we use the term indenial. my point is if you're investigating a foreign terrorist, knowing with whom that person is communicating may be relevant. >> that's not my question. my question was -- we're getting ready to maybe reauthorize 702. i don't think we ought to reauthorize it until we get from the intelligence community why there are based on the statements that you have made to see whether or not they're violating the law and they refuse to give this committee the information about how many people have been caught up in that, and we've been -- and then stonecalled by the intelligence community saying we can't do it. why can't the intelligence community get some geek over at best buy and have them come in and around that question with a few little taps into the big computer system? we just want the number. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the witness may answer the question. >> as i've sprained.

i've heard the director explain this. he's better positioned than i. >> so we don't know. still don't know. thanks, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from illinois guy ghoulier recognized. >> i would like to ask about sexual assault by the president of the united states of america. over the past few days, echoing -- at least 16 women have come forward to say that the president of the united states felt them um, kissed them without permission, put his hands under their clothing without permission, groped them, touched their genitalia, walked into dressing rooms unannounced to see them naked, made unwanted if advances, and other clear violations of the law. i believe the women, and i generally give the women and their word a lot of weight.

when the him in question is donald trump, there should be no further discussion. everything regardless of their -- can clearly see, we have a man in the presidency who has a very difficult relationship with the truth. in this case we have women who were made to feel powerless, insignificant, who at great possible are risk have come forward. i believe them. al franken is resigning from the senate, and it goes no further than this committee where two senior members resigned, because women came forward and made credible claims. that just happened last week. others are among the additional members who are -- right now with the number two person in the justice department, sworn to tell the truth, i think it's important to get your opinion on

whether there are grounds for a criminal investigation or an ethics investigation against the president of is the united states of america. for example, rachel crooks is one of the 16 women that we know of who have come forward. she said that president trump, before he was president, quote, kissed me directly on the mouth. it was so inappropriate that he thought i was so insignificant he could do that. jo hart, said he absolutely groped me, and he just lipid his hand there touching my private parts, end quote. these are just two examples of unwelcome sexual advances. i think were he on the subway or in a restaurant would not either or both of these incident be enough to get him arrested? in your experience as the number two most important law enforcement officer in the united states, but before you answer that, how about these cases?

kristin anderson in an interview said, quote, the person on my right who unbeknownst to me at the time was donald trump, put their hand up my skirt. he did touch my have aina through my underwear, end quote. cassandra said he continually groped my ass and invited me to his hotel room. end quote. these are very serious allegations of crimes committed by the president, are they not? before you answer the question, i think it's important to point out that these stories are corroborated by one of the most important witnesses of all -- the president himself corroborates this. he told tv host billy bush when he was miked up for an interview with "interat the same time tonight" i just start kissing them. it's like a magnet, and when you're a star, they let you do it. you can do anything. grab them by -- and you know what he said. you can do anything, end quote.

samantha hovley said on national television when he was a contestant, trump would come back unannounced to the dressing room. she tells her story and once again, we have audiotape of the president corroborating this account when he told howard stern well, quote, i'll tell you the funniest is before a show, i'll go backstage and everyone's getting dressed and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, but i'm allow to do go in, because i'm the owner. he went on to say the chicks will be almost naked, end quote. mr. rosenstein, i value your opinion on this. would it be appropriate to evaluate these investigations by the president of the united states? >> congressman, i am happy to take any questions regarding oversite of the department of justice. with regard to that matter or any other allegation that you think, i would invite you to

submit the evidence and the department will review it if you believe there's a federal crime. that applies to any alleged violation by any person. that's all i have to say about that. >> but you're the number two top law enforcement officer in the nation. let me ask you -- if a person on a train went and kissed a woman, is that a crime. >> if it's a federal train, it might be a federal crime. >> it's am track. >> it wouldn't be appropriate to me to answer hypotheticals. >> as the number two law enforcement officer, you don't think it's a crime for a woman to be on a train and be in a restaurant sitting and a stranger, unwanted stripinger would come up to her and grope her and kiss her, that that's not a crime. >> the time of the gentleman has spired. the witness may answer the question. >> i would have to know the facts and evaluate a law. i've never prosecuted a case

like that in federal court, mr. congressman. if you have an allegation by any person at any time, you should feel free to submit it. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. moreno for five minutes. thank you, chairman. deputy attorney general, it's good to see you again. >> thank you. >> we did a lot of good work together over the years. >> yes, sir. >> i'm proud of it, and still proud to tell people i was part of the justice department. i have a strong bias for the justice department. i know your character. i know what kind of man you are and i have the most confidence new that you will direct that agency to follow the rule of law and to see that everything is above board. 99.99% of the people i worked with there are good law enforcement honest people.

i have ultimate respect for them. they helped me in many cases. i would like you to clarify a procedure. tell me if i'm right here. special counsel is appointed by the attorney general, or under the circumstances by you, and that's special counsel reports to you. >> correct. am i correct in saying an independent counsel is appointed again by the attorney or you, but that counsel is independent and does not report to anyone in the essence of can i do a, bo.c? is that. >> under the statute that lapsed in 1999, the appointment would be made by a federal judge. so there would be no role for the department in the selection or oversite. >> doj wouldn't be involved at all? >> correct.

i've been in many interviews involving many cases. what i've seen handled was above board, but would you explain to the committee what a 302 is? >> yes, a 302 is simply the form newspaper better for an fbi interview report. after conducting a witness interview, it's a summary of the interview and we refer it to that as a form 302. an interview, whether it's done by an investigators or attorney, or back in my district in pennsylvania, is there usually an assistant attorney present in those interviews?

>> there's no rule, but typically there is not -- >> who make the final decision about whether immunity is granted? >> it would be a prosecutors to make that determination, and depending on what type of immunity, it might be require a higher level of rue view. we in law enforcement look for a proffer. from that individual or their attorney, who are you going to tell us why should we give you immunity? >> we have a strong preference for obtaining a proffer prior to any grant of immunity. we don't always do it the but we have a strong preference for it. >> i have never been in a situation, and perhaps it's not

unique, where immunity has been given where there has not been a proffer. is that -- would that be an extreme unusual situation, where someone would say, get their immunity, but we have no idea what they're going to say. >> i wouldn't characterize it as a u.s. attorney. i had to approve formal immunity and the majority of the cases there had been a proffer. if there wasn't a proffer, i would typically ask why. so i can't characterize what percentage of cases might fall into that category. >> also any evidence that would be collected, such an laptons, computers, thing of that nature. again there would be a thorough investigation of that equipment before immunity would be given to someone? >> it would depend upon the circumstance, whether we believed. >> butting there we don't give blanket immunity just because --

>> we should not give immunity just because somebody asks for it. >> that's all i have. thank you. i know you'll keep an eye on things and keep everything aboveboard. it's a pleasure to see you again. >> likewise. thank you. >> i yield back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, in deutsche. >> thank you for being here. there's been a lot of dates and timelines. i would like to walk through for the benefit of my colleagues, just a short timeline from this year. in january it was concluded -- we asocieties vladimir putin ordered an influence campaign, the goals to undermined public faith in the democratic progress, den gait secretary clinton. we fur asset that the russian government developed a clear preference for donald trump. has he given any reason to dispute that?

>> no. jan wear 24th, michael flynn denied to the fbi agencies that he discussed u.s. sanctions with russia before he took office. on january 26th, salley yates told the counsel that flynn lied about his contact with kiylyek everybody on the 15th public reports of telephone reports show that members of the trump campaign and other associates had repeated contacts with senior russian intelligence officials in the year before the election. on march 16th, documents released by representative cummings show that flynn we have had money from rush state-owned tv for a speech he made in moscow. on march 20th, fbi director acknowledged an investigation into possible collusion between the trump campaign and russia. trump met with russian diplomats and revealed classified information, and told them he

hired the head of the fbi called him a nut job and said, i face great pressure because of russia. that's taken off. on may 11th the president told nbc news the russia thing is a made-up store. on june 7th we learned president trump urged comey to drop the investigation. there was an undisclosed meeting with donald trump junior and rush sources. five days after that, a veteran of the russian military we learned also attempt eed attend that meeting. on october the 5th, george pap

do th p between in a state of offense, we learned that he reached out regarding his connections that he could help arrange a meeting between trump and putin. on october 27th, former trump campaign chairman paul man a fort and rick gates were indicted on multiple counts including conspiracy against the united states. in november the president of the united states met with vladimir putin said, and i quote, he said he didn't meddle. i asked him again. you can ask only so many times. every 250i78 he sees me he said i didn't do that, when he tells me that, he means it. the president went on to say, give me a break, talking about the national security folks who put together that report that i quoted earlier. give me a break, they are political hacks. on december 1st mike flynn pleaded guilty to one count in making a false statement to the fbi about conversations he with had the russian ambassador. this is a little walk-through of what happened over the past

year. i would like to ask you, mr. rosenste rosenstein, i'd like to quote some of my colleagues. one of them said the special counsel's investigation into whether the trump campaign assisted in its effort to interfere in the election is an attempt to overthrow the government. do you believe that, mr. rosenstein? >> no. >> he said we're at risk of a could y coup d'etat. >> there is an oversight. >> and if we allow an unaccountable person to undermine the duly elected person of the united states, is pursuing a rule of law undermining the duly elected president of the united states? >> no, it is not. >> one of my orel colleagues said we've got to clean this town up. he talked about firing mueller. one of our formers colleagues accused mueller of having a vendetta. mr. rosenstein, do you believe

he has a vendetta against the president? >> no, i do not. >> i would just conclude this walk-through, this one year in american history, makes it impossible to understand how it is my colleagues on the other side continue to launch attacks not only against reporters, against the fbi, against the special counsel, but they do so to throw dirt on the story, to make it try to go away. they may want to bury their heads in the stand, about mr. chairman, i want to make clear they will not bury the rule of law in the united states. i yield back. >> there is a lot of issue issue to talk about, the authorization is pending in congress on gun violence, the opioid, criminal justice reform.

when i go home to south carolina this weekend, true me no one will tell me about any of these issues. they will ask me what in the hell is going a with the department of justice and the fbi. the reason we have special counsel, and you know it. the reason we have special counsel is because of a conflict of interest. the regulation itself makes specifically reference to a conflict of interest. we don't like conflicts, because it undercoat people's confidence in the process and the result. so let's be clear why we have special counsel. there was either a real or perceived conflict of interest that we are fearful would either impact 9 result or people's confident in the process. that's why we have something called special counsel, and that is why we have special counsel in this fact pattern. then lo and behohn, those who are supposed to make sure there are no conflict of interest seem

to have a few of their own. there's a senior prosecutor who sent obsequious e-mails to a fact witness. she can be described as nothing other than a fact witness. they got off the collusion, she may be the most important fact witne witness. then we have prosecutors assigned to.

then attended what he hoped to be a victory pattern for hillary clinton. we have a senior doj official with an office that used to be two doors down with yours, meeting with fusion gps, and of course fusion gps was paying for russian dirt on the very person they're supposed to be objectively investigating. then that same senior doj official's wife, the one that met with fusion gps, his wife was on the payroll of fusion gps. then we have a senior investigators assigned to help draft the exoneration letter when we changed the letter to extremely careless? interviewed secretary clinton in an interview i have never seen. i doubt you have either in your career as a prosecutos interviewed mike at flynn, actively involved in the investigation into the trump

campaign before the inspector general found his text. so this agent in the middle of almost everybody, sent pro-clinton texts, anti-trump texts to his paramour. he said i can protect the condition at many levels. he said hillary clinton should win 100 million to nothing. think about that mr. deputy attorney general, that's a pretty overwhelming victory. 100 million to 0. when i read that last night, what i thought was this conflict of interest-free senior agent of the fbi can't think of a single solitary american who would vote for donald trump. that's where the zero comes in. not a single solitary american he can imagine would vote for donald trump. this is the conflict of

interest-free special agent assigned. then he went on, if that weren't enough, to bealso trump supporters by say he could smell them at a walmart in virginia. then he said this. they fully deserve to go and demonstrate the absolute bigoted nonsense of trump. but he wasn't content to just disparage donald trump. he to disparage donald trump's family. this is what he said, mr. deputy attorney general. the douche bags are about to come out, talking about his first lady and children. this conflict of interest-free special agent of the fbi. this is who we were told we needed to have an objective, impartial, fair, conflict of interest free agent. he's open i vitting a candidate

he has bias against. if that's not enough, he says trump is an f'ing idiot. what the f just happened to our country. this is the same man who said he would save our country. what happens when people who are supposed to cure the conflict of interest have even greater conflicts of interest than those they replace? you nor i nor anyone else would ever sit piaeter strzok on a ju knowing what we know now. why -- my final question to you, and i pressure the chairman's patience. how would you help me answer that question when i go back to south carolina this weekend? >> congressman, first of all, with regard to do specialty counsel, mr. strzok was already working on the investigation when the special counsel

appointed. the appointment i made was to rob mueller, so i recommend you tell your constituents that rob mueller, rod rosenstein and chris wray are accountable, and we'll make sure that there's no bias within any matter of the jurisdiction of the justice department. when we have any evidence of inappropriate conduct, we'll take action. that's what mr. mueller did as soon as he learned about the issue. i anticipate that's the rest of our prosecute owes, our new group of u.s. attorneys, justice department appointees, they understand the rules and they understand the responsibility to defend the integrity of the department congressman, that is the beassurance i can give you, but there's one other point. you should tell your constituents that we exposed this issue because we're ensuring that the inspector general conducts a thorough and effective investigation, and if

there is any evidence of broke prity, he's going to surface it and report about it publicly. >> i'll try. >> the chairman h >>. >> thank you mr. rosenstein. in february the department of justice changed its litigation position. the texas photo i.d. case. did you have any involvement in the decision to reverse the -- that the texas voter i.d. law was intentional and indiscriminato indiscriminatory. >> i did not. in uthe department of justice changed its position, now defending ohio's voter purging law, were you involved in the decision to change this position and now side with the voter purging law? >> i was at the department at that time, but i don't believe i have any involvement in the decision. were you involved in the decision to file an amicus brief in the cake shows versus colorado.

>> that decision was made by our inspector quenelle -- pardon me, our solicitor general. >> you described the special counsel as a her heroic figure served his country confirmed eye nan mussily assed fbi director. i take it your judgment on mr. pluler has not changed today. >> correct. >> you would not have appointed mr. mueller if you thought he was going to engage in a witchhunt, correct? >> correct. >> so you then would disagree with the president's labeling of the special counsel's investigation as a witch-hunt, i assume? >> i don't know exactly what the president meant by that, congressman. the special counsel's investigation is not a witch-hunt. >> you're supposed to be independent. you can answer a question contrasting the president. you disagree it's a witch-hunt, the president is wrong. >> i do not know what the president meant. i can only answer for plyself. do you believe that the repeated

attacks on mueller threatens to undermine the credibility of the independent investigation? >> the independence and integrity of the investigation will not be affected by anything that anybody says. >> you delivered remarks on october 25th before the u.s. chamber of commerce and i quote -- if we permit the rule of law to erode when it does not harm our personal interest, it may eventually consume us as well. the rule of law is not self-executing. if it collapses, if people lose faith, then everyone will suffer, end quote. in the context of the president's attacks, the american people are really witness i witnessing an unprecedented attack. under way about vladimir putin's interference on our elections, attacks on the judiciary, attacks on the free press, the one snugs, which continues to enjoy broad public more and remains key to protecting the

rule of law is the federal bureau of investigation and the department of judds. america is counting on your integrity and your commitment to protecting the independence of this special counsel to reaffirm our commitment. so when you said just a moment ago you don't have an opinion about a loyalty oath from the president being asked of people, it might be useful to remind you, sir, that members of the department of justice take an oath to the constitution, and so a loyalty oath to the president of the united states is inappropriate for anyone to ask for and for anyone to swear it, do you agree? >> nobody has asked me a loyalty oath. >> that's not my question, sir. your question you are to demonstrate the independence of your office. you are unwilling to say that an oath to the president of the united states rather than to the city is not inappropriate? that does not inspire confidence. >> an oath to the president rather than the constitution would be inappropriate. an oath to the president period --

>> you're talking about a hypothetical. it's not clear what was asked or what was said. as long as you are following your oath of office, you can also be faithful to the administration. >> faithful is not -- i'll move to a new question. you said you would not respond to the question to say whether or not the president of the united states had asked you to initiate criminal prosecutions again political adversaries, you would not disclose whether or not those conversations took place. >> i said i would disclose if i was told to do something improper. >> what about if you were encouraged to do something improper, to initiate a criminal investigation? that's not appropriate to do, is it? >> several of your colleagues on both sides have encouraged me today, congressman, as i've explained, i'd make may decisions based on the evidence and the law. >> but the act of a president, separate and apart what you will do, that very action is not appropriate. >> you're free to make that judgment. >> nurmt isn't that

inappropriate? >> in my -- >> but it wouldn't be inappropriate for your supervisor, the person you serve, the president of the united states to tell on you suggest or encourage you to initiate a criminal prosecution against a political adversary? >> congressman, i think i've been very clear, nobody is giving me any improper orders. i'll say this, mr. deputy attorney general. you know, we have heard you proudly talk about the integrity of the department of justice and the work of the fbi. we heard director wray say the same thing. the two agencies, the fbi and department of justice are in the midst of an unprecedented attack by individuals who are trying to undermine the credibility of this independent counsel's investigation. these are the same group of individuals who praised robert mueller when he was appointed, spectacular was praised uniformly. and now the only thing that's changed is two indictments, two pleas, might be at flick part of

the president's inner circle now, cooperating with the government. that's the only thing that's changed. we need to hear your voice defending the integrity of the department, rule of law, the independence of this investigation, because the very future of our democracy is at state if you fail to do that. i urge you to do so. with that, i yield back. the chairman recognizes the gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador. >> thank you for being here today. i shudder at some of the questions from the other side. i want to ask you a quick question -- have you ever said you are the president's wingman? >> no, sir. >> has the current attorney general of the united states ever said that he is the president's wing man? >> not to my knowledge. >> yet the attorney general under president obama said he was the president's wing man, and i never heard a single democrat object to that. so it's kind of ridiculous to sit here and try to question your integrity or try to question whether somebody will

be loyal to their president or not, as you clearly indicated, you can be both loyal to the constitution and to the president of the united states as long as there's not a conflict of interest, as long as you're not doing anything that is inappropriate, it's okay to be the president's wing man. it's also okay to say you'll be royal to the president as long as i'm not asking you to do anything illegal. isn't that correct? >> yes. so what was the goal of the russians when they tried to interfe interfere. >> the assessment of the intelligence community as reflected in the public report, the goal was to undermine americans' confidence in democracy. >> so to undermine the americans' -- >> i'm paraphrasing, congressman. i don't have it in front of me. >> they tried to undermine the faith in the process. >> i believe that's correct. >> i believe no one has done more to undermine the believe in the democratic process than the

democrats, and the press in some cases, when they continue to report on false allegation after allegation after allegation. in fact what you see from the democrats is they move from one allegations, thats proven to be false, they move to the next one, and to the next one and the next one, because they're unhappy with the results of the election. can you tell me why the independent counsel was actually appointed? >> special counsel, congressman. i've explained publicly that i appointed the special counsel based on the unique circumstances in order to promote public confidence. i have nothing to add to that. >> so why, when mr. mueller was charged with investigating, he was charged with investigating, quote, any links and/or coordination between the russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of donald trump. and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation, end quote. that charge is overly broad, but

there's been two prosecutions, or at least two charges so far brought by the independent counsel. is that correct? >> four individuals charged to, pleaded guilty and two will stand trial. >> have any of them been charged with any linked and/or coordination between the russian goismd and individuals associated with the campaign for president trump. >> the charges speak for themselves. i'm not going to comment beyond what's in the charging documents. >> is there anything in the charging documents that there was a coordinate between the trump administration and the russians? >> congressman i'm not going to comment beyond what's in the charging document. i think you can draw your own conclusion. >> something i do agree with my friends on the other side, we should know the truth, we should know whether tiffs collusion between russia and the president of the united states. we should also know whether there was collusion between any department who tried to

interviewer with our election. so can you tell me u. was there collusion between the doj and fusion gps to use a democratic-funded document for political and legal purposes? >> i don't know the answer to that, congressman. i simply appointed out the language actually used was coordination, and i believe that was the language used by director comey, when he publicly testified about an ongoing investigation. i did not use the world collusion. >> so that coordination -- was there any coordination between the doj and fusion gps to try to undermine an election of the united states? >> if there were, congressman, i would be very concerned about it. as you know, there are ongoing reviews. i'm not in a position to comment about it. >> ongoing reviews, so there could potentially be an investigation, whether the doj and members of the doj duly colluded with an enemy of a political party and a political

candidate to undermine the elections of the united states. >> if there's any evidence that warrants it, congressman, we'll do what's appropriate. >> all right. so i think, if you want to -- to restore the trust of the american people, i think the department of justice has a duty to give us all the information we have been asking for. we need to find out who started this investigation, we need to find out what the purpose was. if you have an individual who actually had a desire to have an outcome in a political race, and they decided to use the department of justice to investigate their political opponents, i think that's one of the worst crimes that as occurred in the history of the united states when it comes to politics. do you agree with that? >> it would -- if that were what happened, congressman, it would certainly by of great concern. >> i hope you are truly investigating this and we get to the bottom of this. thank you very much. i yield back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr.

swalwell. >> express my thanks to your employees who serve our national interests every day and do very important work at the department. mr. rosenstein, have been spoken with the president since you were appointed. >> of course. >> sup in a one-on-one setting. >> i've never spoken with the president in a one-on-one setting. >> has he called i by telephone? >> yes. and what was discussed? >> as i said, congressman, i've told you that if i were told to do anything inappropriate, i would talk about it, but if the president is consulting me within matters of my responsibility, that's part of the way you run the government. >> did he discuss the investigation. >> i'm not going to communication with the president. >> how many times has he called you? >> congressman, i'm not going to comment about my communications with the president. there's nothing wrong with the president consulting with his deputy attorney general about matters within the jurisdiction

of the justice department. as long it's not inappropriate. >> i agree, except this president has demonstrated and been expressed through testimony from james comey that's not been contradicted under oath multiple times he is willing to talk to individuals at the department about ongoing investigations. that's where the concern arises with respect to attorney general sessions' recusal. was he involved to allow reporters to review the text messages that you discussed earlier? >> no tnot to my knowledge. >> would you tell us if he was. >> if he learn about it, if it matters -- i'm not aware of any impropriety in what the department has done. >> but attorney general sessions is recougsed from bob mueller's investigation, right? >> attorney general sessions is recused from the investigation, correct. >> and these text messages related to --

>> i don't want to argue with the congressman. i'm aware of the recusal and not aware of any evidence though the attorney general has violated his recusal. >> if you are overseeing an investigation and lead a team of investigators, and you learn that one of the investigators has demonstrated a perceived bias against an individual in the investigation, should you, a, keep the person on the team, or b, remove the person from the investigation. >> b. >> know that fact pattern, what did bob mueller do with a similar fact pattern. >> he chose the correct option. >> mr. rosenstein, the president has said a number of things about you, the attorney general, the fbi being in at that timers. he even compared or intelligence community, which your employees are a part of, to nazi germany. considering his continued disparagement of the department and your employees, are your employees proud for work for a person who holds their high integrity in such low regard.

>> my employees i believe are proud to work for the department of justice. some of them support a particular president, some of the them don't. as long as they do their job appropriately, that's my concern. >> i agree and i hope that's the case. mr. rosenstein, your testimony is you believe bob mueller is a person of high integrity. is that right? >> yes. >> you believe the investigation is being conducted fairly, correct? >> yes. >> and you believe he's publicly indicted two individuals with respect to his investigation? >> correct. >> he's also obtained two guilty pleas? >> correct. >> is there good cause to fire bob mueller as we hit here today? >> not to my knowledge. i'm concerned that my colleagues particularly in the majority have signaled quite indiscreetly today, they would probably give the president a pass if he were to fire or order you to fire bob mueller. there have been a number of statements attempting to

undermine the good character of bob mueller. that concerns me, because that would certainly fly in the face of the rule of law in this country and would not be object, i believe. with the american people or the spirit he that our country was founded upon. mr. deputy attorney general your investigation is a very narrow bridge. the important part i believe -- we need you tore fearless. we have a president who has demonstrated his willingness to be involved in investigations that involve he and his family. for the sake of our country, for the sake of rule of law, i hope that you continue to demonstrate the character that got you into this position and that has given us as a committee i think faith in your ability to carry out that mission. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr.

farenthal. >> i feel obliged on the account of the folks that i represent are always sfoop asking me about this to say, there is a real concern out there in texas, certain around the nation, that we've got a special counsel who is basic loire the department of justice has not basically been able to confirm or deny what investigations are going on, if any, with respect to the potential misdeeds of the clinton campaign and be it through uranium-1, various speaking engagements for former president clinton and the like. again, i'm not asking you to break that confidentiality, but i am suggesting there are a lot

of people out there who would be sadly disappointed if there isn't an investigation, and who may actually or who do actually think there might be ought to be a special prosecutor or special counsel to look at the other side. so instead of beating that dead horse, i'm going to beat another one that i've been talking a thought about. that's specifically the doj's opposition to the usa liberty act. why is it so hard, why is a warrant requirement so difficult to deal with on your part, when we understand the needs to have exigent circumstances where things get look at quickly, it's like the fisa court or to stop terrorists are being rolled into more normal mainstream criminal investigations, where

traditionally there's been a need for a warrant? why is it so difficult to get a warrant? in many cases, you can create the necessary paperwork and cause in a matter of hours, if not minutes. there are judges on call 24/7 to look at these things, why is it such a problem? why are you all opposed to it? >> i will duplicate mr. wray's comments. i wish independence join us and see how it would work, and i think that would enhance the public's confidence. think -- it would be burdensome, and i certainly respect, and i understand the concerns, congressman. i think those are serious concerns, and we'll do everything we can to try to reassure people about it, but i can simply tell you, and it would take me longer than the time you have to explain the

full process, but i believe director wray is correct about this, and the national security community, i know many folks involved pre-9/11 and post-9/11 have spoken up about how importance we need this tool. we do not want to be in the position during 9/11 why didn't they figure out the threat before the attacks? if it were easy to do with a warrant, i would be in favor, but it's not. i believe we have appropriate safeguards in place and we have people who are responsible, who are conducting these investigations and are going to avoid infringing americans' rights. that's our primary concerns. attorney general sessions has made that one of his priorities to make sure there are no violationses. i do not believe the program as it exists represents a violation of anyone's rights. >> you and i may respectfully disagree on whether it violates

folks' rights. there's a reason the fourth amendment was excluded in the constitution. i used to run a computer consulting company. you've heard about breaches throughout the public and private sector. can you give me an overview of what you all are doing with respect to that and what if anything that congress needs to do. >> it would hard to do it quickly, congressman. we do have a lot of resources, both the fbi and other agencies that are protecting against the threat. it's a significant threat. we face both intelligence threat from hostile foreign governments, and also a criminal threat from people who try to break into our systems to commit crimes and defraud americans. so it's a very challenging issue, as you know, from your experience. technology continue toss evolve. we need to stay a step ahead of

the capabilities of our adversaries and criminals. the fib does have a lot of resore devoted about that. and i think that's going to be an area where we will need increasing support from the congress to make sure that we keep up with our adversaries. >> i see my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. lu, for five minutes. thank you deputy attorney ross are not stein for being here. i note for the american people not only were you appointed by president trump, you were also previously appointed by president bush to serve as u.s. attorney for maryland. in a protile view in "the washington post" when you were u.s. attorney, a former prosecutor says rod rosenstein is a post are child for the fair-minded prosecutor. so thank you for your service to the american people and your exemplary service.

>> thank you. last week fbi director christopher wray told you that no one is above the law. would you agree with that statement. >> absolutely. yes, i would. important to our democracy is not only that concept, but also that people have to have trust in our law enforcement investigations. there are some of my colleagues, and some in the media who have suggested if you make political contributions, somehow you cannot be fair and impartial. so as you know, these political contributions are a matter of public record. you previously said when it comes to a special counsel investigation you, counsel mueller and fbi director wray will be the ones held accountable. we looked up the contributions of fib director wray. he has made over $39,000 in contributions exclusively to republicans, including 2500 twice to romney for president. 2600 twice to perdue for

president. is,000 to comstock for congress, on and on. do you believe fbi director christopher wray can remain fair and impartial? >> yes, i do. >> okay. >> your colleague associate attorney general rachel brand has made over $37,000 in political contributions exclusively to republicans. do you believe she can remain fair and impartial despite her political contributions. >> yes. and to shut down this silly argument tro my colleagues across the aisle that somehow they exercise their first amendment right to make political contributions that somehow they cannot do their job. it shows a desperation that some people have about the mueller investigation, which i now want to turn to. you supervise the investigation, so you are aware, of course of their guilty pleas and indictments, and in reviewing the guilty plea of george p

papadoupolis, you believe it was -- >> and -- with russian officials. >> i believe that's correct. i don't want to comment beyond the charging documents. the guilty plea of michael flynn, you must have looked at those. you would agree there's a legal and factual basis fort as well? >> yes. >> he lied to fbi agents about his interactions with russian ambassador, correct? >> again the documents speak for themselves. >> you have indictments against paul manafort and rick gates. you would believe there's a solid basis for those indictments. >> when we return an indictment we are always careful to say the defendants are presumed innocent, but i'm comfortable with the process that was

followed. >> would agree that was a factual basis to interview the witnesses, correct? >> i'm not aware of? improprie impropriety. >> you previously testified about robert mueller's sxemp hear record and dedication, you did mention he es a vietnam record. he also did receive a bronze star for his service in vietnam, correct? >> i believe two. correct. >> he also received a purple heart for his service in vietnam? >> yes. >> okay. what do we have here? we have a special counsel investigation that's being supervised by mr. rosenstein, who's been described as a fair-minded prosecutor, appointed twice by republican presidents, but run by special counsel mueller, extraordinary dedication, vietnam veteran, purple hard, bronc stars, and in

coordination with christopher wray, who has made over $39,000 of contributions exclusively to republicans. that is the leadership of this special counsel investigation, and i am okay with that. . i yield back. >> the chair recognizes mr. desantis for five minutes. >> when sally yates defied president trump, was that appropriate what she did? >> i disagreed with her decision. >> if you're in a position where you get an order, your job is to follow the order, if you think it's unconstitutional, then your response would be to resign your office, correct? >> my response i think would be first to talk first with the person who gave the order. >> of course if i concluded it were constitutional, i would not implement it. >> obviously you can't have a department operating where each one is a law unto themselves, or if they happen to think it's bad, they don't follow the

orders. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> it bothered some you have andrew wiseman, a big donor, he went to hillary's supposed victory party. when she took that action, he sends her an e-mail, saying how he's in awe, and so proud of her, basically standing up to trump. it was seen as a very direct rebuke to the president. so your tests was are the political opinions affecting someone in that office. isn't that an example of his strongly held anti-trump opinions affecting how he's conducting himself on his official e-mail. >> as i mentioned congressman, i have discussed this general issue with director mule are on several occasions, he understands the important of ensures thatting there no bias reflected in the conduct of the investigation. >> it looks bad to the public. i'm telling you now. part of it, is there an actual

bias, but there an appearance of that? this appears to be that, because clearly what she did was not something that experienced prosecutors -- the russia investigation, who started it? who was the agent? was it strzok who started it? who opened the case? >> that matter is under review by the jell gens committee, but i can assure you we'll provide appropriate access to the intelligence committee for what they need to answer. >> did the fbi pay for the dossier? >> i'm not in naps to answer that question. >> do you know the answer? >> i believe i know the answer, but the intelligence committee is the appropriate committee -- >> that is not true. we have oversight over your department and the fbi, and whether public funds were spent on a dossier, that is not something that's classified. with evident ever right to that information. you should provide it.

if not there would probably be things. was that info used to get surveyians over anyone associated with trump. >> i know it's been a concern for several members of the committee. i have set aside about a half hour every day to review fisa applications, and it is not legal for me to talk about those applications. i'm not able to answer one way or the other. >> i would like that authority. i think you can say -- you may not be able to talk about the sources and message of the subject, but if this was used, we need to know that. do you agree -- what was the role of bruce orr? he met with christopher steele before the election. was that authorized? >> i do not know all the details. i don't know the full story, but we have agreed to make mr. ohm rr available for congressional interviews. >> you need to pursue it. it's your department, you demoted him. he wall street working with christopher steele, you have an anti--trump dossier, his wife

works for fusion gps. this doesn't look good. >> i'm knott suggesting that i'm disinterested. >> i get it. let me ask you this. the role of mr. strzok, how much of -- we're going to leave the hearing. we'll take you back there moment tear, but the president of the united states meeting at the white house with republicans from the house and the senate. the conferrees who say they have struck a deal, reached a framework, to recognize the competing house and senate tax cut plans, the president meeting with them. let's listen in. i'm told we're about to get the tape from the white house. the president meeting with the key republicans who they're charged with, the conferrees we call them, to -- they say they have reached a deal. the 20% corporate tax rate would go up we're told in this compromise. in exchange, top earners would get a tax cut in that plan as well. here's the president of the united states meeting with republicans at the white house.

>> well, thank you very much. we'll also by speaking at 3:00 today, a little more about what's happening with this incredible journey and what we're doing with regard to bringing down taxes, the largest tax cut ever. but i appreciate you being here today. i want to thank the incredible members of the house and senate who have been working so hard, we're close to a historic legislative victory, the likes of which rarely has this country seen. i think i did say kevin and orrin that we're getting close. i know a lot of the folks that we'd like to have here, we want if you have a choice, stay back, get it done. they're all working and negotiating some final points, but we're very, very close. this bill is vital to the american people for many reasons. first of all, it's going to have a tax cut the likes we haven't seen for not only business, but for the working families of our

country. it's a tax cut based on jobs, and also very good for companies which also means jobs. the typical family of four earning $75,000 will see an income tax cut of $2,000. so that's $2,000 in their pocket additional to spend on whatever they want to spend, or they could save the money also. you do have a lot of families in the old days, they saved money, but they will be saving it in many cases. second, the bill will cut taxes for the american businesses, both big and small, so that they can grow higher and compete all around the world. right now they're paying 35%, and that's the highest in the industrialized world. in many cases by far, and we'll be bringing that down to a number that would be extremely impressive to a lot of people

we'll be able to compete all over the world. thi third. so we're fixing the system. finally the plan will bring trillions back into the united states, money that's offshore well, 2.5 has grown, and it's going to be a lot more than that they have billions of dollars overseas that they want to bring back. now they're going to bring it back, and we'll be spending that money and they'll be spending it right hoar, jobs and other good things, while the media has focused on the differences, i can only tell you that we have

very, very talented representatives. i think i can say, orrin that we're very close. >> we'll get it done. >> i want to thank senator orrin hatch. he's been incredible, and kevin brady, incredible. you guys have been really, really amazing. though i shouldn't say that until we sign. we've been there too many times. let's get the vote first, right? i want to thank my whole team, gary, steve and everybody, the whole team has been really something special. diane, thank you very much for everything. we're very close to getting it done, close to voting. our economy has you know has surged from where it is when i took it over. we were having an economy that was going in the wrong direction. they can say all they want about the last adminitration or even administrations. this country was going in the wrong direction from the economic standpoint. you saw