>> pelley: this is a cbs news special report. good day. attorney general jeff sessions is about to testify before the senate intelligence committee on the investigation of russian interference in the presidential election. sessions will face questions about his meetings with a russian diplomat during the campaign and his role of the firing of james comey, the former f.b.i. director. comey's testimony before this committee last thursday raised questions that sessions will be called upon to answer. joining us today are john dickerson, our chief washington correspondent and an consider of "face the nation" and jan crawford, our cbs news chief legal correspondent. margaret brennan is at the white house. nancy cordes is in the hearing room. john, what are you looking for? >> well, last week attorney general sessions was a supporting actor in the narrative of james comey throughout, particularly with that february 14th meeting in the oval office. he was asked to leave the room. then director comey said he had

a conversation with the attorney general about not leaving him alone with the president. we're now going to hear from attorney general sessions about his role, how he remembers those interrogations. >> pelley: jan? >> that's incredibly important. while you're going to see senators press the attorney general on his contacts with the russians, really this is a hearing that's less about jeff sessions than donald trump. and so he's going to be pressed on his conversations with his f.b.i. director and what light that might shed on the president's intent, why he fired james comey and whether or not he believes there was any effort to obstruct justice. you'll see a lot of questions trying to get to that point about the president. >> pelley: jeff pegues is also joining us today. he's been our expert on the russia investigation from the very beginning. jeff, good to have you. let me go the nancy quickly before the hearing begins. nancy, this hearing was cobbled together pretty quickly. >> that's right. we only got confirmation that it was taking place yesterday. the reason it is happening is

because senators were left with so many questions for sessions after the former f.b.i. director, james comey, testified before this same committee in the same hearing room last week. one of the things comey told them was he did not understand why sessions was involved in his firing when sessions had recused himself from the russia investigation and the president had said publicly the investigation was on his mind when he decided to fire comey. so senators are going to want the ask sessions if he thinks it was appropriate for him to be involved in the firing of keepy. that put that question to his deputy attorney general rod rosenstein in another hearing today. rosenstein says he has a personal opinion on that matter, but that that question is better posed to sessions himself. so you can bet that's going to be happening shortly. >> pelley: nancy, thank you. as we continue to watch live, the hearing room awaiting the senators and attorney general jeff sessions to come in.

margaret brennan is at the white house. margaret, jeff sessions was at the white house yesterday, part of the president's first full cabinet meeting. >> he was indeed. and heaping praise quite publicly on the president for what he called his empowerment of law enforcement. this is important for jeff sessions at this time, particularly because of all the reports that he is perhaps out of favor with the president because of some frustration regarding recent justice department actions and the inability to stop the halt of that travel ban on muslim majority countries. the president has been frustrated by that, also frustrated that jeff sessions had to recuse the himself back in march from the russia investigation, something that opened up, paved the way for the appointment of that special counsel robert mueller, a decorated marine, a former f.b.i. director who really had been viewed as above reproach, someone of strong character, but in the fast few days, you have

had trump surrogates, friends around president trump who had been floating this idea that perhaps he is somehow biased. we're putting together a biased team to investigate russian meddling in the election and any potential ties to the trump campaign or trump associates. so while the white house would really like to clez a chapter on this story with today's testimony from the attorney general, they appear to be opening another one for themselves by raising questions about the fate of the special counsel and whether or not he truly will be able to end this investigation in a way that the white house says will show that the president did not try to interfere or have any connections to russia, which is something they say will be proven over time. >> pelley: jeff pegues, part of today's hearing is likely to focus on a critical meeting that former f.b.i. director james comey had with the president in february. >> well, that's right. that's that february 14th meeting at the white house between the president and james comey, and that's the meeting in which comey says the attorney

general was among those, including jared kushner and the vice president, who were asked to leave the room, and what i noticed about the testimony from comey is what he emphasized about that meeting. now, looking back, these... this is how he described that meeting. he said, "my impression was something big is about to happen, and he was trying to remember so that he could later take notes that would be part of this memo, notes that were not classified, and he was going the write it in a certain way that it was not classified. here's why i think that meeting is important. not only did it talk about michael flynn, the fired national security adviser, and, comey alleges the president tried to get him to end the flynn investigation, but it characterizes the way comey saw sessions during that moment. he said, "my sense was the attorney general knew he shouldn't be leaving, which is why he was lingering." so these senators will press the

attorney general on that issue. keep in mind, scott, of course jeff sessions was a senator himself for two decades, so most of the senators will be cordial, but he will face grilling on that february 14th meeting, which could be a critical point in the overall investigation. don't know yet, but it could be down the road. >> pelley: jeff sessions, of course, the senator from alabama, one of the first members of the senate to endorse the trump campaign, and therefore he was rewarded later with the position of attorney general. and he may be thinking twice today about whether that was a reward or not. jan, one of the things that jeff just mentioned and is likely to come up today is the fact that james comey acknowledged freely that he leaked his personal memos that he wrote to himself about his meetings with president trump to the media, and there's been a lot of discussion about whether that was legal or not. >> right. and i'm sure that people will

bring that up and whether or not the attorney general believes that his former f.b.i. director broke the law when he took notes of that meeting and then turned them over to a law professor at columbia university with the intent that he would then disperse them not media. is that lawful? arguably that's a government document. he wrote it on a government computer and a government vehicle. there is an open legal question about whether or not pure information is considered property, but there is an argument that that memo is government property and he had no business giving it to a law professor to leak to the press. certainly it raises questions of whether it was inappropriate. >> pelley: but there is no question about whether there was classified information in those documents. there was none, and therefore... >> well, certainly the former f.b.i. director says it was not classified. that's another question. did he ask for it to be reviewed, a classification review before he turned it over to the law professor >> pelley: john, one thing we'll probably hear a great deal about is the

reason for firing james comey. the stated reason at the time was that they were unhappy with how he handled the investigation of hillary clinton's e-mails. it was only later that the president said it was the russia investigation that was on his mind. >> right. that's one of the challenges. this is what happens and why these kinds of investigations are such a bedevilment for administrations. now the attorney general is under oath. he now must speak under oath about the behavior of his boss. that can get you into a tricky situation. it's simply asking the attorney general, why was james comey fired puts him in the position of where he may contradict something his boss has said or putting him in a position to talk about the president's actions in the oval office on that february 14th meeting. does he think they were appropriate? well, if he says they were appropriate, then he is probably going to get some heat for that. if he doesn't, then he's going to get some heat from his boss. there are lots of pitfalls here, even though he's such a veteran at being on the other side of

the questioning, there are some traps here. >> and we certainly saw that during his confirmation hearings when he was very well prepared. then he got that question out of the blue from senator al franken about having contact with the russians. that really trained him up and got him in the miss he's in today. that's why this testimony for jeff sessions is kind of fraught with peril. to nancy's point that it was hastily arraigned and the justice department is saying he wanted to get his truth out there, people close to sessions say he really saw this as a chance to defend his honor before these senators, nonetheless, this is a risky path to be taking, testifying under oath. you don't know what they're going to ask. >> pelley: and senators are beginning the take their seats in the hearing room as we watch the hearing live. they will be filing in. the chairman of the committee, richard burr of north carolina, will be making opening remarks. he'll be followed by mark warner, the ranking democrat on the panel. and then burr and warner will ask about ten minutes of

questions each. and after that each senator will have about five minutes to ask questions. there's john mccain, of course, the senator from arizona. jeff pegues, we talk a great deal of course about the president, as we would, but the investigation is much broader than that. >> it certainly is. as we look at john mccain, the senator from arizona, he's someone who has outlined in sometimes fairly sobering terms the importance of this investigation. and he continues to say in almost every interview that he does this there is "another shoe to drop" from this centipede. he is aware of what the 17 intelligence agencies have concluded, and that is that the russians interfered in the election according to these intelligence agency, and they have high confidence in that assessment. that's something that james comey mentioned, as well. so this is a broad f.b.i.

counterintelligence investigation that also includes, of course, looking into whether there was collusion between trump campaign officials and russian officials during the 2016 campaign. there are several trump campaign associates and even confidantes who are under scrutiny by the f.b.i., including the former campaign chairman, paul manafort, jared kushner, a senior adviser, roger stone, a confidante of the president, michael flynn, the former national security adviser, carter page, a former foreign policy adviser, and, of course, there are questions about the attorney general, jeff sessions, and his contacts, scott, as you know, with the russian ambassador. >> pelley: and the attorney general has just taken his seat at the witness table. 70-year-old jefferson bougard sessions iii of alabama will be questioned by the senators in just a moment. jan there are a number of things that the attorney general may not be able to answer or may

decline to answer. >> rights. his conversations with the president. he may feel that's inappropriate for him to testify stopping short of advocating executive privilege. that's an important concept, because the person is the president should be able to talk freely with their most trusted advisers. that's why you don't want top level advisers coming out and saying, well, the president toll me this the other day. >> this is territory the senator should know pretty well. he used to be a member of the senate. i should call him attorney general now. he was also a federal prosecutor at one point in his early career. so this whole idea of testifying and knowing his way around the justice department should be old hat to him. we just saw the chairman of the committee and the vice-chair greeting their witness, and they are taking their seats. nancy, how long would you expect all this to go?

>> well, we've been told that each senator will get to ask one round of questioning, so it's likely that this will go on for about an hour and a half or so, maybe two hours, and i should note, scott, that you probably saw the chairman, richard burr, saying hello not just to sessions, but his wife, giving her a hug. that shows that there's a lot of personal affection in this room for sessions, who was in the senate for 20 years. >> pelley: and there's the gavel. the hearing begins. let's listen in. >> attorney general session, i appreciate your willingness to appear before the committee today. i thank you for your years of dedicated service as the member of this body and your recent leadership at the department of justice. as i mentioned when director comey appeared before us last week, this committee's role is to be the eyes and ears for the

other 85 members of the united states senate and for the american people, ensuring that the intelligence community i operating lawfully and has the necessary tools to keep america safe. the community is a large and diverse place. we recognize the gravity of our investigation into the russians' interference into the 2016 elections, but i remind our constituents that while we investigate russia, we're scrutinizing the c.i.a.'s -- while we're investigating russia, we're still scrutinizing the c.i.a.'s budget, the n.s.a.'s 702 program, our nation's satellite program, and the entire i.c. effort to recruit and retain the best talent we can find in the world. more often than not the committee conducts its work behind closed doors, a necessary step to ensure that our most sensitive sources and meth

methods are protected. the sanctity of these sources and methods are at the hearted of the intelligence community's ability to keep us safe and to keep our allies safe from those who seek to harm us. i've said repeatedly that i did not believe any committee -- anything the committee does should be done in public. but i also recognize the gravity of the committee's current investigation and the need for the american people to be presented the facts so that they might make their own judgments. it is for that reason that this committee has now held its tenth open hearing of 2017. more than double that of the committee in recent years. and the fifth on the topic of russian interference. attorney general sessions this venue is your opportunity to separate fact from fiction. and to set the record straight on a number of allegations reported in the press. for example, there are several

issues that i'm hopeful we will address today. one, did you have any meetings with russian officials or their proxies on behalf of the trump campaign or during your time as attorney general? two, what was your involvement with candidate trump's foreign policy team and what were their possible interactions with russians. three, why did you decide to recuse yourself from the government's russia investigation. and fourth, what role, if any, did you play in the removal of then-f.b.i. director comey? i look forward to a candid and honest discussion as we continue to pursue the truth behind russia's interference in the 2016 elections. the committee's experienced staff is interviewing the relevant parties. having spoken to more than 35 individuals to date to include yesterday an interview of former homeland security secretary jeh johnson. we also continue to review some of the most intensative

intelligence in our country's possession. as i've said previously, we will establish the facts, separate from rampant speculation, and lay them out for the american people to make their own judgment. only then will we as nation be able to put this episode to rest and look to the future. i'm hopeful that members will focus their questions today on the russia investigation. and not squander the opportunity by taking political or partisan shots. the vice chairman and i continue to lead this investigation together on what is the highly charged political issue. we may disagree at times, but we remain a unified team with a dedicated, focused, and professional staff working tirelessly on behalf of the american people to find the truth. the committee has made much progress as the political winds blow forcefully around us, and i think all members would agree that despite a torrent of public

debate on who and what committee might be best suited to lead on this issue, the intelligence committee has lived up to its obligation to move forward with purpose and above politics. mr. attorney general, it's good to have you back. i would now turn to the vice chairman for any remarks he might have. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to also thank the way we're proceeding on this investigation. mr. attorney general, it's good to see you again. and we appreciate your appearance on the heels of mr. comey's revealing testimony last week. i do, though, want the take a moment at the out set and first, press some concern about the process by which we're seeing the attorney general today. it's my understanding you were originally scheduled the testify in front of the house and senate appropriations committees today. i know those appearances have been canceled to come here instead. while we appreciate his

testimony before our committee, i believe, and i speak -- and i believe i speak for many of my colleague, i believe he should also answer questions from members of those committees and the judiciary committee, as well. mr. attorney general, it's my hope that you will reschedule those appearances as soon as possible. in addition, i want the say at 2 outset that while we consider your appearance today as just the beginning of our interaction with you and your department, mr. attorney general, we had always expected to talk to you as part of our investigation. we believed it would be later in the process. we're glad to accommodate your request to speak to us today. but we also expect to have your commitment to cooperate with all future requests and make yourself available as necessary to this committee for this very important investigation, as the chairman indicated. now let's move to the subject of today's investigation. let's start with the campaign.

you were an early and ardent supporter of mr. trump. in march you were named as chairman of the trump campaign's national security advisory committee. you were much more than a surrogate. you were a strategic adviser who helped shape much of the campaign's national security strategy. no doubt you will have key insights about some of the key trump associates that were seeking to hear from in the weeks ahead. questions have also been raised about some of your own interactions with russian officials during the campaign. during your confirmation hearing in january, you said you did not have communications with russia. senator leahy later asked you in writing whether you had been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the russian government about the 2016 election. you answered i believe with a definitive no. despite that fact -- despite that, the fact is that you did have interactions with russian

government officials during the course of the campaign. in march you acknowledged two meetings with the russian ambassador, yet there has also been some public reports of a poll third meeting at the may flower hotel on april 27th. i hope today you will help clear up those discrepancies. we also expect and -- this is very important -- you'll be willing to provide the committee with any documents we need to shed light on these issues, such as e-mails or calendars. then there's the topic of the firing of former f.b.i. director comey last. thursday we received testimony from mr. comey under oath. he outlined his very troubling interactions with with the president. swas the circumstances of his firing. a few disturbing points stood out. first mr. comey, who has decades of experienceed at the department of justice and at the f.b.i., serving under presidents. both party, was so unnerved by

the actions of the president that he felt "compelled to fully document every interaction they had." mr. comey sat where you are sitting today. he testified that he was concerned that the president of the united states might lie about the nature of their meetings. that's a shocking statement. from one of our nation's top law enforcement officials. we also heard that director commie took it as a direction from the president that he was supposed to drop the f.b.i. into former national security adviser mike flynn. finally we heard from mr. comey that he believes he was fired over the handling of the russia investigation. the president himself confirmed this in statements to the media. this is dopily -- deeply troubling for all of us who believe on both sides of the aisle in preserving the independence of the f.b.i. we have a lot of work in order to follow up on these alarming

disclosures. mr. attorney general, your testimony today is an opportunity to begin the process of asking those questions. for instance, again, and i know others will ask about this, you recused yourself from the russia investigation, yet you participated in the firing of mr. comey over the handling of that same investigation. we want the ask you about how you view your recusal and whether you believe you complied fully. in addition, we heard from mr. comey last week that the president asked you to leave the oval office. so he could speak one on one with mr. comey. again, a very concerning action. we will need the hear from you about how you viewed the president's request and whether you thought it was appropriate. we'll also want to know if you are aware of any attempts by the president to enlist leaders of the intelligence community to undermine this very same russia investigation. most importantly, our committee will want the hear what you are

doing to ensure that the russians or any other foreign adversary cannot attack our democratic process like this ever again. i'm concerned that the president still does not recognize the severity of the threat. he to date i believe has not even acknowledged the unanimous consent collusions of the u.s. intelligence community that russia massively intervened in our elections. the threat we face is real, and it's not limited to us. the recent events in france give a stark remind they're all west everybody democracies must take steps to protect themselves. i brief the united states can and must be a leader in this area, but it requires our administration that get serious about this matter. finally, in the past several weeks, we've seen a concerning pattern of administration officials. refusing to answer public, unclassified questions about allegations about the president in this investigation.

we have a hearing with a subject last week. i want the commend the chairman who at the end of that hearing made very clear that our witnesses... it was not acceptable for our witnesses to come before congress without answers. the american people deserve to know what's going on here. thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to the witness's testimony. >> thank you, vice chairman. attorney general sessions, if you would stand, i would administer the oath to you. raise your right hand, if you would, please. do you solemnly swear to hell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> pelley: please be seated. thank you attorney general sessions. the floor is yours. >> thank you, chairman burr and rank member warner for allowing me to publicly appear before your committee today. i appreciate the committee's critically important efforts to investigate russian interference with our democratic process. such interference can never be

tolerated, and i encourage every effort to get to the bottom of any such allegation. as you know, the deputy attorney general has appointed a special counsel to investigate the mattered related to the russian interference in the 2016 election. i'm here today to address several issues that have been specifically raised before this committee. and i appreciate the opportunity to respond to questions as fully as the lord enables me to do so. but as i advise you, mr. chairman, and consistent with long-standing department of justice practice, i cannot and will not violate my duty to protect the confidential communications i have with the president. now, let me address some issues directly. i did not have any private meetings, nor do i recall any conversations with any russian officials at the may flower hotel. i did not attend any meetings at

that hotel separate. prior to the speech attended by the president today, i attended a reception with my staff that included at least two dozen people and president trump, though i do recall several conversations that i had during that pre-speech reception, i do not have any recollection or meeting or talking to the russian ambassador or any other russian official. if any brief interaction occurred in passing with the russian ambassador during that reception, i do not remember it. after the speech i was interviewed by the news media. there was an area for that, in a different room. then i left the hotel. but whether i ever attended a reception where the russian ambassador was also present is entirely beside the point of this investigation into russian interference in the 2016 campaign. let me state this clearly,

colleagues: i have never met with or had any conversations with any russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the united states. further, i have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the trump campaign. i was your colleague in this body for 20 years, at least some of you, and i participated -- and the suggestion that i participated in any collusion that i was aware of any collusion with the russian government to hurt this country, which i have served with honor for 35 years, or to undermine the integrity of our democratic process is an appalling and detestable lie. related there is the assertion that i did not answer senator franken's questions honestly at

my confirmation hearing. colleagues, that is false. i can't say colleagues now. i'm no long ear part of this body, but former colleagues, that is false. this is what happened: senator franken asked me a rambling question after some six hours of testimony that included dramatic new allegations that the united states intelligence community, the u.s. intelligence community, had advised president-elect trump, "that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government. ". i was taken aback by that explosive allegation, which he said was being reported as breaking news that very day. in which i had not heard. i wanted to refute that immediately. any sughts that i was part of

such an activity. i replied to senator franken this way: "senator franken, i'm not aware of any of those activities. i have been called a surrogate a time or two in that campaign, and i did not have communications with the russians, and i'm unable to comment on that." that was the context in which i was asked the question, and in that context, my answer was a fair and correct response to the charge as i understand it. i was responding to this allegation that surrogates had been meeting with the russians on a regular basis. it did not occur to me go-to-go further than the context of the question and the list any conversations i may have had with russians in routine situations as i had many routine

situation -- meetings with other foreign officials. so please hear me now, and it was only in march, after my confirmation hearing, that a reporter asked my spokesperson whether i had ever met with any russian official. this was the first time that question had scarily been posed to me. on the same day, we provided that reporter with the information related to the meeting that i and my staff had held in my senate office with ambassador kiss leeback as well as the brief encounter in july after a speech that i had given during the convention in cleveland, ohio. i also provided the reporter with a list of 25 foreign ambassador meetings that i've had during 2016. in addition, i provided supplemental testimony to the senate judiciary committee to explain this event.

so i readily acknowledge these two meetings and certainly not one thing happened that was improper in any one of those meetings. let me also explain clearly the circumstances of my recusal from the investigation into the russian interference with the 2016 elections. please, colleague, hear me on this. i was sworn in as attorney general on thursday february 9th. the very next day, as i had promised the judiciary committee i would do, at least at an early date, i met with senior department officials, including a senior ethics official, to discuss some things publicly reported in the press that might have some bearing on whether or not i should recuse myself in this case. from that point, february 10th, until i announced my formal recusal on march 2nd, i was never briefed on any investigative details, did not

access any information about the investigation. i received only the limited information that the department's career officially determined was necessary for me to form and make a recusal decision. as such i have no knowledge about this investigation as it is ongoing today, beyond what has been publicly reported. i don't even read that. and i have taken no action whatsoever with regard to any such investigation. on the date of my formal recusal, my chief of staff sent an e-mail to the heads of relevant departments, including by name to director comey of the f.b.i. to instruct them to inform their staffs of this recusal and to advise them not to brief me or involve me in any way in any such matters, and, in fact, they have not. importantly, i recused myself

not because of any asserted wrongdoing or any belief that i may have been involved in any wrongdoing in the campaign, but because a department of justice regulation, 28cfr45.2 i felt required it. that regulation states in effect that department employees should not participate in investigations of a campaign if they served as a campaign adviser. so the scope of my recusal, however, does in the and cannot interfere with my ability to oversee the department of justice, including the f.b.i., which has an $8 billion budget and $35,000 employees. i presented to the president my concerns and those of deputy attorney general rod rosenstein

about the ongoing leadership issues at the f.b.i. as stated in my letter recommending the removal of mr. comey along with the deputy attorney general's memorandum on that issue, which had been released publicly by the white house. those represent a clear statement of my views. i adopted deputy attorney general rosenstein's points that he made in his memorandum and made my recommendation. it is absurd, frankly, to suggest that a recusal from a single specific investigation would render the attorney general unable to manage the leadership of the various department of justice law enforcement come probes that conduct thousands of these investigate investigations. finally, during his testimony, mr. comey discussed a conversation that he and i had about the meeting mr. comey had with the president. i am happy to share with the

committee my recollection of that conversation that i had with mr. comey. following a routine morning threat briefing, mr. comey spoke to me and my chief of staff. while he did not provide me with any of the substance of his conversations with the president, apparently the day before, mr. comey expressed concern about proper communications protocol with the white house and with the president. i responded, he didn't recall this, but i responded to his comment by agreeing that the f.b.i. and the department of justice needed to be careful to follow department policies regarding appropriate contacts with the white house. mr. comey had served in the department for better than two decades, and i was confident that he understood and would abide by the will-established rules limiting communications with the white house, especially

about ongoing investigations. that's what is so important to control. my comments encouraged him to do just that, and indeed as i understand it he, in fact, did that. our department of justice rules on proper communications between the department and the white house have been in place for years. mr. comey well knew them. i thought and assumed correctly that he complied with them. so i will finish with this: i recused myself from any investigation into the campaign for president, but i did not recuse myself from defending my honor against scurrilous and false allegations. at all times throughout the course of the campaign, the confirmation process, and since becoming attorney general, i have dedicated myself to the highest standard. i have earned a reputation for that. at home and in this body, i

believe, over decades of performance. the people of this country expect an honest and transparent government, and that's what we're giving them. this president wants to focus on the people of this country to ensure they are treated fairly and kept safe. the trump agenda is to improve the lives of the american people. i know some have different ways of achieving this and different agendas, but that is his agenda and it's one i share. importantly, as attorney general, i have a responsibility to enforce the laws of this nation to protect this country from its enemies and to ensure the fair administration of justice, and i intend to work every day with our fine team and the department of justice to advance the important work we have to do. these false attacks, the

innuendo, the leaks, you can be sure will not intimidate me. in fact, these events have only strengthened my resolve to fulfill my duty to reduce crime, to support our federal, state, and local law enforcement officers who work on our streets every day. just last week it was reported that overdose deaths in this country are rising faster than ever reported. last year was 52,000. "the new york times" just estimated next year will be 62,000 overdose deaths. the murder rate is up over 10%. that's the largest increase since 1968. together we are telling the gangs, the cartels, the fraudsters, and the terrorists, we are coming after you. every one of our citizens, no matter who they are or where they live, has a right to be safe in their homes and

communicate. i will not be deterred. i will not allow this great department to be deterred from its vital mission. thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member warner. it's a great honor to appear before you today, andly do my best to answer your questions. >> attorney general sessions, thank you for that testimony. i'd like to note for members the chair and the vice chairman will be recognized for ten minutes. members will be recognized for five minutes. and i'd like to remind our members that we are in open session. no references to classified or committee-sensitive me teerlgs should be used relative to your questions. with that i recognize myself at this time for ten minutes. attorney general sessions, you talked about the mayflower

hotel, where the president gave his first foreign policy speech, and it's been covered in the press that the president was there. you were there. others were there. from your testimony, you said you don't remember whether ambassador kislyak was there, the russian ambassador is. that correct? >> i did not remember that, but i understand he was there. so i don't doubt that he was. i believe that representation is correct. in fact, i recently saw a video of him coming into the room. >> pelley: but you never remember having a conversation or a meeting with ambassador kislyak? >> i do not. >> and in that event, was there ever a crowded-room setting that you were involved in? >> no. >> with anyone? >> other than the reception area that was shut off from i guess the main crowd, a couple dozen,

two to three dozen people. >> i would take for granted at an event like this the president shook some hands. >> yes, he came in and shook hands in the group. >> you mentioned that there was some staff that were were you at that event? >> my legislative director at the time... >> your senate staff? >> senate legislative director, who was a retired u.s. army colonel, who had served on the armed services staff with senator john warner before she joined my staff was with me in the reception area and throughout the rest of the events. >> would you say you were there as a united states senator or as a surrogate of the campaign for this event? >> i came there as an interested person, very anxious to see how president trump would do in his first major foreign policy address. i believe he'd only given one major speech before. that was maybe at the jewish aipac event. and so it was a an interesting

time for me to observe his delivery and the message he would make. that was my main purpose of being there. >> now, you reported two other meetings with ambassador kislyak, one in july on the sidelines of the republican convention i believe, and one in september in your senate office. have you had any other interactions with government officials over the year in a campaign capacity? i'm not asking you from the standpoint of your senate life, but in the campaign capacity? >> no, mr. chairman. i have stretched my... racked mir brain the make sure i could answer any of those questions correctly, and idy not. i would just proffer for you that when asked about whether i hadsell any meetings with the russians by the reporter in

march, we immediately recalled the conversation, the encounter i had at the convention and the meeting in my offers, and we made that public. i never intended not to include that. i would have gladly have reported the meeting, the encounter that may have occurred, that some say occurred in the mayflower if i had remembered it or if it actually occurred, which i don't remember that it did. >> >> senator sessions, on march 2, 2017, you formally recused yourself from the investigation being conducted by f.b.i. and the department of justice. what are the specific reasons that you chose to recuse yourself? >> well, the specific reason, mr. chairman, is a cfr code of federal regulations put out by the department of justice, part of the department of justice rules, and it says this, i'll

read from it, 28cfr45.2. "unless authorizedded, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person involved in the conduct of an investigation." it goes on to say "in a political campaign," and it says, "if you have a close identification with an elected official or candidate arising from service as a principle adviser, you shoul advisor, youn investigation of that campaign. have suggested that my recusal is because i felt i was a subject of the investigation myself that i may have done

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

director comey's comments that he knew there was a likely hood you would recuse yourself buzz he was probably familiar with this same statute. >> probably so. i'm sure that the attorneys in the department of justice probably communicated with him. because mr. chairman, let me say this to you clearly, in effect, as a matter of fact, i recused myself that day. i never received any information about the campaign. i thought there was a problem with me being able to serve as attorney general over this issue, and i felt i would possibly have to recuse myself. and i took the position correctly, i believe, not involve myself in the campaign in any way and i did not. >> you made a reference to your chief of staff sending out an e-mail immediately notifying internally of your decision to

recuse. would you ask your chief of staff to make that e-mail available. >> we will be pleased to do that. i think i have it with me now. >> thank you, general sessions. have you had any interactions with the special council robert mueller since his appointment. >> i have not. with regard to the e-mail we set ou, mr. comey, director comey indicated that he did not know when i recused myself or did not receive notice. one of those e-mails went to him by name. things happen in our office, i'm not accuse is him of wrongdoing but in fact it was sent to him in his name. >> general sessions, as you said, mr. comey testified at length before the committee about his interaction with the president in some cases highlighting your presence at those meetings. you addressed the meeting where all were asked to leave exceptfa private meeting with the president. and you said that he did inform

you of how uncomfortable that was, and your recommendation was that the f.b.i. and doj needed to follow the rules limiting further correspondence. did director comey ever express additional discomfort with conversations that the president might have had with him, because he had two additional meetings and i think a total of six phone calls. >> that is correct. there's nothing wrong with the president having a communication with the f.b.i. director. what is problematic for any department of justice employee is to talk to any cabinet persons or whitehouse officials, high officials about ongoing investigations that are not properly cleared through the top levels of the department of justice. and so, it was a regulation i

think is healthy. i thought we needed a strongly believe we needed to restore discipline within our department to adhere to just those kind of rules, plus leaking rules and some of the other things that i think are a bit lax and need to be restored. >> you couldn't have had a conversation with the president about the investigation because you were never briefed on the investigation. >> that is correct. i do, i would note that with regard to the private meeting that director comey had by his own admission, i believe there's as many as six such meetings, several of them he had with president trump, i think he had two with president obama. so it's not improper per se but it would not be justified for a department official to share information about an ongoing investigation without prior review and clearance from but. >> general sessions, just one last question. you were the chair of this

foreign policy team for the trump campaign. to the best of your knowledge, did that team ever meet. >> we met a couple times exmaybe. some of the people did. but we never functioned frankly, mr. chairman, as a coherent team. >> were there any members of that team you never met? >> yes. >> okay. vice chairman. >> thank you, general sessions. as i mentioned in my opening statement we appreciate your appearance here but we do see this as the first step. i would just like to get your commitment that you are agreeing to make yourself available as the committee needs in the weeks and months ahead. >> senator winne warner i will t to appear before this committee or other committees as is

appropriate. i don't think it's appropriate to bring over cabinets for multiple committees over the same thing -- >> the appropriations committee may want -- let me just ask about this committee. >> i just gave you my answer. >> can we get your commitment since there will be questions about some of these meetings that took place or not, that we can get access to documents, memorandum, your day book or something so we can ... >> mr. chairman, we'll be glad to provide appropriate responses to your questions and review them carefully and try to be responsive. >> yesterday, yesterday a friend of the president was reported to suggesting that trud president t trump was removing director mueller's as council. do you think mr. mueller will conduct the investigation fairly and impartially. >> i don't know about these reports and i have no basis to ascertain their validity. i have known mr. mueller over

the years. he served 12 years as the f.b.i. director. i knew him before that. and i have confidence -- >> you have confidence -- >> i'm not going to discuss any thurkz or whahypotheticals or wa factual situation because i know nothing about the investigation -- >> i have a series of questions, sir. do you believe the president has confidence in director mueller. >> i have no idea, i've not talked to him about it. >> we commit to this committee not to take personal actions that result in mr. mueller's firing or dismuscle. >> i think i could probably say that with confidence because i'm recused from the investigation. in fact the way it works, senator warner is the acting attorney general -- >> i'm aware. i just wanted to get you on the record -- >> deputy attorney general -- >> with your recusal, you would not take any actions to try to

have special investigator mueller removed. >> i wouldn't think that would be appropriate for me to do. >> to your knowledge, have any department of justice officials been involved with conversations about any possibility of presidential pardons about any of the individuals involved with the russian investigation. >> mr. chairman, i'm not able to comment on conversations with high officials within the whitehouse. that would be a violation of the communications rule that tea have to -- >> just so i can understand, is the basis of that unruliness basis on executive privilege? >> it's longstanding policy the department of justice not to comment on conversations that the attorney general has had with the president of the united states for confidential reasons

that really are founded in the coequal branch powers and the constitution of the united states. >> so, just so i'm understanding, does that mean are you claiming executive privilege here today sir. >> i'm not claiming executive privilege because that's the president's power and i have no power to claim executive power. >> what about conversations with other department of justice or other whitehouse officials about potential pardons? not the president, sir. >> mr. chairman, without in any way suggesting that i have had any conversations concerning pardons, totally apart from that, there are promise of communications within the department of justice that we share all of us do. we have a right to have full and robust debate within the department of justice. we encourage people to speak up and argue cases on different sides. those arguments are not -- historically we've seen they shouldn't be revealed. >> i would hope you would you agree that since you've recused

yourself from this investigation, that if the president or others would pardon someone during the midst of this investigation our investigation or director mueller's investigation, that would be i would think problematic. i want to, one of the comments you made in your testimony was that you reached this conclusion about the performance of then director comey's ability to lead the f.b.i., that you agreed with deputy attorney general rosenstein's memo. the fact you worked with director comey for some time, did you ever have a conversation as a superior of director comey with his failure to perform or some of these accusations that he wasn't running the f.b.i. in good way or somehow the fbi is in turmoil? did i have any conversations with director comey about those subjects? >> i did not. >> so you were his superior and

there was some fairly harsh things said about director comey. you never thought it was appropriate to raise those concerns before he was actually terminated by the president. >> i did not do so. a memorandum was prepare by the director attorney general noted his performance, noted some serious problems with it. >> you agreed with those observations. >> i agreed with those. in fact, senator warner, we had talked about it even before i was confirmed and before he was confirmed. it's something that we both agreed to that a fresh start at the f.b.i. would probably be the best thing. >> it seems -- i can understand you talk board of director that before you came on. you had a chance for fresh staller there was no fresh start. suddenly within the midst of the investigation and typing that seems peculiar at least to me was out of the blue that president fires the fb f.b.i.

director. if there are all these problems of disarray and lack of accord at the f.b.i. all things that the acting director of the f.b.i. denies is the indicates i would think somebody had that conversation with director comey. he was at least owed that. let's go to the april 28th meeting. i think the chairman brought it up by the time april 27 came around, you had already been named as then candidate trump's national security as viers. viers-- advisor. >> that was at the mayflower hotel. >> yes, sir. my understanding was that the president and jared kushner was at that meeting as well. >> i believe he was, yes. >> you don't recollect whether mr. kushner had any conversations with ambassador kislyak. >> i do not. >> you had no conversation with ambassador kislyak at that meeting. >> i don't recall it, senator

warner. certainly i can assure you nothing improper, if i had had a conversation with him. and it's conceivable that occurred. i just don't remember it. >> but there was nothing in your notes or memory so that when you had a chance and you did and i appreciate corrected the record about the other two sessions in response to that, this one didn't pop into your memory that there was over abundance of caution that you ought to report this session as well. >> well, i guess i could say that i possibly had a meeting but i still do not recall it. and i did not in any way fail to record something in my testimony or in my subsequent letter intentionally false. >> i understand that, sir. i'm just trying to understand when you corrected the record, clearly by the time you had a chance to correct the record i would have thought you had own ambassador kislyak was at that

april 27th session. it received quite a bit of press notoriety. and again, echoing what the chairman has said, just again for the record, there was no other meeting with any other officials of the russian government during the campaign season. >> not to my recollection. i would just say with regard to the two encounters, one at the mayflower hotel that you referred to, i came there not knowing he was going to be there. i don't have any recollection of even knowing he would be there. i didn't have any communications with him before or after that event. and likewise, at the event at the convention, i went off the convention grounds to a college campus for an event -- >> at the mayflower event -- >> let me just follow up on that one. i didn't know he would be in the audience and had no --

>> there was i guess this vip reception first and then people went into the speech. >> that's my impression, that's my recollection. >> you were part of the vip reception. >> yes. >> general sessions, one of the troubling things that i need to sort through is, mr. comey's testimony last week was that he felt uncomfortable when the president asked everyone else to leave the room, he left the impression you lingered perhaps the sense you felt uncomfortable about it as well. i'm going to allow you to answer and correct it if that's not the right impression. after this meeting took place, which clearly director comey felt had some compromise you never asked mr. comey what took place in that meeting? >> well, i would just say it this way. we were there. i was standing there and without

revealing any conversation that took place, what i do recall is that i did depart. i believe everyone else did depart and director comey was sitting in front of the president's desk and they were talking. so that's what i do remember. i believe it was the next day that he said something, egg ex-- expressed concern about being left alone with the president. but that in itself is not problematic. he did not tell me at that time any details about anything that was said that was improper. i affirmed his concern we should be following the proper guidelines of the department of justice and basically backed him up in his concerns and that he should not carry on any conversation with the president or anyone else about an investigation in a way that was not proper. i felt he was so long in the

department, former deputy attorney general as i recall, knew those policies probably a good deal better than i did. >> thank you sir, i thank you mr. chairman. but it did appear that mr. comey felt that the conversation was improper. >> he was concerned about it. his recollection of what he said to me about his concern i don't, is consistent with my recollection. >> senator risch. >> attorney general sessions, good to hear you talk about how important this russian interference and active measures in our campaign is. i don't think there's any american who would disagree with the fact that we need to drill down to this, know what happened, get it out in front of the american people and do what we can to staunch it. that'it-- stop it. that's what this committee is to do. as you remember the "new york times" published an articlin are alleging there were constant communications between the trump

campaign and the russians in collusion regarding the election. do you recall that article when it came out. >> not exactly. >> generally. >> generally i remember those. >> mr. comey told us when he was here last week that he had a very specific recollection. in fact he chased it down through the intelligence community and was not able to find a scintilla of evidence to that effect. then the republicans and democrats up here to tell them that this was false, that there was no such facts anywhere that corroborated from the "new york times" had reported. nonetheless, after that, this committee took that on as one of the thing we've spent really substantially more time on that than we have on the russian active measures. we've been through thousands of pages of information, interviewed witnesses and everything else. we're really no different than where we were when this whole thing started. there's been no reports that i

know of, of any factual information regarding any. are you aware of any such information. >> that arose from the dossier, so-called dossier, is at that time what what you're referring to. >> from anywhere. >> i believe that's the report that senator franken hit me with when i was testifying and i think it's been pretty substantiately discreditesubstat you would know more than i. i participated in the continuing communications with the russians as a surrogate is absolutely false. >> mr. sessions there's been all this talk about conversations and you you had some conversations with the russians. senators up here who aren't either foreign relations or intelligence arms services, conversations with officers of other governments or ambassadors or what have you are every day or curbs herecurrences, multipls is that a fair statement.

>> yes. >> if you run into one at the grocery store you would have a conversation with hip. >> that may happen. nothing improper. >> on the other hand, collusion with russians or any other government for that matter when it comes to our election certainly would be improper and illegal. would that be a fair statement. >> absolutely. >> are you willing to sit here and tell the american people unfiltered by what the media's going to put out that you participated in no conversations of any kind, whether it was collusion between the trump campaign and any other foreign government. >> i can say that absolutely. i have no hesitation to do so. >> mr. sessions, you're a former u.s. states, former u.s. attorney and attorney general of the united states. you participated as you said in the trump campaign. as such you traveled with the campaign, i gather. >> i did. >> you spoke for the campaign. >> on a number of occasions. i was not continually. >> based upon your experience and based upon your

participation of the campaign, did you hear even a whisper or a suggestion or anyone making reference with within that campaign to somehow the russians were involved in the exhibit. >involved -- in the campaign. >> no i have not. >> what would you have done that. >> i would have noted it was improper. >> and headed for the exit. >> maybe. this is a serious matter because what you're talking about everythin,hacking into a privatr dnc computer and obtaining information and spreading that out. that's just not right. i believe it's likely that laws were violated if that actually occurred. so it's an improper thing. >> mr. sessions, has any person from the whitehouse or the administration including the president of the united states, either directed you or asked you to do any unlawful or illegal act since you've been attorney general of the united states.

>> no, senator risch, he did not. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> senator feinstein. >> thanks, very much, mr. chairman. welcome, attorney general. >> thank you. >> on may 19, mr. rosenstein in a statement to the house of representatives essentially told them that he learned on may 8th that president trump intended to remove director comey. when you wrote your letter on may 9, did you know that the president had already decided to fire director comey? >> senator feinstein, i would say that i believe it's been made public that the president asked us our opinion. it was given and he asked us to put that in writing. i don't know how much more he

said about it than that. but i believe he has talked about it and i would let his word speak for themselves. >> well, on may 11th, on nbc nightly news, two days later the president stated he was going to fire comey regardless of the recommendation. so i'm puzzled about the recommendation, because the decision had been made. so what was the need for you to write a recommendation? >> well, we were asked our opinion and when we expressed it which was consistent with the memorandum and the letter we wrote, i felt comfortable if i guess the deputy attorney general did too in providing that information in writing. >> so do you concur with the president that he was going to

fire comey regardless of recommendation because the problem was the russian investigation? >> senator feinstein i guess i'll just have to let his words speak for themself. i'm not sure what was in his mind explicitly when we talked with him. >> did you ever discuss director comey's f.b.i. handling of the russian investigation with the president or anyone else? >> senator feinstein, that would call for a communication between the attorney general and the president and i'm not able to comment on that. >> you are not able to answer the question here whether you ever discussed that with him? >> that's correct. >> how do you view that since you discussed his termination, why wouldn't you discuss the reasons. >> well, those were put in

writing and sent to the president. he made those public, so he made that public. >> you had no verbal conversation with him about the firing of mr. comey. >> i'm not able to discuss with you or confinger or deny the nature of our private conversations that i may have had with the president on this subject or others. and i know that how this will be discussed but that's the rule that has been long adhered to by the department of justice as you know, senator feinstein. >> you're a long time colleague, but we heard mr. coats and heard admiral rogers say essentially the same thing when it was easy just to say if the answer was no, no. >> well, it would have been easier to say yes, yes but both would have been improper. >> okay.

so how exactly were you involved in the termination of director comey? because i am am looking at your letter dated may 9 and you say the director of the f.b.i. must be someone who follows faithfully the rules and principles, who sets the right example for on you law enforcement officials, therefore i must recommend that you remove director comey and identify and an perienced and qualified individual to lead the men and women of the f.b.i. do you really believe that this had to do with director comey's performance with the men and women of the f.b.i.? >> there was a clear view of mine and of deputy attorney general rosenstein as he set out at some length in his memoranda

which i awe dawfnt adopted and e president there were problems there and it was my best judgment that a fresh start at the f.b.i. was the appropriate thing to do. and when i said that to the president as something i had adhered to, deputy rosenstein's letter dealt with a number of things. when mr. comey declined the clinton prosecution, that was really a usurpation of the authority of the federal prosecutors in the department of justice. it was a stunning development. the f.b.i. is the investigationive team. they don't decide prosecution policies. so that was a thunderous thing. he also commented at some length on the dec c of declamation of

clinton. policies are you decline and don't talk about it. there were other thing that happened that indicated to me a lack of december plunge and it caused -- discipline and it caused controversy on both sides of the ail ail and aisle and io conclusion that i needed to put that in writing. >> my time is up. >> thank you for being here attorney general. i want to go become to february 14th and close the loop on the details. director comey was here and provided details. there was a meeting in the oval office on the 14th. you recall being there along with him. at some point the meeting concluded, the president, everyone got up to leave, the president asked director comey to stay behind, correct. >> that's a communication in the whitehouse i would not comment on. >> you remember him staying

behind. >> yes. >> his at th testimony was of wu ling offered and he said you lingered because you needed to stay that was his characterization. do you remember lingering that you needed to stay. >> i do recall being one of the last ones to leave. >> did you decide to be one of the last ones to leave. >> i don't know how that occurred. we had finished i think this terrorism, counterterrorism briefing there were a number of people there and people were filtering out. i do recall i was one of the last two or three to leave. >> would it be fair to say you felt perhaps you needed to stay because it involved the fbi jrvetiof.b.i.director. >> i don't know how i would characterize that senator rubio. i left. it didn't seem to me to be a major problem. i knew that director comey long time experience in the department of justice could handle himself well.

>> so you saw him after that and he characterized it he went up to you and said never leave me alone with the president again it's not appropriate. and he said h this is his characterization and you kind of shugged just to say what am i supposed to do bit. >> i think i described it more directly, more completely. he raised that issue with me i believe the next day. i think that was correct. and he expressed concern to me about that private conversation. and i agreed with him essentially that there are rules on private conversations with the president. through those not a prohibition on a private discussion with the president as i believe he's acknowledged six or more himself with president obama and president trump. so i didn't feel like -- and he gave me no detail about what it was that he was concernedñr abo.

>> so -- >> i didn't say i wouldn't be able to respond if he called me. he certainly knew that with regard, that he could call his direct supervisor which in the department of justice the direct supervisor to the f.b.i. is the deputy attorney general. he could have complained to the deputy or to me at any time if he felt pressured but i had no doubt he would not yield to any pressure. >> do you know if the president records conversations in the owe vul office or anywhere in the whitehouse. >> i do not. >> left me ask you this. if any president were to record conversations in his official of the whitehouse or the like would there be an obligation to preserve those records. >> i don't know, senator rubio. probably so. >> i want to go to the campaign for a moment. i'm sure you're aware it's been widely reported that russian intelligence agencies often pose

not simply as an official but covers as businessmen, journalist and the like. at any point during the campaign did you have an interaction with anyone who in hindsight you look back and say they were trying to influence me hear gain insight that in hindsight you look back and wonder. >> i don't believe in my conversations with the three -- >> just in general. >> well, i met a lot of people, a lot of foreign officials who want to argue their case for their country and to point out things that they thought were important for their countries. that's a normal thing i guess we talk about. >> as far as someone who is not an official from another country, just a businessman or anyone walking down the street who kind of struck you as someone who was trying to find out what you were up to or the campaign was up to you never saw any interaction in hindsight that appeared suspicious.

>> i have to rack my brain but i don't recall it now. >> my last question. you were on the foreign policy teen the republican platform was changed to not provide defensive weapons to ukraine. were you involved in that decision? do you know how that change was made or who was involved in making that change. >> i was not active in the platform committee, did not participate in that and don't think i had any direct involvement. >> do you know who did or you have no recollection of a debate about that issue internally in the campaign. >> i never watched the debate. if it occurred on the platform committee, i think it did. so i don't recall that, senator, rubio. i'd have to think about that. >> senator -- >> thank you very much. mr. chairman i want to thank you for holding this hearing in the open in full view of the american people where i belongs. i believe the american people have had it with stonewalling. americans don't want to hear

that answers to relevant questions are privileged and off limits or that they can't be provided in public or that it would be, quote, inappropriate for witnesses to tell us what they know. weawe're talking about an attacn our democratic institution and stone walling is unacceptable. general stetionz ha sessions has acknowledged there's no lealt basis -- legal basis for stonewalling. i asked director comey's about the f.b.i.'s interactions with you general sessions prior to your stepping aside from the russian investigation. mr. comey said that your continued engagement with the russian investigation was, quote, problematic, and he, mr. comey, could not discuss it in public. mr. comey also said that f.b.i. personnel had been calling for you to step aside from the investigation at least two weeks

before you finally did so. now in your 3re7b presented sta, you stated you received only, quote, limited information necessary to inform your recusal decision. but given director comey's statement, we need to know what that was. were you aware of any concerns that the f.b.i. or elsewhere in government about your contact with the russians or any other matters relevant to whether you should step aside from the russian investigation? >> senator wyden, i only not stonewalling. i am following the policies of the department of justice. you don't walk into any hearing or committee meeting and reveal confidential communications with the president of the united states who is entitled to receive confidential communications and your best

judgment about a host of issues. and after being accused of stonewalling for answering them. so i would push back on that. secondly, mr. comey perhaps he didn't know, but i basically recused myself the day, the first day i got into the office because i never accessed files, i never learned the names of investigators. i never met with them. i never asked for any documentation. the documentation, what little i received, was mostly already in the media and was presented by the senior ethics public responsibility professional responsibility attorney in the department. and i made an honest and proper decision to recuse myself as i told senator wine stein an feind senators of the committee i would do when they confirmed me. >> respectfully you're not answering the question. >> what is the question. >> the question is, mr. comey

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

>> some of that leaked out of the committee that he said in closed sessions. >> okay. one more questioned. i asked former f.b.i. director whether your role in firing him violated your recusal given president trump said he fired comey because of the russian investigation. director comey said this was a reasonable question. so i want to ask you just point blank, why did you sign the letter recommending the firing of director comey when it violated your recusal? >> it did not violate my recusal. it did not violate my recusal. that would be the answer to that. and the letter that i signed represented my views that had been formulated for some time. >> mr. chairman, just so i can finish. that answer in my view doesn't pass the smell test. the president tweeted repeatedly about his anger in the investigations about his

associates in russia. the day before you wrote your letter he tweeted the collusion story was a total hoaxed and asked when will this tax-payer funded charade end. i don't think your answer passes is smell test. >> senator i think i should be allowed to briefly respond at least and would say the letter, the memorandum that senator, that deputy rosenstein wrote and my letter that accompanied it, represented my views of the situation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general sessions, i want to clarify who did what with regard to the firing of mr. comey. first of all, rent me as let me, when did you have your first

conversation with rosenstein about mr. comey? >> we talked about it before either withi one of us was conf. it was a tonic of conversation among the people who served in the department a long time. they knew what had happened that fall was pretty dramatically unusual. people felt it was very wrong, and so it was in that context that we discussed it. 1k wwe both found we shareholder common -- schaird common view -- shared common view that a pressure start was appropriate. >> this was based on mr. comey's handling of the investigation involving hillary clinton in which you said that he served the author prosecutors at the department of justice. >> yes. that was part of it. and commenting on the investigation in ways that go beyond the proper policy. we need to restore senator

collins. i think the classic discipline in the department, my team, we've discussed this, has been too much leaking and too much talking publicly about investigations. in the long run, the department historic rule that you remain mum about ongoing investigations is the better policy. >> now subsequently the president asked for you to put your views in writing you testified today. and i believe that you are right to recuse yourself from the ongoing russian investigation. but then on may 9th, you wrote to the president recommending that mr. comey be dismissed. and obviously this went back many months to the earlier conversations you had had with mr. rosenstein. my question is, why do you believe that your recommendation to fire director comey was not

inconsistent with your march 2nd recusal? >> thank you. the recusal involved one case involved in the department of justice. and? the fbi. they conduct thousands of investigations. i'm the attorney general of the united states. it's my responsibility to our judiciary committee and other committees to ensure that that department is run properly. i have to make difficult decisions. and i do not believe that it is a sound position to say that if you're recused for a single case involving any one of the great age says likagencies like ds ora shulings or atf that are part of the den of justice you can't make a decision about the leadership in that agency. >> if you had known that the

spread subsequently was going to go on tv and in an interview with lester holts of nbc would say that this russian thing was the reason for his decision to dismiss the fbi director. would you have felt uncomfortable about the timing of the decision? >> well, i would just say this, senator collins. i don't think it's appropriate to deal with those kind of hypotheticals. i have to deal in actual issues. i would respectfully not comment on that. >> well, let me ask you this. in retrospect, do you believe that it would have been better for you to have stayed out of the decision to fire director comey. >> i think it's my responsibility. i mean, i was appointed to be attorney general, supervising all the federal agencies is my

responsibility. trying to get the very best people in those agencies at the top of them is my responsibility. and i think i had a duty to do so. >> now, director comey testified that he was not comfortable telling you about his one-on-one conversation with the president on february 14th because he believed that you would shortly recuse yourself from the russian investigation which you did. yet, director comey testified that he told no one else at the department outside of the senior leadership team at the f.b.i. do you believe that the director had an obligation to bring the information about the president saying thing he hoped he could let michael flynn go to someone else at the department of justice? there are an awful lot of lawyers at the department of

justice, 10,000 by last count. >> i think the appropriate thing would have been for director comey to talk with the acting deputy attorney general who is his direct supervisor. that was dana bente who had 33 years in the department of justice who was still serving for six years and continues to serve as attorney general appointed by the president obama. he's a man of great integrity and ever knows him, a man of decency and judgment. if he had concerns i think he should have raised it to deputy attorney general binte who would be the appropriate person in any case. if there was any concern i might be recusing myself there was a double reason for him to share it with deputy attorney general bente. >> thank you. >> senator hawaiia heinrich.

>> has the president discussed your recusing yourself. >> senator heinrich i'm not able to share -- >> because you're invoking executive privilege. >> i'm not able to invoke executive privilege that's the president's prerogative. >> my understanding is that you took an oath. you raised your right hand here today and you said that you would solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. now you're not answering questions. you're impeding this investigation. so my understanding of the legal stand standard is that you arthroanswer thequestion, that's the best outcome. you say this is classified, can't answer it here. i'll answer it in closed session. that's bucket number two. bucket number three is to stay i'm invoking executive privilege. there is no appropriateness bucket. it is not a legal standard. can you tell me what are these long standing doj rules that

protect conversations made in the executive without invocabularying executive privilege. >> senator, i'm protecting the president's constitutional right by not giving it away before he has a chance to put it in place. secondly, i an telling the truth in answering your question and saying it's a longstanding policy of the department of justice -- >> is that policy written. >> -- to make sure the president