>> again, conzelmann, is there somebody provides you the basis for a question or is it anonymously sourced? >> i am asking the quencher, questions, sir. answer the question cummings or no. >> could you please repeat the question? >> you are denying reports that he shared many one-on-one calls and present tremendous then-chief of staff john kelly customer are you denying that? >> don't like it sooner. >> as i mentioned several times to the in the open exhibit or otherwise, i have not talked about the conversations i've had with the president of the united states or chief of staff. >> so that is a "no"? >> i don't think you can assume anything from that. >> me pursuing my line of questioning. since the investigation secured numerous indictments, i would like to pursue the line of questioning with respect to your understanding of the mueller investigation and the review that you have given. have you given an extensive review?

>> congresswoman, i have been briefed on the special counsel investigation. >> do you believe the involvement of the hostile foreign entities interfering with the elections is more severe than the false representation of voter fraud in elections? do you believe that a foreign interference with the elections is more severe? >> congresswoman, i believe foreign interference in our election system in the united states is a very serious and ongoing concern. i also believe that voter fraud is a serious concern. >> after you left office, you pursued another series of public offices. one of which was the united states senate. yes or no -- during the pursuit of that office, you are contacted to be offered dirt under opponent, which at the same time included other candidates such as steve king and now-senator joni ernst? would you have contacted the fb

fbi? >> conzelmann, i am not here to -- questions. and here for an oversight hearing. i don't believe -- i was very unsuccessful in my -- >> you have the responsible dude answering the question. would you have contacted the fbi if you were asked to take dirt on your opponents? >> congresswoman, if i was contacted by a foreign national or a foreign country when i was a candidate for the united states senate, i would have most likely reached out to the fbi. but they didn't happen, so it's hard for me to answer the hypothetical question. >> with respect to civil rights, you have not, under your jurisdiction, prosecuted one voting rights case. is that correct? >> the time is expired. the witness may answer the will follow-up in writing as to the voting rights cases that we have done. >> thank you, mr. gohmert.

>> why did he send a letter concerning the scope of the counsel investigation? >> congressman, thank you for the pete i know this is of a great interest to you. i hope we can have a discussion about this today. the special counsel regulations require a scoping of the special counsel's investigation that identifies the subject and the targets of the investigation. so i am certain that it would have identified the scope of the investigation pursuant to the special counsel's -- >> my question is -- i will get to that -- my question is why close to market was two and a half months after the special counsel was formed. let's go back to the beginning document, which you told the chairman earlier that you were completely briefed on the special counsel in this occasion. it's a one page document. order number 13 -- 2017 says this, mr. whitaker. "the special counsel is

authorized to conduct the investigation, including any matters that may arise or have arise from the investigation." that's pretty broad. you agree? >> in my experience, it's consistent with other points of special counsel's. >> that's fine. i think it's may be too broad, but it -- it's as broad as you can get, one page, go do your investigation, anything that arises out of it, you can investigate, as well. two and half months later, we get this. this 3-page memo from rod rosenstein, acting attorney general to robert mueller, special counsel, the title says "scope of the investigation, definition of authority." this is what confuses me. because in this memo, that only mr. mueller and my guess is youu and mr. rosenstein and a few people in the justice berman has seen -- most of his blacked out -- it says this. "the following allegations were within the scope of the investigation of the time for appointment and are within the scope of the order. if that's true, why do you have

to say it? if you could do it all along, why do you have to put in a mem memo? >> congressman jordan, first of all, because of general sessions' recusal from the special counsel's investigation, i was also recused from that investigation. so i was not -- >> i'm not asking that. i'm asking, you said you were fully briefed -- >> you were asking you why at the time rod rosenstein -- >> i'm asking you why two and half months after the broadest order you can have, why did rod rosenstein say, "hey, you can do this all along, but i'm putting in a memo question" can i tell you what really troubles me, mr. whitaker? right after that statement, the following allegations at the time of your appointment and are within the scope of the order. but after that, you know what happens? everything is redacted. look at this. the whole darn thing. so if you could do it all along, i do have to send a memo to him, two and half months later, and then he reject everything after

it. you know what our under these reductions come mr. whitaker? >> i do, sir. >> you do. are there names under the reductions come mr. whitaker? >> in my experience with investigation, generally would not have a public document identify targets or subject matter of an investigation. especially if somebody is not ultimately charge. >> let me from it this way. did rod rosenstein give the special counsel the authority to investigate specific americans? >> congressman, mr. rosenstein acting as the attorney general -- because of mr. sessions' recusal -- give authorization and jurisdiction to the special counsel. so, yes, under the special counsel regulations, that is the whole purpose of the special counsel. >> you said yes, so there are specific names, two and half months into the investigation, that rod rosenstein give the special counsel specific american names to go investigat

investigate? >> congressman, as you know -- >> if that's the case, i hope -- i want to know -- >> as you know, this is the subject of an ongoing investigation. i have spoke to you generally about investigations. >> i'm asking you -- let me ask you this way. can you give us assurances that there are not specific names under this 70% redacted memo that rod rosenstein sent to the special counsel? >> congressman jordan, i know this -- >> you know i'm asking this, mr. attorney general? because of this country we don't investigate people. we investigate crimes. if there are specific american citizens' names -- and i asked mr. rosenstein to see this, and he got all mad and huffy with me. his office wouldn't show it to me. but i think the american people, if this alters changes and name specific americans, the scope of the special counsel, don't you think it's appropriate for the american citizens to know the full parameters of the investigation into the guy they made president of the united states?

>> congressman, let me be very specific about this. because you're right. we investigate crimes, not individuals. >> that's why i'm asking the question pete i would like a "yes" or "no" answer. are there names mentioned under this redacted portion of this memo? >> as i mentioned before, that memo pops up in a confidential investigation. as does every department of justice. >> a civil question, mr. whitaker. are there specific american names mentioned in this redacted, 70% redacted memo, that happens two and half months after the special counselor gets that his order to start the investigation where he was given the broadest latitude you can possibly have? >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the witness may answer the question. >> i would refer to the general practices of the department of justice. we investigate crimes, not individuals. >> mr. cohen? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, the inspector general of the gsa -- they had a rather scathing

report on the gsa's decision not to address significant issues concerning the government's post office and its lease to the trump family. concerning the emoluments clause. it was said that the attorneys did not refer the matter to the wealthy, but the senior trade told them that the office of legal counsel knew about the old pop down my post office lease and was up to them to do something. are you aware of anything the justice department did to look into violations of emoluments clause at the trump hotel? >> cumbersome income of emoluments clause as it relates to the trump hotel is the subject of several ongoing litigation matters. so, while i can acknowledge that i am aware of not all of the situation described but generally the litigation surrounding the appointments clause, as the acting attorney general sitting here today, i am unable to talk specifically about those cases. >> you can't say if there any memos of the office of legal counsel regarding emoluments clause violations and limitations? >> congressman, as i sit here

today, the emoluments clause as it relates to the trump organization -- especially the hotel in washington, d.c., -- is subject to ongoing litigation. >> and the dust system it is helping to -- is he not? isn't appropriate when it's about him making personal monies out of the trump hotel and being charged with violations of the monuments because not reporting it to the congress as he spoke about the constitution question shouldn't have his personal lawyers and not and not justice department lawyers representing him for this nefarious conduct? >> congressman, i can understand this is an important issue to you. as it relates to the emoluments clause and the department of justice, the defense of the president of the united states is well within our purpose to be involved in that case. >> you said that the special counsel's investigation look to the present trump's finances, it would be crossing a line. he said that i think in a television interview. the attorney general has made clear that mr. rosenstein told the special counsel he could go

into any matters that arose, or arise directly from the investigation. if matters arose from the investigation, directly or indirectly, that the trump family owed lots of money to russian oligarchs and people real close to putin, and that affected the actions they took as the president of the united states, on behalf of united states of america, would you agree that that was not crossing a redline but in fact was a redline for moscow that we need to look into? >> congressman, when i made that statement i was a private citizen and had no publicly available information. i only had publicly available information. i made that as a commentator, and not as the acting attorney general of the united states. i'm very familiar with the responsibilities of my office, as acting attorney general. we make our decisions based on the law and the facts on a case-by-case basis. >> so that's no longer your opinion? it's not crossing a red line for them to look into the finances,

if they might have interfered with the objective judgment of the president, concerning his duty of trust to be united states of america and not to his personal financial interest or his family's? >> congressman, as i mentioned earlier, at the department of justice and as long-time acting attorney general, we will long done michael on the facts wherever they may lead. we will do our jobs with fidelity. >> thank you, sir. let me ask you this -- there has been conviction in special counsel investigation of mr. manafort. jury trial, conviction for their been guilty flees from flint, manafort, gates, papadopoulos, and michael cohen. dozens of endowments including 13 russian nationals, three russian companies, and roger stone. would you say the special counsel desiccation is a witch hunt? are you overseeing a witch hunt? congressmen come as image and previous and previous ligament special counsel desiccation is an ongoing investigation. i think it would be inappropriate for me to -- >> but you wouldn't oversee

witch hunt, would you? he would stop a witch hunt, wouldn't you? >> it would be inappropriate for me to talk about an ongoing investigation. >> you said you're not interfering with the investigation. have you denied him any funds he is requested at all? >> i could tell this is an important issue for you. let me -- >> is an important issue for the america people and for the whole world. >> congressman, to answer your question directly, i have not denied any funds to the special counsel discussion. >> have you denied him the opportunity to go in any areas where he wanted to investigate or any matters of investigation? >> as i previously testified, i have not interviewed with special counsel investigation. >> i go back to the balance of the time. >> thank you, joe meant. gohmert? >> thank you, mr. chairman. acting attorney general, thank you for being here today. >> it's good to see we can come

congressman. >> i'm amazed that you'd be coming, since your successor is going to apparently be confirmed next week and you will no longer be acting director. so i don't know what kind of suicide wish you had or whatever, but it's good to see you. one thing i wanted to hit first was a statement that you had made, and i want to confirm that these are your words. and i quote, "there is no doubt and the law enforcement community that the vast majority of the illegal drugs in this country are coming over our southern border. a pattern that is a crew for all crimes generally, and there is no doubt the criminals and cartels seek to exploit weaknesses in our southern border." are those your words? >> i don't know which speech or statement you are quoting. it sounds like something i would have said, yes. >> and he wouldn't have said

that if you didn't believe that, correct? >> i believe what you are sayin saying. the drugs and the general illegality pouring in through our southern border is having a negative effect on our country. >> now, i want to get to this issue of career officials, since colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made such a big deal about it. that you have not -- they accuse you of not following the advice of career officials. do you know the backgrounds of the people who are working directly under you, and directly under rod rosenstein? >> congressman, i sit on top of an organization that has a 150 -- >> i'm talking about people directly, to you. and directly to deputy rosenstein. >> i am familiar with the people that report to both of us, yes. although, i will tell you, i think rod rosenstein as deputy attorney general has over 100

direct reports as deputy attorney general. >> that was something i recommended to attorney general sessions, that he needed to reorganize and have some of those people reporting directly to him. one of the mistakes, i think, that my dear friend jeff sessions -- for whom i have immense respect -- one of the mistakes as i am making, he was listening to people who love sally yates, loved her efforts to disrupt anything that president trump tried to do. they loved what president obama did through the justice department, and in fact, had informed him that his contact with the nsc was sitting on his notices. so either it developed conflict

or wasn't prepared that was pushing a guard. she reported directed to rosenstein. the ag should have somebody come of the liaison with the nsc, should report directly to the ag and not go through rod rosenstein. especially when they are sitting them up to be harmed. and then anthony ferrante, i know currently he's the senior managing director of fti consulting. he was another one that some considered a career position at the doj. let's see -- he had jordan kelly there, who is currently director of cyber security policy. the nsc, the white house. there were reports that she met routinely with the mueller investigators. between these people like

tashina gauhar just thought yates was wonderful. i would hope that in wisdom, as acting director, wisdom in the incoming attorney general, will be to look at the background, look of the people who are political hacks, and figure out, "there give me advice on this? this is not for my well-being. this is to hurt the president of the united states." i know you may just have another beat, but i would encourage you that, as people make a big deal about career, look beyond career. look where their loyalties are. even though they may be in a career position, if their loyalties are not to the attorney general and not to the president of the united states and are more political than they are constitutional, disregard what they say. because the time of the gentleman has expired.

mr. johnson? >> thank you, general whitaker, do you agree with the presidentt the russian investigation is a witch hunt? >> as i mentioned previously, congressman, i think it would be inappropriate for me to comment about an ongoing investigation. >> well, you've commented about the roger stone investigation, which is ongoing. did you not? >> congressman, just to be clear about this -- >> this comment, we heard you comment on the roger stone investigation. why would you comment on the roger stone investigation but you are reluctant to answer our questions about the mueller investigation? >> that's a good question, congressman. my comments about the roger stone investigation were merely to acknowledge that i was aware that cnn had appeared to receive or was -- >> but you don't know whether or not cnn reporters were camped out with no advanced knowledge or whether or not he was tipped off or not. >> congressman, that is true, but -- >> let me move on.

hold on, sir. i am controlling the time. let me move on. i would like to take a moment to better understand your decision. not to recuse yourself from the supervision of the special counsel's investigation. isn't it a fact, sir, that you received your final ethics guidance on this matter on december 19th, 2018? >> i appreciate this question, and i'm glad this is an opportunity -- >> it's a direct question. did you receive your final guidance on the question on december 19th? >> as you know, we communicated with congress entire process i went through to address any recusal question that i might have. i had no conflict of interest. i had -- >> let me just ask you -- i understand you take that position. my simple question is, isn't it a fact that you received your final ethics guidance on that question on december 19, 2018? >> come rissman, we laid out

very explicitly the process that we went through. ultimately, the decision whether or not to recuse was my decision. >> mr. whitaker, you are asked a direct question. mr. whitaker, your a direct question. it's getting a little tiresome here and use tall and weighs the number of prosperous time. the member only has 5 minutes. he asked you a specific question. did you last receive advice on that on december 18th? the answer ought to be yes or no or some other date. or "i don't remember." we don't need a speech. the gentleman may repeat the question. because mr. chairman, if we are going to counsel the witness and on how we should answer, are you answering questions or as a witness question work >> i'm asking the witness not to stall. >> we have under that many times here when he started to ask the question in the way that he is asked. >> point of order. to speak of gentleman is out of order. mr. johnson has a floor. >> i would like to -- >> time will be restored. >> thank you, sir. sir, isn't it a fact that career

officials that the doj recommended to you that you recuse yourself to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest or bias? that was the guidance that you got from career doj officials about your participation or oversight of the new investigation. isn't that correct? >> congressman, i made my recusal decision by myself. >> but there were career doj officials who advised you that you should not touch that investigation. isn't that correct? >> congressman -- >> yes or no? >> >> i consulted with career ethics officials. with my senior staff, with the office of legal counsel. it was my decision to make. i decided not to recuse. i'm happy to walk through the step-by-step advice that i received. i can -- >> there were four individuals who you consulted, who advised you that you have the ability to

not to recuse yourself from this investigation. isn't that correct? >> congressman, the regulations actually say -- >> four individuals advised you that you did not have to recuse yourself. is that correct? >> congressman, let me be clear -- it was my -- >> other than in your obstruction and refusal to answer question work >> i'm not obstructing anything. i'm answering your question. i consulted with a lot of people regarding my recusal. but it was my -- >> but not telling me who it was. would you talk with? >> as i mentioned, i consulted with career -- >> name me some names. >> i consulted with my senior staff, and with the office of legal counsel. >> name esa names, sir. >> one person will be the assistant attorney general for the office of legal -- >> what is his or her name question work >> steve engel. >> who else did you consult with? >> i also consulted with his pencil deputy. >> and that person's name is customer >> and his name is curtis gannon. >> said you consult with, sir question what i'm asking you --

>> it's a pretty clear question. >> who else did you consult with about whether or not you should recuse yourself from the mueller investigation? >> generally, would like consult with? >> i want to know specifically who you talk to. >> i talked to brad wind schommer, who is the senior career official of the department of justice. >> and he advised you that your refusal recusal was unnecessary, or did he advise you to recuse? >> he could not identify any precedent for me to recuse. he said it was a close call. i'm sorry, did you have a question? >> he said my other statements d recognize the professionalism and competence of the special counsel. he said that out of an abundance of caution, if asked, he would recommend a certain course. but, again, he also -- >> did you recognize -- speak of time of the gentleman

expired. >> can i finish? >> the witness may finish his answer. >> okay. he also said, congressman, the decision was mine to make based on the regulations of the department of justice. i made the decision in eckstein babbitt decision. >> mr. attorney general, i spent a number of years as a federal prosecutor. because of that, i have friends of the justice department right now and at its component agencies like the fbi. folks that i have tremendous respect for. so i appreciate your stated desire earlier today to want to highlight their good work. for the new members of the judiciary committee, and oversight hearing is typically where that would take place. where an attorney general would give an accounting of the work of 115,000 men and women in the justice department, and provide some idea of the vision, with respect to the department's

priorities. priorities like drug and human trafficking, preventing terrorism, reducing gun and gang violence. earlier this week, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle indicated that they had a great desire to reduce gun violence in this country. in fact, we had an eight hour hearing with six witnesses that talked about the need to reduce gun violence in this country. we started this hearing at 9:30 this morning. it's now 12:30 in the afternoon. i haven't seen you field a single question from the other side of the aisle about any of the enforcement priorities of the department of justice. despite the fact that you are the head of an organization that has a greater ability to impact and reduce gun violence than anyone or anything in the country. so i may be the only person today that wants to ask you a question about that, but i'm going to use the remainder of my time for that purpose. when i was of the department of

justice, we had a very successful initiative called "project safe neighborhood." it was a program that took guns out of the hands of criminal offenders. it was a successful program that was killed by the obama administration. the obama justice department ended it. i understand that it has been reinstated during the trump administration. i would like you to inform us about its progress, as well as any other measures or programs or enforcement priorities of the department of justice with respect to reducing gun violence in this country. >> thank you, congressman. as you know, we served as united states attorneys together until you went into politics and i went into private practice. i want to talk specifically -- and that's a really good question, about project safe neighborhoods. in 2017, attorney general sessions announce the expansion of project safe neighborhoods, which encourage the attorney's offices to work specifically

with their unique communities they served to develop a customized crime reduction strategy. one study showed that when you and i were doing psm, a reduced crime overall by 4.1%. with the case study showing reductions up to a violent crime. we have the project safe neighborhoods national conference, his image mentioned in my opening statement. i can tell you, especially in our largest cities, our 29 major cities, we are seeing a reduction of violent crime because of u.s. attorneys specifically working with their sheriffs and police chiefs and their federal and state and local partners in reducing gun violence. some other things we have done is the attorney general was one of the four cabinet positions that were part of the school safety commission that came out with a report in the last several months, that gave a practical outline as to how states especially could work to reduce gun violence, including the idea of the erpos.

i appreciate your tone of this oversight hearing is not a hearing about the types of things that we are talking abou about, but the chairman sent me a letter specifically outlining things that he wanted to talk about. i don't feel we've talked about many of those things. so i'm gladly offered the opportunity to talk about the deferment of justice's efforts reducing gun violence. >> not a problem. >> thank you, attorney general. i would like to yield the remainder of my time to congressman jordan. >> i appreciate the gentleman kneeling, yielding are there other memos? any other memos that mr. rosenstein has sent to mr. mueller that we don't know about? if we did, with a be rejected like the one that happened on august 2nd, 2017? >> as you know, the special counsel investigation is ongoing and it would be inappropriate for me to talk about any other memos related to that.

>> welcome mr. whitaker, we already know that there has been some modification of the broadet order i think you can have with this august 2nd, 2017 memo. all i'm asking is, are there any other modifications? any other changes to the parameters of investigation into the president of the united states customer can speak of the time of the gentleman has expired. but witness may continue. >> just to be clear, the special counsel understands the scope of the investigation. it is complying with all regulations and orders related to that. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general whitaker, you and i dashed my professor came in, someone asks you a "yes" or "no" question, don't just repeat the question. answer yes or no. otherwise, during her career, people will think you're not a good lawyer. we know you are a good lawyer. let's see that advice going forward. >> we did not go to the same -- >> november 2018, but device is

good nonetheless. in november of 2010, chris wallace asked the president a question. he said, "did you know before you appointed him that he had a record so critical of robert mueller?" and the president said "i didn't know that, i didn't know he --" do you think he was telling the truth that he said he did not know they were critical of mueller before your appointment? >> congressman, that was -- >> i understand how it all works. i'm asking you if you believe the president was telling the truth when he said he did not know that you have been critical of robert mueller before making your appointment. >> i've no reason to believe when i sit here today that the president wasn't saying what he believed. >> who did you interview with for the chief of staff job? not for this job, but for the chief of staff job. >> it was general sessions 'decisions to make. i interviewed with him and he offered me the job. >> before he got the job, did you ever -- before you took this

job, did you ever speak with the president about the mueller probe from may 17th 2017 to december 22nd 2017? >> are you talking about before i was actually chief of staff? >> i'm saying between may 17th -- >> congressman, i had never met the president until after i dined the deferment of justice. >> let me ask you another question pretty did you community with any one of the white house about the special counsel investigation? before the time or 22nd 2018? >> i'm assuming you exclude my appearances on cnn. because i don't know if the warehouse was watching. >> if you talk to anybody at the white house, you told me the president was watching those. otherwise he would have been aware of your position. i assume the president wasn't watching. did he talk about his appearance as with any at the white house? >> i did not talk about those appearances. >> did you talk about your views of the mueller investigation

with anyone at the white house? >> i did not talk about the views of the new investigation with anyone at the white house. from may of 2017 until i joined the department of justice in october of 2017. >> throughout that process, did you ever communicate with anyone -- here's the question. by my count, you made six comments in our beds, talk radio, or cable news critical of the special counsel between the time he interviewed in june of 2017 and the time you were hired as chief of staff to the attorney general. did you ever use any intermediaries? did you have anyone -- since the president didn't know -- did you have anyone communicate with the white house or anyone at the white house, either staff members, friends, or others, to let them know exactly where you stood as expressed in at least those six public statements? >> congressman, i had come at the time you describe -- may 17 until i joined the department on october 4th 2017 -- i didn't have a relationship with the white house. >> as you talk to any

white house personnel before you were hired, anyone at the white house? >> congressman -- >> that's an easy one. did you talk to anyone at the white house? >> i had previously been at the white house when i was a private citizen. to talk about a different position. >> i understand. but you do talk to anyone of the white house about your views on mueller? any personnel at the white house at all, before you assumed the position? let me just go forward. because here's the issue -- when he became the attorney general, since becoming attorney generalt you have been briefed on the special counsel. did you use anyone else to have communications western mark did you do anything to make sure that the white house might have learned some of what you've learned in those briefings? could it be that someone else on your staff might have spoken to someone at the white house, since you said that you didn't? >> i'm not aware of that happening.

>> who else customer county people were in those briefings with you when you were briefed about the mueller investigation? >> come spent, not going to go into the specifics of the briefing. but it was a very limited group. there is only one member of my staff who was present with me. >> have you ever attempted to use any intermediaries to get information to the president or others on his staff? >> no, i have not attempted to use anti-intermediaries to get information to the president or his staff. >> i will close by saying -- this was going to be a long hearing i will go on for a while. the concern that we have, mr. whitaker, is that there was no senate confirmation here. we are not the senate. but the administration justified their decision in picking you under the vacancies reform act. there was a law on the books for the attorney general's succession. the authority to oversee the special counsel about stress work, it goes from one senate confirmed official to another. from the ag, deputy ag,

solicitor general, assistant to the attorney general, attorney general in charge of the office of legal counsel, this is an 80 for national security, assistant ag in charge of the criminal division, and on and on and on. none of them are the chief of staff to the attorney general. i think what we are trying to figure out is why it is exactly that they chose to go beyond the statute and choose you. i hope over the balance of this hearing it'll become clear. >> thank you, congressman. i believe the president chose me to be the acting attorney general for a couple reasons. i had served previously in the parma jazz united states attorney. that's a very important position, as mr. radcliffe previously stated. in the administration of justice. and for 15 months, i was chief of staff attorney general sessions. i done the fully with them side-by-side. he made the decisions but i gave

him advice and counsel. i was aware of everything going out of the department of justic justice. that general sessions wasn't recused from. i think the president was comfortable that you continue the momentum of that affirmative justice, we have established in addressing these important parity issues like reducing violent crime, combating the opioid crisis, and others of the president felt i was the best position to do the duties of attorney general. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will just say to mr. whitaker, my question -- in a normal oversight committee, it would be vastly different than the direction i'm going to go. because we have kind of wandered into this other stream over here. i'm going to ask you some questions. the long-standing constitutionally-based department of justice policy holds that a sitting president cannot be indicted. that's based on the last review under the clinton and administration. is that still in effect, or has a change?

>> that is still the policy of the department of justice. >> have you spoken to deputy attorney general rosenstein about his statements on invoking the 24th amendment admired up president trump? >> i have seen the statements by deputy rosenstein that he made to the press regarding both statements, and i have no reason to believe that he did not -- that those statements were consistent with what he believed at the time. >> i'm not sure i understand that. you said you have no reason to believe they were not consistent. a couple negatives there. do you think they were consistent what he believed at the time customer >> i do i think what he said to the press, what it was first reported about his -- >> you're talking about his comments, his comments to the press, not the ones about him wearing a wire? >> i'm talking about deputy attorney general rosenstein's comments to the press after it was reported that he had considered -- >> his responses. >> his responses, we think are

consistent. did you talk to him about this issue at all? >> again, i'm not here to talk about the internal discussions that i have with -- >> it's really critical. with all due respect, this is not an ongoing -- this has nothing to do with an ongoing investigation. what it has got to do with is mr. rosenstein in his role as an unbiased overseer of the mueller investigation. so it's not directly dealing with the investigation. it deals with his capacity to be unbiased. so i'm not asking whether -- i'm trying to get into the substance or even the periphery. i want to know, did you have a conversation with mr. rosenstein about his comments as reported? do you go congressman, this is an important question to you, but are not going to answer aboy conversations with deputy attorney general rosenstein. i believe they are deliberative. obviously i am exercising the full -- >> i get it. >> the full responsibility's of the position. >> i preach at that. i know that answer is important

to you. i know that's important to you. answering in a way that we, as the american people, can understand. that's important to us. let's get to june 21st, 2017. you said, "the truth is there was no collusion with the russians in the trump campaign." there was interference into the election, but not collusion with the campaign pair that's where the rub seems to be, combining these two issues. the last thing they want is the truth to come out. the fact that there's not a signal piece of evidence that demonstrates that the term campaign had any illegal or even improper relationships with the russians. it's that simple. do you still adhere to that statement? is that still true in your mind today? >> congressman, as i mentioned before to previous question about my statements as a private citizen before i joined the department of justice, those were made based on publicly available information. i had no inside information. i do not of the details of the investigation.

i know the traditions of the department of justice rules and regulations. i follow those as exercise the duty. >> i remember the answer that you gave to other similar questions, but not this question here. that's not what i'm asking. what i'm asking is, as we sit here today, a year and a half later, as has your opinion chad from what he stated in june of 27 to customer because a change? that's a simple question paid it's not hard. >> the special counsel of the solution is an ongoing a bus station. i will not characterize that investigation or give you my opinion of that investigation of the sit here today. >> the scope memo indicates that the scope was any links or coordination between the -- any matters that arose or may arise directly from that investigatio investigation. has that scoped been expanded in any way? >> as i was discussing with

representative jordan, i am not going to talk about the scope of the special counsel -- >> i will go forward then and say, the indictments and the relationship of this group. papadopoulos, false statements occurring after mueller was appointed. manafort, unrelated to the campaign. unrelated to the election of the campaign. flynn, post i've been looking unrelated to campaign our election. cohen, referred to the southern district of new york because it was out of the scope of its impact, not really to the campaign or election. if allstate was occurring after mueller was appointed. not one indictment alleged an illegal connection between the term campaign and russia. that is consistent with what we've seen so far. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> [laughs] thank you, mr. chair.

mr. acting ag, actually wanted to ask you some questions regarding what you did prior to being acting ag. it is my understanding that before you moved to the department of justice, that you are the executive director of the foundation for -- >> mr. chairman, i have a point of order. mr. chairman. >> it -- >> i have a point of order. >> the conservative's ethics watchdog -- >> i have a point of order. >> he made full use of -- >> the gentleman will say despite of order. >> my point of order by the very statement is that it's outside the scope of the deferment of justice. >> it is not. you need me to finish my question. >> the gentle lady will suspend. that is not a valid point of order. the gentle lady will continue. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, i would like a point of order. the question is outside the scope of -- >> the gentle lady has the floor. >> are you going to overrun a point of order? >> yeah, because your point of

order -- >> my point of order -- >> the gentle lady will suspend. i ruled that it was not a valid point of order, and the gentle lady has the floor. the gentle lady will continue. >> i was not through with my point of order. >> the dental lady will continu continue. >> the ruling of the chair. >> i moved to table. >> motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair is before the committee. motion to table is not debatabl debatable. the clerk will call the roll. one moment where we set up the clerk. >> mr. chairman, may i make a unanimous consent request while

we are waiting for this vote? [indistinct] >> since when is the bias of a witness not relevant? >> on the advisory board -- >> i was going to -- >> mr. chairman, miss lofgren. miss jackson lee. mr. cohen? mr. cohen votes i mr. johnson? mr. deutsch? mr. deutsch votes aye.

mr. richmond? mr. richmond votes aye. mr. jeffries? mr. jeffries votes aye. mr. sisley and a question mark sisley both side mr. swallow customer mr. swallow votes aye mr. raskin. mr. raskin votes aye. miss deming's votes aye mr. korea both side miss scanlon votes -- miss garcia votes aye mr. stanton. mr. stanton votes aye. miss dean. miss dean votes aye. miss powell. miss powell votes aye. miss escobar. miss escobar votes aye. mr. collins. mr. collins votes no.

mr. tabet. mr. gohmert. mr. jordan. mr. buck. mr. radcliffe. miss ruby votes they. mr. gates. mr. johnson. mr. bigs. mr. big's votes no. >> harris: as we watch the roll call, i want to bring in andy mccarthy, former federal prosecutor who's with me today and "outnumbered." what is fastening about this, andy, is that we are talking about whether matthew whitaker, the acting ag before this house judiciary committee today, should have to answer the question which we didn't even hear of the total question but it had to do something with bias at this point. so they are doing a roll call. why is this necessary? >> the problem is they want to probe about his background. i think what they are trying to do is give him the confirmation

hearing he never had, which has been a big point of dissent on the democratic side. the problem is that supposed to be an oversight hearing. so it's not supposed to go into his background. she said that she was going to tie the question into something that was relevant to the scope of the hearing. what we then heard was them carp a little bit about the fact -- i've never heard of situation where you can't ask about the bias of a witness in the hearing. sp once you are talking democratic house member who was going to ask the question. we understand of the motion has been adopted. represented of doug collins said point of order, several of the people they did. so they took the roll call. they will be allowed to ask that question. let's watch and listen. >> the ethics investigation into our filed complaints about the democratic politicians and organizations. the democratic national committee, hillary clinton,

john kerry, speaker pelosi, representative barrel, lewis, and in fact the organization actually called for an investigation and a member of this committee. we are presented in hank johnson. this a total of about 46 individuals or organizations that come over. when you are the executive director of fact, that you called for either ethics investigations or filed complaints. since you have joined the ag office, i want to know whether or not any investigation have been initiated into those peopl people. just answer that. yes or no? have there been investigations initiated into the people that you suggested be investigated during the time you were the ed effect? >> carcassonne, i was the executive director. we were an independent watchdog group.

we did file complaint against members of both parties. >> you filed ethics complaints against republicans? can you tell me which republicans you filed ethics complaint against? >> again, i'm here for an oversight hearing. >> yes, you are. my questions are leading to that. can you answer that? which republicans did you file investigations or ask for investigations of? >> the nice thing about being in ethics watchdog group is it files all of its complaints on its website. i would refer you to that. >> i don't have time to look into the website. i'm asking a question now. you were the executive director. which republicans did you file? >> congresswoman, again too. as i sit here today, we could do is refer you to the website. >> let me just ask this -- since you have been in the doj, have any complaints been initiated against the 46 democrats either individuals or organizations in the time you've been acting ag?

>> as i sit here today, i am not aware of any. i obviously -- if i had recommended as the executive director of fact that someone be investigated, and it was in my recommendation adopted by the department of justice, i am certain that i could not be involved in that investigation. >> you are certain, but you don't know whether you -- did you recuse yourself? >> i think this is important for everybody to understand. recusal decisions are made based on a matter. >> let me move on. i want ethics guidance they received in december. did they recommend you recuse yourself with any into the world patent marketing? the scam to which you still owe almost $10,000 to the court? to the provider ethics or did you not seek 1 one into the patenting matter? >> just to be clear, who do you mean by they construct ethics

official? >> i'm asking you, what guidance did they recommend that you don't like recuse yourself? that's a question to you. did they recommend that you recuse yourself from any involvement into the criminal investigation into the world patent marketing? >> i am recused from the investigation into the company. >> what about any matter involving hillary clinton customer gives been well-documented of your public calls for renewed investigation the two matters related clinton. >> again, any investigations into former secretary clinton -- if they are open, confirmation of the denial of the recusal would suggest that there is or is not an investigation regarding that person. >> can i have more time on the clock since i was interrupted? >> i am informed that we had paused the time. >> okay. go ahead. continue. >> what i'm saying is your

inquiry about whether or not i am recused from any matter concerning former secretary clinton would, by nature, suggest there is an open matter regarding secretary clinton. and he recusal decision that i would make would be based on what the matter was, and we would go through the exact same analysis that i went through in the case of the special counsel investigation. >> thank you. >> at the request of a number of people, the committee will stand in recess. for 5 minutes. >> 5 minutes for lunch? [laughter] >> melissa: oh, my goodness. we are taking a break from this hearing right now. this is acting attorney general matthew whitaker, taking questions from the committee. in this last round. i'm doing here on the couch by some of the ladies from "outnumbered," we've been sitting here the past hour. as they've gone back and forth.

it has been quite contentious. this last exchange had to do with delving into his backgroun background. they are, the committee promising to tying it to something relevant oversight. what is your impression? >> morgan: i think we knew it will be content just going to this hearing, because the democrats -- the leaders had essentially almost threatened to subpoena him in order for him to show up. they knew they wanted to get him on record. i think of note, this is the first oversight hearing in which the democrats are in control. or come in power. i think this is very much a preview of what can expect over the next two years. for me, one of the things most notable so far is that he did not go on record in answering whether the mueller investigation is a witch hunt or not. there has been several nuggets out of here. the biggest thing our audience can get out of this is how contentious the next two years are going to be in this oversight committee. >> melissa: i don't know, i might disagree with that a little bit in the sense that he was really getting it from both sides. there was also -- >> jessica: jim jordan went at him as hard as any democrat.

b2 that's right, trying to get them to reveal -- in the document that created the mueller probe, was there specific names of people that he was supposed to be investigating, trying to make the point that the probe is supposed to be about going after a crime as opposed to an individual person. he really did -- it seems like no one is on his side in that room there. >> jessica: absolutely not. i think president trump is on his side, having watch that hearing. i sure he is watching now. i would say a couple things are going on. one, democrats are trying to have the ag confirmation hearing that they never would have had with him. some issues that are left out there, like the things he has public he said about the mueller probe. we have to go. >> melissa: morse between five and just a moment. don't go away

wirethat's not right.nth? it's right, all right. now, chunky-style milk? that's not right... i choose chunky-style milk because it has the wholesome chunks growing kids need, unlike smooth-style milk. ♪ hey, guys! save some chunks for me! that's not right. kinda like your wireless bill. mint mobile is easy, online and just $20 bucks a month. right now, buy one month and get two months free at mintmobile.com. and i don't add trup the years.s.

but what i do count on... is boost® delicious boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. boost® high protein. be up for life. means they won't hike your rates over one mistake. see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ >> we will return in just a moment acting attorney general testifying at the house judiciary committee, but for now before that i'm going to hand it faulkner. >> harris: thanks a lot.

we will pick up our live coverage today. if you're watching out numbered over time now. in that a five minute were so bright, we already see people milling about and milling back in so as they begin the life action again, it has had a lot of action today. this hearing of the acting ag matthew whitaker. he is outgoing we know at some point, he has chosen another man for the full-time job of attorney general, and the senate judiciary committee cleared him through for full senate to vote on him as early as wednesday of next week, and that is william barr. he has of course been our nation's general prior, this will be the second go at it as he has confirmed time around. so we are watching this action previous to that, matthew whitaker on the stand talking about what he may or may not have done with regard to the speed investigation. he was on the job for 88 days or so and i want to bring in now

former