a lot of respected nonpartisan legal experts and elected officials were surprised by your efforts to protect the president. but i was unsurprised. you did exactly what i thought you would do. it is why i voted against your confirmation. i expected you would try to protect the president and, indeed, you did. in 1989, this isn't something you hadn't done before. in 1989 when you refused to show congress an olc opinion that led to the arrest of manuel noriega in 1992 when you recommended pardons for the subjects of the iran contra scandal and last year when you wrote the 19-page memo telling donald trump as president can't be guilty of obstruction of justice and then didn't recuse yourself from the matter. from the beginning you were addressing an audience of one. that person being donald trump. that is why before the bombshell news of yesterday evening, 11 of

my senate colleagues and i called on the department of justice inspector general and office of professional responsibility to investigate the way you have handled the mueller report. i wanted them to determine whether your actions complied with the department's policies and practices and whether you have demonstrated sufficient impartiality to continue to oversee the 14 other criminal matters that the special counsel referred to in other parts -- to other parts of the department of justice. but now we know more about your deep involvement andn trying to cover up for donald trump. being attorney general of the united states is a sacred trust. you have betrayed that trust, america deserves better. you should resign. i have some questions for you. is the white house exerting any influence on your decision whether to allow special counsel mueller to testify in congress and when? >> no.

>> now you've been clear today that you don't think that any of the ten episodes of possible obstruction that the special counsel outlined is a crime. i disagree. but you seem to think that if it is not a crime, then there is no problem. nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. so with apologies to adam schiff, do you think all of the things that president trump did are okay? are they what the president of the united states should be doing? for example, do you think it is okay for a president to fire an fbi director to stop him from investigating links between his campaign and russia? it may not be a crime, but do you think it is okay? >> well, i -- i think the report is clear that -- >> no, i'm not talking about the report -- >> but i'm talking about -- >> whether a crime occurred. i'm asking you -- this isn't a crime but do you think it is okay for the president to do what did he did, to fire the counsel to keep them from

investigating. >> i don't think the evidence supported the proposition. >> so you think it is okay -- >> to stop the investigation. >> do you think it is okay for the president to ask his white house counsel to lie? >> um, well, i'm willing to talk about what is criminal. >> no, we've already acknowledged that you think it was not a crime. i'm asking you whether you think it is okay, even if it is not a crime, do you think it is okay for the president to ask his white house counsel to lie? >> which -- >> if your go just going to go back, you're telling me it is okay. let me ask you the last question that i have in 17 seconds. do you think it is okay for a president to offer pardons to people who don't testify against him to threaten the family of someone who does? is that okay? >> when -- when did he offer a pardon -- >> i think you know what i'm talking about. please -- please, mr. attorney general, give us some credit for knowing what the hell is going

on around here with you. >> not really. to this line of questioning. listen, you slandered this man -- >> what i sort of want to know is how do we get to this point? >> i do not think that i'm slandering anyone. >> all i can say -- >> mr. chairman i am done. thank you very much. >> and you slandered this man from top to bottom. so if you want more of this, you're not going to get it if you are not asking questions, you can. >> certainly have your opinion. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you, general barr, for being here today. we really appreciate your time. i want to talk with you just a little bit about some of your bottom line conclusions because i think there is one that we need to kind of circle back to. a little bit, as i've lips -- listened to a lot of the conversation here today, one of the things we've not discussed is what seems to be the culture

at doj and the fbi. and i know there are a lot of good people that work there and we're grateful for their service. but every organization has a culture. and whether it is a corporate culture or a church or schools or whatever, and what seems to have happened at the fbi is there is a seedy, cynical, political culture within a group that developed. and these individuals collectively seem to think that they could work within the power of their jobs and their roles with the federal government. there was an eliteism and arrogance there and it speaks to a very unhealthy work culture within that agency. and i will tell you this, when i

talked to tennesseeans, they talk a lot about what they want to see with the department of justice and the fbi post all of this. and restoration of trust and integrity and accountability. and really in tennessee they'll talk to me about four things. they talk a lot about health care, jobs and the economy and talk about getting federal judges confirmed and about reining in government and holding it accountable. and there has been a lot of hysteria. this is something that grew within the ranks of the fbi. what are you doing and what is your plan for rebuilding that trust and integrity so that the american people can say when the fbi does it's job when the doj does its job we know that is a job done right? >> i don't think there is --

there is a bad culture in the fbi and i don't think the problems that manifested themselves during the 2016 election are endemic to the institution. i think the fbi is doing its job. just this recent case out in california where they interdicted this would-be bomber, they do great work around the country every day and it is -- i agree with senator kennedy who said it's the premier law enforcement institution in the world. and i believe that and i say to the extent there was over-reach, i don't want to judge people's motives and come to a conclusion on that, but to the extent there was over-reach, what we have to be concerned about is -- you know, a few people at the top getting it into their heads that they know better than the american people -- >> and that is the problem. and that is what we hope that you are -- >> yep. >> you're addressing.

let's go back to this because to repeat -- to the report. to produce it i think that mr. mueller assembled what would be called a dream team. 19 all-star lawyers. a watergate prosecutor, a deputy solicitor general, a fluent russian speaker who clerked for two supreme court justices, former head of the enron task force, chief of the public corruption unit in the manhattan u.s. attorney's office, federal prosecutors who have taken down mob bosses, the mafia and isis terrorists. do you consider these lawyers to be the best and the brightest in the field? >> not necessarily. >> are they the warriors you would want on your side in the courtroom? >> i mean i -- there are a lot of great lawyers in the department of justice. he assembled a very competent team. >> are they meticulous investigators? who will hunt down every witness and every piece of evidence? >> i think they are tenacious

investigators. >> are they devoted to finding the truth? >> yes. >> are they masters at taking down hardened criminals, foreign and domestic? >> yes. >> if there were evidence to warrant a recommendation for collusion charges against the president, do you believe the special counsel team would have found it? >> yes. >> and if there were evidence to warrant your recommendation for obstruction of justice charges against the president do you believe the mueller team would have found it? >> i think that they had an -- exhaust -- canvassed the evidence exhaustively. they didn't reach a decision on it. but the question just been asking raises a point i wanted to say when senator hirono was talking which is -- how did we get to the point here where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the russians and accused of being treasonous and

accused of being a russian agent and the evidence now is that was without a basis. and two years of his administration have been dominated by the allegations that have now been proven false. and, you know, to listen to some of the rhetoric, you would think that the mueller report had found the opposite. >> and, you know, mr. attorney general, i will tell you, that is what tennesseeans say. how did we get here? how is there this allowance and acceptedness of saying that is okay. because it's not. and people want to see government held accountable. they want agencies to act with accountability to the american people. and they don't want to ever see this happen again. it doesn't matter if a candidate is a democrat or republican or an independent, they never want to see this happen again.

because they know that this was pointed at using the power that they had to try to tilt an election or to achieve a different outcome. and the american people want equal justice and respect for the rule of law and they want fairness from the system. i have one other question dealing with social media. tennessee republican party had a 10 underscore gop account set up by the russians. and either -- i think as we look at social media, either they were willing to turn a blind eye and allow these accounts to go up, because they knew they were being paid in rubles on some of these accounts, and/or there was just negligence. so my hope is that with all of

the bad actor states, whether it is russia or iran or north korea or china, that you all have a game plan for dealing with these platforms and in a way that you're willing to rein them in for the 2020 election. i yield back. >> thank you. senator booker. >> mr. barr, as i take a step back at this, i just really think we're at a very sobering moment in american history. that there is a considerable amount going on when you actually take time and read this whole report that shows that we're sort of at a cross road and i fear that we're descending into a new normal that is dangerous fo-- for our democrac on a number of levels and i fear unfortunately, i hope we have a chance to discuss this. that you only put your credibility into question but seem to be giving sanction to behavior for the language you

used in the press conference you held, the language you used in your summary that stimulated mueller to write such a strong rebuking letter. i fear that you are adding normalcy to a point where we should be sounding alarms as opposed to saying that there is nothing to see here. and so, one, this 448-page report that has a deep litany of lies and deceit and misconduct of the president of the united states instructing people to lie and be deceitful, evidence of people trying to cover up behavior that on its face is morally wrong, whatever the legal standard is. i found it, number one, to -- by saying this kind of obstructive conduct was acceptable, not only acceptable but your sentence literally saying the american people should be grateful for it, that is the beginning of normalization i want to explore. but the second thing i want to -- i will explore this but i

want to make my two statements at the top. one, that is problematic and general, the second problem i have, is that you seem to be excusing a campaign that literally had hundreds of contacts with a foreign adversary that i think there is a conclusion amongst in a bipartisan conclusion that there was a failure to even report those contacts. that we engaged in behaviors that folks knew that were wrong and they tried to actively hide. they seem to capitalize -- seek to capitalize on this foreign interference n. our country, we know it is illegal for a campaign and wrong for a campaign to share polling data with an american super-pac. but we have here documented a level of coordination with a foreign adversary sharing polling data. and we're seeing to be -- and your conduct seems to be trying

to normalize that behavior and that is why i think we are in such a serious moment that could -- that is eroding the cultures of this democracy and the security of this democracy. so let's get into some of this specifically. you said, quote, we know that the russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of president trump or the trump campaign. that is something that all americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed. the things i just mentioned, willingness to meet with russian operatives to capitalize on information, i don't think that is something to be grateful. i find your choice of words alarming and calls into question your objectivity when you look at the actual context of the report. and so should the american people really be grateful that a candidate for president sought to benefit from material and information that was stolen by a foreign power in an effort to influence an election.

>> i'm not sure what you mean by seek to benefit. there is no indication that they engaged in the -- either the conspiracy to hack or that they engaged in the action with respect to the dissemination that was criminal. >> well, again, sir, you're using the word conspiracy which is a legal term and that press conference you used the president trump's words obstruction over and over again -- >> obstruction is a legal term. >> sir, you pulled into his words and i'm asking you specifically, i'm sorry -- collusion is the word i was looking for. you use the word no collusion over and over again. and you said the american people should be grateful that the president sought to benefit from material and information but you know they did seek to benefit from that material. donald trump jr. in his own email seemed to celebrate that he might have access to information from a foreign adversary. is that correct? is that something the american people should be thankful for. >> apparently, according to the

report, he was -- yeah, apparently he was interested in seeing what this russian woman had in the way of, quote -- >> and did not report it as, i think everybody who is in politics knows, it is something you should do. should the american people be grateful that in the face of an attack on our democracy by the foreign adversary that the president of the united states made several documented links between his campaign and russia. you use that word grateful again, that the american people should be grateful. is that something we should be grateful for. >> i'm not sure what you're talking about. >> sir, i'm talking about the attempts that this president made that mueller pointed to at least ten attempts to thwart an investigation into the links between his campaign and russia. should we be grateful for those ten well-documented attempts by mueller. >> are you talking about the obstruction part of the report?

>> i'm talking about the second volume but let me continue. should the american people be grateful that trump had 215 contacted between russian-linked operatives and lied about them and tried to hide them. is that something the american people should be grateful for, this president or any down the road? >> as i mentioned earlier, during a campaign foreign governments make -- and foreign citizens frequently make a lot of attempts to contact different campaigns. if we were right now to go and look at, for example, hillary clinton campaign during the same time -- >> sir, i'm -- >> during that time frame you would see a lot of foreign government -- >> sir -- >> chinese trying to establish. >> and that is what i'm trying to say to you, sir. is that we right now have a new normal in our country. we have a document that shows over 200 attempt -- connections between a presidential campaign and a foreign adversary sharing

information that would be illegal if you did it with a super-pac, we know that -- >> what information was shared? >> polling data was shared, sir. it is in the report. i could cite you the page. >> with who? >> and i guess my point is -- is that you're willingness to seem to brush over this and use words like the american people should be grateful with what is in this report, nobody should be grateful. concerted efforts for deception and misleading inappropriate action after inappropriate action that is clear. and then on top of that, at a time that we all recognize that we had a foreign power trying to undermine our election, you, the chief law enforcement officer, not only undermine your own credibility as an independent actor when there is ongoing investigation words still using the president's own words and having criticized by mueller himself and the challenge we now have is that we are going into an area where you seem to not even be willing to be the least bit critical in your summarization. i believe that calls into your

credibility and again my time is up. >> senator tillis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general barr thank you for being here. in the last sentence on page one of your four-page memo it states the special counsel issued more than 2800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing the use of pen registers, made 13 requests of foreign governments for evidence and interviewed approximately 500 people. that seems like an extensive investigation to me. it took 22 months right? >> right. >> and it was summarized in about a little over 400-page document and volume two was just under 200 pages as i recall. i read volume two word for word and most of volume one. the new normal it seems to be created here is even after all of this investigation and you haven't found any conduct worthy of indictment that you could just bounce back for political reasons and indict somebody.

that is a rhetorical statement or question, not a statement. now i want to go back to the other part that i find interesting here, "the new york times" already issued a headline that says mueller pushed in letter for barr to release the report's summary. because now the narrative and i've had people in the press coming out and the narrative is doesn't this undermine the attorney general because mueller wanted the executive summaries issued. now i want to go back to what you said in your opening statement. you said that, i believe using your words, the body politic was -- that was unrestful and you had gotten the report and didn't get the 6-e information and had to do redacting and you knew that would take time and it would have been helpful when that report was transmitted to you and it took however long it took. you issued the summary and used the analogy of announcing the

vaerkd -- verdict and waiting for the transcript. did you at any point say i really want to do is issue this letter and then let the news media play it with for three or four weeks and then we'll get the redacted version out. did that ever cross your mind? >> no. we were pushing -- >> to get it done as soon as possible. >> to get the report out as soon as possible. >> at any point in time when the president had an opportunity to issue their own advice on redactions or assert executive privilege, over the course of the weeks that you were doing the review of the report, did you ever get advice from the president or from anybody in the white house to assert executive privilege or to redact any portion of the document? >> no. >> none? and so the narrative between the letter and the redaction process was we're going to get a report that is 80% redacted. now would you give me the numbers again on the version that is available to the leadership of congress? the numbers again. i think you said one-tenth of 1% -- we're skipping over volume one and we're spending time on

volume two. did i hear you say that the legislative leaders have access to all but one-tenth of 1% of the entire report? >> approximately, yes. >> so, guys, you can go out and spin this any way you want to but the data is there. there was no underlying crime and there was insufficient evidence to indict the president on obstruction of justice. you said something else that is interesting me in the report about that we found no evidence that was sufficient to indict. but then they went on to say nor can we exonerate him. what does the special counsel in the business of exonerating the subject of an investigation. >> they're not. >> they're not. >> so why would somebody put something like that in the report? >> i don't know. >> and so it would follow -- if that is uncommon, that you would not have actually included in that any summary before the full context of the report could be produced, is that a fair statement. >> that is a fair statement but i did put in the sentence about not exoneration. >> yeah.

i think that -- the thing that frustrates me, number one, i should have started by saying this, the vast majority of people in the department of justice and the fbi are extraordinary people. the chairman is right, starting with strzok and page and everybody else leading up before the investigation, i hope they're being investigated. i have a question for you. the scope of the oig, where does -- do you understand or do you know what the scope of that report will be? will it be purely on this investigation or would extend to other acts that may have in some way influenced this investigation? >> well, i don't want to be too specific. i talked to mike carr a few weeks ago about it and it is focused on the fisa, the basis for the fisa and the handling of the fisa applications. but by necessity it looks back a little bit earlier than that.

the people i have helping me with my review will be working very closely with mr. horowitz. >> want to go back again because we have other people talking, i'm sure it will come up again, i'm clear in the report there was no underlying crime. is that correct? >> yes. >> and that is -- >> that is the conclusion of the report. >> and this was insufficient evidence or insufficient evidence to assert that the president obstructed justice. and a lot of that evidence was in the public eye. because we talked about tweets and public statements and a number of other things that were trying to use to assert as evidence for obstruction of justice. it seems odd to me that people on this committee that pound and pound over and over again that your innocent until proven guilty with the extent of this report, with the number of resources, nearly $30 million when the facts don't lead to the outcome that you wanted, the one that the marketing department wanted, to use this as a political tool for the next 20 months, it seems odd to me that

we go down the path of saying that, well, in spite of all of the work, we're going to indict him any way and if we can't indict him we're going to impugn your integrity and i find that despicable. thank you. >> senator harris. >> has the president or anyone at the white house asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone? >> um, i wouldn't -- i wouldn't -- >> yes or no? >> could you repeat that question? >> i will repeat it. has the president or anyone at the white house ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone, yes or no, please, sir? >> um, the president or anybody else. >> seems you would remember something like that and tell us. >> but i'm trying to grapple with the word suggest. there have been discussions of matters out there that they have

not asked me to open an investigation. >> perhaps they've suggested. >> i wouldn't say suggest. >> hinted? >> i don't know. >> inferred? you don't know? okay. in your march 24th summary you wrote that, quote, after reviewing the special counsel final report -- >> i will say that no one -- >> sir, i'm asking a question. in your march 24th summary, you wrote that, quote, after reviewing the special counsel's final report, deputy attorney general rosenstein and i have concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to establish that the president committed an obstruction of justice offense. now the special counsel's investigation produced a great deal of evidence. i'm led to believe it included witnesses and notes and emails and witnesses and congressional testimony and witnesses interviews which were summarized in the fbi 302 forms, former fbi director comey memos and the president's public statements. my question is in reaching your

conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence? >> no. we took -- >> mr. rosenstein did -- >> no, we accepted the statements in the report as the factual record. we did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. we accepted it as accurate. and made our -- >> so you accepted the report as the evidence. >> yes. >> you did not question or look at the underlying -- evidence that supports the conclusions in the report? >> no. >> did mr. rosenstein review the evidence that underlines and supports the conclusions in the report, to your knowledge? >> not to my knowledge. we accepted the statements in the report and the characterization of the evidence as true. >> did anyone in your executive office review the evidence supporting the report? >> no.

>> no. yet you represented to the american public that the evidence was not, quote, sufficient to support an obstruction of justice offense -- >> the evidence presented in the report -- this is not a -- this is not mysterious process, in the department of justice we have cross memos and declination memos every day coming up and we don't go and look at the underlying evidence. >> sir, would you support -- >> we take the characterization of the eds as true. >> as running the department of justice and if any attorney's office around the country and that head of that office when being asked to make a critical decision about the person who holds the highest office in the land and whether or not that person committed a crime, would you accept them recommending a charging decision to you if they had not reviewed the evidence? >> that is a question for bob mueller. he's the u.s. attorney. he's the one who presents the report. >> but it was you who made the charging decision, sir.

>> what -- >> you made the decision not to charge the president. >> no. in a cross memo and declination memo -- >> you said it was your baby. what did you mean by that? >> it was my baby to let -- to decide whether or not to disclose it to the public. >> and whose decision was it -- who had the power to make the decision about whether or not the evidence was sufficient to make a determination of whether there had been an obstruction of justice. >> prosecution memos go up to the supervisor, in this case it was the attorney general and the deposit attorney general who decide on the final decision. and that is based on the memo as presented by the u.s. attorney's office. >> i think you've made it clear you've not looked at the evidence. we could move on. >> i've seen a lot of prosecution -- >> you made it clear you have not looked at the evidence and we could move on. would you agree to consult career doj ethics officials whether your recusal from the 14

investigations discussed by my colleagues is necessary? >> i don't -- don't see any basis for it. i already consulted with them and -- >> you have consulted with them? about the 14 other investigations? >> about the mueller case. >> have you consulted with the career doj ethics officials about the appropriate ngs ever you being involved or recusing yourself from the 14 other investigations that have been referred out? >> on what basis? >> conflict of interest. clear conflict of interest. >> what is my conflict of interest. >> i think the american public has seen quite well you are biased in this situation and not objective and that is the conflict of -- >> i haven't been the only decision-maker here. let's take the deputy attorney general who was approved 94-6 with specific discussion on the floor woe be responsible for supervising the russia investigation. >> i'm glad you brought that up. >> and he has 30 years experience and we had a number of senior prosecutors in the department involved in this process, both career and noncareer -- >> yes, i've read the process,

sir. i have another question. and i'm glad you brought that subject up because i have a question about that. earlier today in response to senator graham, you said, quote, you consulted with rosenstein constantly, unquote, with respect to the special counsel investigation and report. but deputy attorney general rosenstein is a key witnesslt - not finished. did you consult with doj ethics officials before you enlisted rod rosenstein to participate in a charging decision for an investigation, the subject of which he's also a witness? >> my understanding was that he had been cleared already to participate in it by the -- >> so you had consulted with them and they cleared it? >> no. i think they cleared it when he took over the investigation. >> did you consult -- >> it is my understanding. >> you don't know whether he's been cleared? of a conflict of interest? >> he would be participate field goal there was a conflict of interest.

>> so you're saying that it did not need to be reviewed by the career ethics officials in your office to determine if it was appropriate? >> i believe it was -- i believe it was reviewed. >> and what was the finding. >> and this seems to be a bit of a flip flop because when the president supporters were challenging -- >> the flip flop in this case is that you are not answering the question directly. did the ethics officials in your office in the department of justice review the appropriateness of rod rosenstein being a part of making the charging decision on an investigation which he is also a witness in? >> so, as i said, my understanding was he had been cleared and he had been cleared before i arrived. >> in making a decision on the mueller report? >> yes. >> and the findings of whether or not the case would be charged on obstruction of justice? he had been cleared on that? >> he was the acting attorney general on the mueller investigation. >> had he been cleared to make -- >> am -- >> by your side --

>> i'm informed that before i arrived he been cleared by the ethics officials. >> of what? >> of serving as acting attorney general on the mueller case. >> how about making a charging decision on obstruction of justice? >> that is what the -- acting. >> which include him as a witness. >> that is what the acting attorney general's job is. >> to be a witness and to make the decision about being prosecuted? >> well, no. but to make charging decisions. >> i have nothing else. my time has run out. >> thank you. senator -- let's see, senator cruz and i would like to do short second rounds and i have another hearing at 2:40. we're going to take four votes. but to my colleagues on the other side, i would like to do a short second round and wrap it up. i'm sorry, senator. senator crapo. >> attorney general barr you've been through everything and i'll

go through what you talked about but i appreciate your ilgness to get into it with me. first i want to talk about the letter of march 27th that has been talked about a lot from mr. mueller. first, could you tell me who released that letter to the public? >> um, who released it to whom? >> yes. how did it get released? was that a decision you made to release that letter? >> to the public? i think the department provided it this morning. >> excuse me. i mean to "the washington post." how did the washington post get the letter? >> i don't know. >> that is what i thought. so let's talk about the letter for a moment. you indicated that -- >> i assume "the washington post" got it from the department of justice. >> well, i think we need to find that out.

but we can get into that later. if your not aware, then let's move on to other aspects of the issue. you indicated that you did not feel you needed to release as much as mr. mueller thought you needed to release at the outset, gave a summary of the conclusions and he apparently wanted to see the summaries of each section that he had put together released, correct? >> yes. >> could you go over again the reason why you responded to him when he asked you to release portions of the report before you released it in its entirety? >> yes. this was on the conversation on thursday, the day i got his letter. and i said that i didn't want to put out -- it was already several days after we had received the report and i had put out the four-page letter on sunday. and i said i don't -- i don't want to put out summaries of the

report. that would trigger all kinds of frenzy about what was said in the summaries and then when the -- more information comes out, it would recalibrate to that and i jut want to put it out one time everything together. and i told him that was -- that was the game plan. >> all right. and i just think it is important to point that out again. because there has been a lot of spin about the letter and what it was that was being requested and what your response to that was. >> right. >> i think it is important to get that out again and get clarified. the reason i ask who released the letter is because there have been a lot of released of documents from the fbi that were basically leaks. and i was just curious as to whether that letter was a leak. i'm not asking you to go into that -- >> i think what happened -- i mean, people jump me if i'm wrong on this, but i think the fact of the -- the information about mueller's concerns were

leaked and i think some news organizations were starting to ask about that -- >> and so then the letter was released. >> in that context, i think the letter was provided, is that accurate. >> so there were leaks about the concerns and conversations you had had. >> yes. >> that gets back to the broader question of leaks that i want to get into now and you've had a number of people -- senators have asked you about the -- the perceived bias at the fbi. i heard your responses earlier that you believe the culture at fbi is strong and solid and i agree with that. i do believe, however, that it's been pretty clearly shown in a number of different ways that there are some individuals at the fbi, at high levels who in the past few years have not been holding up the standard of the fbi that the american people expect of them. i'm sure you're familiar with the report of the doj inspector general michael horowitz where

he looked at bias in the fbi. and, in fact, he found it. and he indicated in a hearing in this room before us that he did, in fact, find there was fbi -- bias at the fbi. and that -- but he said that he wasn't able to prove that the bias affected the employees' work product because in questions that i asked him, he said i found that there was clearly bias, but in order to prove whether that affected the work output of those who were bias, i had to ask them whether it impacted and they of course said no. and i didn't have other evidence to prove otherwise. this is getting back to a conversation you had earlier about whether the fbi's business or whether his business was to prove a negative or whether it was to find some actionable conduct. my reason in going through this with you is that i want to get

at what we can do -- well first of all whether you agree that there is a problem of bias in the fbi in some parts or some individuals at the fbi and whether you are undertaking activities to address that. >> well, i -- you mean political bias? >> yes. whether there is political bias, that is resulting in biased conduct by fbi agents -- >> i haven't seen that since i've been there. i think that chris wray, the new director, has changed out the people who were there before and brought in -- not brought in from outside but promoted and developed new leadership team that i think is doing a great job and i think he's focused on -- on ensuring that the bureau isn't biased and that any of the problems from before are addressed. so -- >> do you believe it is inappropriate conduct for an fbi

employee to leak politically sensitive information to the public for purposes of impacting political discussion? >> yes. yes. and i think some leaks -- some leaks are maybe for political purposes, i think probably more leaks are because people handling a case don't like what their superiors or supervisors are doing and they leak it in order to control people up the chain. >> and i understand you have some investigations into that type of conduct underway. >> yes. >> just another couple of quick questions. when did the doj and the fbi, if you know, when did the doj and the fbi know that the democratic party paid for christopher steele's dossier, which then served as the foundation for the carter page fisa to that. >> are you investigating to

determine that? >> yes. >> and then lastly, did the department of justice and the fbi and other federal agencies engage in investigative activities before an official investigation was launched in july of 2016? >> i don't know the answer to that. but that is one of the -- >> you're also investigating that? >> yes. >> thank you very much, attorney general. >> senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general barr, thank you for your testimony. and let me start by just saying thank you. you've had an extraordinarily successful legal career and you didn't have to take this job and you step forwarded and answered the call yet again knowing full well you would be subject to the kind of slanderous treatment the kavanaugh treatment that we have seen of senators impugning your integrity. and i, for one, am grateful that

you answered that call and are leading the department of justice both with integrity and fidelity to law. that is what the nation rightly expects of our attorney general. and i believe you are performing that very ably. i think this hearing today has been quite revealing to anyone watching it. although perhaps not for the reasons some of the democratic senators intended. one thing that is revealing in the discussion and questions that came up, a word that occurred almost none at all is the word russia. for two and a half years we heard democratic senators going on and on and on about russia collusion. we heard journalists going on and on and on about russia collusion. alleging among other things, some using extreme rhetoric, calling the president a traitor. we heard very little of that in

this hearing today, instead the principal attack that democratic senators have marshalled upon you concerns this march 27th letter from robert mueller and it is an attack that i want people to understand just how revealing it is. if this is their whole argument, they ain't got nothing. so their argument is as follows. let me see if i understand it correctly. you initially, when you received the mueller report, released to congress and the public a four-page summary of the conclusions. then on march 27th mr. mueller asked you to release an additional 19 pages. the introduction and summary that he had drafted. and, indeed, in the letter what he said is, quote, i'm requesting that you provide these materials to congress and authorize their public release at this time. and the reason he said it is --

it is that -- that it is to fully capture the context, nature and substance of the office's work and conclusion. so you did not release those 19 pages at that time. instead, a couple of weeks later, you released 448 pages. the entire report, which included those 19 pages. do i have that timeline correct? >> that's right. >> so they're entire argument is, general barr, you suppressed the 19 pages that are entirely public, that we have, that we can read, that they know every word of it, and they're complaint is it was delayed a few weeks. and that is not to release it piecemeal but along with the entire 448 pages produced by the special counsel. >> yes. >> if that is their argument, i

have to say that is an exceptionally weak argument. because if your hiding something, i'll tell you right now, general barr, you're doing a very lousy job of hiding it because the thing you're suggesting you hid you released to congress and the american people and so if anyone wants to know what is in those 19 pages this that are being to breathlessly, oh, bob mueller said release the 19 pages. you did. you did it a couple of weeks later. but we could read every word of the 19 pages along with the full report. in injure judgment was the mueller report thorough? >> yes. >> did they expend enormous time, energy and resources investigating and producing that report? >> yes. >> and the mueller report concluded flat out on the question of russian collusion the evidence did not support criminal charges. >> that's right.

>> and indeed the mueller report, if i have the stats right, was compiled by 19 lawyers who were on the team, approximately 40 fbi agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and professional staff. the special counsel issued more than 2800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants, 230 orders for communication records, almost 50 orders authorizing the use of pen register, 13 requests for foreign government evidence and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses. is that correct. >> that is right. >> so we've investigated over and over and over and over again and the substance of the accusations that have been leveled at the president for two and a half years have magically disappeared. instead the complaint is the 19 pages that we can all read that is entirely public could have been released a few weeks earlier, oh, the calamity. let me shift to a different topic. a topic addressed already quite

a bit. i believe that the department of justice under the obama administration was profoundly politicized. and was weaponized to go after political opponents of the president. if that is the case, would you agree that politicizing the department of justice and weaponizing it to go after your political opponents is an abuse of power? >> i think it is an abuse of power regardless of who does it. >> of course. >> yep. >> um, to the best of your knowledge, when did surveillance of the trump campaign begin? >> the position today appears to be that it began in july, but i do not know the answer to the question. >> it is an unusual thing, is it not, for the department of justice to be investigating a candidate for president,

particularly a candidate from the opposing party of the party of power? >> yes. >> do we know if the obama administration investigated any other candidates for president? >> i don't know. well i guess they were investigating hillary clinton for the email -- the email -- >> do we know if there were wiretaps? >> i don't know. >> do we know if there were efforts to -- send investigators in wearing a wire? >> i don't know. >> so general barr, i would r j rurj -- urge you've have remarkable discretion and you promised this committee and the american people you would release the mueller report publicly and you have released the mueller report, anyone can read it. it is right here. i appreciate that transparency and would you ask to you bring the same transparency to this line of questioning about whether and the extent to which the previous administration politicized the department of

justice and targeting their political rivals and used law enforcement and intelligence assets to survey them improperly. >> thank you. so that is the end of the first round. we have votes i think at 3:00 and there are four votes but what i would like to do is just -- can you go for a few more minutes here? you're okay. you're all right? >> yes. >> senator leahy, you're next. three-minute second rounds. >> senator feinstein felt the fbi would be derelict of the duty if it did not investigate after what it learned from australia, the trump administration by australia. the trump campaign knew russia stolen democratic emails before the victims knew and they were told the russians assisted the campaign with the stolen emails. the fbi was right to look into it, that resulted of course in 37 indictments. but let me ask you, mr. barr,

your letter you claim that the lack of evidence of the underlying crime bears on whether the president had the requisite intent to commit obstruction of justice. there are numerous reasons. one, somebody might interfere with the investigations. most critically in the interference may prevent the discovery of an underlying crime. so interfering, you might not know if there is a crime. but the special counsel did uncover evidence of underlying crimes here. including one that directly implicated the president. didn't we learn due to the special counsel's investigation that donald trump is known as individual 1 in the southern district of new york directing harsh payments as part of a political scheme to violate

campaign finance laws and that matter was discovered by a special counsel, referred to the southern district of new york, is that correct? >> yes. >> thank you. and we have more report references a dozen ongoing investigations stemming from the special counsel investigation. will you commit that you will not interfere with those investigations? >> could you say -- >> could you commit that you'll not interfere with the dozen ongoing investigations? >> i will supervise those investigations as attorney general. >> will you let them reach natural conclusions without interference from the white house, let me put it that way then? >> yes. as i said, when i was up for confirmation, part of my responsibility is to make sure there is no political interference in cases. >> well, and you testified a

number of things and that is why i'm double checking you and the appropriation committee i asked you whether mr. mueller expressed any expectation or interest in leaving the instruction decision to congress. and you testified he didn't say that to you. actually you said he didn't say that to me. >> right. >> but then he has numerous references in his report to congress playing a role in deciding whether the president committed obstruction of justice. so you testified many times, but that was not correct. >> that's not correct? i think it is correct. i mean i don't -- he has not said that he conducted the investigation in order to turn it over to congress. that would be very inappropriate. that is not what the justice department is -- >> he included numerous references to report to congress playing a role in volume two, page 8, includes in the congress

may apply the obstruction laws to the president's corrupt exercise of powers of office in accordance with our constitutional system of justice. >> i don't think bob mueller was suggesting that-that the next step here was for him to turn this stuff over for -- to congress to act upon, that is not why we conduct grand jury investigations. >> and president trump, i am correct in my earlier statement, never allowed anybody to interview him directly under oath, is that correct? >> i think that is correct. >> even though he said he was ready to testify? thank you. >> could i -- >> sure. >> a point you raised about the absence of a -- of underlying crime, at one point i was trying to make earlier is the absence of an underlying crime doesn't necessarily mean that there -- that there would be other motives for obstruction.

although it gets a little bit harder to prove and more speculative as to what those motives might be. but the point i was trying to make earlier is in this situation with the president who has constitutional authority to supervise proceedings, if, in fact, a proceeding was not well-founded, if it was a groundless proceeding, or based on false allegations, the president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course. the president could terminate that proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused. and he would be worried about the impact on his administration. that is important because most of the obstruction claims that are being made here, or episodes, do involve the exercise of the president's constitutional authority and we now know that he was being

falsely accused. >> i don't agree with that. but that's okay. thank you. >> general, i have two questions if you don't mind. the mueller -- general barr. i have two questions. the mueller report describes the reasons why the fbi opened a counterintelligence investigation in july 2016 into russian election interference. there have been many references to why they would do such a thing. by that date the democratic national committee server had been hacked and russians had been deemed responsible. some of the stolen emails had been released by wikileaks. a foreign government, the australian government, had told our fbi that trump foreign policy aide papadopoulos said he was contacted by a person on russia's behalf to help the trump campaign by releasing information damaging to hillary clinton. that was in the mueller report. do you believe it was an appropriate predicate for opening a counterintelligence

investigation to determine whether russia had targeted people in the trump campaign to offer hacked information that might impact the president's election? >> i would have to see exactly what the report was from downer, the australian downer and exactly what he quoted papadopoulos as saying. but from what you just read, i'm not sure what the correlation was between the russians having dirt and jumping to the conclusion that that suggested foreknowledge of the hacking. >> according to mr. mueller in his report, this involvement of trump foreign policy aide charge papadopoulos had something to do with their conclusion. would you like to ask you a separate issue. it has been reported that on april 16th you received a waiver to participate in the investigation and litigation of the so-called one mdb matter. this is an investigation into a malaysian company from alleged money laundering. according to news reports, as part of this investigation, u.s. attorney's office for the

eastern district of new york is investigating whether a malaysian national illegally donated to the trump inaugural committee with money taken from 1 mdb. you sought a waiver to participate in this matter even though your former law firm kirkland and ellis represented an entity involved in the investigation, namely g received to participate in investigations involving trump businesses, the trump campaign or the trump inaugural committee. >> none. >> you did seek a waiver in this case? >> i -- actually, the impose us, as i recall and people should jump me if i'm wrong. it didn't come to me. i was asked to seek a waiver in this case. >> do you see the problem if the issue is whether or not a money laundering operation in malaysia is sending money to the trump inaugural committee that as attorney general of the united states you may not want to involve yourself in this? >> i -- well, no, i don't. i don't. because i was not involved with

the inaugural -- >> why would you seek a waiver to participate in this. >> the waiver was -- i guess the conflict was not because of any relationship i had to the inaugural committee, which i didn't. >> no, it is to goldman sachs, your former clients. >> it is for kirkland ellis. >> no. i just don't understand why you would touch that hot stove. >> that is a good -- >> you sought the waiver and that is why i'm asking the question. >> the criminal division actually asked me to get a waiver because of the importance of this investigation overall. i was requested by the criminal division. i didn't seek it. the impetuous did not come from me. >> and who would that be that made that recommendation to you? >> i'm told it was the criminal division. >> mr. benchcowski.

>> yeah, he was the head of the criminal division but apparently they discussed it with the career ethics official and they made the recommendation. >> thank you. >> senator whitehouse. >> mr. barr, a couple of timing questions. you said that on march 5th mr. mueller came to you and said that he was going to not make a decision on obstruction and leave that to you. >> he didn't say he was leaving it to me. >> that he was not going to make an obstruction -- >> right. >> on march 24th you sent out the letter describing your decision. somewhere between march 5th and march 24th you made that decision. when was that? >> we started talking about it on march 5th and there had already been a lot of discussions prior to march 5th involving the deputy, the