finishes first day of testimony here on a capital. a little bit of background this will be a second stint as attorney general. he served as the attorney general noted president george hw bush before that he was deputy attorney general and the head of the office of legal counsel. after leaving government he held several senior corporate positions including general counsel and executive vice president of verizon. he is currently affiliated with the law firm of kirkland and ellis. tomorrow, we are back for day two of the senate judiciary committee hearings. senators here at 9:30 am eastern here on c-span three and you can stream the hearing live online at www.c-span.org or use the free c-span radio up . let's look now at how things got started this morning.

thank you, all. you are not going to get a good shot of me, so thank you all. happy new year. new congress and we will see how this goes. recognize senator grassley. >> okay. i knew this was a point of personal privilege mr. chairman. i appreciate that courtesy of you and the members. this is the first meeting of

the senate judiciary committee in this 116th congress and it's also the first time that we convene while my friend lindsey graham holds the gavel and will proceed to be chairman. so, i would like to congratulate the new chairman. thank him for his leadership and say that i look forward to working with you and other members of this committee as we seek to address some of our nation's most pressing problems. i have every confidence that you will steer our 200-year-old committee and the right direction. >> thank you. i really appreciate that. in my view no one looks over 100, so we are actually aging well is a committee. the bottom line is how do you get this job. your colleagues have to vote for you. thank you. you have to get reelected and outlive the person to your right. so, i have been able to do that and i look forward to working with senator feinstein, who is

-- i have a lot of affection and fondness for. she to me represents the seriousness that the body needs and a demeanor that i think we should all aspire to. to the new colleagues, senator holly, blackburn and ernst, thank you. for being part of this committee to senator blackburn and ernst, thank you for making history. i think on our side. as to the hopes and dreams for this committee, to get as much done as possible and to fight when we have to of the things that matter to the public and show two different views of an issue that's important but do it as respectfully as possible. sentencing reform, criminal justice reform with a very big deal. and this committee delivered for the country, senator durbin i want to thank you very, very much for working with senator lee and senator grassley and

senator booker. that's a big deal that's going to change lives i think in a positive way. this committee has within it the ability to do big things long overdue. i know senator blackburn wants to do something on social media. senator" chart has ideas about how to make sure if you put up on social media you have to stand by it. we are all worry about social media being hijacked by terrorists and bad actors throughout the world and we are worried about privacy do you really know what you sign up for when you get on one of these platforms? unlike this committee working with commerce to see if we can find some way to attain the wild west. intellectual property, senator tillis and senator koontz have ideas and i look forward to hearing about. senator sass wants to make sure that we act ethically. you've got a package of ethic reforms that i look forward to working with you there. on this side i know there are a

lot of ideas that i'm sure that if we set down and talked we could embrace and i look forward to solving as many problems as we can and having a contest of ideas that really matters to the american people. senator hatch, thank you for coming. in terms of my chairmanship, if i can do what you and senator grassley were able to do during your time, i will have done the committee a good service. senator grassley, thank you very much. last year was tough, but i thank you and senator feinstein do the best you could in the environment in which we live. the times in which we live are very difficult times. i don't see them getting better overnight, but i do see them getting better if we all want them to. so, about me, i want us to do better and i will be as measured as possible. the immigration lindsey will show up . but, the other guy is

there too. and i don't like him any more than you do. so, the bottom line is we are starting off with something that would be good for the country. we have a vacancy for the attorney general spot. we have a chance to fill that vacancy. mr. barr you can't hold a job, when you look at what he's done with his life, it's incredible. so, i want to thank the president for nominating somebody who is worthy of the job, who will understand on day one what the job is about and can write the ship over there. i think we all have concerns. i know senator whitehouse is passionate about cyber security and all of these other ideas that sheldon has been pushing, it's just a matter of time before we hit hard of someone doesn't step up to the plate with solutions.

but a little bit about the nominee, he's been attorney general before from 91 to 93 by vote. 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 amazing. i think you are going to have an actual vote this time. academically gifted, george washington law school, columbia university undergraduate, outside of gog he was a general counsel legislative counsel for the cia. that's how we met bush 41. he's been a law clerk. he's worked in private practice. i'm not going to bore the committee with all the things he's done. he's been the senior vice president general counsel and lived a consequential life general counsel for verizon. he lived a life that i think

has been honorable and noteworthy and accomplished. and i want to thank you for being willing to take this task on. we've got a lot of problems in the department of justice, i think morale is low and we need to change that. 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 mr. barr, that we appreciate you stepping up at a time when the country needs somebody of your background and your temperament to be in charge of the rule of law. with that, i will turn it over to my colleague senator feinstein. >> thanks, very much mr. chairman. i want you to know that i really look forward to working with you. i think we can work to bleed together. senator grassley, i want to

thank you for the time we work together. it really was a pleasure and i had an opportunity to get to know you as a fine person that you are. so, thank you very much. i want to say just one word or two or three about women. 25 years ago there were no women on this committee. i will never forget watching the anita hill hearing on television in the london airport, with a lot of people gathered around. a win over's take a look and i saw it. i saw this all-male judiciary committee. it took all these years but here we are. i want to particularly welcome senator ernst and senator black earn. i think it's extraordinarily important that this committee be representative of our society at large and we are growing that way and thank you very much.

i would like to welcome bill barr and his family. i know you are proud to be here and i know you served as attorney general before. i think we have all respect for your commitment to public service. when we met, your previous tenure marked -- we talked about a different time for our country and today we find ourselves in a you time with it different administration different challenges. now, perhaps more than ever before the country need someone who will uphold the rule of law, depend the independent -- defend the independence of the justice department and truly understand their job is to serve as the people's lawyer, not the president's lawyer. top of mind for all of us is the ongoing mueller investigation , importantly of the attorney general must be willing to resist political

pressure and be committed to protecting this investigation. i'm pleased 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". the quote the public and congress be informed of the results of the special counsel's work". however, there at least two aspects of mr. mueller's investigation. first, russian interference in the united states election and were there 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 j. rosenstein criticizing

mueller's investigation , specifically the investigation into potential obstruction of justice. in the memo, you conclude i would think, that special concert mueller is grossly irresponsible for pursuing an obstruction case against the president. and pursuing the obstruction inquiry is fatally misconceived, so i hope we can straighten that out in this hearing. but, your memo also shows a large sweeping view of presidential authority and determined effort, i thought to undermine bob mueller, even though you say you've 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 fact and whether you prejudge

the mueller investigation. i hope you will make that clear today. you also raise 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 presidents 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. 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 interest and the

president transgresses no legal limitation when he does so. that's on page 12. in fact, you went so far as to conclude that quote, the framers plan contemplates that the president 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 presidents authority to act on matters which concern him or his own conduct. page 10. later, you conceded that certain supervisory actions such as the firing of director comey may be unlawful obstruction. however, this too is qualified to 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 colluded

with russia. specifically, you conclude and i quote, the issue of obstruction only becomes right after the alleged can -- collusion by the president or his campaign is established first. 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've said in the past that the attorney general is the presidents lawyer. in november 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 mother 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 independent 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. >> thanks. senator feinstein.

senator hatch, welcome back. we truly miss you. you were a great chairman and an incredible member of this body and you are very welcomed to share your thoughts about mr. barr with this committee . >> thank you so much, mr. chairman and ranking member feinstein as well and members of the committee. it is my distinct pleasure to be here today to introduce william barr the presidents nominee to be attorney general of the united states. i have known and worked with bill closely over the years and i'm proud to call him a friend. bill has had a distinguished career in public service and in the private sector. he started his career at the central intelligence agency and while there he went to law school part-time at george washington university, following graduation he was selected for a prestigious clerkship with the federal judge of the dc circuit before heading to private practice. later, he served in the reagan

white house in the office of policy development. following another stent in private practice, bill began his distinguished career at the department of justice under president george hw bush. bill served as the assistant attorney general for the office of legal counsel. then as deputy attorney general and finally as attorney general of the united states. as attorney general, bill oversaw number of sensitive criminal investigations including the investigation into the pan on flight 103 bombing. he prioritized fighting violent crime and became known as the law and order attorney general. throughout his time at the justice department bill earned a reputation as a fierce advocate for the rule of law as a principled and independent decision-maker and is a lawyer's lawyer. he has shown his commitment to the constitution time and time

again while serving our country. that is why he has been confirmed by the senate unanimously three times. after completing his service at the doj, bill returned to the private sector working at law firms and as counsel for some of america's largest companies. i could go on at length in describing bill's distinguished career. there is no question, none whatsoever, that bill is well qualified to serve as attorney general. he has held this position before and won high praise during his tenure for his fairness, his tenacity and his work ethic. so, instead of droning on about bill's resume i want to tell you about what bill identifies as the most important achievement of his private service as attorney general. this is what he believes i

believe. i believe his answer tells you much about how he will approach the job as who he is. when asked what his most important accomplishment was as attorney general bill does not point to one of his many policy successes. he doesn't talk about his role in setting in a trust merger guidelines. sn't say it was his leading the dodg for him, it was ersomething mor tangible. it was talladega. 121 prisoners noted and seized control of the talladega federal correctional institution in alabama. this was a very serious matter, and they took 10 hostages . >> the doj began immediately

for how best to resolve the situation and secure the safe release of the hostages. in such a situation somewhat of. some would have thought to recover but not bill, he knew the response was his decision to make and his responsibility, to maintain his focus on the safety of the men and women held hostage by prisoners. . the standoff lasted 10 days.then fbi agent stormed the prison and three minutes over the hostages were safe, mission was well-planned and executed. the federal agents did not have to fire a single shot, decision- making and judgment help save lives. when bush nominated bill to be attorney general in 1991, i noted why he had been selected.

he was not a part of the president's brain trust. he was not a politician or former politician who brought clout to the position a lawyer's lawyer, talent cameren and performance this is the reason he was selected as attorney general at the time. the statement is true today. he is an outstanding choice in my opinion for attorney general , his vast experience, renowned judgment and reputation as an ardent defender of the rule of law make him a nominee that the american people, the president and the senate should all be proud of. i feel very honored

to be here today to speak in his favor, and i hope his nomination will be approved expeditiously. thank you . >> thank you . >> a guy to note at the outset that the rules of the senate prohibit outbursts, clapping or demonstrations of any kind, this includes blocking people around you so be mindful of these rules as we conduct this hearing. i will ask the capitol police to remove anyone who violates the rules of the committee. >> >> raise your right razor right hand, please. you are from that the testimony you're about to give to the committee was the whole truth, nothing but the truth so help you god? >> before i begin mister

chairman can introduce my family ? >> absolutely . >> my wife of 45 years, christine a retired librarian. my daughter margaret who we call nag she was a assistant united states attorney in the district of columbia but is now moved up to capitol hill and works for senator braun. my middle daughter, patricia who is also an attorney and has been cancel to the house agriculture committee for how long now? 11 years. and, my daughter mary, who is a longtime 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, mary and mike's son, liam who will someday be in the department of justice. [ laughter ] patricia's husband, callum, the founding partner of a consulting firm and meg's husband, tyler 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. [ laughter ] >> when meg was starting at notre dame, i told her i wanted a doctor in the family and made her take organic chemistry. needless to say she's now a lawyer. [ laughter ] good morning mister chairman. ranking member feinstein and members of the committee.

it's a privilege to come before you today and i'm honored that trump has nominated me for the position of attorney general i regret that i come before the committee at a time when much of our government to shut down dedicated men and women of 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 george h.w. 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 is 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 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 have 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 at that time, when bush nchose e that he sought no promises and asked only that is attorney general act with professionalism and integrity. likewise, president trump has sought no assurances, promises or commitments for me of any kind, either express or implied any i have not given him any, other than, that i would run the department with professionalism and integrity. as attorney general, my allegiance would 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. let me i know are on the minds of some of the members of this committee. first, i believe it's vitally important that the special counsel be allowed to complete the investigation. i've known bob mueller for 30 years and we work closely together throughout my devious 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. 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 today, i expect that the special counsel is well along the investigation, the president,

congress and american people deserve the matter be resolved by allowing the special counsel to complete his work the country needs credible resolution to these issues. 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 regulations scrupulously and in good faith and on my watch, bob will be allowed to finish his work.

my goal is to provide as much transparency as i can consistent with the law. i assure you where judgments are to be made i will make the judgments based solely on the law to and i will not let personal, political or other improper interest influence, i would like to address the memorandum, under a single statute that i thought based on media reports, the special counsel might consider. the memo did not address or in any other way question the special counsel's for investigation into russia's efforts to interfere in the election, nor did it address other protection 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 my 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 to have a occurred since i last served as attorney general the recently passed setback which i intend to diligently implement if confirmed, recognizes the progress we've made over the past three decades and fighting violent crime. as attorney general, i will ensure that we will continue our efforts to combat violent crime in the past i was focused on predatory violence but today am also concerned about another kind of violent we can only

survive and thrive as a nation of four mutually tolerant of each other's differences, whether they be differences based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or political thinking. yet, we see some people violently attacking others simply because of differences, we must have zero tolerance for such crimes and i will make this is up priority as attorney general, if confirmed. next, the department will continue to prioritize, enforcing and approving her 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 the 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 ensure that our laws allow us to process cold and remove those who unlawfully enter. one of the foundations of our nation is the enduring commitment to transition of power through election. if confirmed i will ensure that the full might of our resources are brought to bear against 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 that the integrity of elections is kept. let me conclude by making the point that over the long run, the oars of justice in this country has more to do with the character of the department of justice as an enduring

institution, then with the tenure of any particular attorney general. above all else, if confirmed, i will work diligently to protect professionalism and integrity of the department as an institution and strive to leave it in the nation, stronger and better place. thank you very much for your time today and i look forward to answering your questions. >> we will try to break around 11:30 am. one thing that i would like to tell you is that i support the idea that politicians can no matter what party should not interfere with criminal investigations, that makes imminent sense to me. once you go down the road the rule of law collapses there's another side to this equation. it's a two-way street. what about those in charge of enforcing the law?

what about those with the power to bring charges against american citizens, including people up here. i remember in senator stevens case. we should always be on guard about the politician interfering in investigation, but we should also have oversight of how the department works and how those with tremendous power use that power. are you familiar with the january 11 new york times article about fbi open inquiry into whether trump was secretly working on behalf of russia? >> yes, mister chairman . >> would you promise me and the committee to look into this and tell us whether or not, in the appropriate way, the counterintelligence investigation was opened up with the department for president trump . >> the number of investigations

-- >> have you ever heard of such a thing in all the time i've been associated with the department of justice . >> are the rules about how you do counter investigation question mark >> i believe there are, mister chairman . >> are the checks and balances if you open one against the president? >> not outside the fbi that we need to look at that . >> in terms of people who are enforcing the law, don't we want to make sure that they have an agenda? >> that's right, mister chairman . >> do you know a lease or page or peter strzok? >> do you know them personally? >> this is a text message from august 8, 2016 that trump will not ever become president, right? >> right . >> no, no, he's not, we will stop it . >> peter strzok was in charge

of the email investigation, august 15, 2016. i want to believe the path you throughout for consideration in andy's office so that there's no way he gets elected but i'm afraid we can't take that risk, it's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before 40. >> march 4, 2016. >> god, trump is a loathsome human being. october 20, 2016. >> trump is a effing idiot and unable to provide a coherent answer . >> you can have any of those opinions you like but you're supposed to do your job without an agenda. you promise me as attorney general, if you get this job, you will look into see what happened in 2016 . >> yes, mister chairman. >> how did the statements it

with you? >> i was shocked when i saw them . >> please get to the bottom of it and we will protect the investigation but we are relying on you to clean this place up . >> pfizer warrant. >> during the process of obtaining the warrant, was there certification made by the department of justice to the court that the information being provided is reliable? >> are you familiar with bruce orr? >> no i am not . >> he was is soap she it attorney general for organized crime and drug enforcement, his wife were at fusion gps. fusion gps, was hired by the democratic national committee and the clinton campaign to do opposition research against canada, trump and other candidates but we now know that they hired fusion gps is a former british agent had to do

opposition research and produce the famous dossier, were you aware that mr. oars wife work for the organization? >> i have read that expect does that bother you that if he had anything to do with the case? >> yes . >> are you aware that on numerous occasions he met with his wife ? >> i read that . >> the warrant certification against carter page, four different occasions certified that the dossier, which was the main source of the warrant was reliable. would you look into see whether that was an accurate statement and hold people accountable if it was not? >> yes, mister chairman . >> you say you've known mueller a long time but you have a close relationship with mr. miller . >> i would say we are good friends . >> would you say the you understand him to be a fair- minded person? >> absolutely .

>> you trust him to be fair to the country as a whole? >> yes . >> when his report comes you will you share with us as much is possible . >> consistent with the law and regulations, yes . >> do you believe mr. miller would be involved in a witchhunt against anybody? >> i don't believe mr. miller would be involved in and witchhunt . >> what are the circumstances that would allow special counsel to be appointed? >> i appointed three special counsel, generally, when something comes up and issue comes up that needs to be investigated, and there are good reasons to have it investigated by a special counsel outside the normal chain at the department, someone usually of public stature can provide additional assurance . >> you believe attorney general session had a consulate work on the trump campaign question >> i'm not sure of all the facts

, but i think he probably did the right thing recusing himself . >> i agree. i think he did the right thing accusing himself . >> do you know rod rosenstein? >> i have a high opinion of rod rosenstein in his service in the department. >> why did you write the memo? >> i wrote the memo because he started to think in june 2017, there were many news reports and i had no fax and none of us really outside the department had fax, but i wrote a lot of news reports suggesting that there were a number of obstruction theories being contemplated or at least explored, one theory in particular that appeared to be under consideration, under specific statute, concerned me because i thought it if all stretching the statute beyond what was intended and it would do it in a way that would have

serious adverse consequences for all agencies involved in the administration of justice, especially the department of justice and i thought it would have a chilling effect going forward over time my memo is very clear, that is the concern that was driving me. the impact, not the particular case but it's impact over time. i wanted to make sure that before anyone went down this path, if that was in fact being considered, that the full implication of the theory was carefully thought out. i wanted to get in front of the people so, i first raised the concerns with rod rosenstein, when i had lunch with him early in 2008 and he did not respond and was sphinx like in the reaction but i expounded on the

concerns and, i attempted to provide a written analysis as follow-up. i initially thought of an op-ed but because of material it wasn't working out and i talk to his staff and said i want to follow up and send something to rod in writing, he's a one pager kind of guy and how much will you read and the guy said that he's like you, he doesn't mind waiting into a dense -- expect anything trump is a one pager kind of guy? >> excuse me? >> i suspect he is . >> just remember that. >> i provided the memo to rod rosenstein, i distributed it freely among the other lawyers i thought would be interested and i think it was entirely proper that it's very common for me and for other former senior officials to weigh in on

matters they think might be ill- advised and may have ramifications down the road. for example, just a few months before that, i weighed in repeatedly to complain about the idea of prosecuting senator menendez i think i made three calls, i think it was to ag sessions and one to rosenstein. i didn't know senator menendez, i don't represent senator mendez, no one was paying me to do it and in fact i don't support senator menendez politically but i have carefully watched this case, and my friend abby lowell was his defense counsel and it was like a line of cases i was concerned about when i was ag and i was watching it. i thought the prosecution was based on a fallacious theory that would have bad, long-term consequences. so, i freely weighed in at the department

and i did so because i care about the rule of law. i want to say one final thing on the rule of law because it picks up on something you said, mister chairman. what is the rule of law, we all use that term. the area of enforcement rule of law is that when you apply a rule to a it has to be the same approach to all the others and that seems to me to sit just to corollaries for any attorney general. the first is why we don't like political interference. political interference means the rules being applied to a is not the role to everything, it special treatment because someone is exerting political influence spirit the corollary to that which is what you are driving at, is that when you apply -- when a prosecutor

applies a rule to a that you have to be careful it's not torqued specially for that case in the way that couldn't be applied down the road or if it is applied will create problems down the road. i think the attorney general's job is both, it's to protect against interference and to also provide oversight to make sure that in each individual case, the same rule that would be applied broadly is being applied to the individual. >> thank you, mister chairman . >> six quick yes or no questions. would you commit to no interference with the scope of the special counsel investigation? >> the scope of the special counsel's investigation is set by his charter and by the regulations, i will ensure that those are maintained . >> would you commit to providing mr. molar with the resources, funds and time needed to complete the investigation? yes .

>> you commit to ensuring that special counsel molar is not terminated without cause consist with regulations? >> absolutely. >> if mueller makes any request about the scope of the investigation or resources for his investigation, would you commit to notifying congress you denied that request? >> i think the regulations require notification of congress if there is a disagreement. >> thank you . >> i have two questions for the chairman of the house that will you commit to making any report molar produces at the conclusion of his investigation available to congress and to the public? >> as i said in my statement, i will make as much information available as i can, consistent with the rules and regulations that are part of the special counsel regulations . >> would you commit to making any report on the obstruction of justice public? >> that's the same answer . >> thank you .

>> in your june 2018 memo about obstruction of justice to the mueller investigation, he repeatedly referred to mueller sweeping an all-encompassing interpretation of section 1512 which is a statute on obstruction, how do you know what mueller's interpretation of 15-12 is? >> as i said, i was speculating, as i said at the beginning, i was writing in the dark, we are all in the dark, every lawyer and every talking head and everyone thinks about it or talks about it does not have the facts. >> ice at my saturday meeting reading the memo, are you saying this is all your speculation, it's a big memo? >> it was informed the extent that i thought it was one of the theories being considered. i don't know how seriously it was being considered that, as a

shorthand way in the number of referring to what i was speculating might be the theory, referred to it as mueller's theory rather than go in every time i mention it . >> do you know what mueller's investigation of 15-12 is? no i don't know the interpretation. just one point, senator. i think, you said in your opening statement, i said he was grossly responsible, if some thing happened it would be grossly responsible but i wasn't calling mueller grossly irresponsible . >> thank you i appreciate that . >> has anyone given you nonpublic information about mueller's investigation? >> i don't recall getting any confidential information about the investigation. >> in it, you stated and i quote, the framers plan

contemplates that the presidents law enforcement powers extend to all matters including those in which he had a personal's date. 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 is over here and, i think of it as there are two categories of potential communication. one would be on a case that the communication from the president that he has no personal or political interest in, let's say the president is concerned about the chinese stealing trade secrets and says i want you to go after this company that maybe stealing trade secrets, that is perfectly appropriate for him to do, for him to communicate that. but, whether it's bona fide or not, the

department of justice's obligation and the attorney general's obligation is not to take any action unless we, the department of justice and attorney general reach their own independent conclusion that it's justified under the law and, regardless of the instruction. that's my quote that everyone is saying, that 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, it's an easy bad example for family or business associate was under investigation and he tries to intervene.

>> he is the chief law enforcement officer and you could say well he has the power but that would be of reach of his obligation under the constitution, to faithfully execute the laws. in my opinion, if a president attempts to intervene in a matter that he has a stake in to protect himself, that should first be looked at as a breach of his constitutional duties, whether it violates the statute, depending on the statue and what all the facts are . >> including the clause of the constitution? >> well, i think there is a dispute as to what the emolument clause relates to. i haven't personally research this clause. i can even tell you what it says at this point, off the top of my head i would've said, emoluments are essentially a stipend attached to some type

of office but i don't know if that's correct. i think it's being litigated right now. >> i don't know either, so i will try to find out and we will come back another day . >> you memo stated a fatal flying mueller's investigation of 15 12-c2. is that while defining obstruction solely and acting corruptly, he offers no definition of what corruptly means. my understanding is that there is nothing in the public record that sheds light on the 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 -- 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, people don't understand what the word corruptly means the, it's an adverb and not meant to mean with the state of mind, it means the way in which the influencer obstruction is committed, that's the function of the statute and what it means is using it in the 19th century sense it means to influence it in a way that changes something that good and fit to something bad and unfit, the corruption of evidence or corruption of the decision-maker, that is what the word corruptly means because once you dissociated from that, it makes it hard to discern, it means bad but what does bad mean? >> let me go on because my time is so limited. you would argue that the constitution's plenary grant of the hours to the president also extend to the unitary character of the executive branch itself,

specifically argue and this is a quote, while mueller's immediate target is the president exercise of his discretionary powers, the obstruction theory reaches all exercises of prosecutorial discretion by the presidents subordinates from the attorney general down to the most junior lien prosecutor. so, if the president orders the attorney general to halt the criminal investigation, would that be prohibited under your theory? >> prohibited by what? >> by the constitution? >> i think it would be a breach of the presidents duty to faithfully execute the law, and abuse of power, whether it violates a statute depends on the facts and what statute someone would cite me to. i certainly think it would be an abuse of his power .

>> let me just say -- >> let me just say if the attorney general fired someone for critical readings? >> know because they are political appointees . >> according to news reports, trump interviewed you and ask you to be part of the legal team defending him in the mueller investigation, twice, first in the spring of 2017 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 2017, that 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 . >> not at this time but i may come back and ask you about that , i don't want to take any more time. thank you, mister chairman. >> before i ask my first question, i don't want you to respond, i just want you to know what my interest is and the transparency of the mueller report, when we spend $35 million or $25 million, the tax payers ought to know what their money was spent four.

so if you have some reservations about some part of it not being public, i hope that is related to traditional things of the public's business that shouldn't be public like national security, but beyond that, the only way i know for taxpayers to hold anyone spends the taxpayers money responsibly, is through transparency because that brings accountability. my first question, as you would expect from the conversation in my office, 86 reagan signs the all claims act, i worked hard to get that passed, especially provisions empowering orders to help the government identify fraud. more than a decade ago you said the provisions in the act were in your words and abomination and unconstitutional. you said, you and your words, wanted to attack the law but the supreme court upheld the law

constitutionality and prosecutors from both sides of the aisle have praised the laws the most effect of two of the government has to detect and recover public money lost to fraud since 1986, the law that was passed brought in $56 billion in the federal treasury, most of that is because of patriotic whistleblowers who found the fraud and brought the case to the attention of the government. is the false claims act unconstitutional? >> no, senator. it's been upheld by the supreme court . >> do you consider this act to be an abomination? >> no . >> does this act benefit the taxpayer to protect whistleblowers? >> yes, senator.

>> if you confirm to commit to not take any action to undermine this act further if confirmed, will you continue current just in department staff and funding levels to support and prosecute false claims? >> yes, i will diligently enforce the false claims act . >> with all the positive answers to think i would be done with that. just to show you there is some forces out there i'm suspicious about within the department of justice, we have a new department of justice guidance document out last year, known as the grandson memo it provides a long list of reasons that the department can use to dismiss false claims and cases. some of them are pretty darn vague such as preserving, these are their words, preserving government resources, think of all the mischief those three words can bring. of course the government can dismiss the meritless cases and

i don't argue with that but even when the department declines to participate in false claims act cases, the taxpayer can in many cases, still recover financially. so, it's important to allow whistleblowers to pursue cases even when the department is unable to be involved. under what circumstances can or should the justice department move to dismiss false claims cases? >> senator, i reviewed the memorandum but i'm not familiar with the thinking of the people, i think it's the civil division but if confirmed i will review that and i would be glad to come sit down with you and discuss it, if there are areas of concern, i would be glad to work with you on that . >> unless you find that my presumption is wrong and there are reasons to be suspicious, i hope that you will take into consideration my feeling about

how in various suspicious ways, people that are faceless bureaucrats can undermine this effort. in circumstances where the government doesn't intervene in false claims cases, if confirmed will you commit to ensuring that the department doesn't unnecessarily dismiss false act cases? >> yes, senator, i will enforce the law in good faith. >> now, we have an act that the justice department just again i can't obviously expect you to respond specifically to the act but i use it as an example of the cooperation with the department of congressional oversight. this uncooperative behavior needs to change. on december 10 last year, the department confirmed a briefing for the staff regarding the asset fund.

to do that, last week, january 8 , on january 7 the department of justice, office of legal and legislative affairs informed our staff that they will no longer provide the briefing because they consider the matter closed as a result of the change in chairmanship and because you released the public memo or i released the public memo investigation, it's important to gain your commitment on how you would handle this as an example . >> let me explain how ridiculous it is to get somebody in this administration saying they don't have to answer if you want chairman of the committee. we went through this in january , the first month the president was in office when he put out a memo. we are going to answer any oversight except chairman of the committee, you will write off 500 members of congress

doing oversight. we told them all about this and we got them up and they wrote a memo again two months later that said that they were going to respond to all this stuff. now you have people in the bureaucracy still saying, if you are to chairman you won't get an answer to anything. how ridiculous it's the constitutional responsibility. i will give you an example. i sent the justice department a classified letter regarding information acquired from the justice department inspector general report on the clinton investigation. they answered to what the inspector general has found but i haven't heard a peep, not a peep on that yet. on december 10, the justice department, i'm repeating here so, the question is, do you understand that if you are confirmed, you have an obligation to ensure that the justice department and in particular the fbi that respond

to congressional inquiries in a timely manner? >> absolutely, senator . >> you understand this obligation applies regardless of whether you are a member of congress or committee chairman? >> yes, senator. , you and senator leahy are the only ones here when i was confirmed years ago, but you will recall, that we were able to establish very cooperative and productive relationships with all members and try to respond to questions and deal with concerns and work with them on projects they are interested in and that will be the same approach i will bring to the job if you confirm me . >> then let me be specific on my last question on oversight. you remember when you were in my office and i gave you, as i gave attorney general sessions

and holder, long list of things that the department has not answered in one of these was on october 17, 2018, letter and i would like to have your response to answering that letter and respond to all outstanding in future oversight request in a timely manner. remember, i said all you cabinet people come appear to tell ses and maybe you better say may be. if you want to say may be now and be really honest say may be but otherwise i hope you will answer that letter, once we get you voted into office . >> yes, senator. >> throughout your career use expressed concern with congressional attempts that with criminal justice reform and advocated for mandatory sentences under your direction, the doj published a report entitled the case for more

incarceration and it declared the problem with the criminal justice system is that we were incarcerating too few criminals and in point 15th you have a letter opposing the reform and corrections act of 2015, the letter states quite clearly your opposition to sentencing reform, particularly the lessening of mandatory minimum sentences as any kind of retroactivity in the first act was signed by trump as attorney general, it will be your job to implement the legislation, even though you've opposed criminal justice reform in the past, will you commit to fully implementing the first step act ? >> yes, senator. but in 1992 when i was attorney general, the violent crime rates for the worst in american history and sentences were short. typically, in many states, the crime for rape time served was

three years or 5 to 7 years, the system had broken down and i think, through a series of administrations, reagan, bush and clinton, the laws were changed and we targeted chronic violent offenders especially those using guns and i think the reason the crime rate is much lower today is because of those policies. i don't think comparing the policies in effect in 1992 to the situation now is really fair and i've said that, right now we have greater regularity in sentencing with broader recognition that chronic violent offenders should be incarcerated for significant periods of time to get them off the streets. i think the time was right to take stock and make changes to our penal system based on

current experience. so, i have no problem with the approach of reforming the sentencing structure. i will faithfully enforce that law. >> if i raised my voice to you, i'm not mad at you don't take it personal . >> if i were you i would answer it, tip that may help you through your job if you get it. >> i will take the time away i'm very curious about the conversations you had about personal representation, you mentioned it some, can you give us a summary of what you were talking about? >> in june 2017 the middle of june, ambassador david friedman, the u.s. ambassador to israel who i didn't know i knew he was a top-tier lawyer in new york and apparently a friend of the president, he reached out to me and we talked one evening and he said, well,

my understanding was he was interested in finding lawyers that could augment the defense team and failing that, he wanted to identify washington lawyers who had broad experience whose perspective might be useful to the presidents and he asked me a number of questions like what have you said about the president publicly and do you have any conflicts? i told him that i didn't think his son, i just took on a big corporate client that was important to me and expected a lot of work to get my point in life i really didn't want to take on the burden and i actually prefer the freedom to not have any representation of an individual but to just say what i thought

about anything without having to worry about that. and, i said, that my wife and i were looking forward to a bit of respite and i didn't want to's took my head into that meatgrinder. he asked me, if i would meet and briefly go over the next day to meet with the president and i said sure, i will go meet with the president, he brought me over and was squeezing me and he looked at me like it was before the morning staff meeting ,'s people were grouping by the door to get in. i went in and he was there, the ambassador was there after the meeting. a very brief meeting where, essentially, the president wanted to know he said, you know bob mueller, how well do you know bob mueller? i told him and how they would be good friends when this was all over and so forth. he was interested in that i

wanted to know what i thought about molars integrity and i said, bob is a straight shooter and should be dealt with as such. he said something to the effect of so are you envisioning some role here and i said actually mr. president, right now, i couldn't do it my personal and professional obligations are such that i'm unable to do it. he asks me for my phone number and i gave it to him and i never heard from him again. [ laughter ] >> i tried that >> you did better . >> i didn't hear from him until later about something different that was the attorney general position . >> thank you. >> it to see you again. as you mentioned we were at your hearing a number of years ago, let me go back in before that,

46 years ago i was a states attorney in vermont. i have a great interest in the richardson hearings, to be a nominated attorney general, nixon, watergate, i promised his independence and total independence is elected prosecutor in vermont, i thought of how important it was to have the same independence at the national level. mr. richardson said that it was necessary to create the maximum possible degree of public confidence and integrity, i've never forgotten that. i think the integrity of our institutions is just as much at

risk today. president trump, made it clear that he feels that justice department is an extension of his political party power and he obsesses over the russia investigation, he attacks the special counsel almost daily, he fired both the previous fbi director and attorney general for not handling the investigation as he please. that tells me that the rule of law can no longer be taken for granted so, if confirmed, the president is going to expect you to do his bidding. you can always guarantee he will cross the line at some point, that's why the commitments you make your today, just like those i watched ellie richardson make years ago, very greatly. so, will you commit, if confirmed festival seeking and following the advice of the

ethics officials on whether you must re-cues from the special counsel investigation? >> i will seek the advice of the career ethics personnel, but, under the regulations, i make the decision as the head of the agency is to my own recusal. so, i certainly would consult with them and at the end of the day that i would make a decision in good faith, based on the laws and the facts that are evident at that time . >> same thing if you're talking about a conflict of interest? >> no, some conflicts you know are mandatory . >> general sessions when asked a similar question said he would seek and follow the advice of the department of

justice is. so, let me ask you, in a different way. i know you promise to not interfere with the special counsel, are there any circumstances that would cause you to terminate the investigation or any component of it or significantly restrict its funding? >> under the regulation, bob mueller could only be terminated for good cause and frankly, it's unimaginable to me that bob would ever do anything that gave rise to good cause. but in theory, if something happened that was good costs, it would be pretty grave in the public interest would have to compel it because i think right now the overarching public interest is to allow him to finish. >> i would agree with that but i also think over the past 18

months, you rather harshly, prejudge the investigation in some of your writing. >> i don't see that at all, senator. you know, when you strip away a lot of the rhetoric, the two things that have been thrown up as me being antagonistic to the investigation are two things. one, very mild comments i made that t i wish the team had been more balance, i wasn't criticizing mueller, i believe that prosecutors, and i think you would agree, they can handle the case professionally, whatever the politics are a good prosecutor can leave politics at the door and go in and do the job and i think that's what justice department prosecutors do in general . >> you're also pretty critical of the russian probe . >> i can't think of anything in your memo, for example that would jump out more for this president because of his

commitment to it. i ask that because somerset on both sides, it looks like a job application so, that is why i want you to report to this . >> that's ludicrous, if i wanted a job and was going after the job, there are many more direct ways of me bring myself to the president's attention then writing an 18 page legal memorandum or handing it to the department of justice and routing it to others . >> also publicly criticizing the russian probe . >> you don't have any criticism of the russian probe? >> i believe the russians interfered or attempted to interfere with the election and i think we have to get to the bottom of it . >> you would be in favor of releasing the report when it's

completed? >> i'm in favor of as much transparency that there can be consistent with the rules in the law. where the president could play an executive privilege and say that parts of the report could not be released ? i don't have a clue as to what could be in the report. the report could end up not being very big. i don't know what's going to be in the report. in theory, if there was executive privilege material to which an executive privilege claim could be made, someone might raise the claim of executive privilege. that would be very difficult following u.s. versus nixon when the supreme court unanimously rejected president nixon claims on the watergate

tapes. i ask because the president's attorney, mr. giuliani, said the president should be able to correct the robert mueller report before public release. in other words, he could take the investigative report and put his own spin on it before the report is released. would that happen while you were attorney general? that would not happen. thank you. here, i was sitting in the senate at the time, i encouraged the president george hw bush to pardon all six individuals who were part of the iran carter, iran contra, the prosecutor investigating that labeled it a cover-up. you and i talked about this in my office and i appreciate you

coming by. i found the conversation to be well worthwhile. do you believe the president could lawfully issue a pardon in exchange for recipients promised to not incriminate him? no, that would be a crime. thank you. in 1990, congress probation power is not an independent source of congressional power it controls the allocation of power resources. vice chairman, i kinda looked at that, do you believe the president had not appropriated funds, and he used funds of another category, and considered all categories is

constitutional purview. and the appropriations committee, don't be surprise they disagree, article 1, section 9, this is one of the most fundamental foundational of policies under the executive branch. would you agree that the president can ignore congress appropriation conditions just ignore them and take the money? not as a general proposition. i actually thought that was a good law review article. i gave it as a speech. it was a thought piece. what i was saying was, and i say upfront that the more i thought about the appropriations palette, the more confused i got. i was just laying out a potential template which is this: people frequently say the power to spend money on this

division are this missile system is part of the power the purse. what i was actually saying was actually with the power being exercise their is a substantive power that the congress has to raise armies. i'm speaking of appropriations on agriculture, for example. could president just build a wall along the southern border? just because he wanted to whether it was appropriate or not just take the money? what about eminent domain ? what about eminent domain ? you gotta take a whole lot of land away from landowners in texas and elsewhere. you have to show me what statute is being invoked. and also what appropriation is being used. i can't answer that in the abstract. you are saying the president

has the power to go in the money that congress has appropriated for different purpose ? i didn't say that. you mean that. no, i don't mean that i mean that there are monies that the president may have power to shift because of statutory authority. it would be because congress allowed it not because he has it automatically. i'm not taking that position. as i said, it was a published law review article and i thought piece exploring what limits there might be to the appropriations power and where congress's power comes from in certain areas. today senate judiciary hearing with attorney general nominee trent 23, william barr

started at 6:30 am and ended at 1030 eastern time. we will bring you more tonight on c-span starting at 9 pm. tomorrow senators hear from witnesses opposing and supporting the confirmation in day two of the confirmation hearing that starts at 9:30 am right here on c-span3. you can also find it streaming online at c-span.org or the free c-span radio app. over 100 new members during the house of the senate for the 116th commerce, congress, indiana elected mike brown to the u.s. senate. he previously served in the statehouse. the senator owns a company that manufactures and distributes parts for trucks. voters in indiana six districts that the vice president's brother greg pants to the house, he owns two antique malls in indiana. he was in the oil and gas industry early in his career.

congressman jim baird now represents the fourth district. he had previously been elected in the indiana statehouse of the putnam county commission. congressman owns a family farm and a home health agency in indiana. he lost his left arm while serving as an officer in the u.s. army during the vietnam war. wisconsin added only one new member to their congressional delegation representative brian style was elected to succeed his onetime boss former speaker paul ryan. congressman ed served on the university of wisconsin board of regents. before that he was an attorney who worked both in private practice and corporate law. michigan elected for new members of congress all democrats. and 11 succeeded his father former representative sandy levinson michigans night district. missed 11 previously owned the queen, clean energy firm and worked on energy issues in the administration with jennifer ran home.

representative rasheeda to leave is the first palestinian american woman and the first of two muslim women elected to congress. she previously served three terms in the house. congresswoman alyssa flocking of michigans eight district served in a variety of roles in the pentagon during the obama administration culminating in a little over two years of acting assistant defense secretary of international security affairs. prior to that she worked in the u.s. intelligence committee including spending time in iraq with jobs in the cia, national security council, and the state department. and representative haley stephens started her career working for the obama administrations auto industry bailout. she later worked on ways for small and midsize any fractures to adopt digital manufacturing methods including creating job training programs for collick selected her as one of the two copresidents of the house democratic freshman class. congress, new leaders. watch it all on c-span.

>> i'm working to ensure that a deal has been negotiated from the european government with the british government. is a good deal it's a working one and a protects job security, and it goes along with the referendum results which is a key issue. i believe we elected people deliver what they wanted which is control of money, order, laws and that is what the deal does. tonight the british house of commons votes on brexit. watch our coverage on c-span to at 9 pm eastern, and watch the premised, prime minister's question time on c-span two. c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, discussion of andrew wheeler's confirmation hearing from epa administration, administrator with kevin the daughters.

and texas governor vincent a gonzalez talks about the government shutdown and border security. and we will discuss attorney general nominee william barr's confirmation hearing with former virginia attorney general ken and ellie. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at seven eastern wednesday morning. joined the discussion. it is day 25 of the government shutdown. coming up on c-span3, discussion working the 70th anniversary of the opening of the court, and obey cuba let terry detention center. and ralph northam delivers the state of the commonwealth address. later wyoming governor mike governor delivers his inaugural address followed a state of the state address. the conversation marking the 70th anniversary of the opening of the u.s. military prison at guantanamo bay cuba.