has indicated that it is now for congress to legislate a program addressed to those daca reyip sip yents and there are right now considerable ongoing debates and discussions within congress about if and whether to do so and if so how. my first question is, does the department of justice have a position on whether congress should legislate a new amnesty program for daca recipients?

>> the department has not taken a position formally on that. the president has certainly left the door wide open and indicated that he would favor something like that. and it certainly would be a lawful and proper thing for congress to do. >> so my understanding is as of september of 2017, there are 689,800 individuals currently with the daca registration. there have been estimates done that there are nearly 2 million potentially eligible daca recipients in the country. in your personal judgment, should those nearly 2 million people here illegally in this country be eligible for united states citizenship? >> my best judgment that i've expressed over the years that someone hop enters a country unlawfully, if they're given some sort of legal status a

normal legal status, should not get everything that would flow to people who properly wait their time and enter lawfully. so i've not taken a position that would support citizenship for those who have entered illegally. >> well, certainly as a senator on this side of the dias, i think you have multiple times spoken with great passion on the issue. as attorney general, do you have any view on whether those here illegally should be eligible for u.s. citizenship? >> well, i haven't changed my view at this point. >> let me ask you, as attorney general, if those some 2 million people here illegally that are potential daca recipients were granted green cards and ultimately u.s. citizenship, do you have concerns about the next step of chain migration of those individuals then bringing in potentially 3 million, 4

million, 5 million relatives as the second step of an amnesty program? >> yes. it needs to be evaluated. when you use the figure 2 million, it just raises the question that we should think carefully about like who would qualify for a daca program if one were to be carried out and the president has made clear and i think he's -- he cares about this, he cares about young people who came here at a young age, but he also believes that the nation should have an immigration policy that serves the national interest and that it should be a more merit-based policy like canada. and that's something i have believed in for a number of years. >> and let me ask a different question. in your personal judgment, should those here illegally be

made eligible for public welfare and for billions in both federal and state and local funds to provide for their various needs? >> if people are here unlawfully, it strikes me as the last thing you would want to do is subsidize that unlawfulness. and you would not, should not be normally eligible for benefits. and maybe some the things we do, no doubt about it. but still, fundamentally had, a person should not be attracted to enter the country unlawfully and then demand lawful benefits. >> let me shift. >> listening to the attorney general jeff sessions, he's on capitol hill taking questions from the senate judiciary. that l.o.s.t. issue was senator ted cruz of texas with the attorney general may have some disagreement with the president of the united states who says he's open to some sort of bipartisan deal to allowed so-called dreamers brought into this country at a young age to

somehow give them status and citizenship. ted cruz trying to get the attorney general on record voicing skep timmism they should be given status or citizenship. with us in the studio, juliette hershfield of "the new york times" it, rachel bait, ryan lizza and nia-malika henderson. a busy day in washington. i want to go back early on in the hearing. he was being questioned by dianne feinstein about the firing of james comey, now part of the special counsel's investigation. did the president do that to try and shut down the investigation. the attorney general even though he recuses himself from the investigation somehow did take a role in helping to fire the person in charge of the investigation, dianne feinstein wanted to know about communications between the president and the attorney general. she didn't have much luck. >> until such time as the president makes a decisionings with respect to this privilege,ly cannot waive that

privilege myself or otherwise compromise his ability to assert it. as a result, during today's hearing and under these circumstances today, i will not be able to discuss the content of my conversations with the president. >> good luck. >> you know, in many ways jeff sessions was warned about this at the last session this idea that you can't come before congress and not answer the questions. a very pointed exchange at the end of the last hearing that he had. i mean, this is sort of the central, one of the central questions about mueller is looking at whether or not the firing of james comey resulted, was essentially an obstruction of justice. we know from the president himself that his kind of assessment of why he fired james comey had to do with the russia thing. he said so in an interview shortly after the firing. but you imagine that this is a

question that bob mueller is going to keep digging on and that democrats are going to keep wondering and questioning about. >> this is becoming a pattern with attorney general sessions where he's not exactly citing executive privilege but he's reserving the right or the president's right to do so at some future date. until then, he can't say anything. i mean what i really think it reflects is there is a pretty vibrant internal debate going on at the white house right now how much information to turn over in this probe, just how many documents who should be able to testify and about what. they haven't really decided yet how forthcoming they want to be. the white house counsel is worried about setting precedents about the white house and the presidency that are going to be hard to walk back in the future for this president or for other presidents. they also are obviously worried about looking like they're stonewalling and they haven't really made the tough calls and what jeff sessions can say is certainly one of those about what they're going to furnish and going to withhold. >> there was a really interesting moment in this hearing just following this.

senator klobuchar asked sessions about preemptive pardons for staff who might have done something potentially that putses them in legal jeopardy. he said i don't know whether or not it's an appropriate basically side stepping the question. i have talked to republican sources on the hill who think if the president were to preemptively pardon one of his staff in legal jeopardy that, could potentially be it when it comes to the hill turning on him and potential impeachment hearings moving forward. >> republicans in control. >> absolutely with republicans in control. the fact he didn't answer that shows that president trump is potentially thinking about this. if he does it, he could find himself in real trouble. >> we know in recent days, reince priebus has been questioned. we know sean spicer former press secretary has been questioned. they both testified voluntarily and answered all the special counsel's questions. it's clear he's zeroing in on other white house involvement which should leave you to

believe he would want to talk to the attorney general of the united states. patrick leahy put the question right to jeff sessions. it took a little bit but we got an interesting answer. >> have you been interviewed or been requested to be interviewed by the special counsel either in connection with director comey's firing, the russia investigation, or your own contact with russian officials? >> well, i'd be pleased to answer that. i'm not sure i should without clearing that with the special counsel. what do you think? >> i'm just -- have you been interviewed by them? >> no. you haven't been interviewed by the special counsel in any way, shape or manner? >> the answer is no. >> the answer' no. we'll see if that holds up. want to take you back up to the hearing room right now. al franken questioning the attorney general with whom he has sparred in the past.

>> in the course of this campaign, what will you do? that was a simple, straightforward question. what you do. the implication was will will you recuse yourself. but rather than answer that question, you replied, "i have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign, and i didn't have, did not have communications with the russians." that was on january 10th. on january -- february 8th, you were confirmed. and on march 1st, "the washington post" published a story that you met with sergey kislyak, the russian ambassador, twice during the campaign, once in july on the 1th and once on september 8th and it was later reported that you met with the russian ambassador a third time at the may flower hotel in april of 2016. confronted with these reports,

you subtly changed your story. your answer under oath before this committee was that you "did not have the communications with the russians." but on the morning that the story broke, you said, "i have not met with any russians at any time to discuss any political campaign." on twitter, you said, "i never met with any russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign." so confronted with the truth, you started to qualify your answer. later in a letter, you sent to this committee to clarify your testimony and to disclose two of your three meetings you wrote, "i do not recall any discussions with the russian ambassador or

any other representative of the russian government regarding the political campaign on these occasions or any other occasions." but this summer, "the washington post" reported that american intelligence agencies intercepted communications between the russian ambassador and moscow in which he described two of his conversations with you. the april meeting at the may flower hotel and the july meeting at the republican national convention citing both former and current u.s. officials, the intercepts reportedly indicate that you had "substantive" discussions on policy matters important to moscow. according to officials familiar with russian intelligence reports, the ambassador was well-known for accurately relaying his interactions with u.s. officials back to the kremlin. attorney general sessions, in

response to this is report, the justice department declined to comment on the veracity of the intelligence intercepts but doj did assert that you did "not discuss interference in the election." which is also how you describe your communications to the senate intelligence committee. so again, the goal post has been moved. first it was, i did not have communications with russians. which was not true. then it was, i never met with any russians to discuss any political campaign. which may or may not be true. now it's, i did not discuss interference in the campaign which further narrows your initial blanket denial about meeting with the russians. since you have qualified your denial to say that you did not

"discuss issues of the campaign with russians," what in your view constitutes issues of the campaign? >> well, let me just say this without hesitation. that i conducted no improper discussions with russians at any time regarding a campaign or any other item facing this country. and i want to say that first. and that's been the suggestion that you've raised and others. that somehow we had conversations that were improper. >> may i suggest that. >> no, no, no, you had a long time, senator franken. i'd like to respond. i think i have a. >> we'll note that the senator cruz went two minutes over. so they're going to cut me off. so i want to ask you some questions. >> no, mr. chairman, i don't have to sit in here and listen

to his. >> you're the one hop testified. >> charges without having a chance to respond. give me a break. >> the time he's taking right now, i'll give you that in equal time. >> okay, thank you. go ahead into it was not a simple question, senator franken. >> i'm sorry? >> it was not a simple question. the lead-in to your question was very, very troubling. and i answered to you in a way that i felt was responsive to what you raised in your question. let me read it to you. you said, cnn has just accomplished a story, meaning that day, while we were in the hearing that none of us had heard about. >> keep reading. > and i'm telling you this about this news story that's just been published. i'm not expecting you to know whether or not it's true. but cnn jupublished a story

alleging that the intelligence community, that's of the united states of america, provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that "russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about mr. trump." you went on to say these documents also allegedly say, "there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government." now, again, i'm telling you this as it's coming out. so you know but if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there's any evidence that anyone affiliated with the trump campaign communicated with the russian government in the course of this campaign, what you do? so taken aback by this dramatic

statement that i had never heard before and knew nothing about, i responded this way. senator franken, i'm not aware of those activities. i have been called a surrogate a time or two in this campaign and i did not have -- i didn't have, did not have communications with the russians and i'm unable to comment on it. i don't think that can fairly be interpreted as saying i never had conversations with any russians. it was refined directly to the suggestion that that there was a continuing exchange of information between trump's surrogates and intermediaries for russian government which did not happen, at least not to my knowledge and not with me. and that's why i responded the way i do. i'm disappointed, yes, you can say what you want to about the accuracy of it, but i think it was a good faith response to a

dramatic event at the time. and i don't think it's fair for you to suggest otherwise. three minutes and then finish. >> he took more than three minutes. >> no he took about 2:30. no. >> how much do you want? i don't want to take a lot of time bargaining with you. >> i didn't take as much time as senator franken took. >> hey, let me just deal with senator franken. three more minutes, please. >> okay. first of all, you said i didn't have, did not have communications with the russians. this was about ongoing communications you had three communicationsing with kislyak. and now you can't recall answering senator leahy. you can't recall whether you

discussed what you discussed with kislyak. >> what i would say to you is. >> please. >> go ahead you go make a lot of allegations, senator, and it's hard for me to respond to them in the time i've got. >> can i have a little bit more time? oka okay. >> you've said today in response to senator leahy that you don't recall whether you talked about the campaign, you don't recall whether you talked about issues and trump's views on issues with russia. those are very, very relevant to the campaign. whether a surrogate from the campaign is talking with the russian ambassador about the candidate's views on russian

policy especially at the republican national convention, at the may flower hotel the day before trump is going to give his first -- his maiden speech on foreign policy. that's very different not being able to recall what you discussed with him is very different than saying i have not had communications with the russians. the ambassador from russia is russian. and how your justification or how your responses morphed from i did not have communications with the russians to, i did not discuss substantive -- i did not discuss any the political

campaign and then finally going to i did not discuss interference in the election, that to me is moving the goal post every time. and we're starting off with an extra -- and by the end, we're going to a you know, a 75-yard field goal. if it has to be us you know, saying i didn't discuss interfering with the election is your last, is your last statement, that's a very different bar than i can tell you i did not meet with any russians. >> relatively short answer. >> so he gets to do about ten minutes improperly framing this subject and i'm given a short chance to respond? >> proceed, please. >> but then we're going to call on senator. >> foremost, senator franken, you and i have had a good

relationship on this committee. i would tell my colleagues, i think most of, you know, i've committed myself to high level of public service. to reach the highest standards of ethics and decency in my service. to be honest about things that i say. and so you have now gone through there long talk that i believe is totally unfair to me. it all arose from this question when you -- when it was charged that these documents allegedly say "there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trump's surrogates," as if all of them, trump's surrogates. and intermediaries for the russian government. isn't that what you said? you're shaking your head. >> all trump surrogates. >> it said trump's surrogates. it didn't say some of. it said his surrogates.

and i felt a need to respond. and i responded on the spot, we've been six hours in the hearing. the end of the day, and i said, i'm not aware of those activities. and i wasn't. and am not. i don't believe they occurred. and i said i have been called a surrogate a time or two in that campaign, and i did not have communications with the russians. i'm unable to comment on it. i was talking about as a surrogate in the campaign. i didn't have continuing series -- continuing exchange of information. so now everything else, so now you take that and say if i ever met with a russian, i've not been candid with the committee and i reject ha. >> senator of sass. >> there was some drama there. sort of distracted po you for a minute. i was paying enough attention i dumped a dr. pepper on senator

cruz. i would like to continue talking about the russians but in the context of the long-term objectives that putin has to undermine american institutions and the public trust. obviously the 2016 election matters a lot and there are multiple ongoing investigations about that. i'm trying to talk about something different. the longer term goal they have because anybody who reads intelligence, this isn't through the prism of how voted for in the 2016 election or what you think happened in the 2016 election as important as all of that is, anybody who reads intelligence knows that we face a sophisticated long-term effort by a foreign add ser sear to undermine our foreign policy and our ability to lead in the world by trying to undermine confidence in american institutions. there's nobody who's reading intelligence right now that doesn't know that vladimir putin has that objective. so this shouldn't be a, this part shouldn't be a republican versus democratic issue. putin is attunist.

which means that is any partisan or ideological alignment he has is temporary. he wants to undermine america. and every patriotic american ought to be concerned about that. you listen to certain news outlets and it sounds like there's a russian behind everything that's happening in america and it's laughable but you listen to other news outlets and it's seemingly the case that putin is somebody we should trust and he has america's best interests at heart which is more absurd. i think we know people reading intelligence know that russia is going to be back in 2018, 2020, and they have goals to undermine american democratic, republican small r, small d, institutions anton undermine our confidence in these institutions and top exacerbate american on american hatred. we live at a time where info ops and propaganda and misinformation are a far more cost effective way for people to try to weaken is the united states of america than by thinking they can outspend us at

a military level though we're underinvesting in military and long-term planning. as the nation's chief law enforcement officer and a supervisor of multiple components of our intelligence community, i'm curious about your views on this issue and i want to ask you a series of questions. do you think we're doing enough to prepare for future interference by russia and other foreign adversarieses in the information space. >> probably not. we're not. and the matter is so complex that will for most of us, we're not able to fully grasp the technical dangers that are out there. we have commercial penetration by some of our toughest trading partners. we've got disruption in interference it appears by russian officials people. it requires real review. >> and so under your leadership,

what concrete steps has the department taken or should the department take to learn the lessons of 2016 for the purposes of fighting against future foreign election interference? >> well, we are looking at a number of things. we specifically intensely reviewing the commercial interference and theft of trade secrets and important data information that some private companies have spent decades developing and hundreds of millions of dollars and have it stolen in a moment. and we've got indictments that deal with some of those issues. the national security division of the department of justice has got some really talented people. the fbi has as good a group of experts on sophisticated computer technology as probably exists in the world. but whether we're at the level

we need to be yet, i don't think so. >> so let's distinguish between two things. the first is, i think you were asked earlier if you have confidence in the january 6th, 2017 intelligence community assessment of russia attempts to interfere in the 2016 election. i had stepped out for a minute. >> i acknowledge that had that at my confirmation. i have no reason top deny that or doubt that. >> you have confidence in the integrity and professionalalism of the men and women in the intelligence community. >> yes. >> there may be an issue whether or not our pipeline is robust enough. do we have enough people coming into the national security division, if you were arriving at doj today as the attorney general and won focus onn sd for the first 100 days you're there, talk us through how you would prioritize in that space because my view is, that we're investing way too little in the pipeline to be ready for offensive and defensive aspects of cyber at

large but especially info ops and misinformation campaigns. >> well, the misinformation campaign is something that i'm not sure we're at the bottom of yet. and it needs to continue to had examined. when i was on armed services committee, i got legislation passed to review our entire defense department situation to see how vulnerable we are there. and we have many vulnerabilities in our defense department. and our missile systems perhaps. and then we've got the commercial penetration that we have some cases that are ongoing now that validate that concern quite clearly. >> so that's looking chiefly at current hardware and software exposures and retrospectively. but do you think the department of justice as a proactive role in looking at hardening our democratic process.

>> i think you make a valuable point. if you have any legislation or thoughts on that, i would be glad to hear it. and i'm not sure we have a specific review under way at this point in time. of course, most of this has to be coordinated with the intelligence community. n sa. cia. the director of national interrogati intelligence. >> i appreciate your responsiveness to me on a number of other issues. i will follow up with you in a less public forum about that. i'm nearly at time if i can run over by 30 seconds, i would like to just draw to your attention, general, the fact that we have a number of crimes committed by illegal aliens in nebraska. some of these are some of the most heart rending crimes you can imagine. i want to point out this isn't just a case of cherry picking it

particular isolated bad apples. >> the attorney general jeff sessions being questioned by ben sasse on nebraska. it the attorney general has been on capitol hill all morning facing questions on issues ranging from his administration of the department to sanctuary cities. many of the questions about the russia election meddling investigation. he has recused himself but there's a controversy about his answers and his dealings with russian officials and just there from senator sasse, an interesting conversation about is the country prepared, is the country's cyber war and other legal protections prepared for 201, 2020 and beyond. the attorney general of the united states saying "probably not." on an issue in which the president of the united states doesn't like to talk about it at all and washes it away and waves it away as if it's not significant whenever it's raises. >> yes, the second issue where he broke from at least one version of what trump said on the big issue, on daca he seems to have a disagreement with where the white house was on that and on the russia investigation that trump

frequently calls a hoax and something made up by the media. sessions answered very forthrightly that he trusts and believes the intelligence community's report that was published and that indeed russia has a very active interference campaign in 2016 and going forward. >> that's more of a policy issue. he said he believd our vulnerabilities included the defense department and missile system. that's a pretty sober, everyone will focus on russia investigation. that's a sober comment from the attorney general. that was on the policy question posed by sasse. is the justice department doing enough to prevent this in the future. just before that a more personal back and forth with al franken going backing to sessions confirmation hearing where he was asked a question did he have any meetings with russians and what the democrats say is he said no. jeff sessions says no, in the context of your question, my answer is truthful even though he had to antidepressant it. but the democrats al franken at the latest, pat leahy before him

hip trying to say the chief law enforcement of the united states officer is a liar. >> yeah, he was ready for that question, too. he had sessions pulled out a piece of paper and basically read al franken's question and this is how i answered you and this is why. he was trying to make some sort of justification the reason i said i had no contact was it was sort of a broad statement you were accusing me of col including with the russians. >> i'm sorry interrupt. >> senator chris coons. >> there are many letters that have not been answered by the department. so if your department hasn't yet answered, could you please, mr. attorney general, just answer directly, how are employees participating in special council mueller's investigation instructed about your recusal? >> the day i took office, after i had told this committee that i

would meet with the ethics officials at the department to determine whether recusal was appropriate, the day after that, we had my first meeting. we had a series of meetings and since i realized that there's a possibility i would need to recuse myself at the first meeting, i took -- i received no information whatsoever from that investigation, never met with investigators, didn't even know who the lawyers were officially working the case. and reviewed no documents relating to it. i had a little brief from the ethics official the nature of the case because you need to know something about the case before you can make an official recusal decision. when i recused myself, we sent an e-mail out to all the key

people in the department of justice including the fbi director comey that i would be not -- i would not be involved in the investigation, that neither i nor my staff, the attorney general's staff were to be involved in this investigation or receive information about it. director comey once said that he didn't get this, but we've got the document that he mailed to him directly by name. i'm sure he gets a lot and he may have missed it. but we definitely did that and i've complied with that rigorously. >> if i could just make sure. >> for the purpose of the russian investigation, the attorney general of the united states is deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. he makes all the decisions and manages the processes and guarantees its integrity. >> have you spoke within president trump about special counsel mueller or his

investigation at any point? >> i've never discussed anything with him of -- well, i'm not going to comment on the conversations we've had because i think that violates the privilege. executive privilege. >> do you think the deputy attorney general made the right decision to appoint a special counsel? you spoke previously in response to another senator's questions about knowing mr. mueller, having respect for his professionalism, his experience. do you think that was the right choice? >> the decision to appoint a special counsel depends on the facts and circumstances of the case of which he was fully apprised. and i'm not. so i'm not able to be opine about his judgment. but you know, he's a talented and experienced prosecutor. >> you made a statement at the outset that some of the core mission of the department of justice, fighting violent crime, keeping our nation safe, respecting rule of law and

promoting rule of law, i think it is important as you have stated that this investigation reach its natural and full conclusion without any interference. in your view, if the president asked for your advice about whether or not to remove or fire the special counsel, would that be an appropriate conversation for him to have with you? >> i have not thought that through. but it's -- if it deals with the special counsel, i think the communication would need to be directed to the person who supervises the special counsel and that would be the deputy attorney general. >> if the special counsel were removed, would you protest or consider resigning in order to clarify the importance of that position in that investigation being followed to its end? >> you know, i won't attempt to deal with a hypothetical. i think it would be best just to leave my answer as i gave it. >> let me move to another

recusal. you in your confirmation hearing you said and i think it is in response to a question from the chairman. that you had offered it be the proper thing for me to do to recuse myself from any questions involving investigations that involve secretary clinton and that were raised during the campaign. chairman said when you say you'll recuse, you mean you'll actually recuse and the decision therefore will fall to the deputy attorney general and you say after some intervening sentences there is a procedure for that which i will follow. you've just shared with me you followed that promptly. yet, on may 9th, deputy attorney general rosenstein delivered to to you a memo entitled restoring public confidence in the fbi that is about director comey's conduct during the clinton e-mail investigation and concludes that the director handled the conclusion of that e-mail investigation incorrectly. is that correct? >> yes. you're talking about the recommendation.

>> yes. >> and then on the same day, you penned a memo to the president relying exclusively on the memo where you recommend that director comey be removed, correct? >> that's correct. >> so if you were recusing yourself from any investigations or issues that relate to the secretary clinton and the e-mail investigation had, why did you write a memo to the president exclusively relying on that matter? the administration's stated reason for removing director comey was his conduct relating to the clinton e-mail investigation. why would you participate directly in that matter if you were recused from considering it. >> well, first, attorney general does not recuse himself from supervision of will the fbi, a $7 billion agency that he's responsible for because he may have recused himself about one or more matters that the fbi was working on. number one.

number two, the clinton case had been closed. it was not an ongoing matter at that time. number three, the discussion about whether or not plaintiff comey conducted himself properly did not deal with whether or not there was sufficient evidence to go forward or not with regard to a charge against secretary clinton. it dealt with whether or not he acted properly when he just closed the case without instead of the attorney general's office. so the prosecutors and the attorney generals office. so i think it's quite different, senator coons. i'm glad to have the opportunity to discuss that, but i'm confident that i did not -- i was not required to recuse myself on the decision of

whether or not to keep secretary -- director comey. >> mr. attorney general, if i might just conclude, if your letter on may 9th, you say i'm committed to the rule of law at the department of justice. i'm concerned that we have a different understanding of the scope of your recusal and the relevancy of the e-mail investigation when that was the cited reason for the firing of the fbi director. >> mr. chairman, i'll just respond and say, i'm very comfortable i did not violate what i told this committee or proper rules in not reducing myself on the decision of mr. comey because it was not based on the merits of the investigation. it was based on his performance publicly and in regard to announcing a decision that was a decision he was not entitled to announce. >> senator tillis. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> the attorney general jeff sessions in that exchange right there with senator chris coons

fascinating exchange. this part of the democratic questioning a broad democratic effort to undermine the attorney general's credibility, his conduct in office, some of the decisions he made with senator coons it was his decision to be involved in the firing of james comey even though as the attorney general he had said he was recused from anything involved with the russia investigation because of his role in the trump campaign with any decisions about the hillary clinton e-mail investigation because he thought that was proper. yet, he participated in the firing recommended the firing of the fbi director who was in charge of the clinton investigation and in charge of the russia investigation, the attorney general making the case it wasn't about the merits of either case, it was about his performance. democrats think that is a distinction without a difference. >> what we're showing is there's no recourse that congress or the democrats have to penalize sessions in any way. he says it was outside the scope of his recusal. it appears that he has -- he gets to define that and i don't really see what they -- what they can do here.

i mean, i think to most people looking at it, at least to me, the facts that he accused himself from the investigation and but had ongoing conversations with the white house about the investigator himself and recommend that he be fired boy, that sure sounds like if you're going to recuse yourself, you don't want to be part of that. i don't see what they can do here. there seems to be no recourse they have. >> it is a constant complaint that you cannot square that circle. you said you would have nothing to do with these investigations yet you participated in the man leading the investigations. >> senator coons was taking the attorney general at his word that given. >> the reason was the reason. >> the reason was the clinton e-mail investigation and not the russia investigation. even then he's pointing out he was supposed to be recused from that and the attorney general tried to make this distinction between the process that have investigation and the substance. what kept coming back to me as he talked was how angry we know president trump was at jeff

sessions for recusing himself. this is precisely why because he has to distance himself. he has to now explain away anytime he gets close to either of those issues. that is exactly what donald trump did not want to see happen and thought was a betrayal. >> that exchange a question about his performance as attorney general. earlier, a heated exchanging with al franken. a question about his dealings with russian officials during the campaign, whether there was any collusion, whether he had any conversations with the russians during his campaign. he said no. we have learned since then he had several meetings with the bam bass door to the united states. senator franken says his answers keep evolving. to him, listen, still unsatisfactory. >> that's been the suggestion that you've raised and others that somehow we had conversations that were improper. >> may i suggest that. >> no, no, no, you had a long time, senator franken. i'd like to respond. >> we'll note that senator cruz went two minutes over.

so i don't -- they're going to cut me off. so i want to ask you some questions. >> i -- no, mr. chairman, i don't have to sit in here and listen to his. >> you're the one who testified. >> charges without having a chance to respond. give me a break. >> the attorney general is a former member of the senate before the hearing, if you weren't watching at the very beginning he patted senator franken on the shoulder and they had a relatively friendly exchange as the attorney general walked in and said hello to people. most of this has been conducted in a professional tone. there's bad blood between those two. >> there is in some ways bad blood between the other democrats, too. this goes back to the other hearing. we were trying to figure out, this seems like the first time that franken has been able to go back to that january hearing and figure out what he was saying and sort of pin him down and sessions clearly not really

wanting to sit there and take it from franken in that way. you saw his temper flair a little bit in that exchange. >> even with him explaining that's not what i meant, i was saying i hadn't talked to russians about the campaign and about collusion, i was just talking vaguely trying to defend himself against you know al franken pointing out that he had said something that was later contradicted, there's like the saying in politics, if you're explaining you're losing and so him trying to say wait, this is not really what i meant. there were like subtitles to what i meant, that doesn't look great either. even though he had an explanation here, i think to the public, this is going to be unsavory. >> he really has moved the goal on this. he did say he didn't talk to the russians. it was a sort of blanket statement. i understand he was trying to say it was in a larger context. it seemed like a blanket statement at the time. now he's saying there were no

improper conversations. that's the bottom line. democrats have charged that original statement is perjury. perjury is tough to prove. >> he should resign as a result of those initial exchange.s. >> at a minimum, his answer as more information came into the public life, his explanation has evolved. democrats think he was lying from the get go. he says he took a different piece of the question. we'll continue to follow the hearing. up next an ugly headline after president's call to a fallen soldier's wife. did he tell her this is what her husband signed up for. more on the claimant controversy next.

he's a nascar champion who's she's a world-class swimmer who's stared down the best in her sport. but for both of them, the most challenging opponent was... pe blood clots in my lung. it was really scary. a dvt in my leg. i had to learn all i could to help protect myself. my doctor and i choose xarelto® xarelto®... to help keep me protected. xarelto® is a latest-generation blood thinner... ...that's proven to treat and reduce the risk of dvt and pe blood clots from happening again. in clinical studies, almost 98% of patients on xarelto® did not experience another dvt or pe. here's how xarelto works. xarelto® works differently. warfarin interferes with at least six blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective... ...targeting just one critical factor, interacting with less of your body's natural blood-clotting function. don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor as this may increase risk of blood clots.

while taking, you may bruise more easily, or take longer for bleeding to stop. it may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, \s unusual bruising, or tingling. if you've had spinal anesthesia, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures and before starting xarelto® about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. you've got to learn all you can... ...to help protect yourself from dvt and pe blood clots. talk to your doctor about xarelto®. there's more to know.

. of across the country right now, four american families mourning the loss of a soldier killed during a special forces mission in africa two weeks ago. their deaths should be above politics. sadly that has not been the case since monday when president

trump falsely said his predecessors is never called gold star familis. the story took another unfortunate turn last night when sergeant la david johnson's body arrived in florida. the democratic congresswoman with the widow says the president called to offer condolences but she says he chose horrible words. >> never said the word hero. he said to the wife, well, i guess he knew what he was getting into. how insensitive can you be? >> i did hear him say i'm sure he knew what he was signing up for. and but it still hurts. >> after defending himself on twitter this morning, the president said there at the white house a short time ago. >> didn't say what that congresswoman said. didn't say it at all. she knows it and she now is not saying it. i did not say what she said. and i'd like her to make the statement again because i did

not say that she said. i had a very nice conversation with the woman with the wife who sounded like a lovely woman. did not say what the congresswoman said and most people aren't too surprised to hear that. >> we've been trying to reach the congresswoman. she tweeted this after the president spoke. she said i still stand by my account of the call between real donald trump and me yee shah johnson, that is her name. >> i'm sad we have to have this conversation we do. >> you have the president sometimes politicize the deaths of soldiers. he brought in john kelley's, the death of his son as his own defense what president obama did or didn't do in terms of his reaching out to the families of soldiers. we'll see what happens with this. the president suggesting there's proof that he didn't say those words. perhaps there's a transcript. perhaps the congresswoman now has that. we don't know the. we're reaching out to sources to figure out what's going on. >> the official white house

response is this is an official white house conversation. they won't give us a transcript. the president can tweet without staff approval. >> what was so striking, the president feels like he has to defend himself against this charge of the unflattering account of the conversation. he didn't take the opportunity from front of all the reporters and he has to know he has a broad audience when he's in the white house meeting with senators and being asked these questions. he didn't take the opportunity to say i do think he was a hero. my heart goes out to the family. none of that. you have to wonder. >> which we have seen repeatedly because he's in a confrontation about, it becomes about sparring and him not about four american heros. >> this is where he went on monday when he was asked about whether he had reached out to these families yet we i hadn't. he said had he written letters but they hand the gone out. he went to i've done better on this than my predecessors, a him versus then. >> i have sources on the hill who are totally hitting their

heads against the wall because of the way he responded to this. they're asking why is he even talking about this? this is a distraction from what we should be talking about. they will have to deal with the subsidies and daca. >> this should be if there is just one place in american politics that is sacred, this should be it. thanks for joining us on "inside politics." wolf blitzer up next. >> hello, i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:00 p.m. here in washington. 6:00 p.m. in niger. 8:30 p.m. in tehran. where after you're watching from around the world, thanks for joining us. president trump now picking a fight with a florida congresswoman after being slammed for his comments to the widow of a u.s. soldier killed in an ambush in niger. sergeant la david johnson was killed in the ambush along with three other u.s. soldiers. his body was returned home to miami on tuesday. in the drive to the a