you should be proud of it. co-owner of golden state warriors, ceo of mandalay group. he has been picked by variety of democrats and republican governors across the board appeal. that brings me to trish regan for the next hour. hey, there, trish. trish: thank you, neil. breaking ceo of uber, travis kalanick will be taking a leave of absence from the troubled company. we're just 30 minutes away from attorney general jeff sessions testimony on capitol hill where senators will grill him, lots of grilling about his contacts with the russian ambassador during the presidential campaign and what role if any he played in the firing of former fbi director james comey. a lot going on. i'm trish regan. welcome, everyone, to "the intelligence report." we will hear about famed investor bill gross who is

increasingly nervous about the this market. we'll hear from sessions for the first time since comey's testimony last week where the former fbi director alluded there might be more to sessions' recusal hand the russia probe. what can we expect from the hearing? we'll have a preview. president trump will be departing for wisconsin to get his pro-growth agenda on track. the president and his daughter ivanka heading to milwaukee to promote a new job training initiative. all of this as we see a positive day, up 82 points, near the highs of the session right now. on wall street, coming ahead of the big decision, the biggie out of the fed tomorrow. as i said investor bill gross is here with his predictions where the markets are going. but first, back to our top story. ceo of uber is taking time away from the company. for the very latest, i want to go to our very own hillary vaughn. hillary, fill us in? reporter: trish, that's right. cankalanick took responsibilityr

uber's problems, writing in part, recent events brought home that people are more important than work. i need to take some time off day-to-day to grieve my mother who i buried on friday and focus on myself and building out a world class leadership team. ultimate responsibility where we have gotten, how we have gotten here rests on my shoulders. we finally a have the report from the multi-month investigation involving uber's handling of sexual assault allegations and the corporate culture. they accepted all the recommendations in the holder report. here are some highlights. the report recommends some of the ceo's responsibilities would be assigned to others in management. they also recommend they hire a chief operations officer to take charge and implement those recommendations. the coo will focus on the day-to-day operations and the

culture and institutions within uber. they want to use performance reviews and compensation to hold senior leaders accountable to insure they're upholding ethical business practices. they also recommend a complete revamp to their human resources complaint filing process and record-keeping including using complaint tracking software. clear guidelines they recommend for alcohol consumption and controlled substances while on work travel at company sponsored events. kalanick wouldn't put a timeline on the length of his absence saying it may be shorter or longer than some expect. he said during his absence his leadership team will be running the company but he will remain available for any strategic decisions. he also openly admits that losing his mother has been difficult and he needs to properly say his good good-byes. la nick asked to honor his mother's legacy by putting people first.

trish? trish: thank you very much. hillary joining me with more and bull's-eye brief founder adam johnson. what do you think is going on here? understandably he needs to mourn his mother's loss. he and his mother were very close. it is coming at interesting time when the company is under so much scrutiny he has taken a lot of heat. his whole management team has taken a lot of heat. >> god bless him. anyone who loses their mother, we do at some point in time but that is really a copout. integrity is one-shot deal. travis kalanick had more than one shot at integrity. sexual harrassment, no place for that. software to evade regulators, doesn't pass the sniff test. shouting at your own employees, drivers on the front line, that isn't acceptable behavior. too many times this man has gone over the line. trish: do you think he's the problem? >> yes. trish: with the company in

general or is this just silicon valley and silicon valley needing to grow up? look, it starts at the top, right? >> yes. starts at the top. trish: you need the ceo embrace agriculture that you want to have? >> yes, you're absolutely right. there have been all sorts of studies, all sorts of comments, commentary what is happening in silicon valley. you know what? it starts from the man at the top unfortunately what is happening at the top is not a good thing here, trish. trish: seems as though some of the private equity investors putting money into uber may have had their concerns as well. in other words they wanted travis kalanick to be out of the way to make room for perhaps a eric schmidt type of person, an adult to kind of run things. >> thank you. people who invested in uber want someone who will shepherd their capital, lead the company forward and mr. kalanick has proven he has difficulty doing that the last valuation put the company somewhere around 66 billion. they have revenues of 20 billion but they lose 6 1/2 billion.

how do you lose 6 1/2 billion -- trish: you're not a tech company. >> they're saying they're a tech and logistics company. they collect 20 billion in fares from all of us, yet they lose 6 1/2 billion? trish: you're saying it is not well-run? >> correct. trish: he aside from the sexual harrassment allegations they have taken some technology, et cetera. >> that's right. trish: fundamentally this is a company that should be making money but it's not? >> of course it should be making money. there is absolutely no reason. think of their business. it is really simple. you charge this for a fare. you know what your costs are. you want to net out some sort of return. that is not a hard business model. trish: back to the idea of this culture in silicon valley. you get a lot of predominantly men come into a lot of money, a lot of success very young in life. >> right. trish: some point of that being part of the problem. in other words you don't have adults there governing or adults who have been through management training or been in the work place long enough to really

understand some of the issues at stake. >> sure. trish: you look at a company like facebook, right? that had to bring in leadership. you look at google with eric schmidt. is that the stage they have now gotten to where travis kala i can in, he is 40 years old himself, still growing up in the tech culture needs the assistance of somebody with more maturity? >> you draw a very strong parallel between what's happening in silicon valley and what was happening when i was a young swaggering trader on wall street in the 19 '90s. we were all making money. we all felt great. we were all cocky and wore fancy striped shirts and fancy ties. i'm not wearing one today because it is 95 degrees out. the point is we needed leadership and we got it. all sorts of things happened on wall street in the '90s, continue to happen. silicon valley needs to grow up but more importantly uber needs

to take action. trish: interesting you think about that, wall street growing up in the '80s and the '90s. >> yeah. trish: facebook taking step of bringing in cheryl samburg and eric schmidt. maybe this is time for uber to make a similar move.this could . >> maybe put a woman in the top spot, you know what? trish: absolutely. >> lead from where we ought to lead, right? trish: absolutely. like that idea. nice to have you here. market up 91 points. we're near the highs of the session as we hit another all-time high today. the blue-chip average, dow on pace for its 19th record close this year as the federal reserve begins to get ready for the two-day policy meeting. wall street widely expects the central bank to raise the benchmark interest rate but investors are on the lookout for any clues of the fed outlook for remainder of the year. although the u.s. economy is strong, my next guest says investors they need to exercise some caution before jumping head first into the financial markets.

joining me right now, legendary investor janus capital portfolio manager bill gross. good to have you here. good to see you. >> thank you. hah, good to be here. trish: this is getting you worried. you're worried about these valuation levels. tell us why. >> i am. i think all asset markets whether low bond yield and high bond prices or high stock prices and high p-e ratios are being influencedded by artificial money coming from central banks. up for the last four years, trish, central banks have put into the markets a trillion dollars worth of money through their quantitative easing policies. they have kept interest rates close to zero. there is no doubt that prices are artificial. the only question is will it lead to real economic growth? if not, when does the musical chairs game end? trish: i hear you on this but at the same time you have got a fed that backed off some of that

aggressive money printing and they're in an interest rate rising environment right now, bill. so are you telling me that the hangover effect still there enough to cause you real concern hangover i mean from all the money? >> ecb, bank of japan, are both buying bonds to the extent of 60, to $65 billion a month. that is over a trillion dollars a year. where does that money go? yes, it goes into the bond market. it flows out into risk markets because bonds that they're buying are close to zero or negative interest rates. so it's, it's an artificial game to the, tent that central banks at some point in my opinion certainly have to stop buying bonds and reformallize the economy. trish: let me ask you how that gets you to real concern? perhaps i'm saying real concern. you should define the concern for me.

are you worried, how worried are you about current valuations in the equity markets and frankly the fixed income market as well? >> well, i'm worried that they're toppy and plateauing as opposed to about to sink. we're not headed in my opinion for a black swan event -- trish: no systemic issue in your view? apologies for interrupting but i just want to clarify that. is there a systemic problem right now? >> not a systemic finance-based problem. trish: okay. >> there are secular considerations of aging democrat ekh boomers. aging, that have less demand for goods and services. there are problems with relatively high debt levels on global basis but no systemic problem i see at the moment unless we have some type of financial catastrophe. trish: okay. in the chances of that? i mean i only ask that, because

you and i have known each other a long time. i feel like you can sense it, you can feel it in the marketplace before there is a real systemic problem and there is a difference between the systemic problem a la 2008 and lehman brothers, run-up in valuations similar to nasdaq in 2000. when you look at the world we now live in, would you tell investors be cautious because you're worried about something like 2000? things get too high, people say okay, enough? >> no, i'd say be cautious because the expectations of what we've seen over the past 12 months, certainly since trump was elected probably are not going to continue. so if you're expecting double-digit types of returns or even 6, 7, or 8% type returns i think prices are at a level we're more apt to see 3, 4% type of returns. lower expect expectations and if

you need more money. trish: whether tax reform will get through? whether repeal and replace will happen, et cetera? >> well i think that is part of it. i think in addition, money, credit, is flowing basically into financial markets. money is making money. as we've seen in the past 10, 20, 30, capitalism itself depends on money flowing into the real economy and i think for a number of years now money simply has bought stocks as opposed to have bought investment in the real economy. so we have a 2% growth rate as opposed to a three or four. trish: bill, how does that change? if the fed can't do anything else, right? other central banks are effectively propping things up artificially in your view, how do we start to generate real growth so we can justify valuations such as we see? >> well, again so a certain extent our monetary policy

helped, we're looking at fiscal policy in terms of tax cuts and deregulation. i wonder how much that will boost real economic growth. i think investors basically, politicians and citizens on a global basis have to get used to the fact, productivity which is essence of growth, essence of real earnings growth, basically is much lower than what it was. and it will continue to be simply because secular forces are keeping a lid on our ability to grow despite fiscal and monetary policies that are very stimulative. trish: you're talking about secular forces but is it sort of a systemic shift as well? in other words our economy is changing so drastically, so quickly, technology is playing such a bigger role, frankly displacing a lot of people in terms of that irjobs, we also live in a global economy, right, bill? where a lot of manufacturing has shifted overseas. like the genie is out of the bottle. how do you stop it at this point?

these are changes we all need to confront and sort of get used to? >> yeah, i think they are, trish, and they're not happening quickly but happening gradually so investors can't notice them. i'm talking about demographics where the world is basically aging. yes, regulatory policies have gone perhaps too far. i'm talking about you know, situations in technology that you mentioned where robots are displacing people. and those are hard forces to stop. and i think, i see them continuing. i see real economic growth, therefore, lower than what it was in the past. trish: it's scary when you think about that. for all our kids future we want them to have the best opportunity in the world yet there is all these things happening that really suggest a kind staffingnant environment but back to your initial point, tax policy, things that we can do out of washington hopefully to, less regulation, to try to general i rate things, that

might, that might actually make the difference. bill, before i let you go you know i always like to get a sense from you where you think yields are heading. fed of course is tomorrow. do you anticipate they will continue interest rate rising path and if so, what does it mean for treasurys? >> i think tomorrow 25 basis points but i would wonder after that, that means the balance of 2017, perhaps not. maybe 25 basis points in 2018. that is what the market expects. they basically expect not only the u.s. fed but other central banks to just raise interest rates by very small increements. so yes, that keeps a lid, basically on volatility, that facilitates stock prices but, back to my original theme, i think we simply plateaued, we move up gradually as opposed to move up significantly. trish: gradual might be better for markets to digest than. thank you, bill.

always a pleasure to see you. >> thank you, trish. trish: all right, everyone, bill gross. legendary bond investor. we are waiting on attorney general jeff sessions. he is going to be testifying about any potential russian interference. we'll go to that testimony for you next. i will see you right back here in two.

will you be ready when the moment turns romantic? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. thithis is the new new york.e? think again. and get medical help right away. we are building new airports all across the state. new roads and bridges. new mass transit. new business friendly environment. new lower taxes.

and new university partnerships to grow the businesses of tomorrow today. learn more at esd.ny.gov so new touch screens... and biometrics. in 574 branches. all done by... yesterday. ♪ ♪ banks aren't just undergoing a face lift. they're undergoing a transformation. a data fueled, security driven shift in applications and customer experience. which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your locations. hello, mr. deets. every branch running like headquarters. that's how you outmaneuver. tthat's why at comcast,t to be connected 24/7. we're always working to make our services

more reliable. with technology that can update itself. and advanced fiber network infrastructure. new, more reliable equipment for your home. and a new culture built around customer service. it all adds up to our most reliable network ever. one that keeps you connected to what matters most. trish: attorney general jeff sessions will be testifying about 15 minutes from now. you can see everyone gathering there on capitol hill. he will face sharp questions from former colleagues about what his role was in the firing of james comey if any. his russian contacts during the campaign. why is it that he recused himself from the russia investigation. of course there were also the questions about why is it that he met with certain russian officials but never disclosed that. for more on what to expect, i am

joined by conservative commentator gina loudon, former dnc deputy press secretary, and jordan sekulow, from the american center of law and justice. jordan, beginning with you, what do you think the real highlight will be here? >> i think there will be two highlights that will actually undercut comey's testimony, that he fired former fbi director's testimony. one is that the attorney general as the department of justice said, under oath will say he did respond to director comey when the director at the time brought up the idea that he was uncomfortable with these one-on-one conversations with the president. the department of justice said that the attorney general did not just shrug and remain silent as former fbi director comey testified to under oath. second the fib fbi director said he received no information recusal. they certainty the memo the day

attorney general recused himself from the investigation and scope and how to move forward. the former fbi director said i have no idea about anything. i never got anything about it. there are two-ways to refute comey off the bat. this is the attorney general who will be under oath. trish: if he does that, assuming he will punch back at comey for some of comey's testimony, gina, this would then sort of provide, i guess a little more support to donald trump, to his administration and to the reasons behind the comey firing, et cetera? >> yeah. you look at this whole thing, trish. first i thought, i hate these things. that has been such a distraction. that has been the line of republicans as they watch the thing go down. this is a distraction. trish: i want to get to that. it is making it difficult to do important things that bill gross, legendary bond investor says we need to do if we want a

meaningful track in this economy. you have to get a few things through. but finish your thought. >> but after watching these things the other day, seeing how it went down with comey, i'm starting to think it is looking good for a president. the other side, the witch-hunters if you will are completely being defaced in this entire thing. it looks to me like the further we go in this, we might start to see the tide really turning. not about president trump at all. trish: the memo, to me, i said repeatedly on air, doesn't seem like the right honourable thing to do. >> not at. trish: to take notes and calling a law professor in the middle of the night, hey, feed this to "the new york times"! >> it wasn't like the memo was leaked for defending the countstution or defending the american citizens. this was about defending him. trish: yeah, he got fired and he didn't like you how he got fired. i think you really saw in that

testimony that james comey gave, jose, james comey ego on full display. i also, i keep pointing this out to you viewers, because i want people to think about this, how fascinating it is jose, all kinds of things got leaked, right? except for the fact that the president of the night was not under investigation. good for marco rubio bringing that up in the hearing. in other words, we were hearing about everything. you look at this, say as a layperson, you say, i've got a president right now who has been complain about these leaks and really thinks that the media and these leakers have conspired against him. that is basically, jose, james comey comes out and confirms it! >> look, i think it is important, trish, you bring up marco rubio, because someone is lying here. the president says comey did not, he did not push comey to drop the flynn investigation. someone is lying, is it comey, president, marco rubio and lindsey graham said they believe comey's story. so jeff sessions, he has opportunity to defend himself and has the opportunity to

defend the president. this is the biggest, jeff sessions is the president's puppet, right? he has all the talking points. he is ready to play his little loyalty card and say whatever he needs to say. trish: i don't think that is necessarily fair. >> to say the attorney general is a puppet -- trish: gave him a bit of a layup in terms of what he said and disclosed. let me get back to jordan for a second because one of issues will come up. a lot of folks want to know why it is jeff sessions is meeting with people from russia, russian ambassador, for example, and not disclosing that when he had the opportunity to do so. what will he say? >> i think that general sessions response to this is very clear for people used to this process. it may not be again, it could be something you could spin either way politically but as he was boeing through his questionnaire with the lawyers, hey, you don't need to disclose things that you

did, having a meetings as a u.s. senator. has anyone said that he broke the law? has anyone said that jeff sessions should be impeached over this? have you noticed they haven't called for that. you know why? because they know his answer is correct, by law he had no duty to disclose that. he is discussing it now. the third meeting i do believe we'll hear today as indicated never happened. that jim comey was indicating something about jeff sessions was not true when he tried to say that he knew something more than even what the congressional committee knows last week. i think honestly, this will be very politically-charged hearing but general sessions has an opportunity to i think kind of clear room if you will. trish: you know, look i think comey testimony certainly helped the president, perhaps jeff sessions will as well. i would once again point out that nothing is getting done because everybody is focused on this circus that is capitol hill right now. thank you so much, jordan, gina, jose, as we wait for testimony

from attorney general jeff sessions. i want to point out moments ago president trump did head to wisconsin where he and his daughter ivanka will be visiting a technical college. they will be promoting a new apprenticeship program. as president meets with members of congress earlier today to help them push them along on his agenda, specifically obamacare. my next guest says hopes fellow lawmakers stay in town this summer, no 4th of july holiday for them. they need to do the work on obamacare and tax reform. republican ron desantis from florida. welcome, congressman. i don't know that they will take the vacation away is this one big giant distraction and making it difficult to get economic reforms through? >> i think it is difficult but the comey hearing there really is a bright line that came out

of that, which of all the media hysteria, all the indwend dough, through all these many months, the single fact is that the president was never under investigation. comey told them that multiple times. the reason is because there is not any evidence that he did anything wrong. i'm not naive enough to think issue will go away but i think that we have a chance maybe settle down into a more policy focused groove because the fact of the matter is, there are legitimate reasons to investigate what russia does but there has not been any type of linkage between the president and russia. trish: the fear, you start having this stuff, you have a special counsel and they keep digging and digging and digging, eventually you wind up with something somewhere.

>> well, i'm not suggesting that, but i think on the congressional side we have control over that. we don't really have direct control over what the special counsel does. so you have these intelligence committees that have been doing this for months and months and months, and i think they need to, as soon as possible, either fish or cut bait. if there's still no evidence that involves the white house or the president, then say that so that then in congress at least we can shift the focus. and i think there's been a lot of stuff that's gone on in these intelligence committees, some of it's probably good, but none of it has substantiated any of the salacious allegations you see in the press. and if they were to come to that conclusion soon, then that at least frees congress up to focus on more of the issues that i think the american people -- trish: let me ask you this,

representative desantis, in other words, you talk to your colleagues there all the time, every day. are some folks in the republican party feeling as though they cannot fully embrace donald trump's agenda when it comes to repeal and replace, when it comes to tax reform, when it comes to less heavy regulatory environment because politically it could be costly because they don't know what shoe's going to drop next given the sort of rabid appetite for what we're seeing right now in. >> well, that's not an excuse not to do the substantive work. we've all campaigned on all those issues before donald trump even ran for president. and so i think to back away from those, those are core commitments that i think all of us made to our own voters and, obviously, the president ran on many of those as well. so i don't think that's a legitimate thing. and, in fact, if you're worried about some shoe dropping -- which i don't think is going to happen -- but if you are, having a list of substantive achievements is kind of the best

thing you can do to be able to take that case to voters when you stand for your next election. trish: let me ask you in terms of what jeff sessions will say as to why he was having these meetings with russians during the campaign, what do you anticipate? >> i think jeff has been treated very unfairly. he's a good, decent, honorable public servant. i don't think he did anything improper. i mean, some of this is hysterical, the idea that you meet with an ambassador in your senate office, that that's like a big scandal. i can tell you, trish, i meet with ambassadors as a matter of course. they ask me to meet. i'm not seeking them out. we meet, i shake their hands, we have a ten minute conversation. i think jeff's going to hold his own x he'll be able to -- trish: right, but if you were specifically asked if you met with those ambassadors in your disclosure form, wouldn't you say you did? >> well, that's the thing, i'm not sure that some of these meetings would even qualify. i mean, if you're speaking at an event and you shake hands with

ten different diplomats, that's not like a meeting that you had, and they're trying to say sessions should have disclosed that when he was at the republican convention. some of this stuff, i think, is making a mountain out of a molehill -- trish: maybe fake news, right, as they call it. i hear you on that, if you're shakeing hands with someone, i don't know if you can be expected -- we can't always necessarily remember who we shook hands with x in a disclosure form, you're not going to necessarily put that down. but what are you hearing from your democratic colleagues right now? i mean, do they think there's any "there" there, or are they just bound and determined to keep pushing this narrative? i'll tell you, there are folks on the left doesn't matter what you tell them, they think that there's trouble here. >> well, they realize, i think, that there isn't any evidence, and i think they've kind of shifted from the russia thing because it's not just comey's testimony. i mean, a lot of these, quote-unquote, bombshell stories in "the new york times," washington post have been

disprune when witnesses have actually -- disproven when witnesses have actually testified under oath. i think they're trying the say that trump's firing of comey was somehow improper. but you have liberal law professors like alan dershowitz who have said -- trish: yeah, no, he has that right. >> but the bottom line is the mantra is resist this president -- trish: okay, really quick, because we're going to get back to the rest of the team in just a minute, but really quick you mentioned dershowitz, famed law professor. would he then also say, do you think, congressman, that -- and this has been making the news rounds today -- if the, if the president decided to get rid of mueller right now, that he'd be okay to do that as well? >> so there's a difference between what you can constitutionally do, which i think he probably could do that, and then what would make sense politically or what you should do. you know, mueller has not done anything that is cause for termination. i'm a little turned that he's

stocking the team with democrats, but i think you let that play out rather than take that action right now. that would be my advice, at least. even though you may have the authority to do it. trish: okay. thank you so much, congressman desantis, we appreciate you joining us. breaking right now, everyone, attorney general jeff sessions is just about to testify before the senate intelligence committee. that's happening any minute from now. as we await this hearing, i want to bring back in our panel, gina loudon and jose, good to have you both here. gina, you heard what representative desantis said, you know, look, this was sort of just par for the course in terms of these meetings with the russians. he may not have disclosed it, but that's in part it's not something you necessarily even remember. >> right. anyone who's spent five minutes on capitol hill knows that. sometimes people walk by and you say hello, and you may not even realize who they are. is that supposed to qualify as a meeting? you know, when you're at a social event? is that supposed to qualify as a meeting?

when they didn't have any russian "there" there, they moved to some sort of obstruction of justice. when it came back that wasn't happening, they are just -- it's become evident to the american people that they are just on a witch hunt to obstruct what the -- trish: should they drop this investigation? >> of course. obvious they should drop this -- of course they should drop the investigation. i honestly don't think it hurts trump at this point, i think it's playing to their favor. we have an agenda that's legitimate and real and that the president ran on, and he needs to be able to focus on that. the democrats should too. i think it would behoove them too, honestly. trish: jose, what do you think about dropping this investigation so we can move forward with what needs to actually happen? >> sure. absolutely not. we need this investigation to end. and, look, we need to finish it, we need to make sure the special counsel, they do their job. if the president truly isn't hiding anything, then it's an investigation. yes, i get it, we need to go back to jobs, i get it -- trish: can you do it quickly enough?

let me ask you that because it's been six months now, and this keeps getting dragged out. >> well, every day. trish: the left isn't finding anything, but there's still a lot of smoke and mirrors. i get it, you know, we've got an economy that's at stake. >> we just had the former fbi director say that he took what trump told him in the oval office as a directive. that is obstruction of justice. that is a big deal. so now we want to wait til general sessions says his part of the story. we've got to wait and see. trish: back up. you're saying that james comey thought that the president was forcing him to discontinue this investigation. if that's the case, then why didn't james comey -- and, by the way, i don't think he looked very good in all of that. his credibility is on the line because dianne feinstein asked him, why didn't you do anything? he basically said i wish i was a better man. he didn't bother doing anything until he lost the job. >> look, i agree with you, he should have talked to the department of justice. this is why the committees want to bring him in for questioning.

hopefully, maybe they will for questions. i wish there was a tape. trump said there could have been a tape, comey said there was a tape, i wish there was a tape. who said what? the tapes will have the truth. we just don't know. apparently, there are no tapes. trish: gina, i just keep going, you know, if comey really thought, you know, he's been around this stuff long enough. he's been in government long enough. if he was that concerned, why wouldn't you articulate those concerns verbally? >> exactly. trish: why would you wait until you get fired and then wake up in the middle of the night -- i can't believe this one, i really can't -- and call your buddy and say, hey, leak it to "the new york times." that bothers me. i would have been happy to have him on this show. he should have sat down and told his side of the story out in the open, not this whole going, you know, behind the bushes and leaking it out the way he did, gina. >> yeah. if he's truly that incompetent, trish, it's a good darn thing he got fired, don't you think? it means trump did exactly the right thing. as far as this conversation about should we continue this

investigation, there is no wrongdoing here at all. they have found nothing, there is zero evidence except, except for the wrongdoing that comey has done and that loretta lynch -- trish: yeah, you know, and by the way, the president was not under investigation. hillary clinton, by the way, was. >> right. trish: i mean, it really feels as though we have gotten, jose, into such -- and you cannot deny this -- we have gotten into such a rapid environment, and some members of the left, it's like a dog with a bone, right? and they are not going to let it go because their hope is you distract, you resist, you get nothing done and then come 2018, their hope is you can usher in more of the left into the house because people are going to say, naturally so, they weren't able to get anything done. >> i want this investigation to finish. look, i don't really care about hillary clinton. that is the past. she lost the election, we already know that. that investigation is over. we need to focus on the future. so we need to finish this investigation. we need to finish it. trish: you're just cutting her

loose, right? you don't want to go back there, because that's kind of no-win, i get it. i agree. [laughter] that said, i only point that out because it feels as though sometimes the left forgets that. you would think donald trump did something really, really bad from what you see out in the headlines the way people are carrying on -- >> the former fbi director. >> trish: -- was the one who was under investigation, not actually donald trump. i find that amazing, don't you, gina? that all this stuff gets leaked except for the fact that the president's not under investigation? >> right. trish: why didn't comey want people to know that? >> right. and i love how the left wants to talk about possible intent when president trump, for example, asked for honest loyalty, that there was possibly some intent there that we don't know about. we better -- but they never want to talk about intent when it comes down to actual wrongdoing, actual criminal behavior on the part of people like loretta lynch. i mean, you don't have to even think about intent there.

we know her intent there. it's not implied, it's real. and so why aren't they screaming about -- it makes them look illegitimate, trish. i don't think this will serve them in the 2018 elections, i truly don't. i think they look like obstructionists, i think they look desperate. i think they've become the conspiracy theorists of our time. [laughter] trish: interesting. jose, what do you think will be some of the biggest questions that we hear from members of the left here to sessions today? where would you be suggesting they try and target him? >> look, this -- trish: and, by the way, he's walking out. there is jeff sessions getting ready. but quickly. >> look, i just -- all we need to know is we need to get to the end of the investigation. both republicans and democrats want this thing to end. trish: okay, but what would you ask him? what is it that you want to find out from him? what is the number one thing? >> well, you lied once, are you going to lie again? >> he didn't lie. >> he lied. he failed to disclose information that he met with the russians. that is a lie. trish: okay, well, that's -- the

question is did he lie, or did he just forget -- >> oh, he forgot. [laughter] trish: well, you know, that's something people keep saying, you have a lot of meetings, and not -- >> i don't buy that. trish: -- every meeting gets recorded. >> i don't buy that. trish: perhaps we'll get to the bottom of that today. that's your biggest question. what's your biggest question, gina? what do you want to hear from jeff sessions? >> i think i just want to hear him lay everything out. i think when the american people see him, the man is so married to constitution, and i'm excited for him to get to spell that out for the american people so that they can kind of see the spirit of who the man is that is jeff sessions and also his relationship, i think, with trump is important in that. trish: you know, it's really just amazing when you think of what we're seeing now on full display, sort of the dysfunction, if you would, of washington and how they would be so distracted from policy with politics. and this is some political, you know, politically motivated, of course. nonetheless, as we've all said,

you do want to get to the bottom of it. you want to make sure there was no wrongdoing here. and this is an opportunity, perhaps, for jeff sessions to clear his name -- >> yes. trish: -- of some of the accusations that james comey made. it was an opportunity there the other day with james comey to effectively clear the president in that, you know, he was not the one underring investigation. he never -- under investigation. he never was under investigation. so that was a big headline out of that. anyway, again, i want to remind the viewer if you're just tuning in, you're getting ready to hear jeff sessions testify on capitol hill about the whole russia probe and what his role, if any, may have been in this. we're getting ready to listen in, i'm here with gina and jose as we begin the questions. let's listen in. >> attorney general sessions, appreciate your willingness to appear before the committee today. i thank you for your years of dedicated service as a member of in this body -- of this body and

your recent leadership at the department of justice. as i mentioned when director comey appeared before us last week, this committee's role is to be the eyes and ears for the other 85 members of the united states senate and for the american people. insuring that the intelligence community is operating lawfully and has the necessary tools to keep america safe. the community a large and diverse place. we recognize the gravity of our investigation into russia's interference in the 2016 u.s. elections, but i remind our constituents that while we investigate russia, we are scrutinizing cia's budget -- while we're investigating russia, we're still scrutinizing cia's budget, nsa's 702 program, our nation's satellite program and the entire i.c. effort to recruit and retain the best talent we can find in the world. more often than not the

committee conducts its work behind closed doors, a necessary step to insure that our most sensitive sources and methods are protected. the sanctity of these sources and methods are at the heart of the intelligence community's ability to keep us safe and to keep our allies safe from those who seek to harm us. i've said repeatedly that i do not believe any committee, that the committee does should be done in public. but i also recognize the gravity of the committee's current investigation and the need for the american people to be presented the facts so that they might make their own judgments. it is for that reason that this committee has now held its tenth open hearing of 2017. more than double that of the committee in recent years, and the fifth on the topic of russian interference.

attorney general sessions, this venue is your opportunity to separate fact from fiction. and to set the record straight on a number of allegations reported in the press. for example, there are several issues that i'm hopeful we will address today. one, did you have any meetings with russian officials or their proxies on behalf of the trump campaign or during your time as attorney general. two, what was your involvement with candidate trump's foreign policy team, and what were their possible interactions with russians. three, why did you decide to recuse yourself from the government's russia investigation. and, fourth, what role, if any, did you play in the removal of then-fbi director comey. i look forward to a candid and honest discussion as we continue to pursue the truth behind russia's interference in the 2016 elections. the committee's experienced staff is interviewing the relevant parties. having spoken to more than 35 individuals to date to include

just yesterday an interview of former homeland security is secretary jeh johnson. we also continue to review some of the most sensitive intelligence in our country's possession. as i've said previously, we will establish the facts, separate from rampant speculation and lay hem out for the american people -- them out for the american people to the make their own judgment. onlien then will we as a nation be able to put this episode to rest and look to the future. i'm hopeful that members will focus their questions today on the russia investigation and not squander the opportunity by taking political or partisan shots. the vice chairman and i continue to lead this investigation together on what is a highly-charged political issue. we may disagree at times, but we remain a unified team with a dedicated, focused and professional staff working tirelessly on behalf of the american people to find the truth.

the committee has made much progress as the political winds blow forcefully around us, and i i think all members would agree that despite a torrent of public debate on who and what committee might be best suited to lead on this issue, the intelligence committee has lived up to its obligation the move forward with purpose and above politics. mr. attorney general, it's good to have you back. i would now turn to the vice chairman for any remarks he might have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to also thank the way that we're proceeding on this investigation. mr. attorney general, it's good to see you again. and we appreciate your appearance on the heels of mr. comey's revealing testimony last week. i do, though, want to take a moment at the outset and, first, express some concern with the process by which we are seeing you, the attorney general, today. it's my understanding that you were originally scheduled to

testify in front of the house and senate appropriations committees today. i know those appearances have been canceled to come here instead. while we appreciate his testimony before our committee, i believe -- and i speak, i believe i speak for many of my colleagues -- that i believe he should also answer questions from members of those committees and the judiciary committee as well. mr. attorney general, it's my hope that you will reschedule those appearances as soon as possible. in addition, i want to say at the outset that while we consider your appearance today as just the beginning of our interaction with you and your department, mr. attorney general, we had always expected to talk to you as part of our investigation. we believed it would be, actually, later in the process. we're glad to accommodate your request to speak to us today, but we also expect to have your commitment to cooperate with all future requests and make yourself available as necessary

to this committee, for as the chairman has indicated, this very important investigation. now let's move to the subject of today's discussion. let's start with the campaign. you were an early and ardent supporter of mr. trump. in march you were named as chairman of the trump campaign's national security advisory committee. you were much more than a surrogate, you were a strategic adviser who helped shape much of the campaign's national security strategy. no doubt, you will have key insights about some of the key trump associates that we're seeking to hear from in the weeks ahead. questions have also been raised about some of your own interactions with russian officials during the campaign. during your confirmation hearing in january, you said, quote: you did not have communications with russians. senator leahy later asked you in writing whether you'd been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the russian government about the 2016 election.

you answered, i believe, with a definitive no. despite that fact, despite that, the fact is we discovered later that you did have interactions with russian government officials during the course of the campaign. in march you acknowledged two meetings with the russian ambassador. yet there's also been some public reports of a possible third meeting at the mayflower hotel on april 27th. i hope that today you will help clear up those discrepancies. we also expect and hope -- this is very important -- that you'll be willing to provide the committee with any documents that we'd need to shed light on this issue such as e-mails or calendars. then there's the topic of the firing of former fbi director comey. last thursday we received testimony from mr. comey under oath. he outlined his very troubling interactions with the president as well as the circumstances of his firing. a few disturbing points stood out.

first, mr. comey -- who has decades of experience at the department of justice and at the fbi serving under presidents of both parties -- was so unnerved by the actions of the president, that he felt, quote, compelled to fully document every interaction they had. mr. comey sat where you are sitting today and testified that he was concerned that the president of the united states might lie about the nature of their meetings. that's a shocking statement from one of our nation's top law enforcement officials. we also heard that director comey took it as a direction from the president that he was to drop the fbi's investigation into former national security adviser general mike flynn. finally, we heard from mr. comey that he believes he was fired over his handling of the russia investigation. the president himself confirmed this in statements to the media. this is deeply troubling for all

of us who believe, on both sides of the aisle, in preserving the independence of the fbi. we have a lot of work in order to follow up on these alarming disclosures. mr. attorney general, your testimony today is an opportunity to begin the process of asking those questions. for instance, again -- and i know others will ask about this -- you recused yourself from the russia investigation. yet you participated in the firing of mr. comey over the handling of that same investigation. we'll want to ask you about how you view your recusal and whether you believe you've complied with it fully. in addition, we heard from mr. comey last week that the president asked you to leave the oval office so that he could speak one-on-one with mr. comey. again, a very concerning action. we will need to hear from you about how you reviewed -- how you viewed the president's request and whether you thought it was appropriate. we'll also want to know if you are aware of any attempts by the president to enlist leaders in

the intelligence community to undermine this very same russia investigation. most importantly, our committee will want to hear what you are doing to insure that the russians -- or any other foreign adversaries -- cannot attack our democratic process like this ever again. i'm concerned that the president still does not recognize the severity of the threat. he, to date i believe, has not even acknowledged the unanimous conclusions of the u.s. intelligence community that rush. >> massively intervened in our -- russia massively intervened in our elections. the threat we face is real, and it's not limited to us. the recent events in france are, again, a stark reminder that all western democracies must take steps to protect themselves. i believe the united states and must be a leader in this effort, but it'll require our administration to get serious about this matter. finally, in the past several weeks we've seen a concerning pattern of administration

officials refusing to answer public, unclassified questions about allegations about the president in this investigation. we had a hearing with this subject last week. i want to commend the chairman, who at the end of that hearing made very clear that our witnesses, it was not acceptable for our witnesses to come before congress without answers. the american people deserve to know what's going on here. thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to the witness' testimony. >> thank you, mr. vice chairman. attorney general sessions, if you would stand, i will administer the oath to you. raise your right hand, if you would, please. do you solemnly swear to tell truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> please be seated. thank you, attorney general sessions. the floor is yours. >> thank you much, thank you very much, chairman burr and ranking member warner, for allowing me to publicly appear before your committee today. i appreciate the committee's

critically important efforts to investigate russian interference with our democratic processes. such interference can never be tolerated, and i encourage every effort to get to the bottom of any such allegations. as you know, the deputy attorney general has appointed a special counsel to investigate the matters related to the russian interference in the 2016 election. i'm here today to address several issues that have been specifically raised before this committee. and i appreciate the opportunity to respond to questions as pulley as the -- as fully as the law enables me to do so. as i advise you, mr. chairman, in consistent with longstanding department of justice practice, i cannot and will not violate my duty to protect the confidential communications i have with the president. now, let me address some issues directly.

i did not have any private meetings, nor do i recall any conversations with any russian officials at the mayflower hotel. i did not attend any meetings at that event separate. prior to the speech attended by the president today, i attended a reception by my staff that included at least two dozen people and president trump, though i do recall several conversations that i had during that pre-speech reception. i do not have any recollection of meeting or talking to the russian ambassador or any other russian officials. be any brief interaction -- if any brief interaction occurred in passing with the russian ambassador during that reception, i do not remember it. after speech i was interviewed by the news media, there was an area for that in a different room, and then i left the hotel. but whether i ever attended a reception where the russian ambassador was also present is entirely beside the point of

this investigation into russian interference in the 2016 campaign. let me state this clearly, colleagues: i have never met with or had any conversation with any russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the united states. further, i have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the trump campaign. i was your colleague in this body for 20 years, at least some of you, and i participate -- and the suggestion that i participated in any collusion that i was aware of any collusion with the russian government to hurt this country which i have served with honor for 35 years or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process is an appalling and

detestable lie. relatedly, there is the assertion that i did not answer senator franken's question honestly at my confirmation hearing. colleagues, that is false. i can't say colleagues now. i'm no longer a part of this body. but former colleagues, that is false. this is what happened. senator franken asked me a rambling question after some six hours of testimony that included dramatic, new allegations that the united states' intelligence community, the u.s. intelligence community, had advised president-elect trump, quote, that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government, closed quote. i was taken aback by that explosive allegation which he

said was being reported as breaking news that very day and which i had not heard. i wanted to refute that immediately. any suggestion that i was part of such an activity. i replied, quote -- i replied to senator franken this way, quote: senator franken, i'm not aware of any of those activities. i have been called a surrogate a time or two in that campaign, and i did not, didn't have, did not have communications with the russians, and i'm unable to comment on it. closed quote. that was the context in which i was asked the question. and in that context my answer was a fair and correct response to charge as i understood it. i was responding to this allegation that we had met -- surrogates had been meeting with the russians on a regular basis. it simply did not occur to me to go further than context of the question and to list any

conversations that i may have had with russians in routine situations as i had had many routine meetings with other foreign officials. so please hear me now. and it was only in march after my confirmation hearing that a reporter asked my spokesperson whether i had ever met with any russian officials. this was the first time that question had squarely been posed to me. on the same day, we provided that reporter with the information related to the meeting that i and my staff had held in my senate office with ambassador kislyak as well as the brief encounter in july after a speech that i had given during the convention in cleveland, ohio. i also provided the reporter with a list of 25 foreign ambassador meetings that i'd had during 2016.

in addition, i provided supplemental testimony to the senate judiciary committee to explain this event. so i readily acknowledge these two meetings and, certainly, not one thing happened that was improper in any one of those meetings. let me also explain clearly the circumstances of my recusal from the investigation into the russian interference with the 2016 election. please, colleagues, hear me on this. i was sworn in as attorney general on thursday, february 9th. the very next day, as i had promised to the judiciary committee i would do at least at an early date can, i met with career department officials including a senior ethics official to discuss some things publicly reported in the press that might have some bearing on whether or not i should recuse myself in this case. from that point, february 10th

until i announced my formal recusal on march 2nd, i was never briefed on any investigative details, did not access any information about the investigation. i received only the limited information that the department's career officials determined was necessary for me to form and make a recusal decision. as such, i have no knowledge about in this investigation -- about this investigation as it is ongoing today beyond what has been publicly reported. i don't even read that carefully. and i have taken no action whatsoever with regard to any such investigation. on the date of my formal recusal, my chief of staff sent an e-mail to the heads of relevant departments including by name to director comey of thm their staffs of this recusal and

to advise them not to brief me or involve me in any way, in any such matters. and, in fact, they have not. importantly, i recused myself not because of any asserted wrongdoing or any belief that i may have been involved in any wrongdoing in the campaign, but because a department of justice regulation, 28cfr45.2, i felt, required it. that regulation states, in effect, that department employees should not participate in investigations of a campaign if they served as a campaign adviser. so the scope of my recusal, however, does not and cannot interfere with my ability to oversee the department of justice, including the fbi which has an $8 billion budget and

35,000 employees. i presented to the president my concerns and those of deputy attorney general rod rosenstein about the ongoing leadership issues at the fbi as stated in my letter recommending the removal of mr. comey along with the deputy attorney general's memorandum on that issue which have been released publicly by the white house. those represent a clear statement of my views. i adopted deputy attorney general rosenstein's points that he made in his memorandum and made my recommendation. it is absurd, frankly, to suggest that a recusal from a single, specific investigation would render the attorney general unable to manage the leadership of the various department of justice law enforcement components that conduct thousands of investigations. finally, during his testimony

mr. comey discussed a conversation that he and i had about the meeting mr. comey had with the president. i'm happy to share with the committee my recollection of that conversation that i had with mr. comey. following a routine morning threat briefing, mr. comey spoke to me and my chief of staff. while he did not provide me with any of the substance of his conversation with the president -- apparently, the day before -- mr. comey expressed concern about proper communications protocol with the white house and with the president. i responded. he didn't recall this, but i responded to his comment by agreeing that the fbi and the department of justice needed to be careful to follow department policies regarding appropriate contacts with the white house. many comey had served -- mr. comey had served in the

department for better than two decades, and i was confident that he understood and would abide by the well-established rules limiting communications with the white house, especially about ongoing investigations. that's what's so important to control. my comments encouraged him to do just that and, indeed, as i understand it, he, in fact, did that. our department of justice rules on proper communications between the department and the white house have been in place for years. mr. comey well i knew them. i thought and assumed correctly that he complied with them. so i'll finish with this. i recused myself from any investigation into the campaign for president, but i did not recuse myself from defending my honor against scurrilous and false allegations. at all times throughout the course of the campaign, the confirmation process and since becoming attorney general, i

have dedicated myself to the highest standards. i've earned a reputation for that. at home and in this body, i believe, over decades of performance. the people of this country expect an honest and transparent government, and that's what we're giving them. this president wants to focus on people of this country to insure they are treated fairly and kept safe. the trump agenda is to improve the lives of the american people. i know some have different ways of achieving this and different agendas, but that is his agenda, and it's one i share. importantly as attorney general, i have a responsibility to enforce the laws of this nation, to protect this country from its enemies and to insure the fair administration of justice, and i intend to work every day with our fine team and the superb professionals in the department

of justice to advance the important work we have to do. these false attacks, the innuendos, the leaks, you can be sure will not intimidate me. in fact, these events have only strengthened my resolve to fulfill my duty, my duty to reduce crime, to support our federal, state and local law enforcement officers who work on our streets every day. just last week it was reported that overdose deaths in this country are rising faster than ever recorded. last year was 52,000, "the new york times" just estimated next year will be 62,000 overdose deaths. the murder rate is up over 10%. the largest increase since 1968. together we are telling the gangs, the cartels, the fraudsters and the terrorists we

are coming after you. every one of our citizens, no matter who they are or where they live, has the right to be safe this their homes and communities -- in their homes and communities. and i will not be deterred, i will not allow this great department to be deterred from its vital mission. thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member warner. i have a great honor to appear before you today, and i will do my best to answer your questions. >> general sessions, thank you. thank you for that testimony. i'd like to note for members the chair and the vice chairman will be recognized for ten minutes, members will be recognized for five minutes, and i'd like to remind our members that we are in open session. no references to classified or committee-sensitive materials should be used relative to your questions. with that, i recognize myself at time for ten minutes.

generalsessions, you talked about the mayflower hotel where the president gave his first foreign policy speech, and it's been covered in the press that the president was there, you were there, others were there. from your testimony, you said you don't remember whether ambassador kislyak was there, the russian ambassador, is that correct? >> [inaudible] i did not remember that, but i understand he was there. and so i don't doubt that he was. i believe that representations are correct. in fact, i recently saw a video of him coming into the room. >> but you never remember having a conversation or a meeting with ambassador kislyak? >> i do not. >> and there was -- in that event was there ever a private room setting that you were involved in? >> no.

other than the reception area that was shut off from, i guess, the main crowd. a couple of dozen, two to three dozen people. >> i would take for granted at an event like in the president shook some hands. >> yes. he came in and shook hands in the group. >> okay. you mentioned that there were some staff that were with you at that event. >> my legislative director at the time -- >> your senate staff? >> senate legislative director who was a retired u.s. army colonel who'd served on the armed services staff with senator john warner before she joined my staff, was with me in the reception area and throughout the rest of the events. >> would you say that you were there as a united states senator or as a surrogate of the campaign for this event? >> i came there as a interested person, very anxious to see how president trump would do in his

first major foreign policy address. i believe he'd only given one major speech before, that one maybe at the jewish aipac event. so service an interesting time -- so it was an interesting time for me to observe his delivery and the message he would make. that was my main purpose for being there. >> now, you reported two other meetings with ambassador kislyak, one in july on the sidelines of the republican convention, i believe, and one in september in your senate office. have you had any other interactions with government officials over the year in a campaign capacity? >> i -- >> i'm not asking you from the standpoint of your senate life, but in the campaign capacity. >> i -- no, mr. chairman. i've stretched my, wracked my brain to make sure i could answer any of those questions correctly, and i did not. i would just offer for you that

when asked about whether i had had any meetings with russians by the reporter in march, we immediately recalled the conversation, encounter i had at the convention and the meeting in my office and made that public. i never intended not to include that. i would have gladly have reported the meeting, the encounter that may have occurred, that some say occurred in the mayflower if i had remembered it or if it actually occurred, which i don't remember that it did. >> general sessions, on march 2nd, 2017, you formally recused yourself from any involvement in the russian investigation being conducted by the fbi and the department of justice. what are the specific reasons that you chose to recuse yourself? >> well, the specific reason, mr. chairman, is a cfr, a code

of federal regulations, put out by the department of justice the, part of the department of justice rules. and it says this, i'll read from it, 28cfr45.2. unless authorized, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person involved in the conduct of an investigation. it goes on to say for political -- in a political campaign, and it says if you have a close identification with an elected official or a candidate a arising from service as a principal adviser, you should not, you should not participate in an investigation of that campaign. >> so would you -- >> so many have suggested that

my recusal is because i felt i was a subject of the investigation myself, that i may have done something wrong. but this is the reason i recused myself. i felt i was required to under the rules of the department of justice, and as a leader of the department of justice, i should comply with the rules, obviously. >> so did your legal counsel basically know from day one you would have to recuse yourself of this investigation because of the current statute? >> well, i do have a timeline of what occurred. i was sworn in on the 9th, i believe, of february. i then on the 10th had my first meeting to generally discuss this issue where the cfr was not discussed. we had several other meetings, and it became clear to me over time that i qualified as a

significant, a principal adviser type person to the campaign, and it was the appropriate and right thing for me -- >> so this -- >> -- to recuse myself. >> so this could explain director comey's comments that he knew that there was a likelihood you would recuse yourself, because he was probably familiar with this same statute. >> well, i think -- probably so. i'm sure that the attorneys in the department of justice probably communicated with him. because, mr. chairman, let me say this to you clearly: in effect, as a matter of fact, i recused myself that day. i never received any information about the campaign. i thought there was a problem with me being able to serve as attorney general over this issue, and i felt i would possibly have to recuse myself, and i took the position -- correctly, i believe -- not to involve myself in the campaign in any way, and i did not.

>> you made a reference to your chief of staff sending out an e-mail immediately notifying internally of your decision to recuse. would you ask your chief of staff to make that e-mail available -- >> we would be pleased to do so, and i think i have it with me now. >> thank you, general sessions. have you had any interactions with the special counsel, robert mueller, since his appointment? >> i have not. with regard to the e-mail we sent out, mr. comey, director comey indicated that he did not know that when i recused myself or did not receive notice. one of those e-mails went to him by name, so a lot happens in our offices. i'm not accusing him of any wrongdoing. but, in fact, it was sent to him and to his name. >> okay. general sessions, as you said, mr. comey testified at length before the committee about his interactions with the president, in some cases highlighting your presence at those meetings.

and you addressed the meeting where all were asked to leave except for director comey, and he had a private meeting with the president, and you said that he did inform you of how uncomfortable that was, and your recommendation was that the fbi and doj needed to follow the rules limiting further correspondence. did director comey ever express additional discomfort with conversations that the president might have had with him? because he had two additional meetings and, i think, a total of six phone calls. >> that is correct. there's nothing wrong with the president having a communication with the fbi director. what is problematic for any department of justice employee is to talk to any cabinet persons or white house officials about ongoing investigations

that are not properly cleared through the top levels of the department of justice. and so it was a regulation, i think, is healthy. i thought we needed and strongly believe we needed to restore discipline within our department to adhere to just those kind of rules, plus leaking rules and some of the other things that i think are a bit lax and need to be restored. >> you couldn't have had a conversation with the president about the investigation because you were never briefed on investigation. >> that is correct. the, i do -- would note that with regard to the private meeting that director comey had, by his own admission, i believe there are as many as six such meetings. i believe he had two with president obama. so it's not improper per se, but it would not be justified for a department official to share

information about an ongoing investigation without prior review and clearance from above. >> general sessions, just one last question. you were the chair of this foreign policy team for the trump campaign. to the best of your knowledge, did that team ever meet? [laughter] >> we met a couple of times maybe. some of the people did. but we never functioned, frankly, mr. chairman, as a coherent team. we had -- >> were there any members of that team you never met in. >> yes. >> okay. vice chairman. >> thank you, general sessions. as i mentioned in my opening statement, we appreciate your appearance here, but we do see this as the first step. and i would just like to get your commitment that you will agree to make yourself available as the committee needs in the weeks and months ahead? >> senator warner, i will commit

to appear before this committee and other committees as appropriate. i don't think it's good policy to continually bring cabinet members or the attorney general before multiple committees going over the same -- >> i know other members of the judiciary committee and appropriations committee may -- >> well, i'm sure -- >> let me ask you about this committee. >> i just gave you my answer. >> thank you. can we also get your commitment, since there will be questions about some of these meetings that took place or not, that we could get access to documents, memoranda, your datebook or something so we can -- >> mr. chairman, we will be glad to provide appropriate responses to your questions and review them carefully -- >> thank you. >> -- and try -- >> yesterday, yesterday a friend of president was reported suggesting that president trump was considering removing director mueller as special counsel. do you have confidence in director mueller's ability to conduct his investigation fairly and impartially? >> well, first, i don't know

about these reports and have no basis to -- >> but i'm asking you, sir -- >> -- the validity. i have known mr. mueller over the years. he served 12 years as fbi director. he -- i knew him before that. and i have confidence in mr. mueller -- >> you have confidence he dc. >> but i'm not going to discuss any hypotheticals or what might be a factual situation in the future that i'm not aware of today because i know nothing about the investigation -- >> do you believe -- >> [inaudible] >> i've got a series of questions, sir. do you believe the president has confidence in mr. muler? >> i have no idea. i've not talked to him about. >> now, will you commit to this committee not to take any personal actions that might result in director mueller's firing or dismissal? >> well, i think i probably could say that with confidence because i'm recused from the investigation. in fact, the way it works, senator warner, is that the acting attorney general --

>> i'm aware of the process. but i just wanted to get you on the record -- >> -- deputy attorney -- >> your recusal, you would not take any actions to try to have director -- special investigator mueller removed. >> i wouldn't think that would be appropriate for me to do. >> i agree. to your knowledge, have any department of justice officials been involved with conversations about any possibility of presidential pardons about any of the individuals involved with the russia investigation? >> mr. chairman, i'm not able to comment on conversations with high officials within the white house. that would be a violation of the communications rule that i have to -- >> -- is that, just so i can understand, is the basis of that unwillingness to answer based on executive privilege, or what -- >> my, it's longstanding policy. the department of justice not to

comment on conversations that the attorney general has had with the president of the united states more confidential reasons that really are founded in the co-equal branch of powers in the constitution of the united states. >> but that -- so, but just so i'm understanding, does that mean are you claiming executive privilege here today, sir? >> i'm not claiming executive privilege because that's the president's power, and i have no power to claim -- >> what about conversations with other department of justice or other white house officials about potential pardons? not the president, sir. >> mr. chairman, without in any way suggesting that that i have had any conversations concerning pardons -- totally apart from that, there are privileges of communication within the department of justice that we share, all of us do. we have a right to have full and robust debate within the department of justice. we encourage people to speak up and argue cases on different sides, and those arguments are

not -- >> i would hope -- >> -- [inaudible] historically we've seen they shouldn't be revealed. >> i would hope that you would agree since you've recused yourself from this investigation, that if the president and others were to pardon someone during the midst of this investigation while our investigation or director mueller's investigation, that would be, i would think, problematic. let me -- i want to, one of the comments you made in your testimony was that you'd reached this conclusion about the performance of then-director comey's ability to lead the fbi, that you agreed with deputy attorney general rosenstein's memo. the fact that you'd worked with director comey for some time, did you ever have a conversation as a superior of director comey with his failure to perform or some of these accusations that he wasn't running the fbi in a good way or that somehow the fbi is in turmoil? did you have any conversations

with director comey about those summits? summits -- subjects? >> i did not. >> so you were his superior and there were some fairly harsh things said about director comey. you never thought it was appropriate to raise those concerns before he was actually terminated by the president? >> i did not do so. a memoranda was prepared by the deputy attorney general who evaluated his performance, noted some serious problems with it, one of -- >> and you agreed with those. >> i agreed with those. in fact, senator warner, we had talked about it even before i was confirmed and before he was confirmed. it's something that we both agreed to that a fresh start at the fbi was probably the best thing -- >> it just, again, seems a little -- i could understand it if you talked about that before you came occupy on. you had a chance for a fresh start, there was no fresh start.

suddenly, we're in the midst of the investigation, and with timing that seems a little peculiar, what kind of at least to me was out of the blue the president fires the fbi director. and if there are all these problems of disarray and a lack of's prix decor at the fbi, all thing that is the acting director of the fbi i denied is the case, i would have thought someone would have had that conversation with director comey. he would have at least been eau yoked -- eaud that. by -- owed that. by time april 27th came around, you'd already been named as the chair of then-candidate trump's campaign adviser. showing up at that meeting -- >> that was the mayflower hotel. >> yes, sir. and my understanding was the president's so many, jared kushner, was at that meeting as well? >> i believe he was, yes. >> you don't recollect whether mr. kushner had any conversations with ambassador

kislyak at that session? >> i do not. >> okay. and to the best of your recollection, you had no conversation with ambassador kissly yak at that -- kislyak at that meeting? >> i can't recall it. it's conceivable that occurred, i just don't remember it. >> but there was nothing in your notes or memory so when you had a chance and you did appreciate and correct the record about to to other two sessions in response to senator franken and senator leahy, this one didn't pop into your memory that maybe in the overabundance of caution maybe you ought to report that this session as well? >> well, i guess i could say that i possibly had a meeting, but i still do not recall it. and i did not in any way fail to record something on, in my testimony or in my subsequent letter intentionally false. >> i understand. i understand, sir. i'm just trying to understand

when you corrected the record. clearly, by the time you had a chance to correct the record, i would have thought that you would have known ambassador kislyak was at that april 28th session. it received some, quite a bit of press notoriety. and, again, echoing what the chairman has said just, again, for the record, there was no other meeting with any other officials of the russian government during the campaign season. >> not to my recollection. and i would just say with regard to the two encounters, one at the mayflower hotel that you referred to -- >> yes, sir. >> -- i came there not knowing he was going to be there. i don't have any recollection of even knowing that he would be there. i didn't have any communications with him before or after that event. and likewise at the event at the convention, i went off the convention grounds to a college campus for an event --

>> but at the mayflower, at the mayflower -- >> let me just foul on that one -- follow up on that one. i didn't know he would be in the audience -- >> so at the may flower -- >> okay. >> -- there was this, i guess, vip reception first and then people went into the speech, is that -- just so i get -- >> that's my recollection. >> and you were part of the vip reception. >> yes. >> yes, sir. general sessions, one of, again, the troubling things that i need to sort through is, you know, mr. comey's testimony last week was that he felt uncomfortable when the president asked everyone else to leave the room. he left the impression that you lingered with perhaps the sense that you felt uncomfortable about it as welch -- as well. measure

>> i would say it this way. we were there, i was standing there, without revealing any conversation took place what i do recall is that i did depart. i believe everyones did depart. president comey was sitting in front of the president's desk, they were talking. that is what i remember. i believe the next day, he said something, expressed concern being left he alone with the president. but that in itself is not problematic. he did not tell me at that time any details about anything that was said that was improper. i affirmed his concern we should be following the proper guidelines of the department of justice, basically backed him up in had is concerns and that he should not carry on any conversation with the president

or anyone else about an investigation in a way that was not proper. i felt he, so long in the department, former deputy attorney general as i recall, knew those policies, probably a good deal better than i did. >> thank you, sir. thank you, mr. chairman. it did appear mr. comey felt that the conversation was improper? >> he, he was concerned about it. and his recollection of what he said to me about his concern i don't -- is consistent with my recollection. >> senator risch. >> attorney general sessions, good to hear you talk about how important this russian interference and active measures in our campaign is. i don't think there is any american who would disagree with the fact that we need to drill down to this. know what happened, get it out in front of the american people and do what we can to stop it. again that is what this committee is charged to do and what this committee started to do.

as you know on february 14th, "the new york times" published an art can alleging there was constant communications between the trump campaign and the russians and collusion regarding the election. do you recall that article when it came out. >> not exactly. >> generally? >> generally i remember those charges -- >> mr. comey told us when he was hear this week he had a very specific recollection. he in fact chased it down through the intelligence community and was not able to find a scintilla of evidence to that effect. he sought out republicans and democrats here to tell them, this was false, that there was no, no such facts anywhere that corroborated what "the new york times" had reported. nonetheless, after that this committee took that on as one of the things we've spent really substantially more time on that than we have on the russian active measures. we've been through thousands of pages of information,

interviewed witnesses, anything else, we're really no different where we were when this whole thing started. and there has been no reports i know of any factual information regarding that. are you aware of any such information of collusion. >> arose from the dossier, so-called dossier, senator risch, is that what you're referring to? >> anywhere. >> that is the report that senator franken hit me with when i was testifying, i think it has been pretty substantially discredited. you would know more than i, but what was said would suggest i participated in a continuing communications with russians over, as a surrogate is absolutely false. >> mr. sessions, the, there has been all this talk about conversations and that you had some conversations with the russians. senators are up here who are on foreign relations, intelligence, armed services, conversations with officers of other governments or ambassadors or

what have you are everyday occurrences here, pell time occurrences for most of us is that a fair statement? >> i think it is. >> if indeed you run into grocery store you will have a conversation, is that fair. >> could very well happen. nothing improper. >> on the other hand, collusion, collusion with the russians or any other government for that matter when it comes to our elections certainly would be improper and illegal, would that be a fair statement. >> absolutely. >> are you willing to sit here and tell the american people unfiltered by what the media is going to put out that you participated in no conversations of any kind where there was collusion between the trump campaign and any other foreign government? >> i can say that absolutely and, i have no hesitation to do so. >> mr. sessions, you're a former u.s. attorney, former united states senator and attorney general of the united states. you participated as you described in the trump campaign and as such, you traveled with the campaign i gather? >> i did.

>> you spoke for the campaign. >> on number of occasions. i was not continually on -- >> based upon your experience and based upon your participation in the campaign did you hear even a whisper or a suggestion or anyone making reference within that campaign that somehow the russians were involved in that campaign? >> i did not. no one ever -- >> what would you have done if you heard that. >> i would be shock and known it was improper. >> headed for the exit? >> may be. this is a serious matter, what you're talking about, hacking into a private person or dnc computer and obtaining information and spreading that out, that is just not right and i believe it is likely that laws were violated if that actually occurred. so it is an improper thing. >> mr. sessions, has any person from the white house or the administration including president of the united states,

either directed you or asked you to do any unlawful or illegal act since you've been attorney general of the united states? >> no, senator risch. they have not. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator feinstein. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. welcome, attorney general. >> thank you. >> on may 19th mr. rosenstein in a statement to the house of representatives essentially told them that he learned on may 8th that president trump intended to remove director comey. when you wrote your letter on may 9, did you know that the president had already decided to fire director comey? >> senator feinstein, i would say that i believe it has been made public that the president

asked us our opinion. it was given and he asked us to put that in writing. and i don't know how much more he said about it than that. but i believe he has talked about it and i would let his words speak for themselves. >> well on may 11th on "nbc nightly news," two days later, the president stated he was going to fire comey regardless of the recommendation. so i'm puzzled about the recommendation because the decision had been made. so what was the need for you to write a recommendation? >> well, we were asked our opinion and when we expressed it, which was consistent with the memorandum in the letter we wrote, i felt comfortable in, i guess the deputy attorney

general did too, in providing that information in writing. >> so do you concur with the president that he was going to fire comey regardless of recommendation because the problem was the russian investigation? >> senator feinstein, i guess i will just have to let his words speak for himself. i'm not sure what was in his mind explicitly when we talked with him. >> did you ever discuss director comey's fbi handling of the russia investigations with the president or anyone else? >> senator feinstein, that would call for a communication between the attorney general and the president. i'm not able to comment on that. >> i understand. you are not able to answer the question here whether you ever discussed that with him? >> that's correct. >> and, how do you view that

since you discussed his termination, why wouldn't you discuss the reasons? >> well i, that was put in writing and sent to the president. he made those public so, he made that public, not -- >> so you had no verbal conversation with him about the firing of mr. comey. >> i'm not able to discuss with you or confirm or deny the nature of private conversations that i may have had with the president on this subject or others. and i know that, how this will be discussed but that is the rules that has been long adhered to by the department of justice. as you know, senator feinstein. >> your long-time colleague but we heard mr. coats and we heard admiral rogers say sentencely the same thing. when it was easy just to say, if the answer was no, no. >> well the easy would have been

easy to say if it was yes, yes. but both would have been improper. >> okay. so how exactly were you involved in the termination of director comey? because i am looking at your letter dated may 9 and you say that the director of the fbi must be someone who follows faithfully the rules and principles, who sets the right example for our law enforcement officials. therefore i must recommend that you remove director comey and i identify an experienced and qualified individual to lead the great men and women of the fbi. do you really believe that this had to do with director comey's performance with the men and women of the fbi?

>> there was a clear view of mine and of deputy attorney general rosenstein as he set out at some length in his memoranda which i adopted and sent forward to the president, that we had problems there and it was my best judgment that a fresh start at the fbi was the appropriate thing to do, and when i asked, said that to the president, is something i would adhere to, deputy rosenstein's letter dealt with a number about things. when the, mr. comey declined the clinton prosecution, that was really a a use aig usurpation in of the prosecutors in the justice department. that was a stunning development. the fbi is a investigative team. they don't decide prosecution policies.

so that was a thunderous thing. he also commented at some length on the declination of the clinton prosecution which you should not normally, you shouldn't do. policies have beens historic, if you decline, you decline, and you don't talk about it. there were other things that had happened that indicated to me a lack of discipline and it caused controversy on both sides of the aisle and i come to the conclusion that a fresh start was appropriate, and did not mind putting that in writing. >> my time is up. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> senator rubio. >> thank you, thank you for being here attorney general. i want to go back to february 14th and kind of close the loop on the details. director comey was here, provided great detail about that day. what i heard so far there was meeting oval office on 14th, you recall there being with him. at some point the mooting concluded. everyone got up to lead, the

president asked director comey stayed behind correct? >> that is communication in the white house i would not comment on. i do -- >> you remember seeing him stay behind? >> yes. >> okay. and his testimony was that you lingered and his view of it was you lingered because you knew you needed to stay. that was his characterization. do you remember lingering, do you remember feeling like you needed to stay? >> i do recall being one of the last ones to leave. >> did you decide to be one of the last ones to leave? >> i don't know how that occurred. we had finished, i think a terrorism, counterterrorism briefing there. a number of people were there and people were filtering out and i eventually left and i do recall that i think i was the last or one of the last two or three to leave. >> would it be fair to say you felt like perhaps you needed to stay because it involved the fbi director? >> well i don't know how i would characterize that, senator rubio. i left. it didn't seem to be that a

major problem. i needed director comey, long time experience in the department of justice, could handle himself well. >> you saw him after that. he characterized, went up to you and said never leave me alone with the president ever again. it is not appropriate. he said, this was his characterization, you kind of shrugged, like what i'm am i supposed to do it about. >> i think i described it more correctly. he raised that issue with me the next day. i think that was correct and he expressed concern to me about that private conversation. and i agreed with him essentially that there are rules on private conversations with the president but, there is not a prohibition on a private discussion with the president as i believe he has acknowledged six or more himself with president obama and president trump.

so i didn't feel like that is -- and he gave me no detail about what it was that he was concerned about. >> so -- >> so i didn't say i wouldn't be able to respond if he called me. he certainly knew that with regard, that he could call his direct supervisor which in the department of justice, the direct supervisor to the fbi is the deputy attorney general. he could have complained to the deputy or to me at anytime if he felt pressured but i had no doubt that he would not yield to any pressure. >> can i -- do you know if the president records conversations in the oval office or anywhere in the white house? >> i do not. >> let me ask you if. if any president records conversations with official duties in the white house or the like would there be obligation to preserve those records? >> i don't know, senator rubio. probably so. >> i want to go to the campaign for a moment.

as i'm sure you're aware it has been widely reported russian intelligence agencies often pose not simply as an official but covers, businessman, journalist, and the like. at any point during the campaign did you have interaction with anyone who in hindsight look back they were trying to influence me, gain insight, in hindsight you look back and wonder? >> i don't believe in my conversations with the three times -- >> not, just in general? >> no. well, i met a lot of people, a lot of foreign officials who wanted to argue their case for their country, and to point out things that they thought were important for their countries. that is a normal thing i guess we talk about. >> as far as someone who is not an official from another country, just a businessman, or anyone walking down the street,

who struck you as someone trying to find out who you were up, or campaign was up to, you never remember any interaction in hindsight appears to be suspicious. >> i can't rack my brain but i recall it right now. >> the republican platform was changed to not supply offensive weapons to ukraine. were you involved in that decision or who do you know who was involved in making that change? >> i was not involved or active in the platform committee, did not participate in that and don't think i had any direct involvement. >> do you know who did or you have no recollection of a debate about that issue internally in the campaign? >> i never watched the debate, if it occurred on the platform committee. i think it did. so i don't recall that, senator rubio. i would to think about that. >> thank you. >> senator wyden. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman i want to thank you for holding this hearing in the open in full view of the american people where it belongs.

i believe the american people have had it with stonewalling. americans don't want to hear that answers to relevant questions are privileged, and off limits or that they can't be provided in public or that it would be quote, inappropriate for witnesses to tell us what they know. we are talking about an attack on our democratic institutions, an stonewalling of any kind is unacceptable. and general sessions has acknowledged that there is no legal basis for this stonewalling. so now to questions. last thursday i asked former director comey about the fbi's interactions with you, general sessions, prior to your stepping aside from the russian investigation. mr. comey said that your continued engagement with the russian investigation was quote, problematic and he, mr. comey, could not discuss it in public.

mr. comey also said that fbi personnel had been calling for you to step aside from the investigation at least two weeks before you finally did so. now in your prepared statement you stated you received only, quote, limited information necessary to inform your recusal decision. but given director comey's statement, we need to know what that was. were you aware of any concerns that the fbi or elsewhere in government about your contacts with the russians or any other matters relevant to whether you should step aside from the russian investigation? >> senator widen, i am not stonewalling. i am following the historic policies of the department of justice. you don't walk into any hearing or committee meeting and reveal confidential communications with

the president of the united states who is entitled to receive confidential communications, in your best judgment about a host of issues. and after, be accused of stonewalling for not answering them. so i would push back on that. secondly, mr. comey perhaps, he didn't know but i, basically recused myself the day, the first day i got into the office because i never accessed files, i never learned the names of investigators, i never met with them. i never asked for any documentation. the documentation, what little i received was mostly already in the media. and was presented by the senior ethics public responsibility, professional responsibility attorney in the department. and i made a honest and proper decision to recuse myself as i told senator feinstein and the members of the committee i would do when they confirmed me.

>> general sessions, respectfully you're not answering the question -- >> what is the question? >> the question is, mr. comey said that there were matters with respect to the recusal that were problematic and he couldn't talk about them. what are they? >> i -- that, why don't you tell me. there are none, senator widen. there are none, i can tell you that for absolute certainty. you tell, this is a secret innuendo being leaked out there about me and i don't appreciate it. and i tried to give my best and truthful answers, to any committee i have appeared before, and it is really, people are suggesting through innuendo that i have been not honest about matters and i have tried to be honest. >> my time is short. you made your point that you think mr. comey is engaging in innuendo. we're keeping digging.

>> senator widen. he did not say that -- >> he said it was problematic. i asked you what was problematic about it? >> the, some of that leaked out of the committee, that he said in closed sessions. >> okay. one more question. i asked former fbi director whether you're your role in firing him violated your recusal given president trump said he fired comey because of the russian investigation. director comey said this was a reasonable question. so i want to ask you just point-blank, why did you sign the letter recommending the firing of director comey when it violated your recusal? >> it did not violate my recusal. it did not violate my recusal. that would be the answer to that. and the letter that i signed represented my views that had been formulated for some time. >> mr. chairman, just if i can finish, that answer, in my view

doesn't pass the smell test. the president tweeted repeatedly about his anger at investigations into his associates and russia. the day before you wrote your letter you, he tweeted that the collusion story was a total hoax. and asked when will this taxpayer-funded charade end. i don't think your answer passes the smell test. >> senator widen, i think i should be allowed to briefly respond at least and would say, the letter, the memorandum, that senator, deputy rosenstein wrote and my letter that accompanied it, represented my views of the situation. >> i will ask that on the second round. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general sessions, i want to clarify who did what with regard to the firing of mr. comey.

first of all, let me ask you when did you have your first conversation with the rod rosenstein about mr. comey? >> we talked about it before either one of us were confirmed. it was a topic of, you know, conversation about, among people who had served in the department a long time. they knew what had happened that fall was pretty dramatically unusual. many people felt it was very wrong. in that discussion we felt we shared a common view a fresh start would be appropriate. >> this was based on mr. comey's handling of the investigation involving hillary clinton and what you said that he usurped the authority of prosecutors at the department of justice? >> yes. that was part of it.

and the commenting on the investigation and in ways that go beyond the proper policies. we need to restore, senator collins, i think the classic discipline in the department. my team, we've discussed this. there has been too much leaking and too much talking publicly about investigations. in the long run, the department historic rule that you remain mum about on going investigations is the better policy. >> now, subsequently the president asked for you to put your views in writing, you testified today and the believe that you were right to recuse yourself from the ongoing russian investigation, but then on may 9th, you wrote to the president recommending that mr. comey be dismissed. and obviously this went back many months to the earlier conversations you had had with

mr. rosenstein. but my question is, why do you believe that your recommendation to fire director comey was not inconsistent with your march 2nd recusal? >> thank you. the recusal involved one case, involved in the department of justice. and in the fbi. they conduct thousands of investigations. i'm the attorney general of the united states. it is my responsibility to our judiciary committee and other committees to insure that that department is run properly. i have to make difficult decisions, and i do not believe that it is a, a sound position to say that if you're recused for a single case involving anyone of the great agencies like dea or u.s. marshals or atf, that are part of the

department of justice, you can't make a decision about the leadership in that agency. >> now, if you had known that the president's subsequently was going to go on tv and in an interview with lester holt of nbc would say that this russian thing was the reason for his decision to dismiss the fbi director, would you have felt uncomfortable about the timing of the decision? >> well, i would just say this, senator collins. i don't think it is appropriate to deal with those kind of hypotheticals. i have to deal in actual issues and i would respectfully not comment on that. >> well, let me ask you this. in retrospect do you believe it would have been better for you to have stayed out of the decision to fire director comey? >> i think it is my

responsibility, i mean i was, appointed to be attorney general, supervising all of the federal agencies is my responsibility. trying to get the very best people in those agencies, at the top of them is my responsibility. and i think i had a duty to do so. >> now, director comey testified that he was not comfortable telling you about his one-on-one conversation with the president on february 14th because he believed that you would shortly recuse yourself from the russian investigation which you did, yet director comey testified that he told no one else at the department outside of the senior leadership team at the fbi. do you believe that the director had an obligation to bring the information about the president saying that hoped he could let

michael flynn go to someone else at the department of justice? there are an awful lot of lawyers at the department of justice. some 10,000 by last count. >> i think the appropriate thing would have been, for director comey to talk about that to the direct supervisor, dana bente, who had 33 years in the department of justice. even then still serving for six years and continues to serve as attorney general appointed by president obama. so he is a man of great integrity and everybody knows it. a man of decency and judgment. if he had concerns, i think he should have raised it to deputy attorney general bente who would be appropriate in any case, but if he had concern about me recusing myself, that would be a

double reason to raise it with deputy attorney bente. >> thank you. >> senator heinrich. >> attorney general sessions has the president ever expressed his frustration to you concern regarding your decision to he recuse yourself? >> senator heinrich, i'm not able to share with this committee private communications -- >> because you're invoking executive privilege? >> i'm not able to invoke executive privilege. that is the president's prerogative. >> my understanding is that you took an oath, you raised your right hand here today and you said that you would solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. and you now you're not answering questions. you're impeding this investigation. so, my hadding of the -- understanding of the legal standard, that you either answer the question, that is the best outcome, you say, this is classified, can't answer it here. i will answer it in closed session. that is bucket number two. bucket number three, is to say i'm invoking executive privilege.

there is no appropriateness bucket. it is not a legal standard. can you tell me what are these long-standing doj rules that protect conversations made in the executive without invoking executive privilege? >> senator, i'm protecting the president's constitutional rights by not giving it away before he has a chance to -- secondly, i am telling the truth in answering your question in saying it's a long-standing policy of the department of justice for those -- >> i -- >> to make sure the president has full opportunity to decide these issues. >> can you share those policies with us? are they written down at the department of justice. >> i believe they are. certainly -- >> appropriateness legal standard for not answering congressional inquiry. >> it is, my judgment, that it would be inappropriate for me to

answer and reveal private conversations with the president when he has not had a full opportunity to review the questions and to make a decision on whether or not to approve such an answer, one. there are also other privileges that could be invoked, one of the things deals with can the investigation of the special counsel as -- >> we're not asking questions about that investigation. if i wanted to ask questions about that investigation i'd ask those of rod rosenstein. i'm asking about your personal knowledge from this committee which has a constitutional obligation to get to the bottom of this. there are two investigations here. there is a special counsel investigation. there is also a congressional investigation, and you are obstructing that congressional investigation by not answering these questions. and i think you're silence, like

the silence of director coats, like the silence of admiral rogers, speaks volumes. >> i would say that i have consulted with senior career attorneys in the department -- >> i suspect you have. >> this is consistent with my duties. >> senator risch asked you a question about appropriateness, if you had known that there had been anything untoward with regard to russia and the campaign, would you have headed for the exits? your response was maybe. why wasn't it a simple yes? >> well, there was a improper, illegal, relationship in an effort to impede or influence this campaign, i absolutely would have departed. >> i think that is a good answer. i'm not sure why it wasn't the answer in the first place. >> i thought i did answer it. >> i thought it neither you or

deputy attorney general rod rosenstein brought up performance issues with director comey. in fact fbi director mccabe has directly refuted any assertion there were performance issues. this is troubling because it appears that the president decided to fire director comey because he was pursuing the russia investigation, and had asked you to come up with an excuse. when your assessment of director comey didn't hold up to public scrutiny, the president finally admitted he had fired director comey he was pursuing the russia investigation, i.e., the lester holt interview. you claimed that you did not break recusal when participating in director comey's firing but it appears that his firing was directly related to russia, not departmental mismanagement. how do you square those two things? >> well, you had a lot in that question. let me say first, within a week or so, i believe may 3rd,

director comey testified that he believed the handling of the clinton declination was proper an appropriate and he would do it again. i know that was a great concern to both of us, because it did not, that represented something that i think most professionals in the department of justice would totally agree, that the fbi investigative agency does not decide whether to prosecute or decline criminal cases. pretty breathtaking use usurp pages of the responsibility of the attorney general. so that is how we felt. this was -- that was sort of additional concern that we had heading the fbi someone who boldly asserted the right to continue to make such decisions. that was one of the things we discussed. that was in the memorandum i

believe, and it was also important factor for us. >> before i recognize senator blunt i would like the record to show last night admiral rogers spent almost two hours in closed session with the, almost the full committee fulfilling his commitment to us in the hearing that in closed session he would answer the question, and i think it was thoroughly answered and all members were given an opportunity to ask questions. i just want the record to show that with what senator heinrich stated. senator brown. -- blount. >> attorney general, good to see you. good to see mary. i know there are other places you both rather be today, but you always looked at public service something you did together. good to see you you here together, know that your family continues to be proud and supportive of what you do.

>> thank you, i have been blessed indeed. >> i agree with that, i agree with that. let me get couple things clear notes i have taken while people were asking questions. you were talking on the april 27th, 2016 event, the mayflower hotel speech that the presidential candidate gave on foreign policy, you didn't have a room at that event where you had private meetings, did you? >> no, i did not. >> as i understand it, you went to a reception attended by how many people? >> i think two to three dozen. >> two to three dozen, you went in, heard a speech and may have seen people on your way out? >> correct. >> when you said you possibly had a meeting with mr. kislyak, what, did you mean you possibly met him? >> i didn't have any formal meeting with him, i'm confident of that, but i may have had an

encounter during the reception. that is the only thing, i can not say with certainty i did not. that is all i can say. >> that is what i thought you were saying. when i heard a meeting that would mean more to me than i met somebody. >> right. >> you might have met him at the reception. could you have met other ambassadors at that reception as well? >> i could. i remember one in particular that we had a a conversation with hose country had an investment in alabama. we talked at length of that. otherwise i have no recollection of a discussion with the russian ambassador. >> all right. you were there. you have read since he was there. you may have seen him but you had no room where you were having meetings with individuals to ask discussions at the mayflower hotel that day? >> no, that is correct. >> on, whenever you talked to mr. comey half he had his

meeting with the president, you think that was, you didn't see him after he left the oval office that night? >> no. , i understand his testimony may have suggested that it might have happened afterwards. it was either the next morning, which i think it was, or maybe the morning after that. it was we had a three times a week on national security briefing with the fbi that i e. so it was after that, that we had that conversation. >> we had that conversation. now what i'm not quite clear on, is, did you respond when he expressed his concern or not? >> yes i did respond. i think he is incorrect. he indicated i believe that he was not totally sure of the exact wording of the meeting but i do recall my chief of staff

was with me and we recall that i did affirm the long-standing written policies of the department of justice concerning communications with the white house. we have to follow those rules and in the long run you're much better off if you do. they do not prohibit communications one-on-one by the fbi director with the president but, if that conversation moves into certain areas, it is the duty, the rules apply to the department of justice. it is the duty of fbi agent to say, mr. president, i can't talk about that. that is the way that should work. apparently it did and because he said he did not improperly discuss matters with the president. >> when mr. comey talked to you about that meeting did he mention mr. flynn? >> no. he mentioned no facts of any kind. he did not mention to me that he had been asked to do something he thought was improper. he just said he was

uncomfortable i believe with it. >> after that discussion with mr. comey -- >> actually i don't know he said he was uncomfortable. i think he said maybe it was -- what he testified to was perhaps the correct wording. i'm not sure exactly what he said but i don't dispute it. >> well exactly what, i think he, what i remember him saying was that you didn't react at all and kind of shrugged. you were saying you referred him to the normal way these meetings are supposed to be conducted? >> i took it as a concern that he might be asked he something that was improper. i affirmed to him, his willingness to say, no or not go in an improper way, an improper direction. >> just say, finally, i'm assuming you wouldn't talk about this because it would relay to

the may 8th meeting, but my sense is no decision is final until it is carried out. my guess there are people at this dais would let somebody go or fire somebody that never did that. so the fact that the president said that on may 8th doesn't mean that the information he got from you on may 9th was not necessary or impactful and i'm sure you're not going to say how many times the president said, we ought to get rid of that person but, i'm sure that's happened and chairman, i will. >> senator king. >> mr. attorney general, thank you for joining us today. i respect your willingness to be here. >> thank you. >> you testified a few minutes ago, i'm not able to invoke executive privilege, that is up to the president. has the president invoked executive privilege in a case of your testimony here today? >> he has not. >> then what is the basis of your refusal to answer these questions? >> senator king, the senator whose a constitutional -- >> i understand that but the president hasn't asserted it.

>> well -- >> you said you don't have the power to assert the power of executive privilege, so what is the legal basis for your refusal to answer these questions. >> i'm protecting the right of the president to assert it if he choose. there may be other privileges that could apply in this circumstance. >> well i don't understand how you can have it both ways. the president can't not assert it and you've testified that only the president can assert it. and yet, i just don't understand the legal basis for your refusal to answer. >> what we try to do, i think most cabinet officials, others that you questioned recently, officials before the committee, protect the president's right to do so. if it comes to a point where the issue is clear, and there is a dispute bit, at some point the president will either assert the privilege or not, or some other privilege can be, would be asserted but, at this point i

believe it is premature for me to -- >> you're asserting the privilege -- >> 2 would be premature for me to deny the president a full and intelligent choice about executive privilege. that is not necessity point. >> you testified a few minutes ago, quote, we were asked for our opinion. who asked for your opinion? >> you mean -- >> you testified we were asked for our opinion. -- >> my understanding is, i believe i'm correct in saying the president has said so, that -- >> so he didn't ask you directly? >> i thought you were asking about the privilege? you want to go back? >> i'm sorry. i'm saying, you said, quote, we were asked for our opinion. you and mr. rosenstein? i belies appropriate for me to say that, because i think the president -- >> no, i'm just asking you -- asking for your opinion. who asked you for your opinion. >> yes, right. the president asked for our opinion. >> all right.

so you just testified as to the content of a communications -- >> that is correct but i believe he has already revealed that. i believe i'm correct in saying that. that is why i indicated that when i answered that question. but, if he hasn't and i'm in error i would have, constricted his constitutional right of privilege, correct. >> you're being selective -- >> no, i'm not intentionally. i'm doing so only because i believe he made that -- >> any of your discussions with the president about the firing of james comey, did the question of russian investigation ever come up? >> i can not answer that because it was a communication by the president or if any such occurred, it would be a communication that he has not waived. >> but he has not asserted executive privilege? >> he has not asserted second live privilege. >> do you believe the russians interfered with the 2016 elections. >> it appears so. the intelligence community seems

united in that. but i have to tell you, senator king, i know nothing but what i have read in the paper. i have never received any detailed briefing on how hacking occurred or how information was alleged to have influenced the campaign. >> between the election there was a memorandum from the intelligence community on october 9th, detailed what the russians were doing. after the election, before the inauguration you never sought any information about this rather dramatic attack on our country? >> no. i was -- >> you never asked for a briefing or attended a briefing or read the intelligence reports? >> you might have have been very critical of me, if i as active part of the campaign was seeking intelligence relating to something that might be relevant to the campaign. i'm not sure that was -- >> i'm not talking about the campaign. i'm talking about what the russians did. you received no briefing on the russian active measures in connection with the 2016 election.

>> no, i don't believe i ever did. >> let's go to your letter of may 9th. you said based upon my evaluation and for the reasons expressed by the deputy, was that a written valuation? >> my evaluation was an evaluation and had been going on for some months. >> is there a written evaluation? >> i did not make one. i think you could classify deputy attorney general rosen steins memorandum as an evaluation. one that, he was the direct supervisor of the fbi director. >> and evaluation was based 100% on the handling of the hillary clinton emails, is that correct? >> on a number of other matters as i recall but he did explicitly lay out the errors that he thoughted that had been made in that process by the director of the fbi.

i thought they were cogent and accurate, and far more significant than a lot of people have understood. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator lankford. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general sessions, good to see you again. >> thank you, senator lankford. >> you speak as a man eager to set the record straight. you have spoken very plainly from the very beginning of your opening statement during this time. i'm amazed as the conversations if an attorney general has never said there were private conversations with the president and we don't need to discuss those. it seems to be a short memory about some of the statements eric holder would and would not make to any committee in the house or the senate. and would or would not or would not turn over documents even requested. we had to go all the way through the court system so finally the courts having to say no, the president can't hold back documents and attorney general can't do that. somehow some accusation that you're not saying every conversation about everything, there is a long history of

attorney generals standing besides the president saying there are some conversations that are confidential. and then can be determined from there. it does seem as well everyone named source story somehow get as hearing. i was in the hearing this morning with rod rosenstein as we dealt with the appropriations requests that originally obviously you were scheduled to be at, rod rosenstein was taking your place to be able to cover. he was very clear. he was peppered with questions about russia during that conversation as well. he was very clear that he is has never had conversations with you about that. and that you have never requested conversations about that. he was also peppered with questions of the latest rumor of the day, that is somehow the president is thinking about firing robert mueller and getting rid of him and was very clear that rosenstein said i am the only one that could do that and i'm not contemplating that and nor would i do that.

no one has any idea with the latest unnamed source story of the day but somehow grabbing all the attention. i do want to bring up a couple things to you specifically. one define the word, recused. and i come back to your email that you sent to jim comey and others that day on march the 2nd. this is what you had said during your email, after careful considerations following emails with career department officials over the course of past several weeks the attorney general decided to recuse himself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for president of the united states. the attorney general's recusal is not only with respect to such investigations if any, but also extends to the department responses to congressional and media inquiries related to such investigations. is that something you have maintained from march 2nd on? zoo, a. >> absolutely. i maintained it from the first day i became attorney general. we discussed those matters and i

felt until, until and if i ever made a decision to not recuse myself, i should not out of abundance of caution involve myself in studying the investigations or evaluating it. >> right. >> so i did not. i also would note that the memorandum from my chief of staff directs agencies, one of the people directly it was sent to was james b. comey, director of the fbi. you should instruct members of your staffs not to brief the attorney general or any other officials in the office of the attorney general about other otherwise involved with the attorney general or other officials in the office of the attorney general in any such matters described above. >> you haven't requested -- >> we have been proper and firm and crystal clear position that the recusal meant recausal. >> relating to this april

april27th, meeting none room, room, who was host of that event they stated this in writing. as host, center for national interest decided whom to invite and issued the invitation. the trump campaign did not determine or approve the invitation list. guests at event included democrats and republicans some among the latter supporting other candidates. most guests were washington based foreign policy centers and journalists. they invited ambassador kislyak and several other ambassadors. we regularly invite ambassadors and former ambassadors to the events to facilitate dialogue. we seated all four in the front row due to diplomatic status. the trump campaign had no in short reception prior to the trump speech. the reception enconclude ad million two dozen guests in a receiving line. the line moved quickly and any

conversations with mr. trump in that setting were inherently brief and could not be private. a recollection is that the interaction shun between mr. trump and ambassador kislyak was limited to polite exchange of pleasantries prepare at on such conversations. we're not aware of any conversation between ambassador kislyak and senator jeff sessions in the reception. however in a small group setting like this one we consider unlikely anyone could engage in meaningful private conversation without drawing attention from others present. do you have any reason to disagree with that. >> no, i think that is a very fair description of the reception situation. i'm appreciate them having made that statement. >> great. i yield back. >> senator manchin. >> mr. chairman, thank you. thankthank you, mr. attorney gel for being here. good to see you again. >> thank you, senator manchin. >> sir i will follow up a little bit what senator king asked concerning, you and i are about the same vintage. we remember back in our lifetime we've never known the russians to be, russian government or the

russian military to ever be our friend, wanting same things we wanted out of life. with that being said the seriousness of this russian hacking is very serious to me and concerning and, you're saying that you had not been briefed on that. october, i think it was october 9th, the one that was known the odni at the time, mr. clapper and mr. jeh johnson, homeland security, made that public what was going on. then on the december 29thth, president obama at that time expelled 35 russian diplomats, denied access to a russian-owned compound and broadened existing sanctions. did you have any discussions at all, have you had any discussions or on any type of meetings or recommendations were made to remove those sanctions? >> i don't recall any such meeting. >> during the time not, from the

president being inaugurated on january 20th, prior to that, in the campaign, up until through the transition, was there ever any meetings that he ever showed any concern or consideration or just inquisitive of what the russians were really doing and if they had really done it? >> i don't recall any such conversation. i'm not sure i understood the question. maybe i better listen again. >> you were part of the national security team. >> yeah. >> if he would have heard something about russia and with their capabilities and our concern what they could do to our election process, was there ever any conversations concerning that whatsoever? >> i don't recall it, senator manchin. >> i know it has been asked of you, things that your executive privilege is in protecting the president. i understand that, but also, when we had mr. comey here, you know, he couldn't answer a lost things in open session. he agreed to go into closed session. would you be able to go into closed session? would it change your answers to

us, or your ability to speak more frankly on things we would want to know? >> senator manchin, i'm not sure. the executive privilege is not waived by going in camera or in closed session. may be that one of the concerns is that when you have a investigation ongoing as the special counsel does, it's often very problematic to have persons, you know, not cooperating with that counsel in the conduct of the investigation. it may or may not be a factor going into closed session. >> it would be very helpful. the committee, there is a lot of questions they would like to ask. i know you would like to answer if possible. maybe we could check into that a little further. if i could sir, did you have any meetings with russian government officials that have not been disclosed? >> i racked my brain and i do not believe so.

>> are there any other? >> i can assure you, none of those meetings discussed manipulating a campaign in the united states in any way, shape or form or any hacking or ideas such as that. >> i will go quickly through this. any meetings were russian government officials and trump campaign associates that have not been disclosed. >> i don't recall any. >> to the budge of your knowledge any following individuals meet with russian individuals at any point in the campaign. go yes, sir or no as i go through the list. paul manafort. >> repete that now. >> to the best of your knowledge sir, did any of following individuals meet with russian officials at any point during the campaign? you can just yes or no on this paul manafort? >> i don't have any information that he had done so. he served as campaign chairman for a few months. >> steve bannon? >> i have no information that he did. >> general michael flynn? >> i don't recall it.

>> reince priebus? >> i don't recall. >> steve miller? >> i don't recall him ever having such a conversation. >> corey lewandoski? >> i do not recall any of those individuals having any meeting with russian officials. >> carter page? >> i don't know? >> i would finally ask this question, we try to get -- you have inate knowledge -- >> there was, there may have been some published accounts of mr. page talking with russians. i'm not sure. i don't recall. >> as former senator you bring unique holistic perspective to this investigation because you've been on both sides. >> i have indeed. all in all it is better on that side. >> if you were sitting on this side of the dais -- >> nobody gets to ask you about your private conversations with your staff. >> here you go, give a chance to give advice. if you were sitting on this side of the dais, what question would you be asking? >> i would be asking whether or

not, i would be asking questions related to whether or not there was an impact on this election. >> what part of the story do you think -- >> by foreign power, particularly the russians since the intelligence community is suggested and stated that they believed they did. and, but i do think members of this government have offices to run. or departments to manage and they, you know the question should be focused on that. >> is there a part of the story we're missing -- i'm so sorry, mr. chairman. is there a part of the story we're missing? >> i don't know because i'm not involved in the campaign and had no information concerning it. i have no idea at what stage it is. members of this committee know a lot more than i. >> thank you, general session. >> general sessions i will assure you we are very much focused on russia's of veriment. >> doesn't seem like it. >> our hope we complete this process we will lay those facts out for the american people so they can make their own determinations as well. we're grateful for what you have

done, senator cotton. >> i am on this side of the dais, so i can say a very simple question that should be asked. i am on this side of the dais. so very simple question that should be asked is, did donald trump or any of his associates in the campaign collude with russia and in hacking those emails and releasing them to the public? that is where we started six months ago? we have now heard from six of eight democrats on this committee, to my knowledge i don't think a single one of them asked that question. they have gone down lots of other rabbit trails but not that question. maybe, that is because jim comey said last week as he said to donald trump that on three times he assure him he was not under investigation. maybe it is because multiple democrats on this committee have stated they have seen no evidence thus far after six months of our investigation and 10 months, 11 months of an fbi investigation of any such collusion. i would just suggest, what do we think happened at the mayflower? mr. sessions, are you familiar

with what spies call tradecraft. >> a little bit. >> does that involve things like covert communications and dead drops and brush passes, right? >> that is part of it. >> do you like spy fiction, daniel silva, jason matthews. alan first. david ignatius. david ignatius's book. >> do you like jason bourne or james bond movies? >> no. question. [laughter] i do. >> have you ever in any of these fantastical situations heard after plot line so ridiculous a sitting united states senator and ambassador of a foreign government colluded at an open setting with hundreds of other people to pull off the greatest caper in the history of espionage? >> thank you for saying that. senator cotton, it just like through the looking glass. i mean what is this? i explained how in good faith i said i had not met with russians

they were suggesting i as surrogate had been meeting continuously with russians. i said i didn't meet with them. now the next thing you know, i'm accused of some reception plotting, some sort of a influence campaign for the american election. it is just beyond my capability to understand and i really appreciate, mr. chairman, the opportunity to at least, to be able to say publicly, i didn't participate in that and know nothing about it. >> and i gather that is one reason why you wanted to testify today in public. last week mr. comey and characteristic dramatic, theatrical fashion alluded ominously to what you called innuendo. that there was the some kind of a classified intelligence that suggested you might have colluded with russia, or that you might have otherwise acted improperly. you addressed those allegations here today. do you understand why he made that allusion?

>> actually i do not. i have, nobody provided me any information -- >> thank you. time limited i have a lot of questions. mr. blunt asked you if you had spoken in response to mr. comey's statement to you after his private meeting with the president on february 14th or february 15th. you said that you did respond to mr. comey. mr. comey's testimony said that you did not. do you know why mr. comey would have said that you did not respond to him on that conversation with you on february 14th or 15th? >> i do not. it was a little conversation, not very long but there was a conversation and i did respond to him, perhaps not to everything that he asked but he, i did respond to him. i think in an appropriate way. >> do you know why mr. comey mistrusted president trump from their first meeting on january 6th? he stated last week that he did. he didn't state anything from

that meeting that caused him to have such mistrust. >> i'm not able to speculate on that. >> let's turn to the potential crimes we know have happened. leaks of certain information. here's a short list of what i have. the contents of alleged transcripts of ailinged conversations between mr. flynn and mr. kislyak. the contents of president trump's phone calls with australian and mexican leaders. the content of mr. trump's meetings with the russian foreign minister and the ambassador. the leak of manchester bombing suspect's identity and crime scene he photos. last week within 20 minutes of this committee meeting in a classified setting with jim comey the leak of basis of mr. comey's innuendo was. are these leaks serious, threats to our national security and as the department of justice taking them with the appropriate degree of seriousness in investigating and ultimately going to prosecute them to the fullest extent of thelaw? >> thank you, senator cotton. we had one successful case very

recently in georgia. that person has been he denied bail i believe. is being held in custody but some of these leaks, as you well know, are extraordinarily dangerous, damaging to the united states's security. we have got to restore a regular order principle. we can not have persons in our intelligence agencies, our investigative agencies oar in congress leaking sensitive matters on staff. this is, i'm afraid, will result in, already resulting in investigations. and i'm fear that some people may find that they wish they hadn't leaked. >> thank you, my time expired but for the record it was stated earlier that the republican platform was weakened on the point of arms for ukraine. that is incorrect of the platform was actually strengthened. i would note it was democratic president who refused repeated bipartisan requests of this congress to supply those arms to ukraine.

>> senator harris. >> attorney general sessions, you have several times this afternoon prefaced your responses by saying to the best of your recollection. just on the first page of your three-pages of written testimony you wrote, nor do i recall, do not have recollection, do not remember it. so my question is, for any of your testimony today, did you refresh your memory with any written documents, be they calendar, written correspondence, emails, notes of any sort? >> i attempted to rye fresh my recollection but so much of this is in a wholesale campaign of extraordinary nature that you're moving so fast, that you don't keep notes. you meet people. i didn't keep notes of my conversations with the russian ambassador at the republican convention but -- i just saying i didn't keep notes on those of these things. there is nothing for me --

>> will you provide this committee of notes that you did maintain? >> as appropriate i will supply the committee with documents. >> can you tell me what you mean when you say appropriate? >> i would have to consult with lawyers in the department who know the proper procedure to, before disclosing documents that are held within the department of justice. i'm not able to make that opinion today. >> sir, i'm sure you prepared for this hearing today and most of the questions that have been presented to you were predictable. so my question to you is, did you then review with the lawyers of your department, with you as top laura unaware, what the law is regarding what you can share with us and what you can not share with us, what is privileged and what is not privileged? >> we discussed the basic parameters of testimony. frankly have not discussed documentary disclosure rules. >> will you make a commitment to this committee that you will share any written

correspondence, be they calendars, records, notes, effort mails, anything reduced at any point in time in writing? >> i will -- >> to this committee where legally, you actually have an obligation to do so? >> i will commit to reviewing the rules of the department and as, and when that issue is raised to respond appropriately. >> did you have any communications with russian officials for any reason during the campaign that have not been disclosed in public or to this committee? >> i don't recall it. but i have to tell you, i can not testify to what was said as we were standing at the republican convention before the podium where i spock. i'm just -- i don't have the detailed memory of that. >> as it relates to your knowledge, did you have have any communication with any russian businessmen or any russian nationals? >> i don't believe i had any

conversations with russian businessmen or russian nationals. although a lot of people were at the convention. it is conceivable that somebody -- >> sir i have a -- >> well you let me qualify it. if i don't qualify it you will accuse me of lying. i need to be correct as best i can. >> i do want you to be honest. >> i'm not able to be rushed this fast. it makes me nervous. >> are you aware of any communications with other trump campaign officials and associates that they had with russian officials or any russian nationals? >> i don't recall that. >> and, are you aware of any -- >> at this moment. >> are you aware of any communications with any trump officials or did you have any communications with any officials about russia or russian interests in the united states before january 20th? >> no. i may have had some conversations and i think i did with the general strategic

concept of the possibility of whether or not russia and the united states could get on a more harmonious relationship and move off of the hostility. the soviet union did in fact collapse. it is really a tragic, strategic event that we're not able to get along better than we are today. >> -- attorney general, how did you typically communicate with then candidate or president-elect trump? >> would you repeat that? >> before you were sworn in as attorney general, how did you typically communicate with then candidate or president-elect trump? >> i did not commit memoranda. i did not make formal presentation. >> did you ever communicate with him in writing? >> i don't believe so. >> and you referred to a long-standing doj policy. can you tell us what policy it is you're talking about? >> well i think most cabinet people as the witnesses, you had before you earlier, those

individuals declined to comment because we are all about conversations with the president -- >> sir, i'm just asking but the doj policy you referred -- >> apology goes just beyond the attorney general. >> is that policy in writing, sr. >> i think so. >> did you not cult it coming before this committee knowing you we were ask you questions about that? >> we talked about it. >> did you ask that it be shown to you? >> the policy is based on the principle that the president -- >> sir, i'm not asking about the principle. i'm asking -- >> i'm unable to answer the question. you would not ask your staff to show you policy basis for refusing to ask questions -- >> the witness should be allowed to answer the question. >> senators, will allow the chair to control the hearing. senator harris, let him answer. >> thank you. >> which talked about it. and we talked about it, the real

principle that's at stake, it one that i have, some appreciation for is having spent 15 years in the department of justice, 12 as united states attorney, and that principle is that the constitution provides the head of the executive branch certain privileges. and that members, one of them is confidentiality of communications. and it is improper for agents of any of the department of, any departments in the executive branch to waive that privilege without a clear approval of the president. >> mr. chairman -- >> that is -- >> i asked mr. sessions for yes or no. >> so the answer yes i consulted. >> senator's time expired. >> apparently not. >> mr. cornyn. >> attorney general sessions, former director comey in his letter to fbi employees when he was terminated started this way. he said i have long believed

that a president can fire an fbi director for any reason or no reason at all. do you agree with that? >> yes. and i think that was a good for him to say because i believe we're going to have a new and excellent fbi director, a person who is smart, disciplined, with integrity and proven judgment. that would be good for the bureau and i think that statement probably was valuable thing for director comey to say. i appreciate that he did. >> just to reiterate, the timeline of your recusal and the rosenstein memo, and your letter to the president recommending the termination of director comey, you recused from the russian investigation on march the 2nd, correct? >> the formal recusal took place on that day. >> the letter you wrote

forwarding the rosenstein memo to the president as a basis for director comey's termination was dated may the 9th, a couple months after you recused from the russian investigation, correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> so, isn't it true that the russian investigation did not factor into the, your recommendation to fire director comey? >> that is correct. >> the memo -- misdemeanor dumb, written by the deputy -- memorandum, the written by the deputy attorney general, your letter to the president forwarding that recommendation, didn't mention russia at all, isn't that your recollection? >> that is correct. >> so let as let's view what the basis of deputy attorney general rosenstein's recommendation. he wrote in his memo on may the 9th, i can not defend the director's handling of the conclusion of the investigation of secretary clinton's emails

and i do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. of course he is talking about director comey. he went on to say the director that was director comey, at the time, was wrong to usurp the attorney general's authority on july the 5th. you recall that was the date of the press conference he held. he went on to say, that the fbi director is never empowered so supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the justice department. finally he said, compounding the error, the director ignored another long-standing principle. we do not hold press conferences to release der interrogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. in fact, there is written policy from the department of justice, is there not, entitled, election year sensitivities.

are you familiar with the prohibition of the justice department making announcements or taking other actions that might interfere with the normal elections? >> i am generally familiar with that. were the holder memoranda after my time in the department. >> let me -- >> there has always been rules about it though. >> let me read the, just an excerpt from a memo from the attorney general, march 9th, 2012, entitled election year sensitivities. it says law enforcement and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigation tiff steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. such a purpose is inconsistent with the department's mission and with the principles of federal prosecution.

you do you agree with that? >> essentially, yes. >> so, what essentially the deputy attorney general said is that former director comey violated department of justice directives when he held a press conference on july the 5th, 2016. he announced that secretary clinton was extremely careless with classified email, and went on to release other derogatory information including his conclusion that she was extremely careless, but yet went on to say that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her. that is not the role of the fbi director, is it? that is a job for the prosecutors at the department of justice? that is what was meant by the deputy attorney general rosenstein when he said director comey usurped the role of the department of justice prosecutors, is that right. >> that is correct, and former

attorney general bill barr wrote an op-ed recently in which he said he had assumed that attorney general lynch had urged mr. comey to make this announcement so she wouldn't have to do it, but in fact, it appears he did it without her approval, totally, and that is a pretty stunning thing. it is a stunning thing, and it violates fundamental powers and then when he reaffirmed that, the rightness he believed of his decision on may 3rd i think it was, that was additional confirmation that the director's thinking was not clear. >> senator reed. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. first, a point, attorney general. senator heinrich and others raised issue of long-standing rules.

if there are written rules to this effect, would you provide them to the committee please? >> i will. >> thank you very much. now, senator cornyn paid the point that the whole substance of your recommendation to the president to dismiss director comey was his unprofessional conduct with respect to the clinton administration, is that correct? >> i supported everything that the deputy attorney general put in his memoranda as good and important factors to use in the determining whether or not he he conducted himself in a way that justified continuing in office. i think it pretty well speaks for itself. most of it did deal with that. of the discussion about list perform wants was a bipartisan discussion. it began during the election time. democrats were very unhappy about the way he conducted

himself. and in retrospect, in looking at it, i think it was more egregious than what i understood at the time. with regard -- >> general, if i may, i don't want to cut you off. >> i let you go. i'm sorry. >> excuse me. david: sir. when mr. comey on julyth made the first announcement on the case you were on fox news. director comey is skilled former prosecutor. then you concluded by saying essentially that it's not his problem, it is hillary clinton's problem. then in november, on november 6th, after mr. comey again made news in late october by reopening, if you will the investigation, you said, again, on fox news, you know, fbi director comey did the right thing when he found new evidence. he had no choice but to report it to the american congress where he had under oath testified.

the investigation was opened. he had to correct that and say, this investigation, ongoing now, i'm sure it is significant or else he wouldn't have announced that. so, in july and november, director comey was doing exactly the right thing. you had no criticism of him. you felt that in fact he was a skilled professional prosecutor. you felt that his last statement in october was fully justified. so how can you go from those statements to agreeing with mr. rosenstein and then, asking the president or recommending that he be fired? >> i think, in retrospect, as all of us began to look at that clearly and talk about it, as perspectives of the department of justice, once the director, at our first got involved and embroiled in a public discussion of this investigation, which would have been better never

have been discussed publicly, and said he, it was over, then, when he found new evidence, that came up, i think he probably was required to tell congress that it wasn't over. that new evidence had been developed. it probably would have been better and would have been consistent with the rules of the department of justice to never have talked about the investigation to begin with. once you get down that road, that's the kind of thing that you get into. that went against classical prosecuting policies that i learned and was taught when i was united states attorney and assistant united states attorney. >> if i may ask another question. your whole premise in recommending to the president was the actions in october involving secretary of state clinton, the whole clinton controversy. did you feel misled when the

president announced that his real reason for for dismissing this, mr. comey was the russian investigation? >> i'm not able to characterize that factor. i wouldn't try to comment on that. >> you had no inkling that there was anything to do with russia until the president of the united united states basically declared not only on tv but in the oval toe the russian foreign minister, the pressure is off, i got rid of that nut? that came as a complete surprise. >> all i can say, senator reed, our investigation was put in writing. i believe it was correct. i believe the president evaluated it but i believe the decision was his process. >> you had no inkling he was considering the russian investigation. >> i'm not going to try to guess. >> that's fair.

i just, there is a scenario in he which this whole, recapitulation that clinton was a story basically, the cover story that the president tried to put out and he quickly abandoned. his real reason was the russian investigation, which had been the case i would suspect you as principle would have recused yourself from any involvement. thank you. >> thank you. >> senator mccain. >> over the last few weeks the administration has characterized your previously undisclosed meetings with the russian ambassador kislyak as meetings you took in your official capacity as a u.s. senator and a member of the armed services committee. as chairman of that committee, let me ask you a few questions about that. at these meetings did you raise concerns about russian invasion

of you ukraine or annexation of crimea? >> i did, senator mccain and i would like to follow-up a little bit on that. that is one of the meetings that i, that is one of the issues that i recall explicitly. the day before my meeting with the russian ambassador, i had met with the ukrainian ambassador. and i heard his concerns about russia. so i raised those with mr. kislyak and he gave, as you can imagine, not one inch. everything they did was, the russians had done according to him was correct. and i remember pushing back on it and it was a bit testy on that subject. >> knowing you on the committee i can't imagine that. did you raise concerns about russia's support for president ba'asyir assad and his campaign of indiscriminate violent against his own citizens and including his use of chemical weapons. >> i don't recall whether that

was discussed or not. >> did you raise concerns about russia's interferns in the electoral processes or electoral process of our allies? >> i don't oral that being discussed. >> as you spoke with ambassador kislyak as a member of armed services committee you presumably talked about russian related security issues you dem straighted important to you as a member of the committee? >> did i discuss security issues? >> i don't recall you as being particularly vocal on such issues. >> repeat, that senator mccain, i'm sorry. >> the whole russia related secure issues, you demonstrate is important to you as a member of the committee, did you raise those with him? >> you mean, issues as nuclear issues? >> yeah. in other words, russian-related security issues, in your capacity as the chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee,

what russia related security issues did you hold hearings on or otherwise demonstrate a keen interest in? >> we may have discussed that. i just don't have a real recall of the meeting. i made, i was not making a report about it to anyone. i just was basically willing to meet and see what he discussed. >> and his response was? >> i don't recall. >> during the 2016 campaign season did you have any contacts with any representative including any american lobbyists or agent of any russian company within our outside of your capacity as a member of congress or a member of the armed services committee. >> i don't believe so. >> "politico" recently reported in middle of the 2016 elections the fbi found that russian diplomats who travel at the state department supposed to track gone missing. some turned up wandering the

around the desert or driving around kansas. intelligence sources concluded after a year of inattention, these movements indicate one, moscow's espionage ground game has grown stronger and more brazen and quietly the kremlin has been trying to map the united states telecommunications infrastructure. what do you know about this development? and how the justice department and other relevant u.s. government agencies are responding to it? >> we need to do more, senator mccain. i am worried about it. we also see that from other nations with these kind of technological skills like china and some other nations that are penetrating our business interests, our national security interests. as a member of the armed services committee, i did support and advocate and i think you supported legislation that would, and it's ongoing now,

that requires the defense department to identify weaknesses in our system and how we can fix them. but i would say to you, senator mccain, that is in my short tenure here in the department of justice i have been more concerned about computer hacking and those issues than i was at the, in the senate. it is an important issue, you're correct. disturbing that the russians continue to push

hostile actions in their foreign policy. and it is a -- not good for the united states or the world or russia in my opinion. >> do you believe we have a strategy in order to counter these ever-increasing threats to our national security and our way of life? >> not sufficiently. we do not have a sufficient strategy dealing with technological and i.t. penetrations of our system. i truly believe it is more important than i ever did before, and i appreciate your concern and leadership on that issue and, in fact, all of congress is going to have to do better. >> senator's time has expired. the chair would recognize the vice chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and general sessions, thank you. i particularly appreciate your last comments with senator mccain about the seriousness of

this threat and why so many of us on this committee are concerned when the whole question of russian intervention. the president continues to refer to it as a witch-hunt and fake news, and there doesn't seem to be recognition of the seriousness of this threat. i share, as most members do that the russians massively interfered, want to continue to interfere, not favor one party or another but favor their own interests. and it is of enormous concern that we have to hear from the administration how they're going to take that on. i also -- comments have been made here about where we had in terms of some of the trump associates who may have had contacts with russians. we've not gotten to all of that yet because of the unprecedented firing of the fbi director that was leading this very same russia investigation, that superseded some of our activities.

so those members who i hope will equally pursue the very troubling amount of smoke at least that's out there between individuals that were affiliated with the trump campaign, possible ties with russians. i've not reached any conclusion, we've got to pursue that. final comment, and i understand your point, but you have to -- there were a series of comments made by mr. comey last week. i think members on this side of the aisle indicated understanding executive privilege, understand classified setting. i do think we need, as senator reed indicated and senator harris and others, if there are these longstanding written procedures about this ability to have some other category to protect the conversations with the president, we'd like to get a look at them because we need to find out in light of some of the constructions between today and last week where this all heads. at the end of the day, this is

not -- let me restate what i said last time. not about relit gaith 2016. it's about finding out what happened. about the serious allegations, about potential ties on, a going forward basis, making sure the russians who are not finished in terms of activities didn't in 2016, and we have to be better prepared going forward on an ongoing basis, thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, brief comment, if you don't mind, i do want to say a change at the top of the fbi should have no impact whatsoever on the investigation. those teams have been working and they'll continue to work and they've not been altered in any way. >> but there were a number of very strange comments that mr. comey testified last week that you could shed light on. we'll continue, thank you. >> general sessions, thank you, again for your willingness to

be here. not sure that you knew it but your replacement sat through most of the hearing, luther strange, he made us regret we don't have intermural basketball team. >> big luther is a good round ballplayer, tulane. >> you've been asked a wide range of questions, and i think you've answered things related to claims about the meeting at the mayflower. you've answered questions that surround the reasons of your recusal and of the fact that you had never been briefed since day one on the investigation, but you made clear that you can't think of any other conversations that you've had with russian officials. you've covered in detail the conversation that you had, though brief, with director comey that he referenced to after his private meeting with the president.

just to name a few things, i think you've helped us to clear up. there were several questions that you chose not to answer because of confidentiality with the president. i would only ask you now to go back and work with the white house to see if there are any areas of questions that they feel comfortable with you answering and if they do, that you provide those answers in writing to the committee. i would also be remiss if you didn't remind you that those documents that you can provide for the committee, they would be helpful to us for the purposes of sorting time lines out. anything that substantiates your testimony today, individuals who might have been at events that you're familiar with. especially those that worked for you, would be extremely helpful. and more importantly, i want to thank you for your agreement to have continuing dialogue with

us as we might need to ask additional questions as we go a little further down the investigation. that certainly does not have to be a public hearing, but may be an exchange and a dialogue that we have. have you helped us tremendously and we're grateful to and you mary for the unbelievable sacrifice that you made in this institution but also in the administration. this hearing is now adjourned. liz: jeff sessions finishing up, hours' long testimony for senate intelligence, about whether or not he in any way colluded with russia? it was a fiery exchange between him and ron wyden. it got really heated, really testy. let's bring in attorney kurt schlichter here to respond. kurt, what did you think of session's testimony? >> i think attorney general sessions said what we expected him to say, which is what the evidence seems to be bearing out. this whole trump-russia thing