>> it was no surprise that one of first questions asked was whether the gentleman speaking the attorney general's spot here, mr. barr, was going to take a hands off approach when it came to the mueller inquiry. he said it over and over again, and said it now under oath. it jurunderlines the importance that robert mueller be given the resources and be free of interference from anyone in the administration until it is completed. i also hope mr. barr, if he's our attorney general, will release whatever is found, good or bad, from this inquiry for the american people to see it. that's part of our democratic process. >> senator, are you concerned

that the president keeps floating the idea of withdrawing from nato? >> the president is unfortunately not sensitive, being careful of my wording, to the importance of nato alliance for the last 70 years. and i think that nato alliance needs to continue for peace for the future relationships between the united states and europe.

a break in the the hearing of william barr, prump's nominee to be the next attorney general. the senate judiciary committee in the midst of the first scheduled break in the hearing until about 12:15 eastern. the hearing expected to last up to ten hours today and will likely reconvene tomorrow. by the way, if you missed any of the testimony today, you can watch it in its entirety on the c-span networks. while we wait for it to resume, we'll show you highlights from the hearing from earlier today. >> a little bit about the nominee. he's been attorney general before. those were the days. deputy attorney general from 90 to 91, unanimous consent without a recorded vote.

assistant attorney general office of legal counsel, voice vote. that's pretty amaze lg. i think you're going to have an actual vote this time. academic ally gifted, george washington law school, columbia undergraduate, outside of doj hfs the legislative council for the cia. he's been a law clerk, i'm not going to bore the committee with all the things he's done. he's senior vice president, general council of gto. he's lived a consequential life. you lived a life that i think is honorable and noteworthy and accomplished and i want to thank you for being willing to take this task on. we have a lot of problems at the department of justice and we need to change that. so i look forward to this

hearing. you will be challenged. you should be challenged. the memo, there will be a lot of talk about it, as there should be. but i just want to let you know that we appreciate you stepping up at a time when the country needs somebody of your background and temperament to be in charge of the rule of law. with that, i'll turn it over to my colleague senator feinstein. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want you to know i really look forward to working with you. i think we can work productively together. i had an opportunity to get. to know you as the fine person that you are. so thank you very much. i want to say a word or two or

three about women. 25 years ago there was no women on this committee. i'll never forget watching the a anita hill hearing with a lot of people gathered around. so i want over to take a look and i saw, and i saw this all may judiciary committee. it took all these years, but here we are, and i want to particularly welcome senator ernst and senator blackburn. i think it's extraordinarily important that this committee be representative of our society at large and we are growing that way and so thank you very much for being here. i'd also like to welcome bill barr and his family. i know you are proud to be here and you served as attorney general before from '91 to '93 and i think we all have great respect for your commitment to

public service. when we met your previous tenure marked a very -- we talked about -- a very different time for our country and today we find ourselves in a unique time with a different administration and different challenges. now perhaps more than ever before the country needs someone who will uphold the rule of law, depend the -- defend the independence of the justice department and truly understand their job is to serve as the people's lawyer, no the president's lawyer. top of mind for all of us is the ongoing mueller investigation. importantly, the attorney general must be willing to resist political pressure and be committed to protecting this investigation. i'm pleased that in our private meeting as well as in your written statement submitted to the committee you stated that it's vitally important -- and this is a quote -- that the

special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation, end quote. and that, quote, the public and congress be informed of the results of the special counsel's work, end quote. however, there are at least two aspects of mr. mueller's investigation, first, russian interference in the united states election, and whether any u.s. persons were involved in that interference, and second, possible obstruction of justice. it's the second component that you have written on and just five months before you were nominated i spent the weekend on your 19-page legal memo to deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, criticizing mueller's investigation, specifically the investigation into potential obstruction of justice. in the memo you conclude, i think, that special counsel mueller s quote, grossly irresponsible for pursuing an obstruction case against the president, and pursuing the obstruction inquiry is fatally miss conceived.

so i hope we can straighten that out in this hearing. but your memo also shows a large sweeping view of presidential authority and a determined effort, i thought, to undermine bob mueller, even though you state you have been friends and are in the dark about many of the facts of the investigation. so it does raise questions about your willingness to reach conclusions before knowing the facts and whether you pre judge the mueller investigation. and i hope you will make that clear today. it also raises a number of serious questions about your views on executive authority and whether the president is, in

fact, above the law. for example, you wrote the president -- and i quote -- alone is the executive branch, as such he is the sole repository of all executive powers conferred by the constitution. thus, the full measure of law enforcement authority is placed in the president's hands and no limit is placed on the kinds of cases subject to his control and supervision. this is in your memo on page 10, and i will ask you about it. this analysis included cases involving potential misconduct where you concluded, and i quote, the president may exercise his supervisory authority over cases dealing with his own interests, and the president transgresses no legal limitation when he does so. that's on page 12. in fact, you went so far as to quote the framer's plan codifies that the president's law

enforcement powers extend to all matters including those in which he has a personal stake. you also wrote the constitution itself places no limit on the president's authority to act on matters which concern him or his own conduct, page 10. later you have supervisory actions such as the firing of director comey may be unlawful obstruction, however, this, too, is qualified. you argue that such a case -- in such a case obstruction of justice occurs only if first a prosecutor proves that the president or his aides excluded with russia, specifically you conclude, and i quote, the issue of obstruction only becomes ripe after the alleged collusion by

the president or his campaign is established first, end quote. so that's some of the things i hope to ask you about. in conclusion, let me just say that some of your past statements on the role of attorney general and presidential power are concerning. for instance, you have said in the past that the attorney general is the president's lawyer. in november of 2017 you made comments suggesting it would be permissible for the president to direct the justice department to open an investigation into his political opponents, and this is notable in light of president

trump's repeated calls for the investigation of hillary clinton and others who disagree with him. i believe it's important that the next attorney general be able to strongly resist pressure, whether from the administration or congress to conduct investigations for political purposes. you must have the integrity, the strength and the fortitude to tell the president no, regardless of the consequences. in short, he must be willing to defend the independence of the justice department. so my questions will be do you have that strength and commitment to be independent of the white house pressures you will undoubtedly face. will you protect the integrity of the justice department above all else? thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i do.

>> before i begin, could i introduce my family? >> absolutely. >> my wife christine, my daughter margaret, she was an assistant united states attorney in the district of columbia, but now has moved up to capitol hill and works for senator braun. my middle daughter patricia, who is also an attorney and she has been council to the house agriculture committee for how long now? i think 11 years. and my daughter mary, who is a long time federal prosecutor and is currently the coordinator for opioid enforcement in the office of the deputy attorney general. mary's husband mike, who is also an attorney at the department of

justice in the national security division. and their son, liam, who will some day be in the department of justice. patricia's husband is a founding partner of a consultanting if i were, and meg's husband who is also an assistant united states attorney in the eastern district of virginia. did i leave anyone out? >> think about medical school, liam. somebody needs to make money in the family. >> when meg was starting at notre dame, i told her i wanted a doctor in the family, and i made her take organic chemistry. needless to say, she's now a lawyer. good morning, mr. chairman. ranking member feinstein and

members of the committee. it's a privilege to come before you today, and i'm honored that president trump has nominated me for the position of attorney general. i regret that i come before this committee at a time when much of our government is shut down and my thoughts are with the dedicated men and women to the department of justice and other federal workers, many of whom continue to perform their critical jobs. as you know, if the senate confirms me this would be my second time i would have the honor of holding this office. during the four years i served under president bush he nominated me for three successive positions in the department, the assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel, the deputy attorney general, and finally the attorney general, and this committee unanimously approved me for each of those offices. 27 years ago at my confirmation

hearing, i explained that the office of attorney general is not like any other cabinet post. it is unique and has a critical role to play under our constitutional system. i said then the attorney general has a very special obligation. unique obligations. he holds and trusts the fair and impartial administration of justice. it is the attorney general's responsibility to enforce the law even handedly and with integrity. the attorney general must ensure that the administration of justice, the enforcement of the law is above and away from politics. nothing could be more destructive of our system of government, of the rule of law, or the department of justice as an institution than any toleration of political interference with the enforcement of the law. i believe this as strongly today

as i did 27 years ago, indeed, more strongly. we live in a time when the country is deeply divided. in the current environment, the american people have to know that there are places in the government where the rule of law, not politics holds sway, and where they will be treated fairly based solely on the facts and the even handed application of the law, the department of justice must be that place. i did not pursue this position, and when my name was first raised, i was reluctant to be considered, and indeed, proposed a number of alternative candidates. i'm 68 years old, partially retired and nearing the end of a long legal career. my wife and i were looking forward to a peaceful and cherished time with our daughters and grandchildren. and i've had this job before. but ultimately i agreed to serve because i believe strongly in

public service. i revere the law. i love the department of justice and the dedicated professionals who serve there. and i believe that i can do a good job leading the department in these times. if confirmed, i will serve with the same independence i did in 1991. at that time when president bush chose me, he sought no promises and asked only that his attorney general act with professionalism and integrity. likewise, president trump has sought no assurances, promises or commitments from me of any kind either express or implied, and i have not given him any other than that i would run the department with professionalism and integrity. as attorney general, my allegiance will be to the rule of law, the constitution, and the american people. this is how it should be. this is how it must be.

and if you confirm me, this is how it will be. now, let me address a few matters i know are on the minds of some of the members of this committee. first, i believe it is vitally important that the special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation. i have known bob mueller for 30 years. we worked closely together throughout my previous tenure at the department of justice. we've been friends since. and i have the utmost respect for bob and his distinguished record of public service. and when he was named special counsel, i said his selection was good news. and that knowing him i had confidence he would handle the matter properly and i still have that confidence today. given his public actions to date, i expect that the special counsel is well along in his investigation. at the same time the president has been steadfast that he was not involved in any collusion

with russian attempts to interfere in the election. i believe it is in the best interest of everyone, the president, congress, and the american people, that this matter be resolved by allowing the special counsel to complete his work. the country needs a credible resolution to these issues. and if confirmed, i will not permit partisan politics, personal interests, or any other improper consideration to interfere with this or any other investigation. i will follow the special counsel regulation in good faith and on my watch, bob will be allowed to finish his work. second, i also believe it is very important that the public and congress be informed of the results of the special counsel's work. my goal will be to provide as much transparency as i can consistent with the law. i can assure you that where

judgments are to be made, i will make the judgments based solely on the law and i will not let personal political or other improper interests influence my decision. third, i would like to briefly address the memorandum that i wrote last june. i wrote the memo as a former attorney general who has often weighed in on legal issues of public importance and i distributed it broadly so that other lawyers would have the benefit of my views. my memo was narrow, explaining my thinking on a specific obstruction of justice theory under a single statute that i thought based on media reports the special counsel might be considering. the memo did not address or in any other way question the special counsel's core investigation into russian efforts to interfere in the election. for did it address other potential obstruction of justice theories or argue that some have

wrongly suggested that a president can never obstruct justice. i wrote it myself on my own initiative without any assistance and based solely on public information. i would like to comment briefly on any priorities if confirmed as attorney general. first, we must continue the progress we've made on violent crime while at the same time recognizing the changes that have occurred since i last served as attorney general. the recently passed first stepback which i intend to diligently implement if confirmed recognizes the progress we have made over the past three decades in fighting violent crime. as attorney general, i will ensure that we will continue our efforts to combat violent crime. in the past, i was focussed on predatory violence. today i am also concerned about another kind of violence.

we can only survive and thrive as a nation if we can mutually tolerant of each other's differences whether it'sette nisly, race, religion, sexual orientation or political thinking. and yet we see some people violently attacking others simply because of their differences. we must have zero tolerance for such crimes and i'll make this a priority as attorney general if confirmed. next, the department will continue to prioritize enforcing and improving our immigration laws. as a nation, we have the most liberal and expansive immigration laws in the world. legal immigration has historically been a huge benefit to this country. however, as we open our front door and try to admit people in an orderly way, we cannot allow others to flout our legal system by crashing in through the back doors. in order to ensure that our immigration system works

properly, we must secure our nation's borders, and we must ensure our laws allow us to process, heaold, and remove tho who unlawfully enter. the right to vote is paramount. one of the foundations of our nation is our enduring commitment to the peaceful transition of power through elections. if confirmed i will ensure that the full might of our resources are brought to bear against foreign persons who unlawfully interfere in our elections. fostering confidence in the outcome of elections also means ensuring that the right to vote is fully protected as well as ensuring the integrity of elections. let me conclude by making the point. that over the long run the course of justice in this country has more to do with the character of the department of justice as an enduring

institution than with the tenure of any particular attorney general. above all else, if confirmed, i will work diligently to protect the professionalism and integrity of the department as an institution, and i will strive to leave it and the nation a stronger and better place. thank you very much for your time today, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. six quick yes or no questions. will you commit to no interference with the scope of the special counsel's investigation? >> i will -- the scope of the special counsel's investigation -- >> by not -- >> is set by his charter and by the regulations and i will ensure that those are maintained. >> will you commit to providing mr. mueller with the resources, funds, and time needed to complete his investigation? >> yes. >> will you commit to ensuring

the special counsel mueller is not terminated without good cause consistent with the department regulations? >> absolutely. >> if special counsel mueller makes any request about the scope of his investigation or resources for his investigation, will you commit to notifying congress if you deny that request? >> i think the regulations require notification of congress if there's a disagreement. >> thank you. and i have two questions from the chairman of the house judiciary committee. will you commit to making any report mueller produces at the conclusion of the investigation available to the congress and the public? >> as i said, i'm going to make as much information available as i can consistent with the rules and regulations that are part of the special counsel regulations. >> will you commit to making any report on the obstruction of justice public? >> that's the same answer. yes. >> thank you. in your june, 2018 memo about

obstruction of justice to the mueller investigation, you repeatedly referred to mueller's, quote, sweeping and all encompassing interpretation of section 1512 which is the -- a statute on obstruction. how do you know what mueller's interpretation of 1512 is? >> well, as i said, i was speculating. i said at the beginning i was writing in the dark, and we're all in the dark. every lawyer, every talking head, everyone who thinks about it or talks about it doesn't have the facts. >> so i spent my saturday reading that memorandum. are you saying this is all your speculation? it's a big memo. >> well, it was informed to the extent that i thought that that was one of the theories being considered. and i don't know how seriously -- whether it was being considered or how seriously it was being

considered, but i -- as a short-hand way in the memo of referring to what i was speculating might be the theory, i referred to it as mueller's theory rather than go in every time i mention it, saying this is speculative. >> do you know mueller's interpretation of 1512 is? >> no, i don't know mueller's interpretation, and just one point, senator. you said in your opening statement i said i was grossly irresponsible. i said if something happened, it would be grossly irresponsible. i was not calling mueller irresponsible. >> i appreciate that. has anyone given you information about the investigation? >> i don't recall getting any confidential information about the investigation. >> your 2018 -- in it you stated, and i quote, the framer's plan contemplates the

president's law enforcement powers extend to all matters including those in which he had a personal stake, end quote. please explain what you base this conclusion on. >> yes. here's the department of justice right here. and within the department of justice enforcement decisions are being made. the president's over here. and i think of it as there are two categories of potential communications. one would be on a case that the president wants to communicate about that he has no personal interest in, no political interest in. let's say the president's concerned about chinese stealing trade secrets and saying i want you to go after this company that's being -- that may be stealing trade secrets. that's perfectly appropriate for him to do. to communicate that. but whether it's bonified or not, the department of justice's

obligation and the attorney general's obligation is not to take any action unless we reach, we, the department of justice and the attorney general, reach their own independent conclusion that it is justified under the law, and regardless of the instruction, and that's my quote that everyone is saying i'm sicking -- it's okay for the president to direct things. all i said was it's not per se, improper for the president to call on the department for doing something, especially if he has no personal or political interest in it. the other category of cases, and let's pick an easy, bad example would be if a member of the president's family or a business associate or something was under investigation, and he tries to intervene. he -- he's the chief law enforcement officer, and you could say well, he has the

power, but that would be a breach of his obligation under the constitution to faithfully execute the laws. so in my opinion, if he attempts -- if a president attempts to intervene in a matter that he has a stake in, so protect himself, that should first be looked at as a breach of his instituticonstitutional . whether -- >> including the emollients clause? >> well, i think there's a dispute as to what the emoluments clause relates to. i have not researched that clause. i can't even tell you what it says at this point. my -- off the top of my said i would have said emoluments are

essentially a stipend attached to some office. i don't know if that's correct or not. i think it's being litigated right now. >> i'm going to -- i don't know either. i'm going to try to find out. we'll come back another day and discuss it. your memo stated a flaw of 1512c 2. mueller offers no definition of what corruptly means. my understanding is that there's nothing in the public record that sheds light on his definition of obstruction. do you know what his definition is? >> i don't know what his definition is. i read a book where people were asking whether someone -- i think -- i don't know if it was accurate, but whether someone, the president was acting with corrupt intent. and what i say in my memo is,

actually, the people don't understand what the word corruptly means in that statute. it's anned a verb, and it's not meant to mean with the state of meant. it's meant the way in which the influence or obstruction is committed. that's the adverb function in the statute. that means using kning it in th century sense, to influence it in a way that changes something that's good and fit to a way that's bad and unfit. namely the krungs of evidence or the corruption of a decision-maker. that's what the word corruptly means. once you take it away from that, it means hard to determine what it means. it means bad. what does bad mean? >> let me go on because my time is so limited. you argue that the -- and i quote, the constitution's grant of those powers to the president also extends to the unitary character of the executive branch itself.

specifically you argue and this is a quote, while mueller's immediate target is the president's exercise of his discretionary powers, his obstruction theory reaches all exercises of prosecutortorial discretion by the president's sub boa subordinat subordinates. if the president orders the attorney general to halt a criminal investigation for personal reasons, would that be prohibited under your theory? >> prohibited by what? >> by -- >> the constitution? >> the constitution. >> i think it would be -- i think it would be a breach of the president's duties to faithfully execute the law. it would be an abuse of power whether it would violate a statute depends on all the facts and what statute someone would cite me to. i certainly think it would be an abuse of his power, and let me just say that the position --

>> would that be the same thing, if an attorney general fired u.s. attorneys for political reasons? >> no. because u.s. attorneys are political appointments. >> according to news reports, president trump interviewed you and asked you to be part of the legal team defending him in the mueller investigation twice. first in the spring of '17 when the investigation was just beginning, and again earlier this year. is that correct? >> no. i had one conversation with him that related to his private representation, and i can describe that for you. that was in june of 2017. that's the only time i met him before i talked to him about the job of attorney general. which obviously is not the same

as representing him. >> have you discussed the mueller investigation with the president or anyone else in the white house? >> i discussed the mueller investigation, but not in any particular substance. i can go through my conversations with you if you want. >> well, not at this time, but i may come back to you and ask you about that. i don't want to take anymore time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> so far he has yet to make specific ironclad commitments on whether he will permit robert mueller to exercise his judgment about when to bring indictments or issue subpoenas or take other action. i want to know specifically that he will respect the special

counsel's judgment without when indictments and subpoenas are appropriate and necessary, and that's why i think he has to make more than vague assurances about respecting the rule of law. i think he has to be very specific and strong. >> is there any -- is there any chance -- you would actually vote for this nominee? is there any chance? >> i've made no decision about whether i will vote for this nominee. i think he has to make the kind of commitments that assure me beyond the vague sorts of assurances that he's provided so far. i think he's got to be very specific and strong about transparen transparency, about disclosing the report that the special counsel prepares, and i want those same assurances about other investigations ongoing in the southern district of new york or the eastern district of

virginia that apply to the president of the united states. the stark and unquestionable fact is that the president is effect an unindicted co-conspirator. that's the elephant in the room. and william barr has to say he'll allow prosecutors to exercise their judgment, because he is susceptible to the potential order of the president and his memo indicates that the president in his view has a role in making prosecution decisions. >> are you concerned the president keeps floating the idea of withdrawing from -- >> i am deeply concerned about the disastrous, epic catastrophe that withdrawal of nato would be for our military and strategic posture around the world and our

diplomatic relations with allies. the mere talk about withdrawing from nato is damaging to our national security and to our credibility around the world. >> what do you think about rudy giuliani saying that president trump won't answer anymore questions from mueller? >> if the president is going to refuse to cooperate with an ongoing legitimate investigation into him, he has a right to do so, but prosecutors and the american public may draw conclusions about the president's potential cooperatability. if he's refusing to cooperate, it speaks volumes about his culpability. there's a credible case of obstruction of justice against the president of the united states. he has a responsibility to come forward and explain why he's taken actions that have made him

an unindicted co-conspirator. why he's continuing as a subject of investigation in the special counsel, and i think that he has an obligation to come forward and answer questions from the special counsel. thanks. >> the hearing to confirm president trump's nominee to be the next attorney general william barr will be picking back up from a lunch break in just a few minutes. the hearing started at 9:30 a.m. this morning and expected to continue throughout the day. on the left the new chair of the committee, lindsey graham of south carolina. and this is the senate judiciary committee's first hearing in the new 116th congress. expecting this to begin shortly.