think, the most important. the freedom of religion is a fundamental right of paramount importance, unquote. it is not a mere policy preference to be traded against other policy preferences. it is a fundamental right. now, general sessions, would you say this status of religious liberty is a fundamental and paramount right imposes the same obligation on the legislative branch as it does on the executive branch. >> i think it does. i would just say this, senator hatch, your legislation that you worked so hard and passed religious freedom restoration act, was a big part of the foundation of the principles we set out in that religious freedom guidance that we produced at the request of the president. we believe that there is a lack of appreciation of the rights of americans not only to have

private religious thoughts, but to exercise their religious freedom. that's what the constitution says. you should have a right to -- congress should make no law to establish a religion nor prohibit the free exercise there of. you have raised that in the past and it was a big part of what we did, the legislation you and congress passed was a big part of what we were able to do. >> thank you. i would like to make a couple of comments first on the supreme court's recent decision to approve s*ert. we have different views on the case and the topic is controversial and why i introduced the privacy act to create a clear framework for determining when law enforcement can access communications regardless of where they're stored. no matter which way the court rules this is a policy question

that congress needs to decide. congress, not the court, should be the body that determines our data privacy laws. but i'm grateful for the department for its work thus far with me on the bill and i hope you'll continue working with me and others on this committee to refine the bill so it can be enacted into law. i know my time has run, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. >> senator leahy. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome attorney general. >> thank you, senator leahy. >> i look forward to also coming to the appropriations committee to talk about your budget. when you appeared before the committee in january, after your testimony i was concerned about it and i asked you in writing whether you had been in contact with anyone connected to the russian government about the 2016 election.

you answered emphatically no. we later learned about several meetings between you and russian ambassador kislyak. we didn't hear it from you. we got it from the press. during the height of the 2016 campaign you reportedly met with kislyak at a trump campaign event on foreign policy. a republican national convention event and then your senate office while serving as chairman of candidate trump's national security team. now i've never accused you of colluding with russians but you clearly -- your answer of no, you concealed your own contact with russian officials at a time when such contacts were of great interest to the committee. one thing i do know, we've known each other for decades, we've worked together on many issues.

if senator jeff sessions was in my shoes and he asked the questions he wouldn't tolerate being misled. do you understand why members of this committee believe your answer no was false testimony? >> mr. chairman, i appreciate the opportunity to talk about that. i believe my answer was correct. i have the question you asked. you started off in the preamble -- by the way, the intelligence community has concluded that russia intervened in the 2016 election in an effort to help elect donald trump. that report is available. russian interference in our elections is larger than any candidate or political party. it's about protecting our democracy. and i agree with that. then you asked a series of subparts. a, b, c, d. >> bill: the question i'm referring to, i asked if you had any contact with the

russians and you answered emphatically no. >> i just wanted to say the entire context of all your questions dealt with interference in the campaign by the russian officials. >> did you meet with any russians. >> the question you are referring to is sub paragraph e and it says several of president elect's nominees or senior advisors have russian ties. have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the russian government about the 2016 election? either before or after election day? and i took that to mean not any casual conversation but did i participate with russians about the 2016 election. that something was wrong. every one of your previous questions talked about improper

involvement and i felt the answer was no. and i answered no and i did not meet with in any way about the election. >> let me ask you about that. because later in march when you did disclose such meetings, you said you did not recall what was said at the meetings. now, your answer to my question was an emphatic no. it wasn't i don't recall. now you are a lawyer, i'm a lawyer. you are, in fact, our nation's top lawyer. is there a difference between responding no and i do not recall. is that legally significant? >> yes. but -- >> thank you. >> certainly it is, senator leahy. >> so if you could not recall you could not have answered my question -- my first question

yes or no if later you said you don't recall what was discussed. now, the reason i ask that, u.s. intelligence reported in july peer review you did, in fact, discuss campaign issues with the russian ambassador including candidate trump's position on russian-related issues. let me ask you this. since the 2016 campaign, have you discussed with any russian-connected official any of the following. emails, russian interference, sanctions like the magnitsky act adoption issue or any policies or positions of the campaign or trump presidency? this is since the 2016 campaign. >> senator leahy, i want to be accurate so i don't want to have any ambiguity about your questions. that's a lot of questions. let's think about this. i have never had a meeting with

any russian officials to discuss any kind of coordinating campaign efforts. i know you are shaking your head so i want to first say -- >> let's take it piece by piece. any of the following, emails. >> repeat the question about emails. >> since the 2016 campaign have you discussed with any russian-connected officials anything by emails. >> discussed with them. i don't recall having done any such thing. >> have you discussed with them russian interference in our elections. >> no. >> have you discussed anything like sanctions like the magnitsky act what they call the adoption issue? >> i don't believe i've ever had any discussion at any time about the mag nights key act. >> any policies or positions of the campaign or trump presidency? >> i'm not sure about that. i met with the russian

ambassador after i gave a speech at the republican convention. he was right in front of the speakerphone and we had a few -- we had an encounter there and he came -- he asked for an appointment in my office later. i met with 26 ambassadors in the last year and he was one of them. he came into my office with two of my senior defense specialists and met with me for a while. and i don't recall any conversation about -- what was the last subject? let me get it right. you asked me -- >> i think he wants you to repeat something. >> any policies or position of the campaign or trump presidency? >> i don't think there was any discussion about the details of the campaign other than it

could have been that in that meeting in my office or at the convention that some comment was made about what trump's positions were. i think that's possible. >> were you requested and have you been interviewed or requested to be interviewed by the special counsel either in connection with director comey's firing, the russia, investigation or your own contact with russian officials? >> you will have to ask the special counsel. >> i'm asking you. >> we peat the question. >> have you interviewed or been requested to be interviewed by the special counsel either in connection with director comey's firing, the russian investigation or your own contact with russian officials. >> i would be pleased to answer that. i'm not sure i should without clearing that with the special counsel. what do you think?

>> have you been interviewed by them? >> no. >> you haven't been interviewed by the special counsel in any way, shape or manner? >> the answer is no. >> thank you. mr. chairman. i've gone over my time. he appreciate the courtesy. i have a lot more questions along this line. >> senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, attorney general sessions for your service and for being here today. in may you implemented a new charging policy for federal prosecutors. the policy requires, as i understand it, that prosecutors must be required to, quote, pursue the most serious readily provable offense. the policy does permit prosecutors in some circumstances to apply for approval to charge something

less than the most serious offense that is readily provable. can you tell me, attorney general sessions, what factors the department will be considering in deciding whether or not to grant approval to those prosecutors in those instances who want to charge something less than the most serious readily approvable offense? >> that memos' decision establishes the long-held position of the department of justice that a prosecutor should charge the most readily provable offense. it was altered by the previous obama department of justice, i believe, attorney general holder, in which he declared that you should not and even directed you should not charge what congress has set as a serious offense that carries a minimum sentence.

>> so you were restoring what was previously known? >> i was restoring what was previously set and i was determined to have a simple directive to our capable assistant united states attorneys, not have a long six-page memorandum. a slightly over one-page memo to them and said if you think that's not just and you clear it with your u.s. attorney or the designee of the u.s. attorney, you can charge less than the most serious readily provable offense. don't have to call washington get some bureaucracy. we'll trust you. i said i hope that would work. if we had serious problems with it, we would revisit it. and by the way, it only requires that the minimum sentence be imposed. minimum mandatory doesn't require the maximum sentence as some have said. it simply says if you commit a serious crime that congress

says should carry a certain sentence, you shouldn't fail to charge that because you want to have a different sentencing result. >> do you track or do you intend to keep track of how often attorneys -- how often prosecutors and which prosecutors in particular are departing from this? >> yes, we will. i don't know that we have a formal process. deputy attorney general rod rosenstein is an experienced supervisor, 12 years of assisting united states attorneys. we've discussed it in depth and we feel it's a sound policy for the department of justice and essentially restores us to what it used to be. but with perhaps even more flexibility than previous policies. >> in march justice thomas issued a statement in connection with the denial of

ser surey. he suggested that modern civil asset forfeiture practices may be unconstitutional. at least cast some doubt on the constitutionality of those procedures as used by the federal government and many state governments. in may of this year i wrote a letter to you asking whether the department would review its civil asset forfeiture policies and practices. in july you announced some new policies that expanded the department of justice's use of civil asset forfeiture. can you tell me whether you have asked the office of legal counsel or any other component of the department of justice to provide a formal review of civil asset forfeiture practices of the federal government, of the states and particularly the states and local alts that participate in the equitable sharing program with the department of justice?

>> we had an intense series of discussion in the department about this subject. it's one that i'm familiar with, having served 12 years as united states attorney myself and having utilized this policy. the policy was changed by the former attorney general and constricted the ability of asset forfeiture in a number of ways. i simply restored the previous policy. the change only occurred two or three years ago. i believe it's the best policy. but i'm aware of the serious concerns you have and others have. i have constricted and placed some limits on how we do these for tours and just announced a director of accountability to be involved in all the -- we

don't want to abuse anybody's rights. i would note that for decades it's been affirmed by the supreme court. i don't believe there are votes on the supreme court that would declare it somehow now not legal and we want to do it right. >> i'm not sure that's clear one way or another. i understand your position but i think there is some lack of clarity on this and i think the statement issued by justice thomas in connection with the denial in leonard versus texas does cast some doubt on it. but one of my questions is have you asked the office of legal counsel for an opinion on this? >> we're simply restoring the law that's been in effect for decades and i don't know that we've asked a formal opinion of the office of legal counsel and don't think it's necessary to

do so. >> okay. as you know the reason i'm concerned about this is because in our criminal justice system. >> i'm jon scott in new york. we're continuing to monitor the testimony of the attorney general. the nation's top law enforcement officer in front of that committee. jeff sessions has covered a wide range of topics and for some perspective let's bring in fox news contributor bill mcgurn. the main street columnist for the "wall street journal" and former chief speech writer for president george w. bush. it staggers the mind sometimes to think of how many issues that bedevil this country land right in the lap of the attorney general and the department of justice. we've talked about the firing of the f.b.i. director, murder rates in this country the opioi.

russian meddling in the election. russian ownership of u.s. uranium supplies. what strikes you as the most significant thing you've heard in this morning's testimony thus far. >> i'm not sure i found something that striking. it seems a lot of this is a rehash of old ground. asking jeff sessions whether he met with russians, what they discussed and so forth. look, i think there is a lot out there that has changed since november. for example, the f.b.i. reports that russia was actively involved in trying to bribe people over here to its benefit. second what i'm really waiting to see is for mr. grassley to ask mr. sessions why the f.b.i. is not cooperating with congress on these investigations and turning over, for example, transcripts the f.b.i. had from the office of special counsel investigation into james comey, and the hillary clinton matter.

and as well as the dossier. the f.b.i. works for the department of justice. it would be nice to hear some questions on those issues. >> same with -- along those lines, the tarmac meeting between the former attorney general loretta lynch and former president clinton. >> look, i think that the oversight hearings, the judiciary committee, this is exactly the mechanism that our constitution provides, that it's the elected representatives of the american people that are there to enforce accountability from our government, from our executive branch. and instead we have special prosecutors and so forth. again, if you look at judicial watch and the lawsuits it's had. it has been far more successful in unearthing information from the executive branches than i think congress has. that's a big problem. i think congress needs to assert its authority and needs

to get the attorney general on record why the f.b.i. and d. o.j. are not cooperating with the committee's and congress investigating these things. and if they don't cooperate, congress has means to make them do that including contempt citations. >> well, we heard a pretty strong denial from the attorney general today of the question that has -- that democrats have tried to seize upon ever since he was appointed. it was during his questioning his nomination process to become attorney general when he was asked about meetings with russians and did he meet with anybody. that kind of tripped him out and ended up in his recusal of anything involving the russia investigation but today gave a strong denial with the fact he had anything to do with any russian meetings. >> i agree, jon.

the attorney general can speak for himself. he is an able lawyer and knows what's going on. i read him as saying i did meet with these people, i didn't -- i inadvertently didn't disclose it but we did not discuss in any way the election is how i read his answer. we aren't much further than we were when it first came up. there has been so much more that has come out and so far the committee hasn't got to it. the attorney general needs to go on record on why the f.b.i. is not cooperating. >> senator patrick leahy of vermont, one of the top members of this committee, asked him about whether he had been interviewed by the special counsel investigating the russia matter and he said no. is that significant to you? >> i don't know. look, i wish i lived in a world where special prosecutors weren't significant because it seems to me this is a perfect example of getting it backward. in our system the constitution

gives congress the power to hold the executive branch accountable. it doesn't mention special prosecutors. the problem with that is it corrupts the constitutional process and allows people to hide behind a special prosecutor and say i can't answer this question because the special prosecutor is looking into it or i can't ask this question because the special prosecutor is looking into it. look, i want the information to go to the elected representatives of the american people and let them be accountable for it. >> it's melissa francis. i have a couple questions. one thing that was interestsing they wanted to drill down on the reasons that he believed jim comey was fired saying did you recommend to the president or not? he said one thing and he did another interview saying he would fire him anyway. jeff sessions was very clear. he said when i watched that press conference where he went out and comey said we recommended to d. o.j. and told them there was no case here,

you know, and not to pursue, jeff sessions was very clear that's a usurping of the doj's attorney and he had clearly overstepped his role and when he came back and testified again he said i would have done the same thing again and jeff sessions said i respect him, he has done a lot of good work but that was a clear usurping and the department needed a fresh start. what did you think of that exchange? >> look, i think james comey is a whole other issue. i think the president had excellent reasons to fire him. his big mistake is waiting as long as he did. mr. comey was sort of distrusted by both democrats and republicans, by democrats who thought he cost hillary the election, but republicans who thought he wasn't really doing an investigation. we've learned so much since that news happened, since the director was fired. for example, we've learned that the director was exchanging emails with his staff about a

draft statement exonerating mrs. clinton before the f.b.i. had even interviewed her. we learned about the steel dossier. the f.b.i. had some kind of relationship with christopher steel who put together this now discredited dossier. what we want to know is whether any of that information was used to get a fisa warrant and was it used when the f.b.i. director had doubts about its veracity? i think that the developments that we've seen say the questions you have are becoming far more relevant. i think at some point when congress gets these answers, it needs to put the director back on the hill under oath to answer them and to answer why he sort of misled congress when he said he didn't make his decision about mrs. clinton until after they had interviewed. >> stand by. we'll come back to you in a bit. we want to listen back into this testimony. >> get to one part of your statement here that i take personally. i happen to represent the city

of chicago and i'm honored to represent that city. what happened in las vegas was tragic and awful and heartbreaking. 59 people killed, over 500 wounded by gunshots in just a brief period of time with some military-type weapon. it was just awful horrific and disgusting. having said that, so far this year 3,000 people have been injured by gunshot in the city of chicago. over 500 have been killed. this is not something that is a political debate in my heart. it breaks my heart to think what the families are going through in the city i represent. the superintendent of police, who has worked there. you gave credit to local law enforcement. i'm glad you did. i join you in that. he has worked in that police department for 30 years and i want to read what he said. the federal government's plans terminating of burn grant funds will hamper community policing and undermine the work our men and women have done to reduce

shootings by 16% so far. this is the sentence. if i've said it before and i'll say it again. undocumented immigrants are not driving violence in chicago. that's why i want our officers focused on community policing and not trying to be immigration police. the money we hope to get from the federal government for burn grants we're putting into a program called shop spotter. it's a monitoring device in our city block by block that can tell instantly when a gun has been shot and police can respond instantly to try to get the shooters and to save the life of the victim. you want to cut back these funds because you want the city of chicago to play the role of immigration police on federal civil laws. mr. attorney general, you aren't helping us solve the murder problem in the city of chicago by taking away these federal funds and the superintendent says that your pursuit of undocumented immigrants has little or

nothing to do with gun violence in chicago. >> well, chicago is a great city. it has got many good things going for it. i do think this murder rate is a cloud over the city and it looks like this year may be even higher murder rate than last year. good community-based policing is absolutely essential for this. i am worried about the health and morale of the chicago police department. we would like to see that improved. i think the politicians cannot say that if you remove a violent criminal from america that's illegally in the country and is arrested by the chicago police and put in the chicago jail that once they are released they shouldn't be turned over to ice officers to be removed from the country. they're here illegally and

commit another crime. how does that make the city of chicago more -- >> you can't give an opening statement throwing a bouquet to the police and ignore what the superintendent of police in chicago has nothing to do with gun violence. you want to cut off federal funds and criticize the murder rate. >> the number of atf agencies to prosecute gun triems in chicago by 12. a large number. more than any other city, i believe. and we're not -- the united states government can't take over law enforcement for the city of chicago. we're not doing it for new york. we're doing it for a lot of other places. we have made a surge of atf agents to chicago and continue to work with you. i do not want to not have grants go to chicago but we need their support. when somebody is arrested in the jail that's due to be

deported we simply ask they call us. so we can come by and pick them up if they need to be removed. that's not happening and we've got to work through it some way. >> senator kennedy. >> thank you, mr. chairman, general session. welcome back. thank you for your service. >> thank you. >> did you conspire with russia or an agent of the russian government to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election? >> no. >> do you want the special counsel who is investigating those matters to succeed? >> i want him to complete his investigation professionally, yes. >> if he asks you for your cooperation, would you give it? >> yes. >> if he asked to meet with you to discuss what, if anything, you know about all that, would you agree to meet with him? >> absolutely. >> i want to talk to you for a second about new orleans.

new orleans is extraordinarily important to my state. my first job in government was with the governor buddy roamer, at the time he took an economic development trip to japan. he tells the story he was meeting with about 20 japanese business people and he started off by asking them, he said how many of you have been to louisiana? he said five japanese business people raised their hand. then he said how many of you have been to new orleans? he said 15 raised their hand. it's a big part of our culture and our economy. we've got a crime problem in new orleans, as you know. we had a police officer, officer mcneil, killed in the line of duty this weekend. the burn grants are very important to new orleans to help us fight crime. now, your office wrote a letter to my friend the mayor asking

him questions about his or the city's compliance with section 1373. let me cut to the chase. there have been allegations that new orleans is a sanctuary city. you have asked for information. the mayor, who again is my friend but you have to call it like you see them. wrote you back a very unprofessional letter. i'm sorry for that. he called you caustic. he suggested you were a mere politician. he said you were scapegoating immigrants. he called you a fear mongerer. and he basically called you a liar. and i don't consider that to be productive discourse. so i apologize on behalf of louisiana. >> the senate judiciary committee continues to question the attorney general of the united states, jeff sessions. they are getting into some of

the questions involving sanctuary cities and how the department of justice is handling them. fox news contributor bill mcgurn is still with us, main street columnist for the "wall street journal" and former speech writer for president george w. bush. when dick durbin, the senator for illinois was taking on the attorney general over sanctuary city policy and the department of justice's approach trying to essentially withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, what did you think of that exchange, bill? >> it's a fair question. when i look at dick durbin, i remember the same man who just about a month ago was asking amy comey barrett essentially are you now or have you ever been an orthodox catholic? i take his kind of interrogations with a grain of salt. there are three things they're talking about. one, the murder rate is chicago that is very high and whether it has anything to do with illegal immigrants, i don't know. but second, the administration,

i think, is perfectly within its rights to deny funds to cities not cooperating with the federal government about illegal immigration. chicago's free to keep that policy. they are not free to get the money from the administration as they do that. it's a legitimate question but i'm not sure that senator durbin is on the stronger side of that argument. >> it seems like most of the time federal law trumps all when you are at the state and local level except when some of these local governments decides federal law doesn't trump it. >> except for progressives. they want their cake and taxpayer dollars, too, to pay for it. >> all right. bill mcgurn. we'll continue to keep an eye on this hearing. >> catherine herridge is standing by live to break it all down. to people out in the audience while these hearings are going on we're scribbling and taking notes. catherine herridge is the best one at picking out what she has

heard that makes a difference, that's news. what have you heard? >> well, two exchanges melissa that really jump out at me. the first came from the ranking democrat on the committee dianne feinstein asking the attorney general jeff sessions to confirm that he was called upon by the president along with the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein to write a recommendation about james comey and whether he should be fired on may 9th. then senator feinstein said, did the president ever talk about lifting the russian cloud that was hanging over him and the attorney general said that he could not answer. he wanted to respect the confidential nature of his discussions with the president. so this is the issue of executive privilege. the other conversation that jumped out at me came from another democrat senator leahy who talked about the issue of

russian collusion. he said to the attorney general jeff sessions, this was no small thing because these men have known each other for decades, sessions needed to understand that from leahy's point of view they felt that he had misled the senate committee about his contacts with the russians in 2016. and the attorney general said he didn't believe that casual conversations or contacts with the russian ambassador kislyak really amounted to any type of coordination or collusion. and that he felt that respectfully he had given an honest answer. the third thing i just want to draw your attention to is actually happening over on the house side of capitol hill. we've had confirmation in the last few minutes that two witnesses that are associated with the firm fusion gps that commissioned this unverified anti-trump dossier, that matters because the dossier is

one of the things that kick started the whole russia investigation at the f.b.i. these two witnesses peter fritsch and thomas kutan have met in closed session and they've taken the fifth to every question asked about the dossier, the sources for the dossier, payment and other issues associated with it. one of the principles of fusion gps, glen simpson, did not appear today but he has been subpoenaed to appear in the future. bottom line. the attorney general is not willing to discuss his private conversations with the president with the firing of f.b.i. director james comey. he have is pushing back on the accusation from democrats that he misled them about his contacts with the russians. and two key figures who were part of the group that commissioned the dossier, the dossier is one of the foundational pieces of the russia investigation by the

f.b.i. have taken the fifth before the house intelligence committee in a private session. >> great information. his explanation was did i talk to anyone from russia about the election and he is like i said no because, of course i've had incidental contact but i didn't talk to anyone about the election. that was his explanation. if people except it or not they were able to clear it. on the fusion gps side, it is behind closed doors. one of the biggest questions you mentioned, who funded that dossier? who paid people with connections to the russians to go in and do this oppositional research? it's a big deal and that's what they are trying to get to the bottom of and they aren't doing it today with people refusing to talk, right? >> i'm glad you raised that issue. one of the things we had been expecting and may still hear.

why the f.b.i., a department under the attorney general, has refused repeated requests and subpoenas for records about the f.b.i.'s relationship with fusion gps. whether they paid them for the dossier, what they knew about the underlying sources and what extent did the f.b.i. rely on the dossier to obtain surveillance warrants for members of the trump team? we haven't heard that today in the judiciary committee hearings. those are the kind of iesh -- it's just a block on information on this issue across the board. >> thank you for breaking it down. >> so we're continuing to keep an ear on the senate jude i iciary committee. important topics with the attorney general's testimony. back with more coverage in just a moment.

i've always wanted to create those experiences for others. with my advisor's help along the way, it's finally my turn to be the host. when you have the right financial advisor, life can be brilliant. ameriprise

>> melissa: fox news alert. attorney general jeff sessions being questioned by the judiciary committee. >> attorney general does not have the power to invoke it, period, only the president can. >> you can determine it shall not be invoked. you have the negative power to allow documents to be released, you can make that determination under paragraph 3, creek? >> i'm not sure about that. >> i don't think so. >> i'm reading aloud. the department head, the attorney general, counsel to the president may determine that executive privilege shall not be invoked and release the requested information. the attorney general. says it there. >> i don't believe they can do it without the approval of the president. >> they can't -- of course they have to be able to release information without the approval of the president. you do it all the time.

>> i guess you are talking about -- but not -- core privileges of the executive branch such as private conversations between his top cabinet people. >> there is still this rule that the issue has to be presented to the president. we have -- you have a moment what they call a request of the congressional body to hold the request for information in abeyance. you are allowed to ask for under the executive order while you get the presidential determination if you are going to assert executive privilege but sooner or later the claim of executive privilege must be made with the specific approval of the president. my concern is that this period of abeyance has turned into a non-assertion assertion of executive privilege. we have questions that we've

asked you about going back to your intelligence committee appearance in june or july. how long a period of abeyance do you need to get the answer from the white house as to whether these questions are protected or not? you can't have a situation which the president never has to assert it and the abeyance goes on indefinitely. don't you agree with that? >> you make a point but the burden is on those who want to breach a core privilege of the president, which is private conversations with his attorney general to show precisely what it is that you would like him to waive it on. that's what your letter failed in. it was sort of reverse. it says you have to tell us what you are going to do and want to talk about and what you're not going to talk about. i think it needs -- >> it was intended to refer to the questions where you assert

evidence executive privilege. i'll follow up on that and we'll have more time and we'll pursue when i have more time. >> just briefly. i have to say that the executive branch is a co-equal branch and you would not want someone demanding to know who you talked to in your office, your counsel, your chief of staff, neither would we want to be prowling willy-nilly through the supreme court what their clerks knew and what they were told by the justice as leading up to some decision that is not popular. so i would just urge us all the first and foremost respect the legitimacy of any president's right to seek advice in confidence. eisenhower is once reported to

have said if one of my advisors reports the advise they gave me during the day they'll be fired that night. this is not a little matter. that's all i'm saying to you. and if this isn't legitimate and you make the specific cases we'll review it but it shouldn't be done casually, i have to say. >> my time is up. >> before i call on senator graham, the question to you on this very subject. has the intelligence committee, since you told them similar to what you are telling us today, attempted to compel you to either answer specific questions or claim privilege or subpoenaed you in any way to get answers to questions? >> i don't believe so, mr. chairman. >> for the record, that was moving a little bit. -- that was more than a little bit. >> i thought it was important enough to senator whitehouse.

>> melissa: they just wrapped up a lengthy discussion of executive privilege and when it can be lifted. they've covered topics from russia to sanctuary cities. we'll pause for a second for some other breaking news. jon. >> jon: well, members of the senate finance committee have been busy in the meantime. president trump is meeting with them. let's listen into the president's statement. >> president trump: the democratic members of the senate finance committee to the white house and especially i would like to thank committee chairman orrin hatch. thank you. and ranking member ron wyden for joining us today. thank you very much. we're here to discuss our plan to deliver historic tax cuts for american families, businesses, workers, it will be the largest tax cut in the history of our country. here are some of the highlights

from our framework. we are doubling the amount of income that is taxed at the zero bracket. in other words, the zero bracket many people will be able to take advantage of that bracket that aren't in that bracket. we're increasing the child tax credit. we will end the estate tax sometimes referred to as the death tax. we will cut the business tax rate from the highest in the developed world of 35% to no more than 20%. according to the council of economic advisors reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 to 20% would increase average household income by $4,000 a year. so each household on average would take in $4,000 and they'll go spend the money and it will be great for the economy. we're cutting taxes on small businesses to the lowest rate in more than 80 years. for 30 million americans who

own small businesses it will be a 40% tax cut. and they will thrive and they will expand and they will be happy. for at least the next five years businesses and manufacturers will be able to expense the full value of new equipment in the year in which they buy it. something which nobody even thought in terms of and something which will have, i think, one of the biggest impacts on our economy. we will impose a one-time low tax on trillions of dollars of wealth parked overseas to encourage companies to bring back those profits and bring them back home and spend the money at home where it belongs. right now they can't bring the money back in because of bureaucratic problems, because of certain legislation and most importantly because the tax rate is so high that only a very foolish company head would bring the money back in. i think the numbers could even hit the $4 trillion mark. we know it's now much higher

than $2 trillion. the vast majority of americans will be able to file their taxes on a single sheet of paper because not only will these be massive tax cuts but it will be a big simplification. it will be a very big simplification. so it's really tax cuts and reform, but i focus on tax cuts because it is such an important weapon to get our country really moving. so we'll go from being one of the highest-taxed nations in the world to one of the lowest-taxed meaning more jobs, higher wages, and more products stamped with the words made in the usa. this is a once in a lifetime opportunity in my opinion. this is something that will be really unique. the timing is right. i have had people on both sides and i promise not to mention the name of the people on the other sides or names, but a lot of people are liking this very much and i think we'll have

tremendous support. we are going to restore america's competitive edge. rebuild america's middle class, very much aimed at the middle class and renew the promise of the american dream. we are going to have companies pouring back into our country instead of leaving our country. we won't have them leave and fire everybody and make products and sell them back into our country totally untaxed. all we do is end up with lots of people without jobs and no product. it's not going to happen anymore. so i just want to thank everybody for being here. it is great honor. i'm sure we'll have unanimous support. thank you very much, everybody. thank you very much. thank you. didn't say what that congresswoman say. she knows it and she is now not

saying it. i did not say what she said and i would like her to make the statement again because i did not say what she said. i had a very nice conversation with the woman, with the wife who sounded like a lovely woman. did not say what the congresswoman said and most people aren't too surprised to hear that. let her make her statement again and then you will find out. let her make her statement again and then you will find out. [[inaudible question] >> we'll see the bipartisan. we'll see the bipartisan. lamarr alexander is working hard from our side. if something can happen that's fine. i won't do anything to enrich the insurance companies. right now the insurance companies are being enriched. they've been enriched by obamacare like nothing anybody has ever seen before. i am not going to do anything to enrich the insurance companies. okay, thank you very much,

everybody. thank you. thank you very much. >> jon: president trump meeting in the cabinet room with members of the senate finance committee. obviously the president hopes to get tax reform passed. he got a big vote of approval of his plans -- big sign of approval senator john mccain says he is on board. more on that now with melissa. >> melissa: let's go to the senate judiciary committee. we have a political panel to weigh in on what we've heard so far this morning. it has been a lot. charlie kirk is founder and executive director of turning point, usa and republican strategist. and we have a democratic strategist and former president of young democrats of america. thank you for joining us. charlie, one of the things i think has been very interesting about this hearing so far this morning is the tone, while intense, is civil. the questions are all over the place but they are thoughtful. he is answering them.

seems earnest and trying to drill down on the answers rather than normally we see insults thrown in and doesn't achieve anything. i was actually learning things from what these people were saying. what did you think? >> that's correct. what i find really interesting. it's important to remember that attorney general sessions he has been colleagues of many of these people for 20 or 30 years. what's interesting, you mentioned the topics are all over the place. what he has done as attorney general has been a change of pace from what we saw under president obama with loretta lynch and eric holder. he has changed a lot of policies whether it be sanctuary cities, tough on crime, just to use a couple examples. i agree the discourse has been very civil. attorney general sessions has handled it wonderfully. they keep bringing up russia you can almost see a smile on his face, come on, let's get this over with. how many more months do we need to talk about the tired russia investigation? it's been great to see. attorney general sessions is

doing a wonderful job. >> melissa: there is an honest back and forth on major issues, sanctuary cities, you heard them say you come out here and say that you support police organizations and they're the ones saying they don't want to be deprived of the funds. you will deprive them of the funds. he answered back all we're saying if you have someone already in jail who is on the books to be deported that you give us a call. that's all we're asking for. they kind of went back and forth and for people out there i think you could hear both sides of the issue without a lot of screaming necessarily. what are your thoughts on that? >> i think it's rather interesting because, you know, president trump has made a very big focus on crime in chicago specifically and addressing that. so it's really hard for him and the attorney general to say all right, we are going to not really give you the funds to do your job but at the same point

have this argument with you about immigration. they should be able to come to the table. he has put himself in a little hard place. >> melissa: his response to that was we're not trying to deprive you of funds. you are the ones saying when you have a criminal locked up who has been arrested for having done something illegal if that person is about to be -- is on schedule to be deported that you give us a call and let us know you have him. we would love to give you the funds for the city but you have to call us and let us know when you have criminals. >> they should handle that with the a.g. my point is that trump can't go into specific rants trying to fight crime in chicago if they cut off funds is my general point. >> wait a second. it's important to remember and i'm from chicago and i know the issue well. the mayor came out and said we don't want president trump here and he is not welcome in the city. they aren't singling out chicago in particular. chicago said they'll defy federal immigration law and

create a sanctuary city. that is in complete defiance of federal law. chicago has a horrible gun crime problem. has the strictest gun laws in the country. attorney general sessions. if you go back to march or april president trump said we're bringing in the feds and the mayor said we don't want your help. this idea that president trump has turned a blind eye to chicago violence is just not true. >> i'm literally saying he needs to uphold that end of the bargain and have a conversation. he has been tweeting all the time about it that's my general point. senate judiciary point. yes, it has been very civil and they've been colleagues for many years. but to charlie's point earlier about the tired russia investigation. there is a special counsel, they're having an investigation and doing their point. but it's important for session

-- sessions is that he is america's lawyer. if he can answer the question. that is the expectation we're hoping he will be able to answer. >> melissa: we want to know what the f.b.i. is holding back in terms of the russia investigation and fusion bps. hopefully we'll get more answers. thank you to both of you for coming and joining us. we appreciate it. i think -- will we listen for a second? we'll go right out. >> jon: we just got confirmation there will be a white house briefing 2:00 p.m. eastern time so you'll definitely be able to hear what the white house has to say about what the attorney general is saying today. >> melissa: we heard the president with the finance committee talking about the key points about expensing investments right away. 20% business tax, repatriation and some other things within

his tax plan which is now central to moving the economy forward in his opinion. >> jon: all right. so thank you for joining us. >> melissa: here we go. it was a busy hour. i love that. i'll see you tomorrow. >> >> sandra: fox news alert. our nation's top law enforcement officials on the hot seat today as we been showing you attorney general jeff sessions it was some tough questions from his former colleagues during a routine oversight hearing. if senators drilling him on everything from his conversations with president trump to conspire in a former fbi director james comey grade his hard-line stance on this cremation and anti-immigration laws. this is "outnumbered." i'm sandra smith in here today, harris faulkner. former deputy spokesperson for the state department marie harf and today's #oneluckyguy, fox news, sr., judicial analyst judge andrew napolitano. it is great toyo