i recognize senator white house. thank you, mr. barr. >> thank you, chairman. this is my first chance at a committee hearing to congratulate you on taking the gavel here. we worked well together when you were chairman of the crime and terrorism sub committee, and i hope that will continue here. mr. barr, welcome. did you make it a condition of taking this job that rod rosenstein had to go?

just to be clear so we're not bandying words here, did you request or signal or otherwise communicate in any way that you wanted rod rosenstein to go? >> no. the president said that the decision on the deputy was mine, anything i wanted to do on the deputy was mine. >> we will find no william barr fingerprints on rosenstein's departure? >> no. rod and i have been talking about his plans. he told me that he viewed it as a two-year stint and would like to use if i'm confirmed, my coming in as an occasion to leave, but we talked about the need for a transition, and i asked him if he would stay for a while, and he said he would, and so as of right now, i would say there's no -- he has no concrete plans. i have no concrete plans in terms of his departure.

we're going to play it by ear and see what makes sense. >> and you have not undertaken to run him out in any way? >> absolutely not. >> that leaves an opening at the dag position whenever you work this out. can you tell us since attorneys general are very often defined by the immediate appointments around them at chief of staff dag criminal chief, what are the characteristics and qualifications you will seek as you fill particularly that position, but all three that i mentioned? >> i'm sorry. the deputy and what was the other one? >> deputy chief of staff and criminal chief. >> there is already a criminal chief. >> i know. >> yeah. >> already a deputy attorney general, but he's leaving. >> well, for a deputy, i'd like someone who is a really good manager and who has had good management experience running government programs, and i want a first rate lawyer, and someone

whose judgment i feel comfortable in. >> experience in the department? >> not necessarily. but experience in government at a high level. >> when we met, i gave you a letter that you've seen. so none of these questions would be a surprise, so i hope it's no surprise to you that i'm going through some of them. what's the rule warding communications between the white house and officials regarding criminal and investigative matters. who at doj will be allowed to have conversations with at the white house and who at the white house will you entertain the conversations from at the doj? >> i've looked through the existing regime, and my instinct is to keep it. maybe even tighten it up a little bit more. i remember when george w. bush's administration was coming in, my advice was start tight, and then

as you realize who has judgment and so forth, you can go back to a -- >> they went the other way, and it was a bad day for attorney general gonzalez when that was brought to his attention. what is your understanding right now of what at the department of justice is authorized to have communications with the white house regarding -- >> it depends what it is. but on criminal matters i would just have the ag and the deputy. >> what do you think the rule is now in the department? >> i think that's what it is. >> okay. so if the reports are true that as chief of staff mr. whitaker was involved in conversations with the white house about bringing criminal investigations against the president's political enemies, that would not be consistent with your understanding of that policy? >> well, it would depend upon what his understanding is with the attorney general. i mean -- >> well, the attorney general

was recused. hard to step into the shoes of a recused attorney general is. >> i don't know what the communication is related to. i'm not sure what you're talking about. >> i hope you'll become sure when you get there, because there's a fair amount of i think questionable behavior that has gone on that does not reflect well on the department that i hope will get your attention. i also asked you about the special counsel investigation and to give us a clear exposition of how that memo came to be. who you talked to, when, who was involved in it. there were a number of questions in the letter that at this point you have not answered. you have, i gather, told the chairman the names of some dozen or so people whom you contacted. zien zien as i understand it, once the memo was written, but t not clear. do you have any obstruction to answering the questions i wrote as a answer for the record so

the committee can understand who you worked with in preparing the memo and who helped you with criatio criati citations? >> no. i have no problem. just to be clear, no one helped me write the memo, and i know how to do legal citations. i did it. >> okay. >> you might want to get out of that habit. you may have other things to look at. >> i'd like to have some fun in life. >> if you think citations are fun, you're going to -- you're not going to have the problem some other nominees have had. my letter to you also asked about the boric order that set out a series of protections for the then independent counsel operation. do you have any objection to any of those rules or principles

applying and should we see those rules and principles which i gave to you then as being more or less adopted into the statement that you made earlier about your protection of the mueller investigation from political interference? >> i looked at them. i think the current regime is what i'm happy with. in other words, i wouldn't change the current rule that -- those rules were put in place at the end of the clinton administration, and sort of -- i think reflects the back on back experience of the reagan, bush years and then the clinton years and then sort of justice department's thinking under the clinton administration as how to balance the equities. i think it's working well. >> well -- anything that you would disagree with in the so-called boric rules, i'd ask you to explain that in a

followup. >> okay. >> also in my letter to you, i expressed my concern that mr. whitaker was paid 1.2 million through what i consider to be a front group that has very little reality to it, and that the funding that came to that front group to pay them the million dollars came through another entity that is essentially an identity laundering operation that has no independent business operation, and the result of all of this is that somebody out there arranged to get over a million dollars to mr. whitaker and we have no idea who that somebody is. and as i mentioned to you in our conversation, i don't see how the department can do a proper recusal and conflict analysis

for somebody when the player who delivered the million dollars is still hidden behind the curtain. is that something that you will help us fix? >> first, i don't think there was anything wrong done -- >> we don't know that yet because we don't know the facts. >> just the fact that you've said doesn't necessarily mean there was anything wrong done. what you're saying is that if the ultimate financial backers are behind some entity and the current ethics laws require only the reporting of the entity, you're not really sure where the money is coming from, and that, you know, i think that raises a very interesting point that i think i would like to review with the ethics people and experts and even oge to talk about that. because the more i thought about it, the more i thought the trick is going to be deciding what kind of entities and how far back you go, because that can be

said of a lot of different kinds of entities. >> yep. >> and sometimes you have -- >> but if the department's money laundering folks look at this operation, they would see it as almost amateurish and simple and something easy to penetrate, and it would be easy to ask mr. whitaker what he knew and if there's any existence with whitaker's departure, what they knew and to ask donor's trust to cough up the identity of the donor, and then you can do your homework. if they refuse to do that, nothing guarantees someone a job at the highest level of government who can't offer the disclosures. >> the question is where do you l draw the line and what are the lines for other entities? there are membership groups and you don't want to disclose membership. >> my point was i think if your

money laundering folks looked at it, they would be able to show it looks different than that. my time expired. thank you for your time. >> senator sass. >> i believe someone is filling in for senator cruz next. >> mr. bar, i want to commend you for stepping forward. i want to say thank you to your family as well for being so supportive in this endeavor. i'm pleased to have all of you. so thank you for that. later this month i plan on reintroducing sara's law which is a bill that would require the detention of illegal aliens who have been charged with a crime that resulted in the death of serious injury, bodily injury of another person. now, that sounds pretty common sense. but i'll give you a little background. this bill is named after sara root. she was a resident of iowa and sara was killed by an illegal

alien who was driving drunk. that alien had a blood alcohol content of more than three times the legal limit yet, he was allowed to post bond and has not been seen since. it's important to me that congress act to close the loopholes in our immigration system and do better to enforce the laws that are already existing on the books. and i know that attorney general sessions, he had a real passion for this. and he had a strong record of trying to make sure that we're correcting wrongs in the system. how do you as attorney general plan on making sure that we are restoring the rule of law in our immigration system? >> well, first that sounds like a very common sense bill, and something that i would certainly be inclined to support. i think one of our major

problems as the president says is that the immigration laws just have to be changed, and to provide sensible and common sense ways of processing immigration and claims of asy m asylum. right now this goes well -- this goes back 27 years. we were facing exactly the same kind of problem, maybe on a smaller scale. but congress has to -- where people are abusing the asylum system coming in, they're being coached as to what to say, and once they come in, we don't have the facilities to keep them, and they're released into the population. and this was a big abuse as i say 27 years ago, and it's gotten worse. so we need to change the laws to stop that kind of abuse, and enable us to run a lawful

immigration system where we process people into the country who are entitled to come into the country and we keep out those that are flouting our laws. and it's long overdue, and the president is right that until we're able to do that, we're not going to be able to get control over illegal immigration, and it creates a lot of unsafe conditions for many people. >> absolutely. and i appreciate your thoughts on that. this is a very important issue. i think all of us understand that immigration is so vital to our country, but it has to be done in the right manner. and for those that are causing bodily injury and death to those here in the united states, we want to make sure that they are brought to justice, and in this case that illegal, undocumented was not brought to justice. and i feel a lot of empathy for

that family. i'll move into another situation that's really important to iowans. according to the u.s. department of health and human services after drug dealing, human trafficking is tied with arms dealing as the second largest criminal industry in the world. and it generates about $32 billion each year. the department of justice has said that 83% of sex trafficking victims identified in the united states are u.s. citizens with the average age of a victim being between 12 and 14 years. 12 and 14 years. since 2007 there have been over 300 cases of human trafficking in iowa alone. and iowa is a very rural state. 300 cases. that's very concerning to my constituents back home. what do you see as the main

contributor to human trafficking here in the united states, and then how can the doj impact and combat and prevent those heinous crimes? >> this is an area that, frankly, wasn't very much on the radar scope of the department of justice when i was last there. and it's an abhorrent area of criminality that i know the department and the attorney general sessions have been focussed on and have put in place various programs and entities within the department to focus on it and work with state and local law enforcement on it. i'm not sure what the major contributor to it is. it's an area that i'm going to have to study when i get into the department, and see what are the factors contributing to it? >> okay. i appreciate that.

and as i mentioned in my question as well, drugs and drug trafficking, that is also a very, very big industry, and in fiscal near 2017, 65% of drug-related prison sentences in iowa were related to methamphetamine. we talk a lot about the opioid crisis, but in iowa it still is meth. in 2016 iowa reported over 1500 founded child abuse reports relating to methamphetamine being found in the child's body. according to the dea most of the meth available in the united states is being produced in mexico and smuggled across our southern border. how do you see the situation at our southern border contributing to the prevalence of controlled substance use here in the united states? >> well, as has been pointed out earlier, it's the major avenue

by which drugs come into the country. heroin, fentanyl, all the serious drugs are coming across that border, and, again, i feel it is a critical part of border security that we need to have barriers on the border. we need a barrier system on the border to get control over the border, and i think obviously there's some places that more of the traffic come over than others but unless you have a system across the border, you're not going to be able to deal with it, because you'll just displace it. if you build a barrier in one place, you'll just displace it to another. so we need a barrier system across the border to -- part of that is illegal immigration, but a big part of it also is

preventing the influx of drugs. >> absolutely. and you stated earlier that really the head of the snake lies outside of the united states. is there a way that doj can be working with additional ideas, methodology with other departments that you might think would help? >> yes. this is an area, again, because i'm out of the government, i don't know how it's functioning, how the drug war is being coordinated, but i think justice can play a big role in pushing for partners like state department, defense department, the intelligence agencies, and so forth to help deal with this. it's not, to me, not just a law enforcement problem. t it's a national security problem. >> you mentioned as well the situation on the border where we do need barriers in place to control the influx of whether

it's drugs, human trafficking, gun trafficking, so forth. do you believe that sanctuary cities play a role in harboring some of those activities? >> yes, i do. i think there are a number of sort of -- you know, of factors that have a hydraulic effect in that they pull people into the united states or induce them to make -- take the hazards of coming into the united states. and coming up hundreds of miles through mexico and so forth. and things like sanctuary cities where they feel they'll be able to come up and hide and be protected is one of those factors that i think is irresponsible, because it attracts the illegal aliens coming in. and obviously i think that the

main problem with sanctuary cities is that they're not giving us information about criminals that they have in their custody. this is not chasing after families or anything like that. this is going after criminals who the state local law enforcement have in custody. and not allowing us to take custody of them and get them out of the country. that's the problem with sanctuary cities. >> which could be the situation with edwin mahiya who killed sara root. we would love to see that young man brought to justice. thank you for your time. >> just to follow up. so you're saying that you want access to people who are accused of committing crimes outside of a status violation? >> that's right, senator.

>> senator klobuchar. >> thank you. thank you, mr. barr. i take it as a positive that your grandson has gotten out a pad of paper and a pen to take notes during my questions. i also am impressed by your daughters and that they all chose to go into public service. but as you know employees at the justice department are furloughed or working without pay. i have talked to a number of them at home. it's an outrage. briefly, what do you have to say to them? >> i -- i would like to see a deal reached whereby congress recognizes that it's imperative to have border security, and that part of that border security is a common sense matter needs barriers. >> and you're aware that in the comprehensive senate immigration bill that we passed there was literally billions of dollars for border security back in

2013? >> i'm generally aware of that. >> and that also we had an agreement earlier last year which would allow the dreamers to stay legally that also had money for border security? >> the point is we need money right now for border security. including a barriers and walls and slats and other things. anything that makes sense in different areas of the border. >> in different areas. that's a good point. so george h.w. bush said in 19801980 he didn't want six and eight-year-old kids to be made to feel they were living outside the wall. he said it's a bridge to america's future. do you agree with those statements? >> yes. i think, as i said, i think legal immigration has -- we have a great system, i think it needs

reforming, but legal immigration has been good for the united states, great for the country. >> that's why we were trying to work on that comprehensive reform. i want to just briefly turn to fbi leadership. the president has made statements accusing the fbi of making politically motivated decisions, many of us up here and in the senate have confidence in director ray and the leadership at the fbi and believe they can do their jobs without politics getting in the way. do you agree with that? >> i'm looking -- if i'm confirmed, i'm looking forward to getting to know chris ray. from what i know, i think highly of him. >> thank you. in the memo from back in june, the one comment that senator grassley made he talked about how much the mueller investigation was costing. actually, i did googling here. there was a cnbc report that it could bring in more money than it costs because of the wealthy people being prosecuted that manafort's assets could be well over 40 million. i don't know if that includes

that ostrich jacket, but do you think that's possible based on your experience with white collar crime? >> i don't know enough about it. >> okay. in your memo, you talked about the comey decision, and you talk about obstruction of justice and you already went over that which i appreciate. you wrote on page one a president persuading a person to commit perjury would be obstruction. is that right? >> yes. well, any person who persuades another -- >> okay. you also said that a president or any person convincing a witness to change testimony would be obstruction. is that right? >> yes. >> okay. and on page two you said that a president hiding evidence would be obstruction. >> yes. >> and so what if a president told a witness not to cooperate with an investigation or hinted at a pardon?

>> you know, i -- i'd have to know the specific facts. >> okay. and you wrote on page one if a president knowingly destroys or alters evidence, that would be obstruction? >> yes. >> okay. so what if a president drafted a misleading statement to conceal the purpose of a meeting. would that be obstruction? >> again, i'd have to know the specifics. >> all right. you would seek the advice of career ethics officials in the department of justice for any recusal. i appreciate that. and you said in the past that you commended attorney general sessions for following the advice of those ethics lawyers, but you didn't commit today to following that advice. is that right? >> i didn't commend him for following the advice. as the agency had, he makes his -- he's the one responsible for making the recusal decision.

i don't know why he said -- locked himself into following the advice. that's an abdication of his own responsibility. >> so what did you think about what acting attorney general whitaker did when he rejected the justice department ethics advice to recuse himself out of an abundance of caution? >> i haven't seen the advice he got, and i don't know the specific facts. but abundance of caution suggests that it could have gone either way. >> you've committed to recuse yourself for matters involving the law firm where you currently work. are you aware of any of your firm's clients who are in any way connected to the special counsel's investigation? >> i'm not aware. to tell you the truth -- i'm of counsel there, and i have one client which i'm representing, and i don't pay very much

attention to anybody else -- >> you can supplement that? >> yes. >> will you commit to make public all of the reports conclusion's, the mueller report even if some of the evidence supporting the conclusions can't be made public? >> you know, that certainly is my goal and intent. it's hard for me to conceive of a conclusion that would run afoul of the regs as currently written, but that's certainly my intent. >> secure elections, we had a talk about that in my office. do you think backup paper ballots are a good idea in this is a bill that senator lankford and i have introduced with senator graham and senator harris. >> i don't know what's a good idea or a bad idea right now. i haven't gotten into this area, but -- >> well, i'll tell you backup paper ballots is a good idea, and we can talk about it later

as well as audits. along the lines of voting, state election officials in north carolina as you know contacted the justice department about the integrity of their elections. the justice department may have failed to take action in a timely manner. what steps would you take to make sure the failures don't occur again? >> not specifically with respect to north carolina, you're talking generally? >> uh-huh. >> as i say, i want to make one of my priorities the integrity of theelections. this is not an area i have been involved with deeply before. and when i get to the part where if i'm confirmed, i'll work with the people and make sure that those kinds of things don't happen. >> and part of this is also voting rights, and our concern about some of the changes in department policy. i hope you'll seriously look at that. the last thing we should be doing is suppressing voting and that is what we've been seeing

under this current administration. my dad was a reporter, so i grew up knowing the importance of a free press. we affable have the tragic case of a journalist who worked right here at "the washington post," jamal khashoggi. it's a particular concern. i want to ask you something i asked attorney general sessions. if you're concerned will the justice department jail reporters for doing their jobs? >> i think that -- i know there are guidelines in place, and i can conceive of situations where as a last resort and where a news organization has run through a red flag or something like that knows that they're putting out stuff that will curt the country, there might be a --

there could be a situation where someone would be held in contempt -- >> well, attorney general sessions said he was going to look at potentially changing those rules at one point. i'd like you to maybe respond in writing to this, because that was very concerning, and last when you and i were in my office, we talked about your work with time warner with this major merger on appeal from the justice department, and i just wanted you to commit today to what you committed to me in the office that you would recuse yourself from any matters regarding that appeal. >> absolutely. >> okay. and as you know, you are on the board of time warner at the time, and you signed a swaorn affidavit questioning whether the decision to block the -- are you talking here about his view on cnn?

what did you mean my prior public animus? >> i'm sorry. could you. >> could you repeat that? >> sure. you were on the board of time warner and signed a sworn affidavit questioning whether the decision to block the merger was politically motivated given the president's prior public animus toward the merger. >> mm-hmm. >> and so what did you mean by that? >> i mean, the affidavit speaks for itself in that at that meeting i was concerned that the antitrust division was not engaging with some of our arguments, and i got concerned that they weren't taking the merits seriously as i would hope they would, but i have -- you know, i have no -- i'm not sure why they acted the way they did.

>> okay. very good, and i'll ask you more on antitrust policy in the second round, and i appreciated the discussion we had on that. it's very important. thank you very much. >> yep. >> thank you. senator holly did a good thing by allowing senator ernst to go. no good deed goes unpunished. you do have a credit with the chairman. i appreciate that. senator cruz you're next. >> thank you senator chairman, thank you senator holly. welcome to all the new members of the committee, and congratulations mr. chairman. we are looking forward to to the lindsey graham chairmanship of judiciary, and i'm sure if -- >> they'll make a movie about it i'm sure. >> i'm certain whatever else happens it will not be boring. welcome mr. barr. congratulations on your nomination yet again. and let me say thank you. you and i have visited before about this, but the past two

years have been a difficult time at the department of justice, and you and i and many on this committee hold the justice department in very high esteem. indeed i would even say revere the department and its century-long tradition of enforcing the law without regard to party and without regard to partisanship, and i commend you for your willingness to go back -- go back and serve once again. i think that is a good step for the department and a good step for strengthening the department. you know, i would note 27 years ago when you did this previously, when you were last nominated to be attorney general, and i think you may have been about liam's age at the time, it was a different time. then chairman of the judiciary committee joe biden said at the time that he found you to be

quote, honest and that you, quote, understand and are committed to the dual responsibility of the office of the attorney general. chairman biden also said that, quote, this commitment to the public interests above all else is a critical attribute in an attorney general, and i will vote to confirm mr. barr. senator ted kennedy like wise noted your dedication to public service. senator frits holings said mr. bar has a distinguished academic background and impressive experience in private sector as well as in public service. most important bill barr is a known quantity. he has done a truly outstanding job as deputy attorney general for the last year and a half during which time he has worked with many of us in this body, earning our respect for his professionalism and competence. and senator cole said that, quote, your willingness to discuss the issues is a refreshing change in the confirmation process, and it

would be wise of future nominees to follow mr. barr's example. at that hearing, you were confirmed by this committee unanimously as you had been twice previously for senior appointments to the department of justice. now, we all recognize that was a different time. i think given the environment we are in now, few expect this committee vote to be unanimous, but i would hope those voices from the past from democrats who were respected by members of this committee, will be heard today as well. one of the questions you were asked if i might paraphrase was why on earth would you take this job? and your answer, if i recall correctly, concerned your commitment both to the department and the rule of law. would you tell this committee in

your judgment why the rule of law matters? why is that important? >> well, you know, the -- as our framers said in the federalist papers, the art of setting up a government is to have a government that's strong enough to perform the functions that a government has to perform while at the same time not being so strong that it can oppress its own people, and the rule of law ensures that precisely that the government does not oppress its own people, and when people are accused of wrongdoing, our system essentially gives them the benefit of the doubt and gi gives them rights to bring them up essentially to the same level of the government. and the process we go through is there to ensure that justice is

not arbitrary, but it's done according to a set of rules, and the basic protection that we have is that the rule that applies to one applies to all. that at the end of the day is what keeps us all free. that is the protection of individual freedom, and to me the rule of law is exactly that, that we don't allow special rules to go into effect for a particular individual. a rule has to be universalized. anything we do against a has to be universalized across everyone who's similarly situated. that's our basic protection, and to me that's what the rule of law is. >> so i don't want to see a republican department of justice or a democratic department of justice. i don't want to see a republican fbi or a democratic fbi. what we should see, what the

american people have a right to see and a right to expect is a department of justice that is committed to and faithful to the constitution and the laws regardless of political party and a corollary to that is a department that is willing to hold anyone who commits criminal conduct accountable regardless of that individual's political party or whatever partisan interests there might be. would you agree with that characterization? >> yes, senator. >> i would note as well during the previous administration there was concern by many including me on this committee, that the previous administration, in particular the irs, had targeted individual citizens and citizen groups for exercising their first amendment rights and had abused its power in doing so. the current justice department,

i've been dissatisfied with their -- the degree of scrutiny they have given to that potential abuse of power, and i'm going to ask you going forward if you are confirmed to examine that conduct and ensure that if laws were broken that individuals are held accountable. >> let me shift to a different topic. one of the most important safeguards of our liberties is the bill of rights, and the attorney general has a unique responsibility defending the constitution. can you share for this committee in your view the importance of free speech, of the protections that the first amendment provides to americans to speak and even to speak on unpopular or politically disfavored topics?

>> i think free speech is at the core of our system because we believe in the democratic process and power shifting through the processes of voting by an informed electorate, and free speech is foundational to the ability to have a democratic process. the framers, i think, believed that the dialectic, the clashing of ideas in the public marketplace is the way to arrive at the truth, and that is one function. another function of free speech is that it's the substitute for other means of settling differences. in some ways, it's a safety valve. people are allowed to speak their mind, and persuade their

neighbors of their position, and i think that performs a very important function in keeping the peace within a community. and if speech is suppressed it can lead to the building up of pressures within society that sometimes can be explosive. >> how about your views on religious liberty and would you share your thoughts on the importance of the religious liberty protections in the first amendment in terms of protecting our diverse and pluralistic society? >> yes, i think the framers believe our system -- they said that our system only works if the people are in a position to control themselves. our government is an experiment in how much freedom we can allow

the people without tearing ourselves apart, and they believed fewer laws, more self-control, and they believed that part of that self-control -- and i know there are many people here who disagree, not here but in our society who disagree, but they believe part of that self-control ultimately came from religious values, and i think it's an important underpinning of our system that we permit -- i believe in the separation of church and state, but i am sometimes concerned that we not use governmental power to suppress the freedoms of traditional religious communities in our country. >> final question, the department of justice is charged with defending the united states but that doesn't mean that the department of justice always must argue for maximum federal power. there are important restraints

on federal power, whether civil liberties protections in a criminal context, whether the takin takings clause or whether the 10th amendment. can you briefly share your thoughts on the appropriate balance of respecting limitations on federal power? >> well, as you say, the constitution has many different forms of restraint on federal power. part of it is, in fact, the separation of powers within the federal government. part of it is the balance between the federalist system we have and the central government and respecting the rights of the states and local communities. and part of it is the bill of rights that on certain topics constrains the role of the federal government, and those are all important checks on federal power. and you know, i am concerned

about our country becoming just a unitary state that we try to govern centrally 350 million people. i think a lot of our current tensions in society are because we are turning our back on the federalist model. there are certain things that have to be protected by the federal government. there's no ifs, ands or buts about it. the more we can centralize decision-making, the more diversity in a country of approaches to things, i think we'll have less of an explosive situation. >> very much agree, thank you mr. barr. >> the freedom of speech has to be balanced by the freedom to question, senator. >> congratulations chairman graham, look forward to working with you in this congress, and thank you mr. barr to you and your family for their service to this country through federal law enforcement and the department of justice. you just faced some questioning from senator cruz about your own

confirmation hearing back in 1991, and i'd like to take us back to a previous confirmation hearing, which was at a more similar time to today than 1991, 1973. senator lahey asked you about the confirmation of elliott richardson, president nixon's nominee to be attorney general. that confirmation took place in the context of a similarly divided period in american history where there was great concern over the at that point ongoing watergate investigation. elliott richardson reassured the country by making some important commitments during his confirmation hearing before this committee. then senator strom thurmond asked richardson if he wanted a special prosecutor who would and i quote, shield no one and prosecute this case regardless of who was affected in any way, shape, or form. richardson responded, exactly. do you want special counsel mueller to shield no one and prosecute the case regardless of who is affected? >> i want -- i want special

counsel mueller to discharge his responsibilities as a federal prosecutor and exercise the judgment that he's expected to exercise under the rules and finish his job. >> senator kennedy followed up by asking richardson if the special prosecutor would have the complete authority and responsibility for determining whom he prosecuted and at what location. richardson said simply, yes. would you give a similar answer? >> no, i would give the answer that's in the current regulations, which is that the special counsel has, you know, broad discretion but the acting attorney general in this case, rod rosenstein, can ask him about major decisions, and if they disagree on a major decision and if after giving

great weight to the special counsel's position, the acting attorney general felt that it was so unwarranted under established policies that it should not be followed, then that would be reported to this committee. i -- you know -- >> forgive me, i've got seven minutes left. i have a number of other questions. let me make sure i understand you. senators asked elliott richardson what he would do if he disagreed with the special prosecutor. richardson testified to the committee the special prosecutor's judgment would prevail. that's not what you're saying. you're saying if you have a difference of opinion with special counsel mueller you won't necessarily back his decision. you might overrule it? >> under the regulations there is the possibility of that, but this committee would not -- you know, would be aware of it. a lot of water has gone under the dam since elliott richardson, and a lot of different administrations on

both parties have experimented with special counsel arrangements, and the existing rules i think reflect the experience of both republican and democratic administrations and strike the right balance. they are put together in the clinton administration after ken starr's investigation. >> that's right. so the current regulations on the books right now prevent the attorney general from firing without cause the special counsel. they require misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict. will you follow that standard? >> of course. >> what if the president asked you to rescind or change those special counsel regulations? >> i think those special counsel regulations should stay in place for the duration of this investigation, and we can do a postmortem then, but i have no reason to think they're not working. >> so most famously when directed by president nixon to fire the special counsel, the

prosecutor investigating watergate richardson refused and resigned instead as we all well know. if the president directed you to change those regulations and then fire mueller or simply directly fired mueller, would you follow richardson's example and resign instead? >> assuming there was no good cause? >> assuming no good cause. >> i would not carry out that instruction. >> let me bring us forward to your 1991 hearing in front of this committee. you explained at the time how you would handle the bcci case and ironically robert mueller, the same individual was at that point the head of the criminal division, and you testified that you had directed mueller to spare no resources, use whatever resources are necessary, and pursue the investigation as aggressively as possible and follow the evidence anywhere and everywhere it leads. would you give similar direction to robert mueller today? >> i don't think he needs that direction.

i think that's what he's doing. >> you also said at that hearing that robert mueller in that investigation had full cooperation, full support, could he expect a similar level of support from you as attorney general? >> yeah. he will -- as i said, i'm going to carry out those regulations, and i want him to finish this investigation. >> i think we all do, and i am encourage bid things you've said about this, and just want to make sure we've had as clear a conversation as we can. attorney general richardson also testified the relationship between the president and the justice department should be arm's length. you've said similar things about the importance of shielding the department from political influence. can you make a similar commitment to us to maintain an arm's length relationship between the justice department and the president regarding the special counsel investigation and other investigations? >> yeah, well, remember i said there are like three different functions generally that the attorney general performs.

>> mm-hmm. >> i think on the enforcement side, especially where matters are of either personal or political interest to people at the white house, then there would be an arm's -- there has to be an arm's length relationship. the white house counsel can play a constructive role in that as well. >> let me ask if the president asked for information that could well be used to interfere with the special counsel investigation to misdirect or curtail it in some way, would you give it to him? >> i mean, there are rules on what kind of information can flow and what kind of communications can go between the white house. you know, i would follow those, but the basic principle is that the integrity of an investigation has to be protected. there are times where you can share information that wouldn't threaten the integrity of an

investigation like, you know, for example, when i was attorney general and we were investigating something that related to president -- someone who had a relationship with president bush, i could just orient them that, you know, there's going to be a story tomorrow that, you know, says this, but in that particular case there was no chance that it would affect the investigation. so sometimes judgment calls are necessary. >> if you learned that the white house not directly through you but through other means was attempting to interfere with the investigation, would you report that information to the special counsel and to congress? >> well, there's some conclusions in there about interfering, you know, and you know, if i thought something improper was being done, then i would deal with it as attorney

general. >> last, in that confirmation hearing back in 1973, then senator birch buy of indiana asked richardson, suppose the prosecutor determines it's necessary to get the president's affidavit or to have his testimony personally. would that be the kind of determination he the special prosecutor could make? richardson said, yes. will you give a similar answer today that you won't interfere with special counsel mueller seeking testimony from the president? >> you know, i think, as i say, the regulations currently provide some avenue if there's some disagreement. i think that in order to overrule mueller someone would have to -- the attorney general or the acting attorney general would have to determine after giving mueller's position great weight, that it was so unwarranted under established

policies that it should not be done. so that's the standard i would apply, but i'm not going to surrender the -- the regulations give some responsibility to the attorney general to have this sort of general -- not day-to-day supervision but sort of be there in case something really transcends the established policies. i'm not surrendering that responsibility. i'm not pledging it away. >> what gives me pause and sort of led me to this line of questioning mr. barr was that june 2018 memo you sent to the deputy attorney general in which at one point you state, mueller should not be permitted to demand the president submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction. if the special counsel wants to subpoena the president's testimony to ask questions about obstruction and you're supervising the investigation, would you rely on that theory to block the subpoena?

>> well, the question from me would be what's the predicate, you know? and i don't know what the facts are. i don't know what the facts are, and if there was a factual basis for doing it and i couldn't say that it was -- it violated established policies, then i wouldn't interfere, but i don't know what the facts are. >> well, if i might just in closing mr. chairman, we're in this unique situation where you've known robert mueller 30 years. you've said you respect and admire his professionalism, his conduct. he's been entrusted by you with a significant complex investigations in the past. there's no reason to imagine since he is the person who would know the facts that he wouldn't be acting in an inappropriate way, so it is my hope, even my expectation, that you would trust robert mueller to make that decision about whether to compel the president to testify

in an appropriate way and that he would not face any interference. thank you for your testimony today. look forward to the next round. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and congratulations on your new calling here. liam, i have career advice. i won't do it on camera. we want to know if you're taking notes for your cousins about career advice. we'll ask you later. general, congratulations on your nomination and thanks for your past service. i had planned to ask you for some pledges related to the mueller investigation in private to me, in public today, i think you've already done that. how should the american people think about what the mueller investigation is about? >> i think that there were allegations made of russian attempts to interfere in the election, and there were allegations made that some americans were in cahoots with the russians and the word has

now -- that's being used is collusion, and as i understand it, mueller is looking into those allegations. >> a lot of the media summary of the investigation starts with people's views and who they voted for in the 2016 presidential election. for those of us who spend a lot of o'time reading intelligence reports, a handful of us are about to leave to go to an intelligence briefing, what russia is doing to the u.s. is big and broad and not constrained to the 2016 election, and increasingly it feels like the american people reduce russia to just how you thought about the 2016 presidential election. so since you'll have serious supervisory responsibilities over parts of the intelligence community, is putin a friend or a foe, and what are his long-term objectives toward the u.s.? >> well, i don't hold myself out as a foreign policy expert, but i think that he is -- i think

the russians are a potent rival of our country, and his foreign policy objectives are usually directly contrary to our goals. i think he wants to weaken the american alliances in europe, and he also wants to become a player in the middle -- more of a player in the middle east. a lot of his foreign policy objectives are at odds with ours. at the same time, i think the primary rival of the united states is china. i think, you know, russia is half the size it was when we were facing them at the peak of the cold war. their economy is long-term prognosis is nowhere near

china's. i also feel that part of what russia is up to is trying to hold onto ukraine and russia in their orbit, but i'm concerned that the fixation on russia not obscure the danger from china. and i want to ask you some china questions as well. i want to ask about your role on the president's intelligence advisory board. sticking with russia for a minute, does putin have any long-term ideological alignment with the u.s., or does he have other objectives trying to sow discord broadly here? >> i'm not an expert on this area, but i think there are -- you know, i think there may be some potential areas where we -- our interests could be aligned. >> but when he interferes here, does he have long-term interests in the success of one or another political party, or does he have specific interests in sowing

chaos and discord to make americans distrust one another? and one of the reasons i ask is because i'd love to have you say in public some of what you said to me about at the end of this investigation, what happens next? are you concerned that when the mueller report receives, the narrowest pieces -- you know where i'm headed. >> yeah. i think that the basic vulnerability of the united states in the age in which we live, the internet age, you know, the globalization of information and so forth is the vulnerability that we're seeing, which is people can create doubt, undercut confidence in our election process and also torque our public discourse in ways that we find hard to perceive, and this has long-term danger for the united states and the survival of democratic

society like ours. and so i hope that whatever the outcome of the mueller investigation that we view this as a bigger problem of foreign interference in our elections, which is why i said it was one of my priorities, and it's not just the russians. it's other countries as well, and we have to focus on that. we have to ensure that we're doing all we can. i'm not sure all of that is defensive either, i mean, in terms of law enforcement. i think there's -- we have to look at all options including sanctions and other options to deter organized efforts to interfere in our elections. >> so you have no reason any as intelligence community's composite assessment about russia's efforts in the 2016 election. >> i have no reason to doubt that the russians attempted to interfere in our election. >> and dan coats, the national

intelligence director has testified in public and has said in different media contexts that russia is already plotting for the 2020 elections in the u.s. you have no reason to doubt that? >> i haven't -- you know, i haven't seen those reports i had reviewed the reports about the 2016, but i have no reason to doubt it. >> and can you explain what your role is on the president's intelligence advisory board? >> i'm actually a consultant. i'm an adviser on sort of legal issues. obviously i'm stepping down from that position if i'm confirmed, but i've been just advising. i'm not a member of the board. i'm on the cia's external advisory board, and you know, i've been participating on that as well. >> when you talk about the long-term chinese efforts to also sow different kinds of discord in the u.s., obviously not crossing any classified lines here, but long-term interests that other countries

have in strategic rivalry with the u.s. to use gray space and information operations war fafa against uses how do you see the role of the national security branch and fbi more broadly fitting into the larger ic, and what responsibilities would be on your priority list as you arrive at the department? >> i've been out of the department for so long, you know, i'm not really sure about how that is currently being handled. you know, i also think that we've had our attention focused on terrorism, which we can't let up, and -- but i want to make sure that -- and i'm sure chris wray is on top of this and, you know, looking forward to talking to him about it -- making sure that the bureau is playing, you know, a central role in combatting, you know, efforts by foreign countries to engage in those kinds of hostile

intelligence activities. >> you have unpacked a couple of times today the three different roles or functions of the attorney general. could you do that one more time in summary, and then i want to ask you a particular question. what are those three roles as you see them? >> i see the three roles, in 1789, the first set up the office, the first role was providing advice to the president and the cabinet and representing the united states in cases before the supreme court. and i see the three roles as providing advice, being a policy adviser on legal and law enforcement policy issues, and the top law enforcement officer enforcing the laws. >> and so in no way would the job of protecting the president be a subset of any of those three jobs? the language of protecting the president has been used

occasionally in this administration to refer to the way it was conceived of how eric holder did his skrob. is there any sense in which it's the attorney general's job to protect the president? >> no, that wasn't included in my description of the role of the attorney general. obviously as a -- in the policy arena, the department -- the attorney general is someone who should be sympathetic to the administration and its policy goals. >> but there are circumstances where those three roles could come into some internal conflict or you could be asked to do things that don't align with them, and there's probably a list that you have that i wouldn't ask you to enumerate it here -- there's probably a list of issues where needing to resign because of what you were asked in the space of so-called protecting the president? >> you know, if i was ever asked to do something that i thought was unlawful and directed to do that, i wouldn't do it, and i would resign rather than do it, but i think that should be true

of every officer who serves anywhere in government, whatever branch. >> i am at time, but i had a series of questions related to some of what senator ernst did about sarah's law. she and i have jointly be active in that case, the tragic case of the woman from council bluffs, it occurred in omaha, and edwin meija her killer is still at large. both the last administration and this administration have not prioritized that enough in our understanding, and i imagine that senator ernst and i will follow up with a letter to you on that as well. thank you. >> senator blumenthal. thanks, mr. chairman. i congratulate you, and i look forward to working with you and congratulate also the new members of our committee that have joined us, and thank you very much, mr. barr for being here today for your past record of public service, and i hope i am perhaps the last to make reference to your grandson by

saying that if he makes it through this hearing today, he can have any job he wants in this building. let me say first that as a former united states attorney, i share your allegiance and admiration for the department of justice and equally so, the federal bureau of investigation, and i know that you respect mr. wray, the current director, but i think you would agree with me that the fbi is probably one of the best, if not the most professional, accomplished, skilled and dedicated law enforcement agencies in the world. would you agree? >> yes, senator. >> and i hope that the president agrees with you and perhaps shares that view more publicly in the future. when the fbi begins a counter

intelligence investigation, if it is of the president of the united states for working with a foreign adversary, that decision would be subject to multiple levels of review within the fbi, correct? >> i assume. i don't know what rules were in effect at the time. >> well, in your experience there would be? >> yes. yes. >> and you have no reason to think that those rules have changed? >> i don't know what the practice was. there was -- >> and almost certainly in that kind of extraordinary investigation you would agree with me it would be extraordinary for the fbi to be investigating the president for working with a determined foreign adversary, there probably would be information shared with the deputy attorney general or the attorney general, agreed? >> i would hope so. the reason i'm hesitating is because, you know, some of these texts that we've all read are so

weird and beyond my experience with the fbi, i don't know what was going on. >> well, these reports are stomach churning in terms of the absolutely stunning and unprecedented kind of investigation that they reflect. you'd agree? >> you mean the texts are stomach turning? >> the reports of the investigation of the president. >> i'm not sure what you're talking about when you say the reports of the investigation. >> the reports that the fbi opened an investigation of the president for working with a foreign adversary, russia? >> and what's stomach churning about that? what is stomach churning? the allegation against the president or the fa. >> the fact that an allegation would be made and be under investigation. well, let me move on. i want to talk about

transparency. would you commit -- will you commit to this committee that you will not allow the president or his attorneys to edit or change the special counsel report before it is submitted to congress or the public? >> i already said that i would not permit editing of my report, whatever report i or whoever is the attorney general makes. >> and will you commit that you will come to congress and explain any deletions or changes that are made to that report before it is issued? >> okay. so you know, there are different reports at work here. which report are you -- >> i'm talking about the special counsel report. >> okay. well, under the current regulations, the special counsel report is confidential, and the report that goes public would be a report by the attorney general. >> will you commit that you will

explain to us any changes or deletions that you make to the special counsel report that's submitted to you in whatever you present to us? >> i will commit to providing as much information as i can consistent with the regulations. are you saying, for example, that if information is deleted that would be, like, for classification purposes, i would uf th identify that and things like that? >> well, that you will commit to explaining to us what the reasons are for your deleting any information that the special counsel includes that you are preventing us or the public from seeing? >> yeah. that would be my intent. i have to say that the rules -- i don't know what kind of report is being prepared. i have no idea, and i have no idea what acting attorney general rosenstein has discussed with special counsel mueller.

if i'm confirmed, i'm going to go in and see what's being contemplated and what they've agreed to, and what their interpretation -- you know, what game plan they have in mind. >> are you permit special counsel -- >> but my purpose is to get as much accurate information out as i can consistent with the regulations. >> well, the regulations and rules give you extraordinarily broad discretion, and i'm hoping and i'm asking you to commit that you will explain to us information that you have taken out of that special counsel report, and i also want to ask you about restrictions on the special counsel. will you commit that you will allow the special counsel to exercise his judgment on subpoenas that are issued and indictments that he may decide should be brought? >> as i said, i will carry out my responsibilities under the

regulations. under the regulations, the -- whoever is attorney general can only overrule the special counsel if the special counsel does something that is so unwarranted under established practice. i am not going to surrender the responsibilities i have. i would -- you would not like it if i made some pledge to the president that i was going to exercise my responsibilities in a particular way, and i'm not going to make a pledge to anyone on this committee that i'm going to exercise it in a particular way or surrender it. >> will you allow the special counsel to exercise his judgment as to what resources are necessary? will you meet those needs for resources? >> that would be my expectation. i think -- you know, i mean, if you believe the media, they're sort of starting to reduce their resources, so i wouldn't expect that would be a problem.

>> will you allow the special counsel to exercise his judgment as to what the scope should be, the president has talked about red lines around finances. will you allow the special counsel to exercise his judgment about what the scope should be even if the president says that there should be red lines? >> i think the scope of the investigation is determined by his charter from the acting attorney general, and if he wants to go beyond that charter, i assume he would come back and talk to whoever the attorney general is about that. >> will you impose any restrictions on other prosecutors who are also investigating the president? as you're well aware in the southern district of new york, the president has been named in efbt as effect as an unindicted co-conspirator. the eastern district of virginia has an investigation relevant to the president. will you impose any restrictions on those prosecutors?

>> the office of attorney general is in charge of the -- with the exception of the special counsel who has special rules applicable to him -- is in charge of the work of the department of justice. >> but you have a responsibility to allow prosecutors to enforce the law? >> i have the responsibility to use my judgment and discretion that are inherent in the office of attorney general to supervise, and i'm not going to go around saying, well, this u.s. attorney or that u.s. attorney, i'm going to defer to, and -- >> you referred earlier about the possibility of firing -- >> excuse me? >> a united states attorney. would you allow the president to fire a united states attorney and thereby stop an investigation? >> i would not stand by and allow a u.s. attorney to be fired for the purpose of stopping an investigation, but the president can fire a u.s. attorney. they're a presidential appointmen appointment.

>> but the president should have a cause beyond simply stopping an investigation for firing a united states attorney, even if he or she has a political -- >> as i said, i would not stand by and allow, you know, an investigation to be stopped if i thought it was a lawful investigation. i wouldn't stand by for that, but the president is free to fire his, you know, officials that he's appointed. >> i want to ask a different question on a different topic. you've said that -- and i'm quoting you -- i believe roe v. wade should be overruled. you said that in 1991. do you still believe it? >> i said in 1991 that i thought as an original matter it had been wrongly decided and that was, what, within 18 years of its decision. now it's been 46 years, and the department has stopped -- under republican administration

stopped as a routine matter asking that it be overruled, and i don't see that being turned -- i don't see that being resumed. >> would you defend roe v. wade if it were challenged? >> would i defend roe v. wade? usually the way these -- this would come up would be a state regulation of some sort and whether it's permissible under roe v. wade, and i would hope that the sg would make whatever arguments are necessary to address that. i think the justices have -- the recent ones have made clear that they consider roe v. wade an established precedent. it's been on the books 46 years. >> and you would enforce the clinic access protection act? >> absolutely. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator paul. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. barr congratulations on your nomination. thank you for being here. you were imminently qualified for this position when you were confirmed unanimously by this committee 27 years ago, and you are imminently qualified today.

it's a pleasure to have you here. i wanted to start where senator blumenthal started as well with the reports about the fbi counter intelligence investigation launched against the president, which i also find to be stomach turning, though perhaps for different reasons. the "new york times" report indicates that the fbi began the probe in part because they were concerned about the president's foreign policy stances. comments he made during the 2016 campaign about foreign policy and the republican party's official position on the ukraine. in your experience with the fbi, is it strange to have a counter intelligence investigation begun because members of that bureau disagree with the foreign policy stances of a candidate for president or a president of the united states? >> yes. >> the supreme court has been unequivocal that the president in our system of government, the president possesses -- and i'm going to quote now -- the exclusive power as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international

relations, a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of congress. that's the famous curtis wright case. is that still a good law? >> yes. >> do you think that was rightly decided? >> yes. >> let me ask you this, would it concern you as attorney general if fbi agents were making decisions about when and how to launch an investigation of an elected official if it was in order to avoid being supervised or directed by their agency leadership? would that be concerning to you? >> yes. as i might just add reported by the "new york times." let me switch gears and ask you about another topic that you mentioned a little bit earlier in the field when we were talking generally about antitrust. this is something you talk about things that have changed in the 27 years since you were last here. one of the things that has changed is the extraordinary concentration of power in our economy in the hands of a few corporations. no more so than in silicon valley, which you referenced earlier today. i just want to ask you a little

bit about that. big tech companies like, for instance, google and facebook who have drawn much attention of late, pose significant challenges not just for competition but also for the larger issues of privacy and the free flow of ideas. the justice department has recently deferred to the ftc across this range of issues and while i'm hopeful that chairman simons will right the course heerks the ftc has perhaps too often allowed these companies to violate privacy and maybe antitrust laws without meaningful consequences. what role do you think the justice department has working with the ftc or independently to address anticompetitive conduct, potential bias, and privacy violations by these big tech companies? >> well, obviously competition is of central concern to the antitrust division, and you know, there are, i guess, con kor dots that have been reached between the ftc and the antitrust division as to who has

primary jurisdiction in different areas, but i would like to weigh in to some of these issues. i'd like to have the antitrust support that effort to get more involved in reviewing the situation from a competition standpoint. i also am interested in the issue of privacy and the question of who owns this data, and you know, it's not an area that i've studied closely or become an expert in, but i think it's important for the department to get more involved in these questions. >> just on the subject of ownership of data, as you know, facebook is currently subject to a 2011 consent decree as part of which it agreed not to release or share or sell personal user information without the knowledge and consent of its users. facebook's ceo has add da manhattanly insisted under oath as recently as april 10th, 2018

that facebook users have complete control over everything that they share. however, recent media reports have indicated that facebook, in fact, routinely has shared user information without users' consent or even knowledge. now the justice department has the authority to enforce the terms of the 2011 consent decree and potentially to prosecute any violation. will you consider doing so? >> because that is something that i might have to get involved with and supervise if i'm confirmed, i'd rather not, you know, make any comments about it right now. >> let me ask you this, these same technology companies also control the flow of information, or at least influence it. the flow of information to consumers to an unprecedented degree. you have to go way back in american history to find any analog back to the paper trust to find an analog of a group, small group of companies that control the information and influence the news and its flow

to americans to the extent that these companies do, and there's growing evidence that these companies have leveraged their considerable market power, if not monopoly status to disfavor certain ideological viewpoints, particularly conservative and libertarian viewpoints. do you think the department of justice has authority under the antitrust laws or consumer protection laws or other laws to address bias by dominant online platforms? >> i would just say generally, you know, i wouldn't think it would -- i'd have to think long and hard before i said that it was really the stuff of an antitrust matter. on the other hand, it could involve issues of disclosure, and other implicate other laws like that. >> is there any point, do you think, at which political bias could require a response? and i'm thinking for example, harvard law professor jonathan

zatrain wrote how google or facebook could swing voter turnout to a candidate of their choice. would that sort of conduct require a response from the department? >> i'd have to think about that. i'm not sure. i'd like to know more about the phenomena and what laws could be implicated by it. >> let me ask you this. the justice department's case against at&t time warner focused on how the merged company would control or could control the distribution of information to discriminate against rival content. i understand that you of course are recusing yourself from that matter, but generally speaking, generally speaking, do you see similar concerns regarding how dominant silicon valley firms could use their market power and social media or search to discriminate against rival products or services or viewpoints? >> yeah. and making clear that what i'm saying now has no application to, you know, the transaction we

just talked about about. i'm talking about the other companies, yes. >> let me ask you more broadly about the question of antitrust and mergers, and you gestured towards this earlier in your testimony. i'm increasingly worried that the department is not enforcing vigorously the antitrust statutes in many sectors of the economy, not just technology. we see, again, as you've alluded to. we've seen growing concentration of power in various sectors held by just a few firms. if you look at recent trends in the department's scrutiny of proposed mergers, it's at record lows. last year, for instance, the department of justice antitrust division scrutinized mergers through second requests for information in less than 1% of all eligible cases. that is, i believe, the lowest level of merger scrutiny recorded since the ftc started tracking those statistics back in 1981. and just for comparison purposes, in 1981, that review was five times higher than it

was in 2018. my question is do you think that this record low level of merger scrutiny is appropriate, and if you're confirmed as attorney general, what might you do to ensure that the antitrust division faithfully and vigorously enforces the law? >> well, i am for vigorous enforcement of the antitrust laws to preserve competition, and as i said, this is going to be an area i'm going to want to get into and work with make aco dell raheem if i'm confirmed. i wouldn't necessarily use, you know, the incidence of merger review as a proxy for failure of competition. at the end of the day, it's competition wooe're worried abo in different markets, but i am interested in exploring those, you know, those statistics you were just using. >> and do you think it's fair to say would you agree that the

historic levels of concentration that we're seeing in many parts of the economy, technology in particular, is potentially detrimental to competition? i mean, it is, again, potentially in a general, but it is something that is worth scrutinizing and being concerned about if one is concerned about free, fair, and open competition? >> you said the size? >> yes, historic levels of concentration. >> the thing i'm concerned about are the network effects that are now at work where they're so powerful that particularly sectors could essentially be subsumed into these networks. they're just very powerful network effects because of the size. >> yes, i see my time is almost expired. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i welcome the arrival of the immigration lindsey graham of 2013, the other lindsey graham we shall see as you yourself have acknowledged. mr. barr, i ask these questions,

these two questions of every nominee who comes before any of the committees on which i sit, and these are the questions. since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature? >> no. >> have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct? >> no. i have a question relating to recusal. you've been asked a number of times, it is very clear that the president does not want an attorney general who will recuse himself from the mueller investigation. so when he came before us for confirmation in january 2017, jeff sessions wrote on his committee questionnaire that he would quote, seek and follow the advice of the department of justice's designated agency ethics official if confirmed with a conflict of interest, end quote, and in fact, he did do that, and he was basically

pummelled by the president ever since. so matthew whitaker has not come before us for the job of attorney general, but we know when it came time to make a decision about recusal he didn't want to be the object of trump's wrath, so he proceeded to listen to and then ignore the advice of the career ethics officials at the doj who recommended recusal. your answer to senator klobuchar makes it clear you are going to follow the whitaker model. can you understand why that is not terribly reassuring to us? these are not normal times. this is not 27 years ago. today the president is donald trump, who will do anything to protect himself. he wants you who has written a manifesto about why the president shouldn't be prosecuted, at least for obstruction of justice, who has met with and consulted with the president's defense attorneys, who has written op-eds defending his firings of sally yates and

james comey to be his attorney general. so in this context, just asking us to trust you is not enough. why won't you simply follow jeff session's lead and take and follow the critical portion being follow, the advice of the departments ethics officials? >> because the regulations and the responsibilities of the attorney general as the head of the agency vest that responsibility in the attorney general. and i am not going to surrender the responsibilities of the attorney general to get the title. i don't need the title. if you don't -- if you don't trust me to -- >> you have -- excuse me. you have repeated that answer many, many times. however, i think we all acknowledge that jeff sessions possibly didn't want to recuse himself, but he did, and so you have it within your power to follow the ethics advice of your

own department and you're telling us you're not going to, so that is the bottom line. >> no, senator, i think jeff sessions recused himself because of a different provision, which was the political conflict prov. >> i think that -- >> he played a role in the campaign. >> in the context of all the things that you have done basically to get the attention of president trump to nominate you, i would say that there's a political context to what your decision should be also. let me move on. you have said that you will allow mueller to complete his wo work, although i do want to ask you very specifically because you did write that 19-page memo relating to the obstruction of justice issue. would you allow the mueller investigation with regard to obstruction of justice to also go forward unimpeded by you?

>> i don't know whether there's an investigation of obstruction of justice. >> you read the papers as well as we do that that is an element of the mueller investigation. i don't think you can sit here and tell us that you do not think that that is a part of the investigation. but let's say that it is. having written what you did, would you seek to stop that portion of the mueller investigation? that being the obstruction of justice portion, assuming that that is, in fact, part of the investigation. >> you have to remember, my memo was on a very specific statute and a specific theory that i was concerned about. i have no basis for suspecting at this point that that is in play at all. >> you mean that particular provision. >> that provision or theory. or theory. >> well, i did say let's assume that, in fact obstruction of justice is part of -- >> when i see theory, what i was addressing was whether the removal of comey in and of

itself would be obstruction. >> of course it's not -- >> under a particular -- >> i hate to be interruptive, but i only have four minutes so thank you very much. you were asked about the investigations that are going on in the southern district of new york, the eastern district of virginia, the district of columbia and there are various investigations brought by various u.s. attorneys offices relating to donald trump, his campaign, his inauguration, his foundation, his businesses, his family's, his associates. do you consider these to be lawful investigations, because i believe that you responded to senator blumenthal that if these are lawful investigations then you do not see yourself interfering. >> i have no reason to believe they're not lawful investigations, whatever they are. you seem to know more than i do

about what's under investigation. >> that's reassuring that you're wanting to have the mueller investigation go forward extends to all these other u.s. attorneys investigations. >> i'm -- >> i believe you also said the mueller report will be confidential. it is confidential under the special counsel's -- whatever the criteria are. so what i'm hearing you say, in spite of the fact that you want to be transparent, neither congress nor public will get the mueller report because that's confidential. so what we will be getting is your report of the mueller report. subject to applicable laws limiting disclosure. so it that what you're telling us? >> i don't know what -- at the end of the day, what will be releasable. i don't know what bob mueller is writing. >> you said it's confidential

purpusuant to the regulations tt apply to him. what your going to be transparent about? >> as the rules stand now, people should be aware that the rules, i think, say that the independent -- the special counsel will prepare a summary report on any prosecutive or declination decisions and that that shall be confidential and shall be treated as any other declination or prosecutive material within the department. in addition, the attorney general is responsible for notifying and reporting certain information upon the conclusion of the investigation. now how these are going to fit together and what can be gotten out there, i have to wait and -- i would have to wait. i would want to talk to rod rosenstein and see what he has

discussed with mueller and what -- >> but you have testified you'd like to make as much of the original report. >> what i can say now is -- all i can say right now is my goal and intent is to get as much information out as i can consistent with the regulation. >> in the minute that i have, i'd like to go over some of the policies that jeff sessions has followed. one is zero tolerance policy which led to the separation of children from their parents. he refused to defend the affordable care act and argued on the texas lawsuit that he, parts of the aca was unconstitutional. he failed to bring a single law enforcement to stop voter suppression efforts, and issued a memo making it harder for the civil rights division to enter into decrees to address police misconduct. do you agree with these policies and intend to continue them? >> the last one, yes, i agree

with that policy. the other ones i'm not -- i'd have to see what the basis was for those decisions. >> so do you think that as to the last one which has to do with consent decrees that there is a role for the department of justice in addressing systemic police misconduct? you don't see much of a role in that? >> that's your characterization of it. that's not what i understand the policy to be. of course the department has a role and pattern and practice violations. >> so they -- the attorney general sessions has issued a rule that makes it a lot tougher to enter into these kinds of decrees. >> why do you say it's a lot tougher? >> because it's not just relying on the career attorneys that now it goes to the deputy ag or whoever. there are more political appointees who are going to get involved in that process. and that makes it much more limited, i would say in utilization. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we'll take a ten-minute

comfort break and start with senator tillis. we've got about an hour left on round one. will ten minutes be okay, mr. barr? okay. thank you. adjourn for ten minutes.

>> as you heard, senators taking a short break. we expect them back in aboutent ins ten minutes as the hearing moves on. if you missed some or any of it, we'll have the entire hearing for you again later tonight. a replay from start to finish beginning at 9:00 eastern time on c-span. that's 9:00 eastern, this entire hearing with william barr, the nominee to be the new attorney general at 9:00 p.m. eastern over on c-span.

>> so again, we're waiting for senators to come back and fill their seats and resume this hearing of william barr to become attorney general. we expect it to go throughout the day and we'll re-air it tonight at 9:00 on c-span. awhile ago, the ranking member dianne feinstein spoke to reporters outside the hearing room. >> how do you thinkhe