hearing about which is the russian investigation, he can't talk about. that is helpful to him. >> melissa: absolutely. thanks to everyone. thank you for joining us. "outnumbered" starts right now >> fox news alert. attorney general sessions getting grilled on capitol hill today. taking a break from testimony when they return. we will take you back there live. the committee wants sessions to clarify what he knew about any possible impacts between members of the trump campaign and russian officials. today's hearing comes after new details emerge that contradicted statements sessions made in the past under oath. this is outnumbered. i'm sandra smith. here today is harris faulkner. republican strategist and fox news contributor lisa booth. former national security staff under presidents bush and obama gillian turner and today's one lucky guy national review senior editor and fox news contributor jonah goldberg. is he outnumbered. we are glad we made it to air here because the hearing could come back on soon and

we will go to that live. but a little break here. what do you think so far? joa>> first of all great to be here. lovely studio. feel like mtv music award thing. i think sessions always -- he always keeps his cool. and he does benefit as illeana was saying in the last hour. benefits enormously by the fact that he can't talk about a lot of the things that would get him in the most trouble i don't mean trouble like self-incriminating i mean would move the news cycle. get democrats all worked up. he says look, i can't talk about it. >> sandra: attorney general jeff sessions back on the hot seat. house judiciary members are asking him to clarify statements he made in the past about russia after new details came out. today's testimony is the fourth time sessions has been questioned under on trump's campaign's possible contacts with russia. in the past sessions denied he knew anything about contact with russia. but in recent weeks, former trump campaign foreign policy advisor george

papadopoulos told prosecutors he raised the idea of a trump/putin meeting during a meeting sessions attended. in another foreign policy aide, carter paige told house investigators he had mentioned to sessions he was taking a trip to moscow. sessions saying in his opening statements he always told the truth in the past and that he answered questions as best as he understood them at that time. but lawmakers with plenty of new questions for him today. >> so let's try and correct the earlier testimony now for the record. yes or no, did you chair the march 31st, 2016 meeting of the national security advisory committee? >> i did chair that meeting. >> thank you. "yes" or "no," did mr. papadopoulos mention his outreach to the russian government during that meetings? >> he made some comment to that effect that i remember. >> yes. the answer is yes or no. >> reading in the newspaper. >> the answer is yes or no. >> i don't have time. >> i can't imagine your memory would fail you so much. but moving on, do you want

to admit under oath that you did not tell the truth or misrepresented or do you want to correct your testimony right now? >> sandra: so did he clarify those previous comments that he made under oath, jonah? >> i'm sure the democrats will think not. i think that his supporter also think probably. i'm sort of in the gray area on all of this. i think he got himself in to trouble way back when by not including some of these things. i do also think he said it very politely. he should look like he should have a mason jar sweet tea while he was up there talking. >> sounds good about now. >> he was basically saying which steve bannon and others have confirmed. the campaign was chaotic and nuts. the idea that you are going to remember every one of these weird meetings with strange people you don't know, i give him the benefit of the doubt on a lot of that stuff. >> harris: don't you think it might help and i was listening to the testimony he remembered some things and not others. why don't you say you don't remember. i think when you cherry pick it like that, it gives an

opening for democrats to say why do you remember some things. what was happening that triggers your memory on these items that wasn't. what do we need to do to get there? i just think it gives them an in. and all he simply has to say is he doesn't remember. unless he can tell the whole context of it, i don't know if it gets us moving forward. it just seems like they are not going to give up the dog bone on this. i did think it was interesting, too, how many different roads that these lawmakers are allowed to go down. look at sheila jackson lee. she was just all over the place. >> sandra: you can see a little activity on capitol hill. attorney general jeff sessions has sat back down after a very brief break. so we'll go back to him when this hearing begins. it could be at any moment. >> the committee will reconvene. >> sandra: let's listen. it's reconvening now. >> the gentleman from florida mr. deutsche for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general sessions thanks for being here. general sessions, who do you work for? do you work for the american people or the president of the united states? >> well, i'm a member of the

executive branch and i work for the american people. >> and it's with that in mind, your work on behalf of the american people that i want to ask you some questions about facts and public media reports. on february 14th, the president asked fbi director about the flynn investigation and i quote: you said i hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting flynn go. he's a good guy. i hope you can let this go. closed quote. then on may 9th, the president fired comey. on may 11th he went on television and announced that he fired comey because of a and i quote again, the russia thing with trump and russia, closed quote. general sessions, do you think it would be reasonable for the members of this committee to conclude that the president by first interfering in one investigation and then interfering in an investigation into himself committed obstruction of

justice? >> i don't believe that's a fair conclusion. and i would -- a matter i guess would be in the breast of the special counsel. >> and the obstruction of justice being any, among other definitions, the most popular one, in statute, any communication that endeavors to influence, obstruct or impede the due administration of justice, that's exactly what the president did in both of those cases. and in spite of moving on to the special counsel, you brought up in spite of efforts bipartisan efforts to protect the special counsel mr. mueller, republican leadership in this committee have refused to take action to ensure that he is protected. do you believe that the president has the legal authority to fire special counsel mueller? >> i'm not able to express an opinion on that at this moment. >> can he fire members of the special counsel's team? >> i'm not able -- i'm not

able to answer that. >> general sessions, do you believe that the president should have the authority to be able to block investigations into his own campaign? >> investigations have to be conducted by an appropriate law enforcement officers without fear and favor, without politics or bias. >> right. and without fear of being dismissed by the president in order to be block that investigation because, again, that would certainly appear to represent obstruction of justice and when you fail to acknowledge that it is essentially a green light for the president to go ahead and do that. i wanted to talk about the special counsel's investigation. thus far there has been v. been some indictments. there is a guilty plea. can you tell me, in your opinion, does the president have the power to pardon george papadopoulos? >> i would be premature for me to comment on that. i believe. >> because? >> the president has power

to pardon. there is no doubt about that. >> does he have the power to pardon paul manafort and rick gates ahead of trial and a conviction? >> i'm not able to comment on that. i haven't researched that question. i think it is maybe settled law. >> what do you think the settled law is? >> i don't know. >> and does he have the power to pardon michael flynn? any other member of the trump campaign? let me ask you this, does the president have the power to pardon his own family members? could the president today pardon donald trump jr. for, among other things, being in contact with wikileaks regarding these emails? can he make those pardons today before there is anything further that comes from special counsel's investigation? >> i would not be able to answer that at this moment. with any authority. >> general sessions, you started by telling us that you're the american people's lawyer. now, you're not recused from giving us answers on these. you are not comfortable giving us answers on these. but here's the problem that

we have. you said when you started your testimony today that there is nothing more important than advancing the rule of law. and when you answer the way you have, it suggests that the rule of law is crumbling at our feet. you took an oath to uphold the constitution. we took an oath to uphold the constitution. and while members of this committee and the majority may choose to advocate their responsibility with regard to these very important matters, you cannot and the interference -- what you've told us today, in just this exchange, what we should all be concerned about is another saturday night massacre. if you can't tell us the president shouldn't fire or can fire the special counsel and everyone who works for him. we should be worried if you're telling us that the president may be able to pardon in advance all of those who are being investigated. we should be worried about the pursuit of the rule of law. general sessions.

>> let me. >> we may in this i. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the attorney general can answer if he chooses. >> just briefly one of the respect to the rule of law the attorney general should not be giving legal opinions from the seat of his britches. you need to be careful about that and that's what i'm saying to you today. >> i do appreciate that, general sessions. >> time has expired. recognize the gentleman from. >> from the rule of your britches. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. sessions, i'm over here on this side. if pursuant to a warrant, there is a wiretap conversation is seized under the foreign intelligence surveillance act, and the one person is a foreign agent, the other person is an american citizen, is the release of the information regarding who the american citizen is and/or the conversation of the american citizen a violation of federal law? >> i believe it is.

>> and if somebody releases that information. >> maybe factual distinction. >> i know, hypothetical. >> if somebody releases the information of the name of that person and or the information contained by that person, that is a federal offense. >> unacceptable and could be a federal offense. >> so has anybody been prosecuted under your regime for doing that whether it's been in the white house or some other government agency where we hear about leaks of classified information? are you prosecuting anybody for that? >> >> for lease of fisa obtained information. >> release of the information of who the american is and/or the conversation by the american that's classified information. is your department investigating anybody for that? >> i cannot confirm or deny the existence. >> are you prosecuting anybody for that? >> nobody is under indictment. although we have at least four indictments this year of leaks of classified

information and we will continue to press those cases. >> all right. good. we want to talk about the foreign intelligence surveillance act. secret courts issuing secret warrants to get information on terrorists overseas. that's generally the purpose of the fisa law and fisa courts. would you agree with that? >> well, that's not a perfect summary but it's. >> short? >> substance to it. >> it's too short. we know we can't trust the nsa. james clapper testified before this committee in 2013 that the nsa was not spying on americans. then all of the sudden this guy named snowden showed up and we found out whether -- i don't like snowden at all. he ought to be prosecuted, i think. but, anyway. we learned that the american public was being spied on by the nsa. part of the foreign intelligence surveillance

act gives the nsa authority to seize information like emails, text messages, communications by these bad guys foreign agents or terrorists overseas to collect their information, to make sure that america is safe. during that process, as you know, incidental -- they call it incidental information. information on americans, who they are, and what those conversations may be is also seized. nsa says that's incidental information. now, it's my understanding the justice department is oppose to the usa liberty act which would require that before government goes into that information on americans, where they are not the target, the target is these terrorists. goes into that information on americans, that there has to be a warrant signed by a real judge that states probable cause before that information can be seized.

now, my understanding is the justice department under your leadership is opposed to that warrant requirement; is that correct? >> that is absolutely correct. >> so, your you're a former judge. >> a would-be judge. a wanna be judge. >> i'm a former judge, too. you don't think probable cause and a warrant requirement is required to go into that information that is, first of all, the seizure is done by government, without a warrant. so it's seized already. and before it can be -- then searched, you also don't require or believe that a warrant should be required by any court to go into that information. >> well,. >> i'm just asking the same question. >> the courts have so held. >> i'm not asking that question. >> well, i agree with the courts. not you, congressman on that. >> records, documents.

>> reclaiming my time. you agree with the courts on that not me. but, let me tell you something. it is the responsibility of congress to set the privacy standard for americans. >> that is correct. >> my personal opinion and i think the constitution supports it, that before government can go in and seize something, and then search it, on an american citizen, that's incidental to the search on the target, government should get a warrant for that conduct. that's spying on americans. we know that we can't trust the nsa to do -- to keep from doing that. is that data ever, ever destroyed on americans? or is it kept forever? >> i believe it has definitely has a limited time span. i think it's five years. >> so americans shouldn't be concerned that information is being collected on -- >> -- as the has expired. the time of the gentleman happens expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman of illinois mr. guterres for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, before i begin i think i have a

solution that could allow the committee to move on to other important national matters like gun control and immigration. your side clearly wants an investigation of hillary clinton. and our side has been begging for months to hold hearings and start an investigation of the trump administration and campaign's improper ties to mr. putin. and the russian government. my solution would say the american taxpayers a lot of grief and money by eliminating the need for the investigation. i propose we simply go to the president and the former secretary of state and ask them both to resign. i goago to hillary clinton and you go to donald trump and we will tell them to both to resign. we can move on as a nation from an election that never seems to end. i did google organizations that hillary clinton leads. and it came out zero. so i'm not quite sure what you are going to get her to resign from because she doesn't appear to be in charge of anything. last time i checked, she got 3 million more votes than donald trump but she lost the election. so i don't know why don't we move on and really look at the nation. so, attorney general, i

would like to ask you, you said earlier today it was a brilliant campaign. referring to the donald trump campaign. that true? you feel that? >> it was a remarkable thing. if overcame. >> remarkable, brilliant campaign. >> people have -- >> he campaigns -- candidates make promises during campaigns. you think candidates should fulfill the promises they make during campaigns? >> people make a lot of promises. >> do you think they should. >> try to. >> it was a brilliant campaign. remarkable campaign. and as a member of the cabinet of president trump, do you feel an obligation to fulfill those campaign promises when he asked you to come on? did you think you should fulfill the campaign promises? >> i believe the attorney general should enforce the law first and foremost. >> i understand enforce the law. you are helping him on the muslim ban, on immigration issue. i mean,. >> the president makes decisions and if it's lawful we defend it. >> if it's lawful, okay. i like that. if it's lawful.

but, you said it was a remarkable and brilliant campaign. he said, quote: during the second debated. if i win, i'm going to instruct my attorney general, that would be you, if he chose you, to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, referring to hillary clinton, because there's never been so many lies, so much deception, end quote. and when hillary clinton responded she said because you would be in jail. are you going to fulfill that campaign promise? >> i'm going to. >> that he made during the second debate because he did say he would put her in jail. he said he would ask the attorney general, you, to set a special prosecutor. that's what he said. a quote. i didn't make it up. what did he say? are you going to keep that campaign promise? >> i will fulfill my responsibility of the law. >> are you going to keep the campaign promise? yes or no? it's a promise that your boss, he hired you to fulfill. >> we will comply with the law, with regard to special

prosecutor appointments. >> are you going to appoint one he's promised during the campaign? he has reminded you a couple times in a few of his tweets that that's what he wants you -- >> -- i will fulfill my duty as attorney general. >> so the brilliant campaign, remarkable campaign big smile on your face. you love the campaign but you are not going to fulfill your campaign promises i hope you don't in this particular case. i'm kind of happy with your answer up to now. so, mr. attorney general, i'm going to ask you another series of questions. and i would like to go back to the beginning of the hearing and get to you answer the following question. are you aware that you are under oath and that your answers must be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, mr. attorney general? >> i'm aware of that. >> okay. good. so i brought this little salt shaker here. and you will forgive me if i just put a little bit of doubt into that answer. and just to remind myself that i might need this. and i ask unanimous consent that this article from

mother jones magazine be entered into the record with the headline "three times jeff sessions made false statements under oath to congress." i ask this because i don't want to hear in a few days or in a few weeks that your answers, mr. attorney general, have changed based on newly uncovered evidence that what you told us before was, in fact, false, misleading, or something other than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. i ask you unanimous consent. >> without objection will be made a part of the record. >> thank you. under oath in the senate, you said as a surrogate, quote: a time or two for the trump campaign did you not have communication with russians but in march it was revealed you did. did you have campaign communications with the russians? because, it appears you have had campaign communications with the russians, mr. attorney general. >> that is -- i would like

to respond to that. i thought i had the paper right here. and surely, i do. here it is. mr. chairman, take a couple minutes i would like to respond to that. colleague, i guess i should say former colleagues. senator franken asked me this question. okay. cnn has just published a story. and i'm telling you about a news story that's just been published. i'm not expecting you to know whether or not it's true, but cnn just published a story alleging that the intelligence community of the united states of america, the intelligence community provided documents to the president elect last week that included information that, quote: russian operatives claim to have compromising personal

and financial information about mr. trump, closed quote. these documents also allegedly say, quote: there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government, closed quote. he goes on to say now again, i'm telling you this is all coming out. so you know, but if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious. and if there is any evidence that anyone, affiliated with the trump campaign communicated with the russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? i was taken aback by this. i had never heard -- this happened while i was testifying, i suppose. and i said senator franken, i'm not aware of any of those activities. i have been called a surrogate a time or two in the campaign, and i didn't have, did not have communications with the russians. and i'm unable to comment on it. >> and you are not going to

correct that today? >> my answer was responsive to his charge about a continuing. >> do you want to correct it or clarify it for us? >> the time of the gentleman has he could period. the attorney general can answer the question but then we are moving on. >> this is really important. i appreciate the opportunity to share it so my focus was on responding to the concern that i, as a surrogate, was participating in a continuing series of meetings with intermediaries for the russian government. and i certainly didn't mean i had never met a russian in the history of my life. so i didn't think to -- i didn't think it was responsive and my response was according to the way i heard the question as honestly i could give it at the time. i hope you'll am the

chairman of the regulatory form and antitrust subcommittee on judiciary. and antitrust is an issue that is now surfacing more so than it ever has in the past and justice department's role is very drill in antitrust issues to determine whether there is an antitrust violation. i understand that the justice department's position on the ta at&t merger will require divestment of some assets. behavioral conditions have been used in verdict call mergers in vertical mergers a policy

for doj at this point? >> antitrust policy is important. i have never been an expert at it. it was one subcommittee of the judiciary i never chose to be a part of. but we have an experienced team in the department of justice. we do try to handle each case professionally. we have a good chief now of the antitrust division. and i'm not able to announce any new policies at this time, congressman. >> will there be a discussion concerning vertical and horizontal mergers when it comes to so-called term behavioral conditions where two companies that are merging may have to divest? could there be future discussion as to when this

behavioral condition would be implemented? >> well, the vertical, horizontal issue is something that as always been part of the discussion. i don't think it's dispositive of any final decision. but, i'm really not able at this time to comment on anything that would be part of an ongoing matter. >> understand. >> and i appreciate you giving me an opportunity to not attempt to answer that. >> i'm going to switch to human trafficking. when i was a u.s. attorney, we handled some very heart breaking and very situations concerning human trafficking. and i know that unde you undersd like i understand the challenges involved there. what can you tell me what doj has done in upping the

prosecutions and the investigations for anti-trafficking? >> we believe strongly that we can do even more. it's been a priority for a number of years. i was recently in the minnesota united states attorney's office. they had a major international case. i was surprised how much money was involved. almost as much as drug dealers may make. we have a recent report of our people meeting with the child exploitation group. my associate attorney general, number 3, rachel brand is very interested in this. and i have empowered her to be engaged in advancing our efforts in this regard. and she's enthusiastically responding to that. >> if i may make a suggestion as well. several years ago we in the middle district of pennsylvania prosecuted one of the biggest sex trafficking cases on the

east coast. obviously and for the most part involving women and very young girls we had a good conviction. these people went away for 30 or 40 years. one of the areas that we have to help more with the victims is the protection side of things. of course, during the investigation and during the trial but subsequent to the convictions that these people -- these women around children aren't forgotten, and there are protections there to keep them from anybody else attempting to do what has been done in the past. i thank you so much for your service to us. and i yield back. >> thank you. thank you for your service. >> the chair recognizes the general woman from california ms. bass for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair.

between 1956 and 1971 the fbi ran a counter intelligence program named co-intel pro that was initiated by j.r. hoover. it targeted civil rights leaders such as martin luther king and commonly understood it was abuse of surveillance power in a manner to suppress a peaceful movement. so, i would like to ask mr. chair, unanimous consent to enter this report into the record, which is black identity extremists likely motivated to target law enforcement officers. i believe earlier you said you were not familiar with the report. is that correct? >> i haven't read it. i know. so alleged targeting of officers by certain groups. >> i would like to know and i ask you about that in a minute. so you are somewhat familiar with it. who had the power in your department to order a report like this? >> i'm not sure how that report got ordered. i don't believe i explicitly approved it or directed it. >> okay. so you haven't necessarily

read the report but you are familiar with the term "black identity extremist?" >> well, i think so, yes. >> so could you tell me what that term means to you? do you believe that there is a movement of african-americans that identify themselves as black identity extremists and what does that movement do? >> well, it would be interesting to see the conclusions of that report. but i'm aware that there are groups that do have an extraordinary commitment to their racial identity and some have transformed themselves into violent activists. >> are you aware of white organizations that do this as well? given that white supremacy is well documented, well-research you had movement such as the neo nazis, the ku klux klan, et cetera are they white identity extremists? >> i didn't follow that question, please, again? >> is there a term or a report on white identity extremists? you mentioned you were familiar with black people

who identify with their racial identity. >> yes. but it's not come to me at this moment. >> not coming to you? >> it's. >> certainly a group such as the ku klux klan. >> yes. and then the skin head movements. there are racial identity white movements that have been identified for sure. >> hats fbi done a report on white identity extremists that are likely motivated to target law enforcement officers? >> i'm not aware of that. >> okay. are you aware of a group called the sovereign citizens? >> i have heard that group, yes. >> i believe that the sovereign citizens is primarily a white organization that absolutely has targeted police officers and killed police officers? >> you are not aware of that? >> i'm not aware of all their crimes but i know they are a group that's known to have violent tendencies. >> could you name an african-american organizations have have committed acts against police officers? could you name one today? this n. this report they

name organizations from 30 or 40 years ago. can you name one today that has targeted police officers in a violent manner? >> i believe i could, but i would want to be -- to confirm that and submit it to you in writing. but i believe we had within the last year or so four police officers killed by a group that some have described as extremists. >> what has happened is that there have been a couple incidents in which african-americans did kill police officers, who were not associated with a black organization. and so one, for example, in baton rouge was associated with sovereign citizens, which is primarily a white group. you should know that there is a lot of concern in the community, especially from organizations such as black lives matter -- by the way, would you consider black lives matter a black identity extremist group? >> i'm not able to comments on that. i'm not -- i have no so the so declared it. >> so you should know that a lot of activists around the

country are very concerned that we're getting ready to repeat a very sad chapter of our history where people who are rightfully protesting what they consider to be an injustice in their community, which is their relationship with police officers are now being targeted and labeled as extremists going through periods of surveillance and harassment. and so i would like to know. what is your department going to do to protect the rights of average citizens to protest if they have a concern about police officers? >> this department will not unlawfully target people. >> so if that's the case then, i would ask that you review this report, black identity extremists likely motivated to target law enforcement officers because i personally don't believe that any such organizations exist. the organizations that are referred to in this report are organizations from decades ago. and so i would like to know

what will you do to essentially roll back what is listed in this report? because it's not accurate. sir? >> we will look at the report. i actually would be interested in reading it. but they usually do an excellent job objective and fair on those kind of reports. >> okay. >> time of the gentleman woman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina mr. gowdy for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. attorney general. i want to cover a couple of areas. i want to start with something that's very important to me. i think it's important to all people in this country of good conscience, irrespective of their political i'dation. that is the independence of the department of justice and in my judgment, 2016 and 2017 have been challenging years for the department of justice. you know, the decision to charge someone carries with it multiple layers of review. there's a grand jury. there is a petit jury. there is a trial judge.

there are post-trial motions. there is appellate courts. there are courts of habeas corpus and then there is the media and then there is congress. but the decision not to charge someone does not carry with it the same corresponding layers of review but in some instances every bit as important to find out why law enforcement didn't do something or why prosecutors didn't do something. i'm not interested in relitigating the fbi's decision not to charge secretary clinton. that decision has been made. it's been explained and i'm not interested in relitigating it i am interested in reviewing 2016 and 2017 with respect to the department of justice. mr. attorney general, there was a time when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were interested in having some of these questions at well. it wasn't a year ago that some of my democratic friends wanted james comey violated for hatch act violation. that was 12 months ago it

was observed then and it's be a surrender now. what's not absurd is when the democrat colleagues why did you decide to publicize one investigation but not another. why did you decide to appropriate a decision away from the justice department, which is very unusual for the head of the fbi to serving as both the investigator and the decisionmaker just like republicans wanted to know mr. comey did you reach your conclusions before the end of the investigation? did you make decisions whether to charge or not to charge before you interviewed all of the witnesses? these are questions that, to me, go to the core of whether or not the department can be respected separate and aside from politics. i mean, i get, i guess, that certain departments are just inherently political, but the department of justice should not be. and so i tell you that up

front that chairman goodlat and i are going to be looking into the decisions made in 2016 and 2017. and i think i can speak for him and i know i can speak for myself, my motivation is a love for that department. and a love for the concept of blind justice that doesn't care whether it's an even numbered year or an odd numbered year. to the extent that there were decisions made, including the decision to write a public letter in october of last year and follow that up with another public letter in november, those are legitimate questions. and i hope that the department will cooperate both with respect to making witnesses available but also with respect to documents so congress can better understand the decisions that were made and not made and restore some modicum of trust that all people, whether they agreed with the decisions or not, at least understand why they were made. now, mr. conyers asked you

whether or not it was appropriate for the president to. >> can i respond briefly to that? >> yes, sir. >> you're familiar with the inspector general. >> i'm meeting with him -- >> they make public their investigations some matters involve the fbi are under full and intense review by the inspector general and perhaps they can under their rules of disclosure, perhaps you can inquire more about how that's ongoing. but i'm not able to give the details to you at this time. that's a serious matter. it's in my response to the chairman of yesterday. >> i didn't intend to ask you to respond to this because you are right, mr. horowitz is looking into it. in fact, i'm meeting with mr. horowitz this afternoon not in that capacity but in another and you are right, at some point he is going to let congress know what he found. that does not absolve us of our responsibility to also look into it.

mr. conyers asked you whether or not it was appropriate for the president to weigh n an ongoing investigation. of course the answer to that is no. it's not appropriate. it's not appropriate in 2017. it wasn't appropriate when president obama did it in the irs targeting scandal. it wasn't appropriate when president obama did it in the ongoing investigation in to hillary clinton's server. it is never appropriate for a president to tell a department of justice what outcome it should reach. i just wishing my friends on the other side had the same outrage when president obama did it as they do now. i mean, i guess that's what i'm -- this will be my last question to you. you're nominated by a president. you're approved by a senate. but, yet, you work for a virtue. you work for a blindfolded woman holding a set of scales. and that is what makes our culture different. how do you restore people's trust, republicans and democrats, confidence in a department of justice when it seems like different

rules apply depending on who is in power? >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the attorney general will be permitted to answer. >> well, that's a good question and important question. we intend to do our work according to the established principles of the department of justice. we will not be infected by politics or bias. we will make only decisions we believe are right and just. and we are not going to use the department to unlawfully advance political agenda. we're going to enforce laws of this country effectively as congress has passed them. and i am determined that when the years go by that people would say this department of justice did not crumble. it stayed firm and true to the great principles that i was taught in the 15 years i served in the department of justice. two and a half as an assistant.

12 as united states attorney. and looking up to the attorney general is somehow so far removed from me that it was beyond recognition. but now i'm in that position. i think i understand the gravity of it. i think i understand the importance of responding to your question. and we'll do our best. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. richmond for five minutes. >> mr. general, i have the honor of serving as chair of the congressional black caucus. you were not there but i'm sure you are aware and if you are not aware i'm telling on myself that i testified against your nomination. did i so because i was afraid that we would go back to a time where discrimination was rampant and that diversity was not appreciated and that right to minorities and african-americans would be furthermore obstacles would be set up.

and i listened to your opening statement and i listened to your remarks since then and you talked about voter i.d. the vecy case which in texas ruled that texas voter identification law had discriminatory portions against african-americans. the district court ruled that way. the appellate court affirmed that ruling. and then you withdrew from the case after two courts ruled that it was discriminatory. how does that mesh and then argued on the side of texas, how does that mesh with the right to make sure that african-americans had unfettered access to the voting polls? >> congressman, the way that happened was that texas had passed a voter i.d. law that the courts did not approve but struck down. election was coming up, i believe. and the court approved a

voter i.d. procedure that they approved for that election. and the texas legislature then repealed its previous law that had been found to be unconstitutional or improper and passed the one that the court had approved. so we felt that the voter i.d. law has been approved, a proper voter i.d. law is constitutional and we believe that one is constitutional. and that's why the position was changed. >> and also in judging department of justice in terms of nominating judges to the bench. our information tells us that out of all the judges that have been nominated, i think 91% have been white males? does that foster diversity? >>

>> i'm not aware of the numbers. you should look for quality candidates. and i think diversity is a matter that has significance. >> the national bar association could recommend and has recommended a number of african-american and other minority attorneys who are qualified. so let me just ask you and if you don't know the answer to these, just let me know that you will get me the information. but how many african-americans do you have on your senior staff? >> i do not have senior staff member at this time that's an african-american. i would note in alabama i participated in recommending an african-american judge and i have had many judges before and. >> we're talking about this administration though. of all of the u.s. attorneys that have been nominated or confirmed, how many have been african-american? >> >> one in alabama that i have recommended that i knew.

and i believe he has been confirmed. >> i believe it's only that one. out of all of the special agents in charge of fbi bureaus around the country, how many are african-american? >> coul i do not know. >> would you get that for me? and here is the gist of what i'm saying. for a lookout of people who objectively look from the back. like i do and many people where i live, the question is whether we're going towards inclusion and diversity or whether we are going back. so, i applaud the president for his approach to the opioid epidemic, which everyone in this room is concerned about. we're losing over 100 people a day. but your decision to reverse eric holder's smart on crime initiative goes back to the crack tough on crime and i think you specifically said that you want the u.s. attorneys to charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offenses and sentences but with opioids, we are treating it as a mental health crisis. and out question becomes

from the outside looking in is it because of hot opioid crisis is affecting as opposed to crack? our answer to crack cocaine was mandatory minimum sentences. so the question is how does an outside observer reconcile how we treated crack which led to mass incarceration which now with the epidemic we are losing thousands and thousands of people a year and we are treating it with hugs and kisses and treatment as opposed to tough on crime, lock them up. how do i reconcile that and not conclude that the only difference is race and income? >> well, i would say that the federal court focuses on serious offenders not users. we talk about international drug cartels. we talk about distribution networks. serious gangs. ms-13. we focus aggressively on that. but the psn on new

reinvigorated crime problem focuses more and i have been convinced of this, on the leading criminals in a neighborhood. and the federal government will not seek mass incarceration so much as we will be focusing on identifying the people who really are the driving force. maybe sucking other young people in to crime that would never have been brought in there if they hadn't had this leadership drive. it's worked in new york. it's worked in other agencies and i think it will work here. and congressman, i would note that the average federal sentence in the last three or four years has dropped 19% and the federal prison population is down 14% while we are beginning to see a spike in homicides the likes of which we hadn't seen since 1960s. >> the time of the gentleman has expired.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general thank you for being here. before i got to congress i was was a computer consultant. i sometimes dive into the nerder end of things. the incursion into the dnc servers is back in the news recently. my question is can you tell us if anyone at the doj, fbi, or any other federal law enforcement agency has been able to take a look at forensically examine that server to determine who hacked it, whethers it watt russians, an jid jo inside job r somebody else? >> you say the dnc? >> dnc. >> i'm not able to comment on that ongoing investigation. >> i appreciate that. we also talked a little bit today about the fisa court and 702 and surveillance. and one of the things that i don't think has been completely answered is why does the doj think it's so

problematic to require a warrant from the fisa court before any court before accessing or disseminating the contents of communications that aren't related to foreign intelligence that deal with american citizens? >> well, the way -- maybe i should explain this. when you have a warrant or you have a surveillance on a foreign individual, that may be connected to terrorism or any foreign individual, you listen to who they talk to. and if they call an american and you have a terrorist on the phone, in syria, you want to know who that american is, right? >> the u.s.a. liberty act includes exceptions for emergencies and individuals who are reasonably believed to be engaged in international terrorism or furthering their goals. >> well, i'm not sure i understand that. >> there is an exception for dealing with emergencies and people believed to be

terrorists. it's -- >> -- all right. well, let me just say. this so if we get a lawful intercept from a federal judge of a mafia person in new york, he is not likely to be talking to many people not in the united states. and we are listening to the conversations of the people he talks to and the american citizens. if they talk about a crime you can use that evidence against them and you don't have to have a separate warrant to access it. we are talking about in 702 -- i hope you will activityn access those records just like you could access bank

records that you got. >> in any other way you would have had to have gotten a warrant to get that wiretap. >> the problem with the warrant is let's say this. let's say you have information from an airport that somebody wants to learn to fly a plane but does not want to learn how to land the plane. as we saw one time. >> and you come to court and get a warrant in a number of hours. >> that does not give probable cause to search, tap that person's phone. >> i have got a couple other questions. i appreciate your answer on that. >> i'm sorry. >> i do want to talk, in the last congress we passed and enacted into law the stop advertising victims of exploitation act the save act. this legislation makes it a criminal offense to advertise for commercial sex acts. has the doj used this provision to prosecute online sex traffickers or websites they use and if not, why not? i'm not sure about that congressman, i will have to maybe can get back to you on

that. >> i would appreciate that. >> thank you. >> all right. i have a couple more here. i want to take a step back and look at the big picture. i'm a lawyer. i want to law school. i have always considered the attorney general to be the people's attorney. and i feel like over the past few years under previous attorney generals that the attorney general has been more the president's attorney rather than the people's attorney. can you tell me what you are doing in office to restore the confidence in the american people both in the office of the attorney general and agencies like the fbi, which most people used to have a very high respect for but i believe that level of respect and trust has dropped dramatically in recent times. >> these are serious questions. i believe as you get to know the fbi director chris ray,

wray. you will find him to be a man of high intelligence, great integrity. great character and great capability. clearly one of the nation's great lawyers on private practice but many years in the department of justice as a prosecutor working with the fbi agents. that's one thing we've got. i can tell you i have great confidence in him. my deputy, 27 years of professional -- that i chose to be my primary deputy, my associate attorney general, likewise, is a woman of the highest character and academic excellence and experience in the department. we are setting a tone of professionalism every day in what we do. so, i think that's something we need to do. there is some matters that do need to be completed. inspector general is doing investigations of some significance as in my letter i believe you received a copy involving the fbi amend the allegations that are

there. we intend to make sure that no agencies of the government, not just the fbi, is not following the kind of disciplines and practices they should follow. so i guess i would say to you, watch what we do. we're not going to be driven by politics. we're going to try to do the right thing and i believe that time will show that to be true. >> i see my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. jeffer res for five minutes. >> mr. sessions, i have a copy of the transcript of your testimony before the senate judiciary committee in october. you stated under oath i don't recall in some form or fashion 29 times. is that correct? >> i have no idea. >> i have a copy of the transcript of your testimony before the senate intelligence committee in june. you stated under oath i don't recall in some form

offer fashion approximately 36 times. is that correct? >> i don't know. >> in your testimony today, you have stated i don't recall at least 20 times. is that fair to say? >> i have no idea. >> now, on october 4th, 2016, during a tv interview with lou dobbs. you criticized hillary clinton for telling fbi investigators i can't remember approximately 35 times. you also stated during that lou dobbs interview that the intentional failure to remember can constitute perjury. mr. attorney general, do you still believe that the intentional failure to remember can constitute a criminal act? >> if it's an act to deceive, yes. >> okay. now, you testified in januaryed that you no contact with russian operatives during the trump campaign. earlier today you testified that your story has, quote:

never changed. is that correct? that was your testimony earlier today that your story has never changed, correct? >> i believe that's fair to say. we have added things that i did not recall at the time. from my statement at the time was my best recollection of the circumstances and i, as things are brought up. >> my time, i understand. >> all right. >> you now acknowledge meeting with ambassador kislyak during the republican national convention, correct? >> i remember i made a speech. he came up to me afterwards. i was standing in front of the speaker and did chat with him. >> okay. thank you. >> encounter not a meeting. it was just an encounter at that time. >> okay. and you also met with the ambassador in september of 2016 in your office as have you acknowledged, correct? >> yes, for an appointment.

i had two senior staffers, both full colonels in united states army retired in the meeting -- >> you testified -- i'm sorry. you testified in june before the senate intelligence committee that you had not heard even a whisper about possible russian involvement in the trump campaign. yet, we understand that you attended this march 31st meeting with george pawnd, papa. talked about. according to third quarter 2016 fec filing. you hosted a trump dinner meeting 2016 at the capitol hill club; smart. >> that's correct, i believe. >> your senate campaign committee paid for that meeting; is that right? >> >> june 30th meeting, correct? >> that is has been reported. >> and at that meeting carter page told you that he

was going to moscow in a few days; is that right? >> yes. >> okay. >> thank you. thank you. >> he said it was a brief meeting. as he was walking out the door i don't recall that conversation but i'm not able to dispute it. >> understood. we claiming my time. i have limited time available. >> that is not-did not establish some sort of improper contact. >> i think you understand. >> he is not russian either, you know. >> you understand, sir, i get to ask the questions and you provide the answers in that capacity. you are no longer in the united states senate. you voted in 1999 to remove bill clinton on charges of perjury; is that correct? >> that is correct. there were other charges. i voted for impeachment, yes. >> yes. understand to. remove him actually impeachment is in the house. in connection with that vote to remove president clinton from office you gave this speech on the senate floor on february 29th, 1999, and in it you acknowledge that

while serving as u.s. attorney you once prosecuted a young police officer who lied in a deposition. and in that speech you decided to prosecute that young police officer even though he corrected his testimony. now, you secretary of defense under oath before the senate judiciary committee in january. you subsequently corrected that testimony in a march 6th written submission and have been forced repeatedly to come back to the senate and now the house to clarify. when explaining your vote, on the senate floor, to remove bill clinton from office, you stated that you refuse to hold a president accountable to a different standard than the young police officer who you prosecuted. let me be clear. the attorney general of the united states of america should not be held to a different standard than the young police officer whose

life you ruined by prosecuting him for perjury. i yield back. >> the gentleman may respond, if he chooses >> the gentleman may respond if he chooses. a speaker mr. jeffries, nobody, not you, or anybody else, should be prosecuted or accused of perjury for answering a question the way i did in this hearing. i've always tried to answer the questions fairly and accurately. to ask if you ever did something, did you ever meet with russians and deal with the campaign, you are saying mr. carter page, according to the press reports, it's been reported as saying i'm going to russia, i made no response to i it, you are accusing me of lying about that? i