>> again, congresswoman, is there someone that provides you the basis for that question or is that an anonymously asked -- >> i am asking the question, sir. answer the question, yes or no. >> could you repeat the question, please. >> so you are denying the reports that you shared many one-on-one calls with president trump and then his chief of staff, john kelly? are you denying that, yes or no? >> congresswoman, as i've mentioned several times in my opening statement and otherwise, i'm not talking about the conversations that i've had with the president of the united states or the senior staff. >> so that is a no? >> i don't think you can assume anything from that. >> well, let me just pursue on my line of questioning. since the investigation has secured numerous indictments, i would like to pursue the line of questioning with respect to your understanding of the mueller investigation and the review that you have given. have you given an extensive review?

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

fbi? >> congresswoman, i'm not here to answer hypothetical questions. i'm here for an oversight hearing. i don't believe -- >> you have the responsibility of answering the question. would you have contacted the fbi if you were asked to take dirt on your opponents? >> congresswoman, if i was contacted by a foreign national or a foreign country when i was a candidate for the united states senate, i would have most likely reached out to the fbi, but it didn't happen so it's hard for me to answer your hypothetical question. >> with respect to civil rights, you have not under your jurisdiction prosecuted one voting rights case, is that correct? >> the time of the general lady has expired. the witness may answerquestion. >> congresswoman, just so i have a complete answer on this, we'll follow up in writing as to the voting rights cases that we've done. >> thank you. mr. gomert. >> and you're watching the house judiciary committee questioning

acting attorney general matt whitaker about his handling of the mueller probe. you were just watching sheila jackson lee of texas and the interactions of course with president trump at stake. i'm and rea mitchell in washington. we'll continue with live coverage of the hearing right now. we'll also be bringing you the bombshell bezos story. we're awaiting president trump's imminent departure for his annual physical at walter reed. if he stops to take questions, we'll of course bring that to you. but for now back to the hearing. >> that identifies the subjects and the targets of the investigation, so i'm concern that it would have identified the scope of the investigation pursuant to the special counsel's -- >> well, my question is why. it was two and a half months after the special counsel was formed. so let's go back to the beginning document which you told the chairman earlier you were completely briefed on the special counsel's investigation. it's just a one-page order. order 3915-2017 says this. the special counsel is authorized to conduct the

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

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

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

investigate? >> congressman -- >> because if that's the case, i hope you -- i want to know yes or no, i hope you answer it. >> this is the subject of an ongoing investigation. i spoke to you generally about investigations. >> but i'm asking you a specific -- let me ask it this way. can you give us assurances that there are not specific names under this 70% redacted memo that rod rosenstein sent to the special counsel? >> congressman jordan, i know this is -- >> you know why i ask this, mr. attorney general. because in this country we don't investigate people, we investigate crimes. if there are specific american citizens names in this redacted -- and i asked mr. rosenstein to see this and he got all mad and huffy in his office and wouldn't show it to me. but i think the american people, if this alters, changes and names specific americans, the scope of the investigation of the special counsel, don't you think it's appropriate for the american citizens to know the full parameters of an investigation into the guy they made president of the united states? >> congressman, let me be very

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

a rather scathing report on the gsa's decision not to address significant issues concerning the government's post office and its lease to the trump family concerning the emoluments clause and gsa attorneys said they did not refer the matter but a senior attorney said the office of legal counsel knew about the post office lease and it was up to them to do something. are you aware of anything the department of justice did to look into the emoluments clause at the hotel? >> congressman,the emoluments clause is the subject of many litigation matters. while i can acknowledge that i'm aware not only of the situation you describe but generally the litigation surrounding the emoluments clause, as the acting attorney general sitting here today, i'm unable to talk specifically about those cases. >> you can't say if there are mi memos from the office of legal counsel regarding emoluments clause violations, limitations? >> congressman, as i sit here

today the emoluments clause as it relates to the trump organization, especially the hotel in washington, d.c., is the subject of ongoing litigation. >> and the justice department is helping to represent the president in those suits, is it not? is that appropriate when they're being charged with the emolum t emoluments clause, shouldn't eve his personal lawyers and not justice department lawyers represent him for this nefarious conduct? >> congressman, i understand this is an important issue to you, but as it relates to the emoluments clause and the department of justice defense of the president of the united states, it is well within our purpose to be involved in that case. >> you said that if the special counsel's investigation looked into president trump's finances, it would be crossing a red line. you said that, i think, in a television interview. the attorney general has made

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

him to look into the finances if they might have interfered with the objective judgment of the president concerning his duty of trust to the united states of america and not to his personal financial interests or his family's? >> congressman, as i mentioned earlier, at the department of justice and as long as i am acting attorney general, we're going to follow the law and the facts wherever they may lead. we're going to do our jobs with fidelity. >> thank you, sir. let me ask you this, there's been a conviction in the special counsel investigation of mr. manafort. jury trial, conviction. there have been guilty pleas from flynn, manafort, gates, papadopoulos and michael cohen and dozens of indictments, including 13 russian nationals, three russian companies and roger stone. would you say the special counsel's investigation is a witch hunt? are you overseeing a witch hunt? >> congressman, as i've mentioned previously, the special counsel's investigation is an ongoing investigation and so i think it would be inappropriate for me to -- >> but you wouldn't oversee a

witch hunt, would you? you'd stop a witch hunt, wouldn't you? >> congressman, it would be inappropriate for me to talk about an ongoing investigation. >> you said that you're not interfering with the special counsel's investigation. have you denied him any funds he's requested at all? >> congressman, i can tell this is an important issue for you -- >> it's an important issue for the american public and the whole world. >> congressman, to answer your question directly, i have not denied any funds to the special counsel's investigation. >> have you denied him the opportunity to go into any areas where he wanted to investigate or any matters of investigation? >> congressman, as i previously testified, i have not interfered with the special counsel's investigation. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. mr. gomert. >> thank you, mr. chairman. acting attorney general, thank you for being here today. >> it's good to see you again,

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

>> and you wouldn't have said that if you didn't believe that, correct? >> oh, i believe what you're saying. the drugs and the general illegality that's pouring in through our southern border is having a negative effect on our country. >> now, i want to get to this issue of career officials, since colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made such a big deal about it, that you have not -- they accuse you of not following the advice of career officials. do you know the backgrounds of the people that are working directly under you and directly under rod rosenstein? >> congressman, i sit on top of an organization that has 115,000 employees. >> i'm talking about the people directly to you and to deputy rosenstein. >> i am familiar with the people that report to both of us, yes. although i will tell you i think rod rosenstein as deputy attorney general has over 100

direct reports as deputy attorney general. >> well, that was something i recommended to attorney general sessions, that he needed to reorganize and have some of those people reporting directly to him. but one of the mistakes, i think, my dear friend jeff sessions, for whom i have immense respect, one of the mistakes that i saw him making, he was listening to people who love sally yates, loved her efforts to disrupt anything that president trump tried to do. they loved what president obama did through the justice department, and in fact i had informed jeff that his contact at the -- with the nsc was sitting on his notices so either developed conflicts or wasn't

properly prepared. that was to sheena gahar. and she reported directly to rosenstein. the a.g. should have somebody that should report directly to the a.g. and not go through rod rosenstein, and especially when they are setting the attorney general up to be harmed. but this -- and then anthony faronti, apparently he's the senior managing director of fti consulting, he was another one that some considered a career position at the doj. let's see, he had jordan kelly there. she's currently director of cyber security policy and response at the nsc to the white house. there are reports that she met routinely with the mueller investigators. you know, between these people

who like gahar, just thought yates was wonderful, i would hope that wisdom and you as acting director, wisdom in the incoming attorney general will be to look at the backgrounds, look at the people who are political hacks, and figure out, oh, they're giving me advice on this? this is not for my well-being, this is to hurt the president of the united states. and i know you may just have another week, but i would encourage you that as people make a big deal about career, look behind career, look where their loyalties are, because even though they may be in a career position, if their loyalties are not to the attorney general and not to the president of the united states and are more political than they are constitutional, disregard what they say. i yield back. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. mr. johnson.

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

>> let me move on. let me move on, sir, i'm controlling the time. let me move on. i'd like to take a moment to better understand your decision not to recuse yourself from the supervision of the special counsel's investigation. isn't it a fact, sir, that you received your final ethics guidance on this matter on december 19th, 2018? >> i appreciate this question and i'm glad this is an opportunity -- >> it's a direct question. did you receive your final guidance on that question on december 19th? >> as you know, we have communicated with congress the entire process that i went to -- went through to address any recusal questions that i might have. recusal questions that i might have

it's december 18th, the answer would be yes or no or some other date. >> when he's trying to ask a question in the way he's asked. >> point of order. >> the gentleman is out of order. mr. johnson has the floor. >> and i would like to -- >> time will be restored. >> thank you, sir. sir, isn't it a fact that career officials at doj recommended to

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

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

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

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

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

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

the expansion of project safe neighborhoods to work with unique communities to develop a customized crime reduction strategy. one study showed when you and i were doing psn it reduced crime overall by 1.4% and case studies showing reduction of 42% of violent crime. we had the project safe neighborhoods national conference as i mentioned in my opening statement. and i can tell you that especially in our largest cities, our 29 major cities, we are seeing a reduction of violent crime because of u.s. attorneys specifically working with their sheriffs and police chiefs and their federal and state and local partners in reducing gun violence. some other things that we've done is the attorney general was one of the four cabinet positions that were part of the school safety commission that came out with a report in the last several months that gave a practical outline as to how states especially could work to reduce gun violence, including the idea of the erpos.

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

would be inappropriate for me to talk about any other memos related to that. >> we already know there's been some modification of the broadest order i think you can have with this august 2nd, 2017 memo. all i'm asking is, are there any other modifications, any other changes to the parameters of an investigation into the president of the united states? >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the witness may answer. >> congressman, just to be clear, the special counsel understands the scope of its investigation and is complying with all the regulations and orders related to that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general whitaker, you and i are both lawyers. my first day of criminal law, my professor came in and said, if someone asks you a yes-or-no question, don't repeat the question, just answer the question. in november 2018 -- we didn't,

the advice is good nonetheless. chris wallace asked the president a question, did you know before you appointed him that he, meaning you, had a record that was so critical of robert mueller, and the president said, i didn't know that, i didn't know he took views on the mueller investigation. do you believe president trump was telling the truth when he said he just did not know that you were critical of mueller before your appointment? >> congressman, the -- >> i'm going to go back. i understand how it all worked. i'm just asking you if you believe the president was telling the truth when he said he did not know that you had been critical of robert mueller before making your appointment. >> congressman, i have no reason to believe when i sit here today that the president wasn't saying what he believed. >> who did you interview with for this -- for the chief of staff job, not for this job, for the chief of staff job? >> it was general sessions' decision to make. i interviewed with him and he offered me the job. >> and before you got the job, duffer -- before you took this

job, did you ever speak with the president about the mueller probe in 2017? >> are you saying before i was actually the chief of staff? >> i'm saying between may 17, 2017 -- >> congressman, i never met the president until after i joined -- >> let me ask you another question. did you communicate with anyone at the white house about the special counsel investigation before september 22nd, 2018? >> i assume you're excluding my appearances on cnn. because i don't know if the white house was watching my appearances. >> you've told me that the president wasn't watching those, otherwise he would have been aware of your positions. so i assume the president wasn't watching. did you talk about those appearances with anyone at the white house? >> i did not talk about my appearances on cnn. >> did you talk about your views of the mueller investigation with anyone at the white house?

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

house personnel before you were hired, anyone at the white house? >> congressman, i -- >> that's an easy one. did you talk to anyone at the white house? is the answer no? >> congressman, i had previously been at the white house when i was a private citizen to talk about a different position. >> i understand. but did you talk to anyone at the white house about your views on mueller, any personnel at the white house at all, before you assumed the position? >> in -- >> let me just go forward. here's the issue. when you became the attorney general, since becoming the attorney general, you said that you have had -- you've been briefed on the special counsel. did you use anyone else to have communications -- did you do anything to make sure that the white house might have learned some of what you learned in those briefings? could it be that someone else on your staff might have spoken to someone at the white house since you told us you didn't? >> congressman, i'm not aware of

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

attorney ag, assistant attorney general, the attorney general in charge of the office of legal counsel, assistant ag for national security, assistant ag in charge of the criminal division, and on and on. none of them, none of them are the chief of staff to the attorney general. i think what we're trying to figure out is, why is it exactly that the president chose to go beyond the statute and choose you. and i hope over the balance of this hearing, that will become clear. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, congressman. i believe the president chose me to be the acting attorney general for a couple of reasons. first, i had served previously in the department as united states attorney, which is a very important position, as mr. radcliffe previously stated, and in the administration of justice. and for 13 months i was the chief of staff for attorney general sessions and i had done the full year with him, side by side. obviously he made the decisions but he gave him advice and counsel. and i was aware of everything

that was going on at the department of justice, that i obviously -- that general sessions wasn't recused from. i think the president was comfortable that to continue the momentum at the department of justice, that we had established, in addressing these important priority issues like reducing violent crime, combating the opioid crisis and others, that the president felt i was best positioned to do the duties of attorney general. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll just say to mr. whitaker, my questions in a normal oversight committee would be vastly different than the direction i'm going to go because we've kind of wandered into this other stream over here. so i'm going to ask you some questions. the longstanding constitutionally based department of justice policy holds that a sitting president cannot be indicted. and that's based on the last review which happened under the clinton administration. is that still in effect or has

that changed? >> that is still the policy of the department of justice. >> have you spoken to deputy attorney general rosenstein about his statements about invoking the 25th amendment and wiretapping president trump? >> i have seen the statements by deputy rosenstein that he made to the press regarding those statements and i have no reason to believe that he did not -- that those statements were consistent with what he believed at the time. >> i'm not sure i understood that. you say you have no reason to believe that they were not consistent. s, the there were a couple of negatives there. do you believe they were consistent with what he said at the time? >> i do. deputy general -- >> you were talking about his comments, his comments to the press, not the ones about him wearing a wire? >> i'm talking about deputy attorney general rosenstein's comments to the press after it was reported that he had considered -- >> that his responses -- i don't mean to interrupt but his

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

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

i obviously know the traditions of the department of justice, rules and regulations. i do follow those as i exercise the duties as acting attorney general. >> you gave that answer to a similar question but not this question here. that's not what i'm asking. what i'm asking is, as we sit here today, a year and a half later, has your opinion changed from what you stated in june, has it changed? >> counsel, the special counsel investigation is an ongoing investigation and i'm not going to characterize that investigation or give you my opinion of that investigation as i sit here today. >> the scope memo indicates the scope of the special counsel was any matters that arose or may arise directly from that investigation. has that scope been expanded in any way? >> congressman, as i was

discussing with representative jordan, i am not going to talk about the scope of the special counsel's investigation. >> i'll go forward then and say, indictments and the relation to the scope one, papadopoulos, unrelated to the election or the capable. flynn, false statements about campaign violations. cohen, referred to the southern district of new york because it was out of his scope. stone, false statements occurring after. and that's consistent with what we've seen so far. with that, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. acting ag, i actually wanted

to ask you some questions regarding what you did prior to being acting ag. it's my understanding that before you moved to the department of justice, that you were the executive director of the foundation for -- >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman. i have a point of order. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have -- >> which in fact is a conservative watchdog where he made full use of the opportunity to call for investigations of multiple democrats. >> the gentleman will state his point of order. >> my point of order is, it is outside the scope of an oversight investigative hearing. >> it is not. you need to let me finish my question. >> the gentlelady will suspend. that is not a valid point of order. the gentlelady will continue. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, point of order, the question is outside the scope of -- >> the gentlelady has the floor. >> are you going to override a

point of order? >> yes. >> the gentlelady will suspend. i ruled that it was not a valid point of order. and the gentlelady has the floor. the gentlelady will continue. >> thank you. >> i was not through with my point of order. >> the gentlelady will continue. >> appeal the ruling of the chair. >> move to table. >> move to table. >> motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair is before the committee. motion to table is not debatable. the clerk will call the roll. one moment while we set up the clerk. >> mr. chairman, may i make a unanimous consent request while

we're waiting for this vote? >> and you're watching a procedural argument between the chair, jerry nadler, and the vice chair, the republican, over whether or not a question from karen bass is relevant, because she is questioning his qualifications or she tried to finish a question, she did not finish her question, the question went to what he did before he became acting attorney general. the fact is that there are a lot of questions being asked about why the decision was made to pluck him out of the justice department, put him into this role, even though there is a succession law which rules that someone to succeed a retiring or departing attorney general or other cabinet official should be someone who has been already confirmed by the senate. with me here, elliott williams, legal adviser, msnbc contributor, and joyce vance as well, former deputy assistant attorney general. let's talk about just the legal

questions here. elliott, you've been watching along with us, and joyce. he seems to be not adept, shall we say, at answering these kinds of tough questions from house judiciary committee members. >> that was an incredibly charitable way you put it, andrea. this is what you get when someone is just unfit for the job they have. even on this question of, did you have conversations with donald trump, well, he says i didn't have those conversations but is now refusing to answer other questions about other conversations he has. he's giving inconsistent answers. and that's sort of the kinds of performance or conduct we see in people who just aren't used to testifying. this is not easy to do, and he's just not, you know, sort of up to it. another big one is picking a fight with members of congress over how long their rounds of questioning were. that's just not the -- probably over 100 hearings that i've held people prepare for, including attorneys general lynch and holder. that's just not behavior i've seen from anyone. >> you've worked for the senate

judiciary committee as staff lawyer as well. >> all of the above. and i've never seen a witness that -- again, we are in a partisan environment, this is democrats and republicans, it's divided government, and certainly, you know, there's always going to be a tension between the executive branch and the legislative. but this is pretty remarkable. >> joyce, your reactions as well, one republican, louie gohmert, was asking the acting attorney general about some comments he had made about the border. and he said he wasn't familiar with that speech. well, it wasn't a speech, it was part of the opening statement that he read to this committee this very day. >> you know, whitaker's demeanor makes it clear that he's not interested in answering questions. he's just hoping that he can somehow survive this untarnished. so he's making that sort of careless, sloppy mistake, not acknowledging his own opening statement, looking incredibly grateful to be saved by the five-minute bell, and it's clear that nothing of substance will happen here. and that's a shame, because this

committee has a legitimate oversight function to perform. these are serious questions that deserve answers. this acting attorney general isn't going to give them. >> and the other thing, joyce and elliott, that i was noticing, certainly in jim jordan's questioning and some of the other questioning, jim jordan from the freedom caucus, the conservative republican, just going after him to try to get him to impeach the reliability or the integrity, really, of rod rosenstein, who has been one of their frequent targets, who is overseeing the mueller probe. joyce, if you want to comment on that first. >> that's right, i think what this was about was jim jordan's questioning trying to get as whether or not there were individual names hidden behind the redacted portions of rod rosenstein's memo to bob mueller authorizing the full scope of the investigation. and the point that he was trying to make was that rosenstein was targeting individuals. doj doesn't do that and that wouldn't have been in there in the form that jordan was

implying. >> let's return to the hearing, karen bass is the california democratic congresswoman, asking her question. >> -- an investigation into a member of this committee, representative hank johnson. there's a total of 46 individuals or organizations that over the time period when you were the executive director of f.a.c.t., that you called for either ethics investigations or filed complaints. so since you have joined the ag's office, i want to know whether or not any investigations have been initiated into those people. just answer that yes or no. have there been investigations initiated into the people that you suggested be investigated during the time you were the e.d. of ff.a.c.t.? >> congresswoman, i was the executive director of the

foundation of accountability and trust. we filed ethics complaints against members of both parties. >> can you tell me which republicans you filed ethics complaints against? >> all of -- again, i'm here for an oversight hearing. >> hearing -- >> yes, you are, my questions are leading to that. so can you answer that, which republicans did you file investigation or ask for ethics investigations of? >> the nice thing about being an ethics watch dog group is that fact filed all of its complaints on its website and i would refer you to that -- >> i don't have time to look into the website. i'm asking you a question now. you were the executive director. which republicans did you file? >> congresswoman, again, i, as i sit here today all ischemic do is -- >> since you have been in the d.o.j., have any complaints been initiated against the 46 democrats either individuals or organizations in the time that you tha you've been the acting a.g.? >> congresswoman, as i sit here

today, i am not aware of any. but obviously if i had recommended as the executive director of fact that someone be investigated, i would, i would -- and it was in my recommendation was adopted by the department of justice, i am certain that i could not be involved in that investigation. >> you are certain, but you don't know whether you -- did you recuse yourself of any? >> i think this is important for everyone to understand, recausal decisions are made based on a matter of -- >> let me move on. i wanted to ask questions about ethics guidance that you received in december. did they recommend that you recuse yourself from any involvement in the criminal investigation into the world patent marketing, the fraudulent patent promotion scam to which you still owe almost $10,000 to the court? did they provide an ethics opinion or did you not seek one related to the world patent marketing matter? >> just to be clear, congresswoman, who do you mean

by they? do you mean the ethics officials? >> i'm asking you what guidance did they recommend that you recuse yourself? so that's a question to you. did they recommend that you recuse yourself from any involvement in the criminal investigation into the world patent marketing? >> i am recused from the investigation into that cannot. >> what about any matter involving hillary clinton? it's been well documented of your public calls for renewed investigations into matters related to mrs. clinton. >> again, the -- any investigations into former secretary clinton, if they're open -- confirmation or denial of a recusal would suggest that there is or is not an investigation regarding -- >> you know, actually, i believe i have more time on the clock since i was interrupted. >> i am informed we paused the time. >> go ahead. continue. >> what i'm saying is your

inquiry about whether or not i am recused from any matter concerning former secretary clinton would, would by its very nature suggest that there is an open matter regarding secretary clinton. any recusal decision that i would make would be based on what the matter was and we'd go through the exact same analysis i would go through in the case of the special counsel's investigation. >> thank you. >> at the request of a number of people, the committee will stand in recess for five minutes. >> the judiciary committee, house judiciary committee taking a five-minute break. they have been going all morning for a break for votes. it is an extensive hearing. joyce vance still with me and elliott williams as well. joyce, pick it up where you were loving it oleaving it offe. the whole issue of trying to

itch peach the integrity of rod rosenstein and his oversight of the mueller probe. >> there is an important principle of prosecution. prosecutors investigate crimes not people. jordan was insinuating that rosenstein had somehow directed mueller to target individuals, asking whether that information was concealed behind redactions. it seems extraordinarily unlikely to me that that be the case. rosenstein might have, in fact, used names, but that would have been based on predicated investigation indicating that further investigation was warranted as opposed to this sort of targeted witch-hunt that jordan was trying to suggest might have been asked for. >> we're going to take a quick break as well while the committee is in recess. we'll be right back. we'll be right back. so even when she grows up, she'll never outgrow the memory of our adventure. unlock savings when you add select hotels to your existing trip.

only with expedia.

select hotels to your existing trip. and the army taught me a lot about commitment. which i apply to my life and my work. at comcast we're commited to delivering

the best experience possible, by being on time everytime. and if we are ever late, we'll give you a automatic twenty dollar credit. my name is antonio and i'm a technician at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. welcome back. you've been watching the house judiciary committee here. they took a brief recess after a long morning session where acting attorney general matt whitaker for the first time being questioned by this house democratic oversight. he was never confirmed by the senate for his post, which is one of the issues, and he has said today that he never interfered with the mueller probe and did not talk to the president about the mueller probe. with me as well is elliott williams. elliott, in watching this, what did you take away so far from this hearing? >> i still find this back and

forth with one of the republican members, jordan, about what's under the redactions to be so remarkable. >> in terms of the original mandate for the mueller probe that rod rosenstein had at least amended after the initial approval for the mueller probe at the beginning. >> right. because their blood thirst to find this is a witch-hunt is leading members of congress to ask -- to see what's under redactions in an open hearing. again, it's just remarkable how opposed certain members of congress are to this investigation and i've just never seen an exchange like that, to lift the veil put there to protect the integrity of the justice department. that's why they redact documents. that's what's striking particularly. >> do they have a way of releasing something in committee? >> they have to do it in a closed session of the committee. they could. if there is still a law enforcement purpose for it, they

would hide that even from congress. >> thanks to you and to joyce for our abbreviated program, but fascinating hearing. and as we continue right here on msnbc, follow me at mitchell reports. and here is stephanie ruhle for "velshi & ruhle." >> thanks so much, andrea. hello, everyone. i am stephanie ruhle. my partner ali velshi is off. it is friday, february 8. we begin with a remarkable day on capitol hill. the house democrats that lead the house judiciary committee quickly turned combative about questions of his oversight of the mueller investigation, his discussions with president trump and executive privilege. i want to play again perhaps the most stunning moment of the day. >> in your capacity as acting attorney general, have you ever been asked to approve any request or action to be taken by the special counsel? >> mr. chairman, i see that your five minutes is up