conflict with the taliban ends, and at that point for those detainees that are being held as enemy belligerents against our enemy, the taliban, unless there is an additional basis for holding them, then we would no longer have that international law basis for holding them. now it has been suggested that the taliban may also be candidates to be held as associates of al qaeda as the cop flikt wi-- as the conflict with al qaeda continues. >> in the point that mr. smith made is that this, this conflict may not end in december just because the majority of our troops are pulled out. >> that is my understanding as well, sir. >> i mean, we thought that the conflict was over in iraq, and we see that it is not. it continues to go on.

now, second thing, and i may have left a wrong impression when i was talking to secretary saying that if you had given the same report that probably would have just solved everything. we still have big concerns about the five. i didn't mention that when we were briefed in november of '11 and january of '12 that there was real concerns of members of congress that those five would be released and in fact, real opposition to it. and that is why we are very concerned that we weren't told, other than if we re-enter the negotiations that you would be told and that we weren't. so those are the things that we really need to have clarified and worked through. mr. thornberry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i would like to begin with a brief observation of the notification issue. for the past several years this

committee has worked on the bipartisan basis to construct cyberterrorism operations and anti-terrorism operations, and in an overall structure of a department that needs the flexibility to operate in a volatility rapidly changing world and still allows us to operate under the constitution, and the basis for all three of those is that we get timely and accurate information from the department, and this failure, even if it was orderred by the white house undermines the ability to have that sort of oversight structure. i have been a member of the intelligence committee for ten years. our work depends on getting accurate, timely information from intelligence community, and if the president can violate the law and say, no, in this case, we won't give you the information, it undermines the

oversight process that we have with the intelligence community. so my point to you is that it is not just about this incident, and it is not just about somebody having their feelings hurt, this decision undermines a lot of the working relationship in all of these eareas of national security. i think that it is important that the whole administration understands some of the ramifications of this. let me ask a specific question. press reports indicate that the sergeant bergdahl was captured by a haqqani network, and was held by the haqqani network, is that true? >> what i would prefer is that as i noted in the classified session that we get into the specifics of that 15-6 comma commanders report done in circumstances at the time of sergeant bergdahl's capture. i believe that was done in august of 2009. that has been sent up here,

unredacted and sent up here yesterday, and i just as soon get into that in a classified meeting, but i would say this though, i would say this, he was in that report, that the army did, he was classified as missing slash captive. so he was not charged -- >> i am just trying to verify as i understand it that the administration people have said that it is the haqqani network that e kept him? >> well, the haqqani network did have him through a period of time. this is another complication that over a five-year period, he was moved around. we had difficulty finding him, and knowing where he was.

different groups held him and the complication of haqqanis being part of that, that is right. >> and also true that the haqqani network is listed as the state department as a foreign terrorist organization? >> yes, that is true. but we did not negotiate with haqqani. >> okay. i think that is a subject that we will want to discuss if we m must in the classified session, but i think that who held him -- >> i want to make sure that the record is clear on that. we engaged the qataris, and they engaged the taliban, and now -- if the haqqanis were subcontr t subcontracting to the taliban or whatever that relationship is that the as you nknow the pakistan taliban and the afghan taliban and there is a difference there, so we get back into definitions of who has responsibility for whom. i just want to make sure that is a clear on the record and we can

go into it a lot more detail. >> okay. >> i think that you pointed out some of the difficulty in making categorical statements that we don't ne goesh yat for terrorists when at least for some period the haqqanis had him. and let me point out one more thing that the five detainees released. you said that there is always some risk associated with releasing someone from guantanamo, but you also said that they have not been implicated in any attacks on the united states. i have some unclassified summary of evidence before the combatant status review tribunals. for example, for mr. fazl, the detainee engaged in activity against the united states or the coalition partners and maybe there is a difference between us and our partners and for mr. wazik, it said that he participated in military operations against the coalition.

so at least some point, there was evidence that they were involve involved in hostilities, military operations against the coalition, weren't there? >> yes. they were mid- to high-ranking members of the taliban government, of the taliban, so yes, they were part of planning, but what my point was, we have no direct evidence of any direct involvement in their direct attacks on the united states or any of the troops. they were part of the taliban at the time some were given to us, we we picked two of them up, and captured two, but yes, they were combatants. >> and so your point is that they did not pull the trigger, but they were senior commanders of the taliban military who directed operations against the united states and its coalition partners. is that a better way to do it? >> no, that is right. no, as i said in the statement, congressman, they were combatant

s and with we were at war with the taliban and no way to get around that, and i made that point, i thought, pretty clearly. >> and just like bin laden didn't pull a trigger, but we went after him, because he is the one who caused the 9/11. ms. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you both for being here, mr. secretary, and i think that your presentation did provide us, i think, additional ways of really looking at discussion. i do understand and how people feel in terms of notice, but i wanted to have an opportunity to just look at that issue and the circumstances under which he was

captured or the fact that regardless of whether or not his life was in in danger would have made any difference in terms of the 30-day notice. you know, it is difficult for me to imagine that members would have included that within the language of that bill. to what extent were those situation situations weigh iing on the decision of whether or not to engage in that the discussion during the imminent danger period? >> well, all of those were factors that we had to consider as we were thinking through this. his deteriorating health which is clear to us from the last proof of life video that we had. the uncertainty of where he with was, who exactly held him, and again, i remind everybody, this service member was held in pretty difficult circumstances

for almost five years. and we don't know the facts of all of that, and until he gets back and we are able to get the facts. the urgency of getting him and the fleeting opportunity that was made clear to us by the qataris and in the negotiation, and mr. preston was there through those, and all of these were factors and the concern about the leaks. we were warned about them. every one of the different dimensions, we had to think through. we did believe, as i said, and we had information to support this that this effort might, might be the last real effort that we have to get him back. there were too many things floating around that we didn't control. we didn't know enough about, and so we had to factor in all of those.

>> did you have any other -- i guess, entertain other approaches to his rescue that you were looking at, at that particular time? why were any of those not followed? >> well, congresswoman, we were, as i said in my statement since the time that he went missing. we were looking at different ways to get him back. our combatant, and as i said in the remarks, you had to factor in the risks to the other forces to go get him. and if he was in pakistan, we know that he was moved in and out and across the border. that would also affect different dimensions, but yes, we looked at all of the options, and had all of the possibilities, but up until this last time, when we got him, in our opinion, in the

intelligence community's opinion, and the military and everyone who was involved, this is the best possibility that we had to get him out, and we were concerned that we might lose him. as i gave you some dimension of the time frame, we didn't even know where we would pick him up. it was less than an hour. >> and the detainees, were there -- was it always this five or were there others -- >> e well, >> well, it started with six. >> yes. >> one of them died and then it went back and forth and they wanted all of the taliban detainee detainees at one point, and we said no, and so this is part of the whole engagement of what we need to do and where we do, we draw a line saying, no, we are not going to do this. so yes, there were different

variations of that engagement over the years. >> all right. thank you, mr. secretary. >> mr. jones. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. secretary hagel, mr. preston, it is good to see you both, and thank you for being here to dda. mr. secretary on june 1st, you were on "meet the press" and you expressed hope that the release of sergeant bergdahl would lead to direct u.s. talk thes with the taliban. mr. sek ta, tcretasecretary, th said that there is not going to be any peace in afghanistan as long as there are prisoners in guantanamo bay, and they have repeated the statements time and time again and they have proven that they do not desire peace with the united states or our allies. with this known, why did you at that point on "meet the press"

express hope, and we can all have hope, that with the release of the sergeant would lead to the some direct negotiation s with the united states, and do you today feel that that is still a real possibility. maybe it is something that you want to say in the classified setting that you can't say here today, but this is to me, your statement was received by many of the people that i represent in the 3rd district of north carolina that maybe there was in this negotiation about the sergeant that maybe there was some signals sent to you, sir, or to the administration that there might be a opportunity for direct negotiations with the taliban.

know i knowing the history of the taliban and how they fought alexander the great, and the brits and now the americans, i would hope that you do know something that you can share with us if not in a public setting but in a private setting and can you comment, sir? >> congressman jones, thank you. good to see you again. >> thank you. >> thank you. first, as you know, the position of the united states government regarding the taliban has always been that we supported reconciliation between the afghan government and the taliban. that has been a general position as you know, but as to the specific answer that i gave on "meet the press" it was to a specific question when we were talking about sergeant bergdahl's release, and i don't recall the question exactly, but if i can piece it together enough to respond, i think that the question was set up, well, could this lead to the

reconciliation with afghanistan and the taliban and i said, well, i hope or maybe or whatever, but no, that is -- that was not any direct hint or wink or possibility that i know something that it is go g ing t happen. but i would also remind us again, to the, too, that if you recall that some of you do, because you were in some of the meetings, briefings, in the 2011/2012 time frame, i wasn't in this job at the time, but i have looked at the files on this, and i have seen it all. there was a larger scope of framework and reconciliation that included bergdahl's release, but the current situation that we were in was a straight get bergdahl. now that does not dismiss, congressman, the hope that there

can be some possibility of the afghan government and taliban find i finding a reconciliation in some way, but in no way intending to imply in the answer that there is something else going on out here. >> and well, my answer was simply that the taliban's history does not seem that they want to see a foreign pres thaens presense that is going to negotiate in the history, and i would hope that for some way that a signal was sent with the intermediary that had been shared and if there has been, maybe you could through the staff or maybe in the classified setting let me know that there are some possibilities, because my mar e marines down in camp lejeune

quite frankly are tired of going to afghanistan and getting their legs blown off. thank you, mr. chairman. >> and we will, congressman jones. yes, thank you. >> mr. alonzo. >> thank you, mr. chairman and, mr. secretary, and thank you for your testimony, and as we were reminded yesterday with the loss of the five american special operating forces, afghanistan remains obviously very dangerous and battlefield for the voluntary military, and i join many of my colleagues of course in expressing the gratitude of the return of an american prisoner of war and the return of any u.s. service member from enemy captivitiment. it should be a priority for his

or herow shoulders for his or her country, and saergeant bergdahl is certainly an american soldier, and so it does however raise concerns. and there are questions regarding both the congressional notification, and the long-term incentives for the taliban and al qaeda. certainly other personnel and resources have been expended to conduct what could result in very dangerous and disturbing incentives on the battlefield as one taliban commander said, and i quote, it has encouraged our people. now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird, end quote. so mr. secretary, how do you anticipate this transfer will

impact the incentive behavior for the taliban and al quaid and are we prepared to encounter any new behavior? >> congressman, i would answer it this way first that almost everybody on the committee knows some more than others who have served in war. war is a dangerous business, and a soldier is always, always at ri risk. that is number one. two, you probably know that the taliban has standing orders to capture american service members, and that is a standing o order for 12 years. so there is nothing new here. about where the taliban have been and continue to be. but i will say this, now that we have the last prisoner back, this very much gives us more flexibility quite frankly to free up resources that everyday

we were thinking of our commanders on the ground in that area how if we have the opportunity to how can we get bergdahl. now that he is back, that frees up the obligation. that actually strengthens the point. and the last point that i'd make, i mentioned it in my comments and again, those who have served in uniform on this committee know this pretty basic to the military and i expressed it in different ways by quoting different senior members of our military and retired that to have our men and women in uniform all over the world who some are at more at risk than others everyday, and to have them be reassured that this country will come back get them or will make every effort to go get them has to be pretty significant. i was told that by all of the

comma commanders. it can be issues on the specifics of sergeant bergdahl, but that is irrelevant quite frankly. he was a member of our armed forces, and we went and we got him back. after five years. i think that is pretty significant. i think that it also falls into the category of your questioning, answering that question, thank you. >> mr. secretary, thank you for that answer. as the chairman and the ranking member have mentioned in their opening statements, questions about sergeant bergdahl's conduct should be addressed with the due process at the appropriate time, and such, but could you settle one conflicting report at least in terms of regarding the number of the loss of soldiers who may have been involved in searches for sergeant bergdahl? >> first, any loss of any so

soldier is a terrible loss to their family, to our country. and i think that we should note that first. second, your question has been asked a number of times. i have personally gone back and asked that question inside of the pentagon. in the army, in all of the reports, i have seen no evidence that directly links any american combat death to the rescue or the find org the search of sergeant bergdahl. and i have asked the question. we have all asked the question. i have seen no evidence, no facts presented to me me when i ask that question. >> mr. secretary, you did say that there is nothing new here and that the taliban is always out to try to capture us, but

isn't it true that there is one thing that new that we have now made a trade for a hostage? >> no, he was not a hostage. he was a prisoner of war, and that is not new. >> have we made other trades with the taliban? >> with the taliban, i don't know. i don't think so. i don't think so. >> thank you. >> mr. forbes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for being here, and mentioning the need for transparency and as you talked about the inability to prosecute the individuals that were released, this administration is not exactly had a stellar record on prosecution of people at gitmo, when you look at the fact that the lead prosecutor for the 9/11 terrorists had specifically said that he would have had a guilty plea out of all of them within six months, and this ed administration came in and shut down the prosecution, and destroyed all of the pretrial work and we have been five years and still not brought them to trial. secondly, i don't think that

even you would argue that the conversations that took place in 2011 complied with the law, and basically what we are trying to get across is that we are a nation of laws, and you can't pick and choose, because they are convenient or not convenient which ones we are going to enforce and which ones we ant aren't, and the third thing, and you said it, there are limits to trades that we make and some where we draw the line. i want to talk about drawing the line. the individuals that we released were equivalent to releasing a deputy secretary of defense and intelligence and interior and governor and commander and when the president was asked if there was a possibility of them returning to activities that were detrimental to the u.s., his answer was absolutely. the deputy director of national intelligence was harsher and he said that the latest community-wide intelligence assessment on the terrorists said he expected 4 of the 5 taliban leaders would return to the battlefield, and this

assessment was in accord with the 2010 pentagon dossier saying that all five individuals released were considered to be high risk to launch attacks against the united states and to a allies if they were liberated. you state in the testimony that if any of the detainees ever tried to join the fight, they would be doing so at their own peril. so my first question to you is, does this mean that you would put american lives at risk to go after them? >> congressmen, we have american lives at risk everyday -- >> but not individuals that we have released and put back out there, and my question is would we put american lives at risk if we asked them to go rejoin the fight? >> well, depending upon the threat, but also e let me remind you of the other pieces that you did not nengs the andb sis of these five. the intelligence community has said clearly that these five are not a threat to homeland. >> mr. secretary, you have said

it here that if they rejoined the fight, they do it at their own peril. >> in afghanistan. >> and my question is a pretty simple one, would we put american lives at risk to go after them? >> we have -- >> yes or no? >> we have american lives put at risk everyday to go after people coming -- >> my question is simple, would we put american lives at risk to -- >> well, you could use the same argument on yesmen and everywhere else. >> i could, but not because of the individuals that we have released. and the second question that i would ask you is two parts, in the calculus that you made for releasing these individuals, were you asked or did you make an assessment of the number of american lives that were lost or put at risk in capturing these individuals in the first place? and did you make an assessment of the number of american lives that may be put in risk if we have to go recapture them again?

>> again, i saw no evidence and no facts and i asked the question about how these five found their way to guantanamo, and i have in front of me the facts on the five. two of them were detained by u.s. forces. >> mr. secretary i understand that, and we have the clock and i have 50-some questions. >> and the answer is no. >> so you did not make a calculus. >> i said i did, and i answered that you asked if lives were lost in kcapturing these and i said no. >> you said no. >> and i have no direct evidence that there were any lives lost in -- >> and did you make an assessment of how many american lives would be at risk if they have to be recaptured? >> no. but there is risks that we have to our country threats that our to our country everyday

everywhere. and the other point i would make on this, we determined that there was a substantial mitigation of the risks for this country, for our interests, for our citizens and our service members when we made this decision. and part ly because of -- we wee satisfied that we could make that determination. >> it flies in the face of all of the other evidence that we have, and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> and now mr. -- mrs. vadalio. >> mr. secretary, i appreciate the information in the statement, and i support your position. i do appreciate, also, your continued commitment to the men and women in uniform and the steadfast leadership in the challenging times. my first question for you, mr. secretary, what impact would sergeant bergdahl's continued

imprisonment if we had not engaged in the exchange had on the security situation in afghanistan as we draw down the forces? did his continued imprisonment pose a continued threat to the mep and women in uniform? >> well, in a sense, congresswoman, that as i answered in a previous question about putting at risk american lives to capture him, i mean, not to capture him, but the to get him back, and to do that if it would have taken another course of action or taken another option, that would have put our men and women at risk, and the men and women are at risk in fact carrying out this one mission, but fortunately, it was done right way and i don't think that, again, that effort has gotten enough attention.

this was all done in less than 60 seconds and not one death, not one issue, not one problem. and i have seen very little recognition of that givetone the for -- of that given to the forces by anybody, and that is a significant effort by our armed forces knowing as little as they did and planning it adds well as they did and having the outcome as positively as it was. thank you. >> i agree. and my next question is for mr. preston, with the heightened media attention, how will you ensure that mr. bergdahl receives a fair investigation? >> thank you. we will pursue our usual policies and practices with respect to the investigations and follow-on action ascii element of that is avoid iing wt is referred to as unlawful or undue command influence.

so you will see that the le leadership, military and civilian at the department, have been entirely neutral in the discussion of this, and focused on ensuring due process without prejudging what the outcome should be one way or another. those dealing with sergeant bergdahl more directly, and the army more generally are, i believe, sensitive to ensuring that in the process of bringing him home, and restoring him to health and debriefing him for intelligence purposes and then ultimately reviewing the circumstances of his capture that fairness be preserved and that his rights be preserved. >> thank you, thank you. my final question is for secretary hagel, prior to securing the recovery of sergeant bergdahl, had you received correspondence from members of congress requesting

that you take action to obtain sergeant bergdahl's release? >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. miller. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. secretary for being here, and i am looking at the testimony, and on the third page, excuse me, it says that we complied with the national defense authorization act of 2014. did you or did you not notify congress within the 30-day time frame, yes or no? >> no. >> yes or no, sir. >> no. >> and does the administration violate the requirements of the nda, and the dod appropriations act of future transfers? >> no, not unless there's an extraordinary set of circumstances like this one would we be in a position to make a call like that. >> ald would you ensure this

committee that you will not proceed with future transfers without requiring congress consistent with the law? >> and we have, and be before my time, in every circumstance except for this one, and again, we intend to do that. >> and you were part of the legislative branch as a member of the united states senate, and we make the laws, and you are part of the executive branch now, which the responsibility to enforce the law, and whose responsibility it is to interpret the law? is the president's responsibility or it is the court's? >> the courts. >> then why did the president make the decision or you make the decision not to notify congress? >> well, we believed in the justice department office of legal counsel -- >> part of the executive branch. >> told the president that he had the constitutional authority to do that. he had under his constitutional powers the authority to make the decision that he h did. >> you said that you would put american lives at risk if the

taliban prisoners that were swapped in the secret deal would rejoin the fight, if they rejoin the fight in afghanistan, and what if they rejoined it from somewhere else, because they don't have to be on the battlefield of afghanistan and certainly we would pursue them wherever they are. >> we would do everything that we needed to do to as we have said to deal with that threat as we are doing today. >> your testimony is that we are doing everything that we can -- >> to deal with the threats to the united states of america whether they are in afghanistan or whether they are in yemen or homeland defense. it is not just limited to afghanistan, the threats that face this country. >> and mr. secretary, you keep saying that we can't get the fact facts from sergeant bergdahl until he returns home. have you ever thought of going to landstuhl and talking to him there? >> well, i don't know how much medical training you have had,

congressman, and i haven't had much, and what we are doing is that we are allowing -- >> well, i will tell you, mr. secretary. >> -- to allow the doctors to make that decision. >> wait a minute, why has he not been returned to the united states? we have serious wounded soldiers returned to the united states almost immediately after they were stabilize and how long did jessica lynch wait before she was returned to the united states, and you are trying to tell me that he is being held at landstu landstuhl, germany, because of his medical condition. >> congressman, i hope that you are not implying anything other than that? >> i am just asking the question, mr. secretary. >> well, i don't like the implication of the question. >> i want an answer. >> he is being held there until the medical professionals believe that he is ready to take the next step of rehabilitation. >> have you ever seen a tramatically injured service

member brought to the united states immediately upon being stabilize at landstuhl? we do it all of the time. >> in is not just about a physical situation, congressman. this guy was held for almost five years in god knows what kind of conditions, and we do know some of the conditions from our intelligence community, and not from by the way, bergdahl, but this is not just about can he get on the feet and walk and get to a plane. >> and so you are telling me that he cannot be questioned because of his condition? >> i am telling you that the medical professionals that we rely on judgment for his health which i assume that everybody respects, have made the determination, and will make the determination that when he is ready to move and move to the next step which is most likely in san antonio, then we can proceed. that is what i am saying. >> one other question, why is the army just now reviewing the circumstances is of sergeant bergdahl's capture? >> they are not. i said in the testimony and i said in the comments they did it back after he went missing in

2009. that 15-6 report was filed, completed by general sk scriapperati who is in command, and that was sent up unredacted to the hill to all of the committee thes and you are woelcome ewoel k woelco woelcomeed to read it. >> and it will be made to all of the members in the proper setting to review. mr. courtney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses for being here today and secretary hagel who laid out in the powerful testimony that laid out that not every choice in your position is black and white and that you have to weigh in all of the factors and one of the factors that i want to re-emphasize is that in terms of deciding this back on may 27th,

i mean, it wasn't like you had a lot of other options, and there was no plan b or c that was sitting on your desk in terms of how to get this american soldier back in our jurisdiction, isn't that correct? >> that is exactly correct, because there was no option. >> and there are members who have been on some of the shows saying, well, we should have sent the special forces in to get him, and we were actually not clear where he was -- >> that is right. >> and so there was not a place to send special forces to recover him. you also, again, and this is alluded to the earlier that in terms of the risk mitigation of the five transferees, taliban transferee transferees that if they do get back into the conflict, they do so at their own peril. secretary kerry in some of the public setting also made the comment that it is not like we are totally without options to,

you know, raise their risks in terms of getting back involved in the fight. again, they don't always involve the use of military personnel. i mean, we have all been on the codels to afghanistan, most of us, and we have seen the availability of unmanned asset s that we have to take the out targets that, again, have been identified through the chain of command, isn't that correct? >> that is correct. >> and certainly, that would be available to us, again, if a situation arose that would not put soldiers or airmen or anyone necessarily atk? >> that is right. >> and mr. preston, you know, we have been sort of talking about the legal sort of consultation that was going on with your office and the department of justice during that five or six-day period when the decisions were being made.

did doj address in terms of the legal opinions that you were given with consultation with congress, the 30-day requirement? is. >> yes, sir. pardon me. the administration sought to guidance from the department of justice on the applicability and impact of the 30-day notice requirement under these circumstances and received guidance from the department of justice. >> and was that in writing? >> in exchange primarily. >> i know that there is a request for documents that are going to be forthcoming and i assume that it is part of the requests in terms of making a legal analysis that you requested and received or offered from doj, that is one of the documents that you would share with us, i hope that you would. >> we will certainly take a that back.

we appreciate that there is interes interest, and we certainly want to make sure that interested members fully understand that legal basis on which the administration acted. as for the disposition of the document, we will take that back. >> again, i will follow up with the chairman, because i believe it is important that if the department was claiming a constitutional authorities which is what the secretary mentioned in termings of that issue, we would like to see that analysis. and with that, i would yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. >> and mr. preston, when did you consult the doj on the 30-day notification? on what date was that? >> mr. chairman, i don't remember the precise date, but it was in the time frame in which we had completed our

discussion with the qataris with the mou and signed, and we anticipated that the situations would a arise and i engaged with my counter part at the national security council who in turn engaged with the department of justice to ask them to consider the constitutional and legal implications in this setting. >> you recall last week when you and other members were, other members of the administration were briefing the staff, i attended and mr. thornberry attended that briefing and i asked the question if at any time since the january discussions started you had talked about the 30-day e requirement, and nobody said at that time there was a discussion

about it. >> i don't recall that exchange, sir, but i can assure you that the 30-day requirement was discussed. the part of the lawyers in this and my part was that in working with my counterpart at the nsc to solicit the department of justice's guidance and that guidance was provided to the decision-makers who made the judgment about whether the circumstances would, a set of particular circumstances in this particular case would permit the 30-day, the formal 30-day not e notice. >> in is one of the things that has bothered me about reports that we are hearing in the press and some of the briefings that we have had over a period of time that we get different answers from one time to another. we will go back to check the notes from that meeting, but when i asked that specific question, it with was nobody responded, and you were in that and you were one of the

briefers. >> i frankly don't know whether the question was directed to me or whether it was properly understood. i can tell you -- >> i asked all of the briefers and i said at any time in i of the meetings did you discuss the law that pertained to the 30-day notice to congress, and -- >> well, i can only say that in no uncertain terms that we set in motion an effort to get authoritative guidance from the department of justice on the legal issues and that guidance was part of and provided to decision-ma decision-makers who addressed what the administration was going to do vis-a-vis congressional notification. >> so you had time to discuss this with the department of justice and you could have used that same time to talk to congress about it? >> i can just speak for my part of it which is that we foresaw the possibility that these issues would arise and wanted to

have -- >> well, what i was trying to determine when i asked the e question last week was if you had just forgotten the law or if you had purposely decided not to address it, and it sounds like what you are saying right now is that you thought about it, you were aware of it and you had a discussion about it, and decided that the law didn't apply. >> we certainly thought about it. we did not ignore the law, and we solicited guidance on this extraordinary set of circumstances -- hello, everyone. we are watching secretary chuck hagel testifying for the better part of an hour in congress about the exchange of five

guantanamo detainees for sergeant bowe bergdahl. and there were not that many fireworks from the setup, with secretary hagel saying right off of the top that he never would have signed off of any decision that he felt was not in the best interest of this country, and also admitting that he could have done a better job informing the members of congress who are concerned with the time line, but one of the headlines, luke, hagelle said no evidence of combat deaths related to the search for sergeant bowe bergdahl and you know it is one of the major headlines when members of his own platoon criticized him. >> yes, it was a big moment in the hearing, tamron, and i want to go back to what you said originally that chuck hagel said it is in the direct interest of the united states and that is a direct rebuttal to speaker john

boehner in which he said that this deal made americans less safe because it opened up the avenue of negotiating with terrorist terrorists, and that is what is interesting in the hearing. and another interesting nugget here being questioned by buck mckeshm mckeon that if they had been more open that this consternation could have been averted and he went on to ask if the five gitmo prisoners traded would have headed back to the battlefield and that is an important issue, but something that i found fascinating. but another issue that hagel hit on which is by going after and securitying bergdahl in the environment is the only time when they said they had, they feel it frees up resources to focus on other areas of the fight which also had not come out, and the bottom line, tamron, this is about the separation of the executive b n branch and the legislative branch, and they feel slighted that over 80 to 90 administration officials were

briefed on this, but they were not. and hagelle is doing a lot better here than confirmation he hearing on the hill which was a disaster. >> and bringing you in, chuck hagel said about notifying congress, there was a fleeting opportunity, and there had been concerns about possible leaks involved and something that luke touched on it as well, his ability to juxtapose the position not only as a former member of the military, but a member of the senate foreign relations committee and now the secretary of defense, and it seems to have stymied some of the heat that many people were expecting from the first hearing. >> i agree, tamron. i think that chuck hagel made a very strong performance today. it continues. i think that the house committee, the armed services committee, not surprisingly has taken exactly the wrong tact. most of the time it has been

taken up by whether the administration denies the prif perks of congress in making the decision to free sergeant bergdahl. you president isn't that popular at the moment. his approval ratings are in the mid-40s. congress' approval rating is at 11%. i don't think many americans think congress would have done a better job deciding whether to free sergeant bergdahl or not. as luke said, we're talking about a separation of powers question. congress passed a law, the legislative branch passed a law limiting the powers of the executive branch. the commander in chief. when he signed that law, president obama made a signing statement saying, you know, this isn't constitutional. i'm not going to follow it at all times. and it turns out that's exactly what he did in the case of bergdahl. >> and the other point directed

at these members of congress from hagel. at least in his words, the prisoner exchange was done legally. he said it was substantial mitigation of risk to our countries and national interest. and luke, he went on to make the point of the team that went in to rescue sergeant bergdahl, saying that he's not heard from any of them, or from very few people who have applauded the fact that these men put their lives on the line, and that this recovery happened without any loss of american lives. >> yeah, i found it interesting that chuck hagel really called out those who went after not only sergeant bergdahl, but also his family, as well as questioning the rationale of the u.s. returning their p.o.w.s home, if given the opportunity. and that kind of ties in with what you said earlier, hagel describing his own experiences.

i found it interesting in reading sort of the back story about this, tamron, chuck hagel wrote his own testimony today. and he said in some reports that a lot of this was influenced by when he was in vietnam and would go on patrols and try to help young soldiers who were in fact in danger. this was sort of the ethos of the military, if you will. chuck hagel really pushing that point, which i think sort of tampered down some of the fireworks that could have been possible in this hearing, because it was a very sober point and one that's very important for all americans. >> luke and roger, thank you very much. i greatly appreciate you joining us. the big political story we're continuing to follow, the shock and, frankly, disbelief of what people are calling one of the most stunning upsets in modern public history. eric cantor is expected back on capitol hill this morning, just hours after his stunning virginia primary defeat by dave brat. he spoke to chuck todd just a

few hours ago and said his win is about more than just one issue. >> immigration is a part of that aspect, but i ran on the fiscal issues, and the republican creed, amnesty at the end with a clear differentiator. but it fits into the whole narrative. and it also fits into the narrative that eric has not been present in the district. >> making his double-digit win all that more stunning. his victory came despite having raised a little over $200,000 compared to $5 million raised by cantor. joining me senior political editor mark murray. mark, a lot happening here. first, the battle for power within the republican ranks. some already saying that cantor needs to leave his position and not be a lame duck minority leader. >> there's so many repercussions from eric cantor's loss last

night. becoming heir apparent to john boehner is certainly one of those repercussions. if he decides he doesn't want to be, there's going to be a big battle on who's the next speaker. everybody thought eric cantor was in line for that position. now, tamron, it's all open. it would create a big race. even if you have john boehner deciding to stay on as speaker, there will be a really big campaign, a battle to be house majority leader, assuming republicans control congress in 2015. i think all indications are that they will. >> let's talk about the armchair quarterbacking right now. brad saying this is not one-issue race, that it was not exclusive to cantor's stance on a dream-like plan to allow children in this country here illegally, to have some kind of status. what's the first retake here today? >> cantor's loss was almost a perfect storm of a lot of factors. immigration was a very big part

of this, tamron. and looking ahead to whether the house of representatives, controlled by republicans, ends up trying to put an immigration reform bill to be passed this year, i think it's very unlikely that that happens. it was already unlikely, i think it's even more unlikely a day afterwards. immigration reform advocates are saying that republicans need to deal with immigration reform heading into 2016. this is proof, cantor's loss is proof. the longer this goes on, that this is going to continue to take down members of congress. and even people like eric cantor who are trying to have it the middle way, like on the dream act. this makes it much harder to deal with. then it becomes a 2016 story putting republicans in a bigger problem when they have to win some states with more latino voters. >> we have people saying how did this happen, you know, the political media, how did captor and others not see this coming. >> tamron, there's once every three or four years that we get a race like this that no one saw

coming. this is a perfect storm of events. eric cantor didn't pay enough attention to his district, the immigration issue, and one opponent, lindsay graham had six opponents in south carolina, was able to win. he was able to get above 50%. eric cantor had just one opponent. if you didn't like eric cantor, you voted for dave brat, and that's what happened. >> thank you for squeezing this in with the other big news today. that does it for this edition of "news nation." we'll see you tomorrow. up next, andr"andrea mitchell report reports". if i can impart one lesson to a

new business owner, it would be one thing i've learned is my philosophy is real simple american express open forum is an on-line community, that helps our members connect and share ideas to make smart business decisions. if you mess up, fess up. be your partners best partner. we built it for our members, but it's open for everyone. there's not one way to do something. no details too small. american express open forum. this is what membership is. this is what membership does.

that's keeping you from the healthcare you deserve. at humana, we believe if healthcare changes, if it becomes simpler... if frustration and paperwork decrease... if grandparents get to live at home instead of in a home... the gap begins to close. so let's simplify things. let's close the gap between people and care. ♪

that would be my daughter -- hi dad. she's a dietitian. and back when i wasn't eating right, she got me drinking boost. it's got a great taste, and it helps give me the nutrition i was missing. helping me stay more like me. [ female announcer ] boost complete nutritional drink has 26 essential vitamins and minerals, including calcium and vitamin d to support strong bones and 10 grams of protein to help maintain muscle. all with a delicious taste. grandpa! [ female announcer ] stay strong, stay active with boost. right now on "andrea mitchell reports," shock wave. the stunning upset as political novice and tea partier david brat topples house majority leader eric cantor in the virginia republican primary. it was a perfect storm in the seventh district, from low voter turnout to the hot-button issue of immigration reform splashed across the front pages all week,

as waves of undocumented children are crossing the border. >> look, obviously we came up short. >> the miracle that just happened, this is a miracle from god that just happened. >> today assessing the aftermath from this historic surprise. a spoof republican party and do-nothing congress, and what does it all mean for the mid-terms and beyond. his biggest frustration after yet another school shooting. this time an oregon high school, where a teenager shot and killed a 14-year-old student and injured a teacher. president obama lashes out. >> we're the only society -- we're the only developed country on earth where this happens. and it happens now once a week. and it's a one-day story. there's no place else like this. >> and ready or not, in her interview with nbc news, hillary clinton reveals the one thing that could keep her from running