instead, we must spend our time debating the troubles of the wayward administration, how the attorney general conducts himself before congress, how president trump undermines the integrity of the justice system, now the department continues to ignore the oversight requests of this committee. although this is the attorney generals first appearance before the house, he's already made three visits to our colleagues in the senate. at his confirmation hearing, he testified that he did not have indications with the russians. last month he testified that a continuing exchange of information between trump's surrogates and intermediaries

for the russian government did not happen, at least to my knowledge, and not with me. we now know, of course, that neither of these statements is true. shortly after the attorney general made the first comment, "washington post" reported that he met with the russian ambassador at least twice during the campaign. in the past month we've also learned that the attorney general must have been very much aware of a continuing exchange of information between the trump campaign and the russian government. and charging documents unsealed last month, george papadopoulos, a foreign-policy advisor to the trump campaign, admits to

extensive communications with russian contacts. at a march 31, 2016, meeting of the campaigns national security advisory committee, attended by candidate trump, and chaired by senator sessions, mr. papadopoulos stated in some and in substance that he had connections that could help arrange a meeting between then candidate trump and president putin. it does not matter and has been reported that the attorney general remembers this meeting after the fact. remembers it so vividly, in fact, that two unarmed sources -- unnamed sources say the senator shot george down. under oath knowing in advance

that he would be asked about the subject, attorney general gave answers that were at best incomplete. i hope the attorney general can provide some clarification on this problem in his remarks today. i also hope that he can assure us that the department is weathering near daily attacks on its independence by president trump, and that no office of the department is being used to pressure the presidents political enemies. in recent months president trump has attacked the beleaguered attorney general and criticized his very weak position on hillary clinton.

the president has talked openly about firing the leadership of the department, including the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, the former acting director of the fbi, and special counsel robert mueller. he did fire former fbi director comey, in his own words, quote, because of that russia thing with trump and russia, and quotation. as well as acting attorney general sally yates, and all 46 sitting united states attorneys. last year he denigrated a federal judge because of his, quote, mexican heritage, end quote. and judge curiel was born in indiana, by the way. last month in a radio interview,

president trump said he was very unhappy with the justice department. hours later he proclaimed the military justice system a complete and total disgrace. but the one that sticks with me is the presidents july interview with the "new york times." in that interview, he begins by once again attacking the attorney generals and ability. sessions never should have recused himself, the president complained. then the conversation takes a sinister turn. when nixon came along, out of courtesy, the fbi started reporting to the department of justice, but the fbi person really reports directly to the

president of the united states. egos on. -- he goes on. i could have ended the flynn investigation just by saying they say it can't be obstruction because you can say it in bed, it's over. as is often the case the president requires some correction. the director of the fbi reports directly to the attorney general and has since the founding of the bureau, it can be obstruction of justice if the president orders an investigation closed with a corrupt motive. but what strikes me about these comments is the president's of you that the criminal justice system serves him and not the public. president trump seems to believe that on a whim he can bring

pressure to bear on his enemies, dismissed charges against his allies, and insulate himself and his family from any consequence. i cannot overemphasize the danger of this perspective poses to our republic. and i have served on this committee long enough to remember another president who shared this view. i was, myself, on richard nixon's enemies list. and although we work to hold that administration accountable, our work is not complete. we must all remember our common responsibility to prevent that kind of abuse from happening again. i will look to the attorney

generals partnership in this effort, but i began to worry about his resolve. last night in a letter sent by the department to chairman goodlatte, without so much as a copy to the ranking member by the way, the assistant attorney general seems to leave the door open to appointing a new special counsel to cater to the president's political needs. the fact that this letter was sent to the majority without the customary and appropriate notice to me indicates that the charge given to the department officials to evaluate the issues has political motivations. now, in his own words, the attorney general is recused from any questions involving

investigations that involve secretary clinton. president we cannot refer an investigation to a second counsel is we lack the evidence to predicate a criminal investigation in the first place. virtually, every clinton related matter that president trump complains about has been well litigated, carefully examined, and completely debunked. still, to quote form attorney general mike mukasey, putting political opponents in jail for offenses committed in a political setting is something that we don't do here. the threat alone resembles, in his words, a banana republic.

finally, there is is the mattef routine oversight between hearings. in the recent history of this committee, new attorneys generally usually come to see us within two or three months of taking office. no attorney general in recent memory has taken more than six months before making an appearance here. attorney general sessions has broken that norm. he has had more than ten months to settle in, making our communications with the department between hearings that much more important. to date my colleagues and i have sent more than 40 letters to the trump administration asking for information necessary to carry out our oversight responsibilities.

we have sent more than a dozen of these letters directly to the attorney general. to date we have not received a single substantive response. we can disagree on matters of policy, mr. attorney general, but you cannot keep us in the dark forever. when we make a reasonable request, we expect you to reply in a prompt and responsive manner. and i hope you can explain why your department has chosen to ignore these letters. more importantly, i hope that you will be more forthcoming with your answers, both in your testimony today and in the weeks to come. and i look forward to your testimony, and mr. chairman, i think you and you back the balance of my time. >> thanks mr. condit.

>> without objection all of the members of the exhibits will be made a part of the record. we welcome our distinguished witness and if you would please rise, i'll begin by swearing you in. please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to get jumpy the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you. let the wreckage of the witness answered in the affirmative. -- let the record show. >> miss jeff sessions weren't in as 84th attorney general of the united states on february 9, 2017. from 1996 to his confirmation to leave the department of justice mr. session served as a united states senator for alabama. previously attorney general sessions served as an assistant united states attorney and united states attorney for the southern district of alabama. alabama attorney general, and captain in the united states army reserves. attorney general sessions is a graduate of huntington college and the university of alabama law school.

welcome, attorney general sessions. your anti-written statement will be entered into the record, and we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes but i noted the ranking member took a few more minutes than that, if you find that necessary please feel free to do that as well. welcome. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, is an honor to be before this distinguished committee, having served 20 years on your counterpart in the senate, the senate judiciary committee. mr. chairman, i must note that i note with regret your announcement of retirement, and i know that our relationship has been good in the past, and hope it will continue to be good as you serve your. you've done a fabulous job in leading this committee. on my first day as attorney general i spoke about quote, the critical role we at the department play in maintaining and strengthening the rule of law, which forms the foundation of our liberty, our safety and

our prosperity. in this rule of law we are blessed be on all nations. so i truly believe that, and at this department we must do all we can to ensure that it is preserved and advanced such ideals, frames and politics. found that date to today we at the department of justice have worked to be faithful to that nation. let me share some things we've done initially. the president sent us in order to reduce crime, not to allow client to continue to increase, and we embraced that mission. the violent crime rate has risen and the homicide rate has risen by more than 20% in just two years. really after 30 years of decline and violent crime. after a careful review we have established a reinvigorated project safe neighborhood program as a foundational policy for public safety.

it has been proven to get results in its first seven years of implementation, and reduce violent crime by 4.1% with case study showing reductions in certain areas where was intentionally applied up, up to 42%. so we're also focusing on criminals with guns as you mentioned, mr. chairman, and we've seen a 23% increase in gun prosecutions, in the second quarter of this first fiscal year, my first year. and i'm honored to lead the superb men and women of the fbi, the drug enforcement administration, atf and united states marshals service who work together every day with our state and local partners in this court crime-fighting mission that is the responsibility of the department. last year we saw a staggering 61% increase in the number of

law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty because of a felony. on average more than 150 officers were assaulted every single day. these numbers are unacceptable. fortunately the president understands this. he has directed us at the beginning of my administration, to back our men and women in blue. we are making it clear that we stand with our law enforcement partners 100%. they are the solution to crime, not the problem. we've also protected the rule of law and her own department. we prohibited so-called third-party settlements that were being used to bankroll special interest groups. we settled civil cases regarding the affordable care act birth-control mandate, settled the case is that many groups of tax-exempt groups whose status was significantly and wrongfully

delayed by the internal revenue service. we've also provided legal counsel to this administration in favor of ending several other unlawful policies. this includes president trump's order ending billions in funding for insurance companies that were not appropriated by congress under the affordable care act. this action with the house it filed a lawsuit to stop, putting into one of the most dramatic erosions of the congressional appropriations power in our history. house members, you are correct to childish that. you one in the district court. we believe you are correct and we had, we reversed the policy and have that matter withdrawn, policy withdrawn. we put into action by the previous administration to circumvent congresses duly passed immigration laws on the

daca. the policy individuals who are here illegally certificates of lawful status, work permits and the right to participate in social security. we withdrew that unlawful policy, and now the issue is in the hands of congress, really where it belongs. we have filed briefs defending properly enacted state voter identification laws, lawful redistricting plans, religious liberty, and free speech on college campuses. in short, it is our mission to restore the american peoples confidence in the department of justice by defending the rule of law and enforcing the laws as you have passed in. and it is a mission we are honored to undertake. in response to letters from this committee and others i have directed senior federal prosecutors to make recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be open. whether any matters truly an

investigation require further resources and whether any matters under consideration may make the appointment of a special counsel. and as you are aware, the departments inspector general has an active review of allegations that fbi policies and procedures were not followed last year in a number of matters that you address. and mr. chairman, a letter was addressed to you because it was a response to your letter, and that's how it was sent. we will make such decisions without regard. hear me, without regard with politics, ideology or bias. as many of you know the department has a long-standing policy not to confirm or deny the existence of investigations. this policy can be frustrating, i understand, especially when there's great public interest about a matter. but it enhances justice when we

act under the law with professionalism and discipline. this policy necessarily preclude any discussion on cases i may be recused from, , because to do so would confirm the existence of underlying investigations. to the extent a matter come to the attention of my office that may warrant consideration of refusal, i review the issue, consult with the appropriate department ethics officials, and make my decision, as i promised the senate committee when i was confirmed lastly, like to address the false charges made about my previous testimony. my answers have not changed. i've always told the truth, and i answered every question as i understood them to the best of my recollection, , as i will continue to do today. i would like to address recent news reports regarding meetings during the campaign attended a

george papadopoulos and carter page, among others frankly, i had no recollection of this meeting until i saw these news reports. i do now recall that the march 2016 meeting at the trump hotel that mr. papadopoulos attended, but i have no clear recollection of the details of what he said at that meeting. after reading his account and to the best of my recollection, i believe i wanted to make clear to him that he was not authorized to represent the campaign, with the russian government or any other foreign government, for that matter. but but i did not recall this et which occurred 18 months before my testimony of a few weeks ago, and i would gladly have reported it had i remembered it because i pushed back against his suggestion that i thought may have been improper.

as for mr. page, while i do not challenge is recollection, i have no memory of his presence at a dinner at the capitol hill club or any passing conversation he may have had with me as he left the dinner. all you have been in campaigns, let me just suggest, but most of you have not participated in a presidential campaign, and none of you had a part in the trump campaign. and it was a brilliant campaign, i think, in many ways, but it was a form of chaos every day from day one. we traveled sometimes to several places in one day. sleep was in short supply, and i was still a full-time senator with a very full schedule. during this year i spent close to 20 hours testifying before congress, before today. i have been asked to remember details from a year ago such as

i saw on what day and what meeting and who said what to win. and all of my testimony i can only do my best to answer your questions, as i understand them into the best of my memory. but i will not accept and reject accusations that i've ever lied. that is a lie. let me be clear. i have at all times conducted myself honorably and in a manner consistent with the high standards and responsibilities of the office of attorney general, which i revere. i spent 15 years in that department. i love that department. i honor that department and will do my dead level best to be worthy of your attorney general. as i said before, my story has never changed. i've always told the truth and answered every question to the best of my recollection, and i will continue to do so today.

with that, mr. chairman, i'm honored to take your questions. >> and those are opening statements. we are going to live to capitol hill to coverage of the house judiciary committee and oversight hearing with attorney general jeff sessions. >> watch what we do. we're not going to be driven by politics. we're going to try to do the right thing, and i believe that time will show that to be true. >> i see my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries. >> i have a copy of the transcript of your testimony before the senate judiciary committee in october picu stated under oath i don't recall in some form or fashion 29 times, is that correct? >> i have no idea. >> i have a copy of the transcript of your testimony before the senate intelligence committee in june picu stated under oath, i don't recall, in

some form or fashion approximately 36 times. is that correct? >> i don't know. >> in your testimony today you stated i don't recall at least 20 times, is that fair to say? >> i have no idea. >> now, on october 4, 2016, during a tv interview with lou dobbs you criticize hillary clinton for telling fbi investigators, i can't remember, approximately 35 times do you also stated during that lou dobbs interview that the intentional failure to remember and constitute perjury. mr. attorney general, do you still believe that the intentional failure to remember can and constitute a criminal act? >> if it's an act to deceive, yes. >> okay picu testified in january that you had no contact with russian operatives during the trump campaign. earlier today you testified that your story has quote, never

changed. is that correct? that was your testimony earlier today, , that you story has nevr change, correct? >> i believe that's fair to say. we've added things that i did not recall at the time, so my statement at the time was my best recollection, the circumstances, and i, as things are brought up speedy reclaiming my time. i understand. you know it does meeting with ambassador kislyak during the republican national convention, correct? >> i remember i made the speech. he came up to me afterwards that i was standing in front of the speaker program and did chat with him. >> thank you. you -- >> not a meeting. it was just an encounter at the time. >> you also met with the ambassador in september 2016 sn your office as you the

knowledge. >> was he asked for an appointment. i to senior staffers both full colonels in the united states army, retired. it and i had a meeting with -- >> you testified in june before the senate intelligence committee that you had not heard even a whisper about possible russian involvement in the trump campaign. yet we understand that you attended this march 31 meeting with george papadopoulos, talk about potential communications with russian operatives, but also according to your third quarter 2016 campaign you hosted at dinner meeting on june 302016 at the capital club, is at right? >> that's correct public. >> the senate reelection campaign pay for that meeting, right? >> i think that maybe so. >> and carter page and george papadopoulos both attended the june 30 meeting, correct? >> that has been reported. >> and at the meeting carter page told you that he was going to moscow in a few days, is that right? >> yes.

>> okay. >> and he said -- >> thank you. >> he said it was brief meeting as he is walking out the door. i don't recall that conversation, but i'm not able to dispute it. >> understood. reclaiming my tie. i've got limited time available. >> that is not, establish some sort of improper contact? >> i think you understand -- >> he's not russian either. >> i get to understand -- i could ask the questions. you are no longer in the senate. you voted in 1999 to remove bill clinton from office on charges of perjury, correct? >> that is correct. >> in connection -- >> there were other charges. i've already -- >> simple -- >> yes. >> understand. to remove him. impeachment has been in connection with that vote to remove president clinton from office, you gave this speech on the senate floor february 29, 1999, and in it he acknowledged

that while serving as u.s. attorney you once prosecuted a young police officer who live in a deposition. and in that speech you decided to prosecute that young police officer, even though he corrected his testimony. you have testified under oath before the senate judiciary committee in january. you subsequently corrected that testimony in a march 6 written submission, and have been forced repeatedly to come back to the senate and now the house to clarify. with explaining your vote on the senate floor to remove bill clinton from office, you stated that you refuse to hold a president accountable to a different standard than the young police officer who you prosecuted. let me be clear. the attorney general of the united states of america should not be held to a different standard than the young police

officer whose life you ruined by prosecuting him for perjury. i yield back. >> the gentleman may respond if you choose to. >> mr. jeffries, nobody, , nobo, not you or anyone else should be prosecuted, not me or accuse of perjury for answering the question the way i did in this hearing. i've always tried to answer the questions fairly and accurately, but ask you ever do something, did you ever meet with the russians and deal with the campaign? you were saying, mr. carter page who left that meeting according to the press reports and i guess his deposition or interview has been reported as saying i'm going to russia, i made no response to it, didn't acknowledge it, and you are accusing me of lying about that? i said that's not fair, mr. jeffries. i would say that's not fair,

colleagues. that's not in indication that i in any way anticipated in anything wrong. and the same with mr. papadopoulos turkey talked about, it's reported in the paper that he said something about going to rush and did it with the russians, and i pushed back and said you shouldn't do it. .. you didn't do anything wrong in that testimony. this question was garbled. that is not giving you any benefit of the doubt to deal with you guys are doing to you. i hear what you're saying and

you didn't do anything wrong there. i do want to talk to you about your recusal from the russian case. you cited the eight cfr for 45-point to saying you were not involved in the campaign and that triggered work usual however, that regulation only applies to criminal prosecutions or investigations. when you recuse yourself under james comey admission that was a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation is why did you cite that regulation to recuse a counterintelligence investigation when it's only applicability is for criminal investigation? >> i am not sure that that was expressed to me i was given advice about it in those terms, number one. number two, it could likely be interpreted as both and so i felt -- >> after you were accused comey test by march 20 that i'm authorized to say there's a counterintelligence investigation and he was telling

the president that you're not under investigation. that is what he said so i think that may have been misapplied but i understand what you're saying. >> i did follow the advice that was given. >> i know you did. you talk about that you can't confirm or deny and that's a good policy but why was comey allowed to confirm that investigation in march 20 which invited all kinds of irresponsible speculation. you were recused and someone in the department authorized them to do that. why did they break policy? >> this march 20? i don't recall how that exactly occurred but i do agree with you, congressman that mr. comey talk to more than he should. he had no power right or justification in announcing the conclusion of a criminal investigation. he was the investigator, not th-

>> i have limited time and i don't want to drop let me move on. i agree with you. uranium one case, even as what can you say forget about whether it's under investigation -- in the past, as did the fbi or doj inform either president obama, secretary clinton or any cabinet secretary that had uncovered evidence that the main us executive was engaged in bribery, kickbacks and money-laundering before the obama administration approved uranium one seal deal in 2010? >> that matter was prosecuted in maryland, one. >> the fbi had evidence of bribery, kickbacks and money-laundering. was that information conveyed to any of the relative people on the board? clinton, other cabinet secretaries or was it given to the president? >> the way i understand that matter is that the case in which

he was convicted was not connected to the city is problem that occurred three years before when the case came to the united states attorney's office mr. rosenstein's office in maryland it had already been approved by two years or more. >> there was an fbi informant starting in 2009? >> i have not talked with him and the department of justice on the stand has approved him of providing information to the congress and i understand it will be set up in a few days and you will be able to hear from him direct. >> you should too because everything i have proffered his he has evidence of illegal conduct for this deal was agreed to involving uranium one and it was all connected and so i think that is something we need to do

let me move on. the leaking you mention you cannot confirm or deny the existence of a leak michael flynn, that was used against the and ministrations let me ask you this -- since the president was elected has anybody been held accountable, criminally or administrative way, for leaking information against the administration and a political motive? >> well, i think of the individual in georgia had a motive that has been charged and but a number we have the seven ongoing investigations and some of those involved weeks before president trump took office in some after. >> final question. >> for that it was only three every year and there's three times as many this year as in the entire three years before being investigated. >> why can't you just tell us

whether or not the fbi extended resources to give money to christopher steele it's not about going into the investigation but we as oversight over your department and we are taxpayer dollars used to give the christopher steele yes, sir no. >> i'm not able to do that. for several reasons it is an ongoing matter and also it may well involve classified information. >> thank you mr. attorney general. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i recognize in advance. i'll try to go to questions quickly. multiple trust the reports revealed last that the justice department may require at&t to sell cnn among other assets in the requirement for approval of the proposed acquisition of time warner. subsequently more reports of rupert murdoch and a covenant a person trump has placed contacted at&t in an effort to buy cnn. this is disturbing to those who are responsible for oversight of these issues in my first question is has any white house

employee or official including the president contacted the justice department regarding the at&t time warner transaction or any other transaction? >> i'm not able to comment on conversations on communications that involve the department of justice and the people with the top people at the white house. >> i would be mr. care, i would ask that you ask him to answer the question. you can't climb because it's uncomfortable you can invoke the best. >> witness can answer the question in the fashion he determined. >> reserving my right, mr. chairman,. >> will not answer the question? any white house or any white house officials that have attempted to interfere or speak to the justice department about this transaction? >> a long-standing part of justice policy the department of justice does not reveal privileged conversation --

>> me to move on. the foreign agents registration act your milieu that smart. >> right to think about the? >> i think it is a good law you would force it smart. >> yes, it has value. >> will report and any other senior administration officials lobbied for foreign governments under the foreign agent registration? >> i'm not able to come in on the. >> why not? >> repeat the question perhaps i misunderstood it. >> in addition to paul manafort and michael flynn have any trump campaign advisors, senior administration, the lobby for foreign governments from disclosing it under the foreign agent registration? >> that should be a question directed to mr. muller, i believe. >> on october 6 department of justice, issued a 25 page memo for all federal agency reporting to provide guidance on religious liberty protection under federal law. in the guidance you direct or

indicate that an exemption or combination for religious organizations from is the law might be required even where congress has not expressly can exempted religious organizatio organizations, remember that smart. >> yes. >> what in employee of fema be able to provide disastrous [inaudible] >> i don't believe it could be interpreted that way. policy document we did. [inaudible conversations] i have to answer. >> what they [inaudible] every matter, first, i don't think so. number one. under the guidance but also the guidance does not repeal established laws that are in place and it was written that

guidance was to clarify and establish and. >> i have limited time. now returning to the papadopoulos issue. in your october 18 testimony you purport to have forgotten this conversation by mr. papadopoulos about russia that you put into. you said you weren't being dishonest that you forgot it. remember that? >> something like that. >> when did you remember mark's of mr. papadopoulos? when did that memory come back to you? >> i think it was when the press came up with it were that it was revealed in the past. >> the first time you remember that? >> i would call that my october statement was a broad question that no, i understand. [inaudible conversations]

>> did you ever exchange any e-mail, text message or any other occasion to her from mr. papadopoulos about russia or any other subject? >> repeat the category, list of things to make any e-mails, text message or any communication to or from mr. papadopoulos. >> i do not believe so and i'm confident i did not. >> did anyone ever forward you a quick occasions from him? >> i do not call it. >> does anyone communicate with you about mr. profitable is smart. >> i can't say that there were no conversations about him before or after this event. >> the time has expired. when this can answer the question. >> i don't have a specific recollection mr. chairman. >> i like to make a unanimous consent request. i would ask unanimous consent to insert the following materials of record. a letter from me and drinking letter conyers on the antitrust

enforcement matters, a letter from senators to the justice department urging it to oppose any attempt by the white house to interfere with antitrust laws. a july article in the new york times reporting that senior white house advisors discussed using the at&t time warner merger as a potential point of leverage over cnn and nine letters as far back as february of this year from various members of the judiciary committee seeking information on a wide range of subjects addressed to the attorney general the states that have been ignored. we have received no response. >> without objection is applied to the record. the gentleman from texas for five minutes is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general good to see her. if fbi director held a conference far without your knowledge to announce it a

charging decision in a major federal investigation would you consider that an inappropriate departure from long-standing department of justice and fbi policy? >> under the situation today, under the latter that deputy attorney general rosenstein wrote with regard to mr. comey i think it would be a determinate double offense that is not discipline. we need to be disciplined in this department and we don't need to be leaking and we don't need to have people taking actions outside of their realm. maybe sometimes people make an honest mistake but that would be a dramatic thing which he would never do. >> i'll take that as an emphatic yes. to your knowledge are there any current federal prosecutors in your office that are pre- determining cases prior to the interviewing of key witnesses to include the subjects or targets of those investigations? >> i do not believe so.

>> is a practice in your department of justice to allow immunize witnesses to sit in the interviews of the subject or target of federal investigations? >> that would not be a normal process for sure. >> mr. attorney general, these are a few of the irregularities or anomalies that have taken place and how the department of justice and the fbi have handled these investigations and prosecutions prior to 2016 and now a departure from how you are handling them. it is also these regularities shaken the faith and trust of in our department of justice. look, i'm of the opinion that

the last eight years we have survived the worst presidency of my lifetime. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent their time today trying to convince you that we have to survive a bad president right now and that is okay. for 240 years of republican was to that and elected officials come and go but right now where we are and what our history will tell us is what happens to our republican people lose all faith and trust in the department of justice in the fbi to thoroughly investigate and to prosecute on prosecute the rule of law we one time how the same position in the department of justice. i was us attorney, as for you and you have obviously been promoted and the public opinion polls tell us anything the chair i hold right now signals that i've been demoted but by time as us attorney taught me something you said in your opening which is that the department of justice must always transcend politics to uphold the rule of law and i think more than anything else with the american people want to hear from you today is that this is in fact the case and that mr. gaudi said in his line of questioning lady

justice is supposed to be holding a set of scales wearing a blindfold and she is not supposed to have her finger on the scales and i think the american people have every reason to question whether or not that is where we are right now so more than anything else what i'm asking from you is to hear from you that you are prepared no, that you are committed to go wherever the facts and evidence lead you regardless of the political consequences for any political party or any person to include donald trump or hillary clinton or yourself. >> yes i am in the department of justice is and you will soon have it director ray, i believe, coming for your committee and i hope you will ask them these questions and i thank you will be impressed with his commitment in that regard. as united states attorneys it was raised in that idea so i am

glad that i had my 15 years in the department of justice before i came to congress. you get your values shaped may be at a younger age but i think i understand the role i have and the responsibility we have to do justice and i would say this that in the long run if i want the respect of this body, both sides of the aisle i will have to follow the rules in the department and it may frustrate you that i can't answer questions or confirm to you or other members on the side and it may frustrate people on the side but if i'm not prepared to do that then i don't think i will ever restore the department of justice. that is what our goal would be. hopefully -- hope it is not as bad as you say but i think there is a danger out there and we

want to fix it. >> mr. attorney general, thank you for your continued service. i go back. >> the chairman advise members of the 20 they are about eight happening vote in this vote. the gentleman from california has persuaded me that he will permit him to proceed but other members are advised we will reconvene immediately following this vote and the gentleman from california is organized five minutes back thank you for appearing. i express my gratitude to the men and women who serve the department of justice. you stated in your opening statement that my story has never changed and mr. attorney general it has changed three times. today we heard the third addition when you told us that you do now recall mr. papadopoulos mentioning that he had contacts in russia and so i have a site for you that i would like to display. it's a january 1017 with senator franken where he asked about campaign with russia and you

stated senator franken, i'm not aware of any of these activiti activities. mr. attorney general, if you ask a question today, recalling that you are now aware of what mr. papadopoulos said on march 301st would you answer the question differently? >> all i would say to you, congressman, if you really treat the exchange i had with senator franken i thank you can understand where when i answer the question i felt like i was answering it properly. >> but you today it agree it should be answered differently. >> -- considering your that you just gave. >> i believe that you are asking me today explicitly did you meet with any other russians and i am prepared to say i did. i met with the ambassador in my office with at least two of my staff, senior, respected patriots, colonels retired in the army and nothing improper

occurred at all. >> once and for all can we answer the question. >> i am once and for all answering the question. i don't understand why you won't take my answer. >> were on the third addition. during your time on the campaign did any person on earth state that they were communicating with russians traveling with russia or asked the campaign to meet with russians to your recollection. >> was i asked that question smart. >> i'm asking you today, to your knowledge, to a person on the campaign tell you they were going to russia. >> i am prepared to answer a question but i will not answer it in a way that suggests that i in any way intentionally misled anyone when i answered the question. >> what is the answer to smart. >> the answer is i met with the ambassador in my office for less than an hour, i believe. i'm he came up to me after a speech at the convention when it

was raised to me that this was much later. no one said immediately it was an error by oppressed and i immediately revealed and acknowledged and told them the meetings i had had contact with respect to carter page he told you as you to seek knowledge that he was going to russia and he was also on the national security team and this is the second person within about three months now that is bringing up russian contact and you did not tell him to not go to russia, is that correct? [laughter] >> no i did not tell them not to go to russia. [inaudible conversations] >> i don't recall him saying that but am i supposed to stop him from taking a trip? >> at that point in my supposed to think that now two people have talked to go russia or having contact with pleasure that the complaint rear the chairman of the national security team might have a russia problem?

>> if i read what has been said about papadopoulos meeting, the one that was earlier than that i did say you don't represent something to the effect and i pushed back at a strip and was concerned that he not go off somewhere pretending to represent the trump campaign. he had no authority for that. this young man did not have ability and are not to be going to reps of the campaign. [inaudible conversations] the next one is carter page and he said from what i see in his testimony interviews he said after the meeting was over he goes out and -- >> moving on. >> he went out and said i went to russia and i'm a no response. >> director -- [inaudible conversations] >> i have not done anything dishonest. >> the cia director has that

wikileaks is a hostile non- director and you agree to smart. >> i'm not able to discover that. >> candidate trump who you are working -- >> he's more aware of it than their activities and i am. >> he said that throughout the campaign i love picnics. you love wikileaks? >> i'm not a fan of wikileaks. >> to think is appropriate the donald trump junior to make it with wikileaks during the course of the campaign? >> i'm not able to get just judgment on that time has expired. you stand in recess until the vote. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> attorney general jeff sessions for the house judiciary committee for about three and half hours now and they are breaking here and there is a series of votes on the house floor. three votes so the chairman will gavel back in after those votes are done here on c-span2. here is a reminder that the senate gaveling back in at 2:15 continuing consideration of executive nomination this week. he will bring you live coverage of the judiciary committee when they gavel back in here in the next 20 minutes or so. until then part of the earlier part of today's session. >> under your leadership the prosecution of firearms offenses have increased 22% over the same period of the previous year.

furthermore, the number of defendants charged with using a firearm in violent crimes of drug trafficking rose 10% over the previous year. we have a slide which shows the increase as compared to the obama era numbers. what do these increase prosecutions of firearms defenses indicate about the department of justice commitment to fighting violent crimes, particularly with the use of firearms in this country? >> mr. chairman, as a former rural prosecutor was emphasized on prosecution i have long believed that they have a significant impact in reducing violent crimes, professors of earlier this year have explained that they share that view based on scientific analysis and it will be a high priority of ours and you are correct if prosecutions fail one incident that was raised during the texas horrible shooting at the church there and sutherland, texas was

the ability of an individual to get a firearm and whether or not they filed correctly therefore before you get one requires questions about criminal convictions and commercials. those prosecutions i've noticed have dropped by over 50% in the last three or four years. i think those are worthy prosecutions and criminal is carried a gun during a criminal act of some other kind and that is a clear and president danger to the public and in those cases it is important in the facts for reduction of crime. >> as you are aware, i in a majority of the committee, have on multiple occasions requested a special counsel to investigate former secretary hillary clinton mishandling of classified information