some 10,000 by last count. >> i think the appropriate thing would have been for director comey to talk with the acting deputy attorney general who's his director supervisor. that was dana boente, 33 years in the department of justice and was even then still serving for six years and continues to serve as attorney general. appointed by president obama. he's man of great integrity. if he had concerns i think he should have raised it to department attorney general boente, the appropriate person in any case, really, but if he had any concern that i might be recusing myself that might be a double reason to share it with him. >> thank you. attorney general sessions, has the president ever expressed

his decision abo-- >> i'm not any discuss. >> because you're evoking executive privilege. >> my understanding is, you took an oath, you raised your right hand here today and you said you would solemnly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. now you're not answering questions. you're impeding this investigation. so, my understanding of the legal standard is that you either answer the question that's the best outcome. you say this classified, can't answer it here. i'll answer it in closed session. bucket number three is to say i'm evoking executive privilege. it's not a legal standard. can you tell me what are these

longstanding doj rules that protect conversations made in the executive without evoking executive privilege. >> i'm protecting the president's constitutional right by not giving it give away before he has a chance to -- secondly, i'm having the truth in answering your question in saying it's longstanding policy of the department of justice. >> are those policies written? >> to make sure the president has a full opportunity to decide these issues. >> can you share those policies with us? are they written down at the department of justice? >> my judgment that it would be inappropriate for me to answer and reveal private conversations with the president when he's not had a full opportunity to review

the questions and make a decision on whether or not to approve such answer, one, there are other privileges that could be invoked. one of the things involves the investigation of the special counsel. >> we're not asking questions about that investigation. if i wanted to ask questions about that investigation i'd ask those of rod rosenstein. i'm asking about your personal knowledge from this committee which has a constitutional obligation to get to the bottom of this, there are two investigations here, special counsel investigation, also a congressional investigation. and you're obstructing that congressional investigation by not answering these questions. and i think you're silenced, like the silence of director coats, like rogers, speaks

volume. >> i have consulted with career senior attorneys. this is consistent with my duty and senator risch asked you a question about appropriateness if you had known anything untoward with regard to russia and the campaign, would you have headed to the exits. your answer was maybe. why wasn't it a simple yes. >> an illegal relationship in an effort to impede or influence this campaign i absolutely would have departed. >> that's a good question. i find it strange neither you nor deputy attorney general rod ros rosenstein brought up performance issues with director comey and mccabe has refuted any

assertion there were performance issues, this is proubling because it appears that the president decided to fire director comey because he was pursuing the russia investigation and had asked you to come up with an excuse, when your assessment of director comey didn't hold up to public scrutiny, he finally admitted he fired comey because of the russia investigation. it appears that his firing was directly related to russia. not departmental mismanagement. how do you square those two things? >> well, a lot in that question. let me say first, within a week or so, i believe may 3rd, director comey testified that he believed the handling of the

clinton deckly nation was proper and appropriate and he would do it again. that was a great concern to both of us because it did not -- that represented something that i think most professionals in the department of justice would totally agree that the fbi investigative agency does not decide whether to prosecute or decline cases of the responsibility of the attorney general. so, that's how we felt, that was sort of additional concern that we had heading the fbi someone boldly asserted to make those decisions. that's one of the things that we discussed. that was in the memorandum and also an important factor for us. >> before i recognize senator

blunt. i'd like the record to show that last night admiral rogers spent almost two hours in closed session with almost the full committee fulfilling his commitment to us in the hearing that in closed session he would answer the question and i think it was thoroughly answered and all members were given an opportunity to ask him. senator blunt. >> thank you, general. it's good to see you here together and know that your family continues to be proud and supportive of what you do. >> thank you, i've been blessed, indeed. >> i agree with that. let me get a couple of things clear in my mind here, notes i

have taken. and you were talking on the april 27th, 2016, event, that's the mayflower hotel speech that the presidential candidate gave on foreign policy, you didn't have a room at that event where you had private meetings, did you? >> no, i did not. >> as i understand it, you went to a reception that was attended by how many people? >> i think two to three dozen. >> two to three dozen people. you went and heard a speech and might have seen people on your way out. >> correct. >> when you said you possibly had a meeting with mr. kislyak, you possibly met him? >> i didn't have any formal meeting with him. i'm confident of that. but i may have had an encounter during the reception and that's the only thing that i can't say with certainty i did not. >> that's what i thought you

were saying. >> you might have met him at the reception. could you have met other ambassadors at that reception as well? >> i could. i remember one in particular that we had a conversation with, whose country had an investment in alabama. i remember that. otherwise, i have no recollection of a discussion with the russian ambassador. >> all right, so you were there, you read he was there but you had no room where you having meetings with individuals to have discussions at the playflower hotel that day? >> no. >> well, on -- when you talked to mr. comey after he had his meeting with the president, you think that was probably the next day you didn't stay afterwards and see him after he left the oval office that night? >> no, it happened right

afterwards. but it was either the next morning which i think it was, or maybe the morning after that. we had three-times a week on national security briefing with the fbi that i undertake and so it was after that we had that conversation. >> now, what i'm not quite clear on is, did you respond when he expressed his concern or not? >> yes, i did respond. i think he's incorrect. he indicated, i believe, that he was not totally sure of the exact wording of the meeting. but i do recall my chief of staff was with me and we recall i did affirm the longstanding written policies of the department of justice concerning communications with the white

house. we have to follow those rules and in the long run you're much better off if you do. they don't prohibit communications, one-on-one, by the fbi director with the president, but if that conversation moves into certain areas it's the duty -- the rules apply to the department of justice. it's a duty of the fbi agent to say, mr. president, i can't talk about that. that's the way that should work. and apparently it did, because he said he did not improperly discuss matters with the president. >> when mr. comey talked to you about that meeting did he mention mr. flynn? >> no. he mentioned no factses of any kind. he didn't mention to me that he had been asked to do something he thought was in improper. he said he was comfortable, i believe. >> after that discussion with mr. comey -- >> actually, i don't know if he

said if he was uncomfortable. maybe it was what he testified to was the exact wording. i don't dispute >> it exactly, what i remember from him, you didn't react and you kind of shrugged. >> i took it as a concern that he might be asked something that was improper and i affirmed to him his willingness to say no. or not go in an improper direction. >> finally, i'm assuming you wouldn't talk about this because it would relate to the may 8th meeting, but my sense is, no decision is final until it's carried out. my guess is, there are people

here they would let someone go or fired somebody who never did that, the fact the president said that on may 8th doesn't mean that the information he got from you on may 9th was not necessary or impactful and i'm sure you're not going to say how many times the president said we ought to get rid of that person but i'm sure that's happened and chairman, i'll -- >> thank you. >> attorney general, thank you for joining us today. i respect your willingness to be here. you testified i'm not able to invoke executive privilege. has the president invoked executive privilege in this testimony? >> no, he's not the president has a constitutional -- >> but the president hasn't asserted it. >> you say you don't have the power to assert the power of executive privilege. what is the legal basis?

>> i'm protecting the right of the president to assert if he chooses and maybe other privileges that could apply in this circumstance. >> well, i don't understand how you can have it both ways. you testified only the president can assert it and yet i don't understand the legal basis for your refusal to answer. >> what we try to do, i think most cabinet officials, others that you questioned recent ly officials before the committee, protect the president's right to do so. if it comes to a point where the issue is clear and there's dispute about it, at some point, the president will either assert the privilege or not. or some other privilege can be -- would be asserted. but, at this point, i believe t it's premature for -- >> you're asserting the privilege of the president -- >> it would be premature for me

to deny the president a full and intelligent choice about >> you testified a few minutes ago that, quote, we were asked for our opinion. who asked for your opinion? >> you mean -- >> you testified, we were asked for our opinion. >> my understanding is, i believe i'm correct in saying that the president has said so. >> he didn't ask you directly? >> i thought you were asking about the privilege. >> no, no, i'm sorry. i'm saying, you said, quote, we were asked for our opinion, you and mr. rosenstein. >> i believe that was appropriate for me to say that because i think the president -- >> no, i'm just asking you, who asked you for your opinion? who asked you for your opinion? >> yes, right, the president asked for our opinion. >> so you just testified as to the content of the communication with the president? >> that's correct but i believe

he has already revealed that. i believe i'm correct in saying that. that's why i indicated that when i answered that question. but if he hasn't and i'm in error, i would have constricted his constitutional right of privilege. >> so you're being selective about the use of -- >> no, i'm not intentionally. i'm doing so only because i believe he made that -- >> in any of your discussions with the president about the firing of james comey abodid th question of the russia investigation come up? >> if any such occurred, it would be a communication that he has not waived. >> but he has not asserted executive privilege? >> he has not asserted executive privilege. >> do you believe the russians interfered with the 2016 elections? >> it appears so. the intelligence community seems to be united in that. but i have to tell you, senator king, i know nothing but what i've read in the paper. i've never received any detailed

briefing on how a hacking occurred or how information was alleged to have influenced the campaign. >> between the election, there was a memoranda from the intelligence community on october 9th that detailed what the russians were doing after the election, before the inauguration. you never sought any information about this rather dramatic attack on our country? >> no, i was -- >> you never asked for a briefing or attended a briefing or read the intelligence reports? >> you might have been very critical of me if i, as an active part of the campaign, was seeking intelligence relating to something that might be relevant to the campaign. i'm not sure that would have been -- >> i'm not talking about the campaign. i'm talking about what the russians did. you've received no briefing on the russian active measures in connection with the 2016 election? >> no. i don't believe i ever did. >> let's go to your letter of may 9th. you said, based upon my evaluation and for the reasons

expressed by the deputy. was that a written evaluation? >> my evaluation was an evaluation that had been going on for some months. >> is there a written evaluation? >> i did not make one. i think you could classify deputy attorney general rosenstein's memoranda as an evaluation, one that -- and he was the direct supervisor of the fbi director. >> his evaluation was based 100% on the handling of the hillary clinton e-mails, is that correct? >> well, and a number of other matters as i believe, but he did explicitly lay out the errors that he thought had been made in that process by the director of the fbi. i thought they were cogent and accurate and far more significant than i think a lot of people have i didn't understand stood.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator lankford. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general sessions, good to see you again. >> thank you. >> you speak as a man eager to set the record straight. you have spoken very plainly from the very beginning from your opening statement all the way through this time. i am amazed at the conversations as if an attorney general has never said there are private conversations with the president and we don't need to discuss those. it seems to be a short memory about some of the statements eric holder would and would not make to any committee in the house or the senate and would or would not turn over documents, even requested that had to go all the way through to the court system until finally the courts having to say, no, the president can't hold back documents and the attorney general can't do that. so somehow, some accusation that you're not saying every conversation about everything, there's a long history of attorney generals standing beside the president saying there are some conversations

that are confidential and can be determined from there. it does seem as well that every unnamed source story somehow gets a hearing. i was in the hearing this morning with rod rose enstenste we dealt with the appropriations request which originally you were scheduled to be at, that rod rosenstein was taking your place to be able to cover. he was peppered with questions about russia during that conversation as well. he was very clear that he has never had conversations with you about that and that you have never requested conversations about that. had was also peppered with questions of the latest rumor of the day, that is somehow the president is thinking about firing robert mueller and getting rid of him and was very clear that rosenstein himself said i am the only one that could do that and i'm not contemplating that, nor would i do that, and no one has any idea where the latest unnamed source story of the day is coming from but somehow it's grabbing all

the attention. i want to bring up a couple things to you specifically. one is to define the word recuse. i come back to your e-mail that you sent to jim comey and others on that day, on march 2nd. this is what you had said in your e-mail. after careful consideration following meetings with career department officials over the course of the past several weeks are the attorney general has decided to recuse himself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for president of the united states. the attorney general's recusal is not only with respect to such investigations if any but also extends to the department responses to congressional and media inquiries related to such investigations. is that something you have maintained from march 2nd on? >> absolutely. actually, i maintained it from the first day i became attorney general. we discussed those matters and i felt until and if i ever made a decision to not recuse myself, i

should not, as abundance of caution, involve myself in studying the investigation or evaluating it, so i did not. also, i would note that the memoranda from my chief of staff directs these agencies, and one of the people directly it was sent to was james b. comey, director of the fbi. you should instruct members of your staffs to not brief the attorney general or any other officials in the office of the attorney general about or otherwise involve the attorney general or other officials in the office of the attorney general in any such matters described above. >> and you haven't requested -- >> proper and firm and crystal clear position that recusal meant recusal. >> relating to this april 27th meeting/nonmeeting in the same room at the same time. the national interest was asked

about this specifically at the time who was the host of that event. they stated this in writing. the center for national interest decided whom to invite and the trump campaign did not determine or approval the list. guests included both democrats and republicans with some among the latter supporting other candidates. center for national interest invited russian ambassador kislyak and several others. we regularly invite ambassadors and others to our events to facilitate dialogue. they stated we seated all four in the front row in deference to their diplomatic status. the center for national interest extended equal treatment to the four investors and were invited to a short reception prior to trump's preach. the reception included approximately two dozen guests and a receiving line. the line moved quickly. any conversations with mr. trump were brief and could not be private.

a recollection is that the interaction between mr. trump and ambassador kislyak was limited to polite exchange of pleasantries. we're not aware of any conversation between ambassador kislyak and senator jeff sessions at the reception. however, in a small group setting like this one, we consider it unlikely that anyone could have engaged in a meaningful, private conversation without drawing attention from others present. do you have any reason to disagree with that? >> no, i think that's a very fair description of the reception situation. i appreciate them having made that statement. >> great. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, thank you. thank you, mr. sessions for being here. >> thank you. >> i want to follow up a little on what senator king had asked concerning -- you and i are about the same vintage. we remember back in our lifetime we've never known the russian government or the russian military to ever be our friend and wanting the same things we wanted out of life. with that being said, the

seriousness of this russian hacking is very serious to me and concerning, and you're saying that you had not been briefed on that. i think it was october 9th, when it was known that the dni at that time, i think mr. clapper and also mr. jeh johnson, homeland security, made that public what was going on. then on december 29th, president obama at that time expelled 35 russian diplomats, denied access to two russian-owned come poupo and broadened the existing sanctions. sir, i would ask, have you had any discussions or sat in on any type of meetings where recommendations were made to remove those sanctions? >> i don't recall any such meeting. >> during the time not from the president being inaugurated on january 20th, prior to that in the campaign up until and

through the transition, was there ever any meetings that he showed any concern or consideration or inquisitive of what the russians were really doing and if they had really done it? >> i don't recall any such conversation. i'm not sure i understood your question. maybe i better listen again. >> you were part of the national security team so if he would have heard something about russia and with their capabil y capabilities and our concern about what they do to our election process, were there any conversations concerning that whatsoever? >> i don't recall it, senator manchin. >> i know it's been asked of you, things about your executive privileges and protecting the president. i understand that. but also when we had mr. comey here, you know, he couldn't answer a lot of things in open session. he agreed to go into a closed session. would you be able to go in a closed session? would it change your answers to us or your ability to speak more frankly on some things we would want to know? >> senator manchin, i'm not sure

the executive privilege is not waived by going in camera or in closed session. it may be that one of the concerns is that when you have an investigation ongoing as the special counsel does, it's often very problematic to have persons not cooperating with that counsel and the conduct of the investigation which may or may not be a factor in going into closed session. >> it would be very helpful. i think the committee, there's a lot of questions they would like to ask and i know that you would like to answer if possible and maybe we could check into that further. sir, did you have any other meetings with russian government officials that have not been previously disclosed? >> i have racked my brain and i do not believe so. i can assure you that none of those meetings discussed manipulating a campaign in the

united states in any way, shape or form or any hacking or any such ideas like that. >> i'm going to go quick through this. any other meetings between rougs government officials and any trump campaign associates that have not been previously disclosed that you know of? >> i don't recall any. >> to the best of your knowledge did any of the following officials meet with russian officials during the campaign. paul manafort? >> repeat that now. >> to the best of your knowledge, sir, did any of these following individuals meet with russian officials at any point during the campaign? you can just give a yes or no or this. paul manafort? >> i don't have any information that he had done so. he served as campaign chairman for a few months. >> steve bannon? >> i have no information that he did. >> general michael flynn? >> i don't recall it. >> reince priebus? >> i don't recall. >> steve miller? >> i don't recall him ever having such a conversation.

>> corey lewandowski? >> i do not recall any of those individuals having any meeting with russian officials. >> carter page? >> i don't know. >> i would finally ask this question because i always think we try to get -- you have innate knowledge -- >> there may have been some published accounts of mr. page talking with russians. i'm not sure. i don't recall. >> as a former senator you bring a unique perspective to this investigation because you've been on both sides. >> i have indeed. all in all, it's better on that side. >> if you were sitting on this side -- >> nobody gets to ask you about your private conversations with your staff. >> here we go. get your chance to give us some advice. if you were sitting on this side of the dais, what question would you be asking? >> i would be asking whether or not -- i would be asking questions related to whether or not there was an impact on this election. >> what part of the story do you think we're missing?

>> by a foreign power, particularly the russians, since the intelligence community has suggested and stated that they believe they did, but i do think members of this government have offices to run, departments to manage, and they -- the questions should be focused on that. >> is there a part of the story we're missing? i'm sorry, mr. chairman. is there a part of the story we're missing? >> i don't know because i'm not involved in the campaign and had no information concerning it. i have no idea at what stage it is. you members of the committee know a lot more than i. >> thank you, general sessions. >> general sessions, i will assure you we are very much focused on russia's involvement. >> doesn't seem like it. >> our hope is that as we complete this process we will lay those facts out for the american people so they can make their own determinations as well. we're grateful for what you've done. senator cotton? >> i am on this side of the dais so i can say a very simple question that should be asked.

did donald trump or any of his associates in the campaign collude with russia in hacking those e-mails and releasing them through the public? that's where we started six months ago. we have heard from six of the eight democrats on this committee, and to my knowledge, i don't think a single one of them asked that question. they've gone down lots of other rabbit trails but not that question. maybe that's because jim comey said last week that he said to donald trump on three times he assured him that he was not under investigation. maybe it's because multiple democrats on this committee have stated they have seen no evidence after six months of our investigation and 11 months of an fbi investigation of any such collusion. i would suggest, what do we think happened at the mayflower? mr. sessions, are you familiar with what spies called trade craft? >> a little bit.

>> that involves things like covert communications and dead drops and brush passes, right? >> that's part of it. >> do you like spy fiction, daniel silva, jason matthews? >> yeah, allen first, david ignatius. >> do you like jason born or james bond movies? >> no -- yes, i do. >> have you ever in any of these fantastical situations heard of a plot line so ridiculous that a sitting united states senator and an ambassador of a foreign government colluded at an open setting with hundreds of other people to pull off the greatest caper in the history? >> thank you for saying that, senator cotton. it's just like "through the looking glass." i mean, what is this? i explained how in good faith i said i had not met with russians, because they were suggesting i, as a surrogate,

had been meeting continue slous with russians. now, the next thing you know, i'm accused of plotting some sort of influence in the campaign of the american election. it's beyond my capability to understand, and i really appreciate, mr. chairman, the opportunity to at least be able to say publicly i didn't participate in that and know nothing about it. >> and i gather that's one reason why you wanted to testify today in public. last week, mr. comey in characteristic, dramatic and theatrical fashion, alluded ominously to what you called innuendo, that there was some kind of classified intelligence that suggested you might have colluded with russia or that you might have otherwise acted improperly. you have addressed those allegations here today. do you understand why he made that illusion? >> actually, i do not. nobody has provided me any information about that. >> thank you.

i have a lot of questions. mr. blunt asked you if you had spoken in response to mr mr. comey's statement to you after his private meeting with the president, you said that you did respond to mr. comey. mr. comey's testimony said that you did not. do you know why mr. comey would have said that you did not respond to him on that conversation with you on february 14th or 15th? >> i do not. there was a little conversation, not very long, but there was a conversation and i did respond to him, perhaps not to everything he asked, but i did respond to him. i think in an appropriate way. >> do you know why mr. comey mistrusted president trump from their first meeting on january 6th? he stated last week that he did, but he didn't state anything from that meeting that caused him to have such mistrust. >> i'm not able to speculate on that.

>> let's turn to the central crimes that we know have happened, leaks of certain information. here's a short list of what i have. the contents of alleged transcripts of alleged conversations between mr. flynn and mr. kislyak, the contents of president trump's phone calls with australian and mexican leaders, the content of mr. trump's meetings with the russian foreign minister and ambassador, the leak of the manchester bombing suspect's identity and crime scene photos and last week, within 20 minutes of meeting with mr. comey, the basis of what mr. comey's innuendo was. are these leaks serious threats to our national security and is the department of justice taking them with the appropriate degree of seriousness in investigating and ultimately going to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law? >> thank you, senator cotton. we have had one successful case very recently in georgia. that person has been denied bail, i believe, and is being held in custody. but some of these leaks, as you

well know, are extraordinarily damaging to the united states security, and we have got to restore a regular order principle. we cannot have persons in our intelligence agencies, our investigative agencies or in congress leaking sensitive matters on staff. so this is a -- i'm afraid will result in -- is already resulting in investigations, and i fear that some people may find that they wish they hadn't leaked. >> thank you. my time has expired. for the record it was stated earlier that the republican platform was weakened on the arms of ukraine. that was incorrect. and i would note it was the democratic president who refused repeated requests to supply those arms. >> senator harris. >> attorney general sessions, you have several times this afternoon prefaced your

responses by saying to the best of your recollection. just on the first page of your three pages of written testimony, you wrote, nor do i recall, do not have recollection, do not remember it. so my question is, for any of your testimony today, did you refresh your memory with any written documents, be they your calendar, written correspondence, e-mails, notes of any sort? >> i attempted to refresh my recommendation, but so much of this is in a wholesale campaign of extraordinary nature that you're moving so fast that you don't keep notes. you meet people, i didn't keep notes of my conversation with the russian ambassador at the republican convention -- >> sir, i'd like to -- >> i'm saying i didn't keep notes on most of these things. >> will you provide this committee with the notes that you did maintain? >> as appropriate, i will supply the committee with documents.

>> can you please tell me what you mean when you say appropriate? >> i would have to consult with lawyers in the department who know the proper procedure before disclosing documents that are held within the department of justice. i'm not able to make that opinion today. >> sir, i'm sure you prepared for this hearing today and most of the questions that have been presented to you were predictable. so my question to you is, did you then review with the lawyers of your department, if you are as the top lawyer are unaware, the law regarding what you can share with us and not share with us, what is privileged and what is not privileged? >> we discussed the basic parameters of testimony. i frankly have not discussed documentary disclosure rules. >> will you make a commitment to this committee that you will share any written correspondence, be they your calendars, records, notes, e-mails, or anything that has been reduced at any point in time in writing to this

committee where legally you actually have an obligation to do so? >> i will commit to reviewing the rules of the department and as -- when that issue is raised to respond appropriately. >> did you have any communications with russian officials for any reason during the campaign that have not been disclosed in public or to this committee? >> i don't recall it. but i have to tell you, i cannot testify to what said as we were standing at the republican convention before the podium where i spoke. >> my question is only as to -- >> i don't have a memory of that. >> to your knowledge, did you have any communication with any russian businessmen or any russian nationals? >> i don't believe i had any conversation with russian businessmen or russian nationals, although a lot of people were at the convention.

it's conceivable that -- >> sir, i have just a few -- >> let me qualify. if i don't qualify you'll accuse me of lying. i need to be correct as best i can. >> i do want you to be honest. >> i'm not able to be rushed this fast. it makes me nervous. >> are you aware of any communications with other trump campaign officials and associates that they had with russian officials or any russian nationals? >> i don't recall that. >> and are you aware -- >> at this moment. >> are you aware of any communications with any trump officials, or did you have any communications with any officials about russia or russian interests in the united states before january 20th? >> no. i may have had some conversations and i think i did with the general strategic concept of the possibility of whether or not russia and the united states could get on a more harmonious relationship and

move off the hostility. the soviet union did, in fact, collapse. it's really a tragic strategic event that we're not able to get along -- >> before being sworn in as attorney general, how did you typically communicate with then candidate or president-elect trump? >> would you repeat that. >> before you were sworn in as attorney general, how did you typically communicate with then candidate or protect trump? >> i did not submit memoranda -- i did not make formal presentations -- >> did you ever communicate with him in writing? >> i don't believe so. >> and you referred to a long-standing d.o.j. policy. can you tell us what policy it is you're talking about? >> well, i think most cabinet people, as the witnesses you had before you earlier, those individuals declined to comment because we are all about conversations with the president --

>> sir, i'm just asking you about the d.o.j. policy. >> a policy that goes beyond just the attorney general. >> is that policy in writing somewhere? >> i think so. >> so did you not consult it

proven judgment for the bureau and that statement is a valuable thing for the governor thome to say. rosenstein memo to the president. a basis for director comey's

termination. was dated may the 9th, a couple of months after you recused from the russian investigation correct? >> i believe that is correct. >> so, isn't it true that the russian investigation did not factor into your recommendation to fire director comey? >> that is correct. >> the memrandom written to the deputy attorney general your recommendation did not mention russia at all, is that your recollecti recollection? >> that is correct. >> lets review what the basis was of deputy attorney general rosenstein's recommendation. he wrote in his memo may the 9th, i cannot defend the directors handling of the collusion of secretary clinton's emails. and i cannot accept the

universal judgment that he was mistaken. he was talking about director comey. he when on to say that director comey, was wrong to usurp him on july the 5 and. the day of the press conference he held. he went on to say that the fbi director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the justice department and finally he said compounding the error, the director ignored another long standing principal. we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about a declined criminal investigation. in fact, there is written policy from the department of justice, is there not? entitled election year sensitivities. are you familiar with the prohibition of the justice

department making announcements or taking other actions that might interfere with the normal elections? >> i amgenly familiar with that. the memrandom after my time in the department. >> there has always been rules about it though. >> let me read just an excerpt from the memo from the attorney general march 12th. it says that law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigate he steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting an election or giving an advantage or disadvantage for any political candidate for any party. such is inconsistent with the department's mission. do you agree with that? >> essentially yes.

>> so essentially what the deputy attorney general said was that former director comey violated department of justice directives when he held a press conference on july 6th, 2019, he announced that secretary clinton was extremely careless with e-mail and released other derogatory information and that she was extremely careless but went on to say that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her. that is not the role of the fbi director is it? that is the job for the prosecutors at the department of justice. that is what was meant by deputy attorney rosenstein when he said that director comey usurped the role of the prosecutor. >> yes, and bill barr wrote an

op-ed in which he wrote he assumed that attorney general lynch urged general comey to make the announcement so she would not have to do it. but it appears that he did it without her approval totally, and that is a pretty stunning thing. a stunning thing. and it violates fundamental powers and then when he reaffirms the rightness of his decision on may 3rd, i think it was, that was additional confirmation that the director speaking was not clear. >> senator reid -- >> thank you chairman first, a point attorney general, senator hinrich and others talked about long standing ruled. if there is written rules will you provide them to the committee please. >> i will.

>> thank you. senator corn made the point that the whole substance of your recommendation to the president to dismiss director comey was his unprofessional conduct with respect to the clinton administration is that correct? >> i supported everything that the deputy attorney general put in his memorandum as good and important of factors to use determining whether or not he had conducted himself in a way that justified continuing in office. i think it pretty well speaks for itself and most of it did deal with that. now, the discussion about his performance was a bipartisan discussion and began during the election time. democrats were very unhappy about the way he conducted himself and in retropect it was

more egregious than i even understood at the time. >> general, if i may, i don't want to cut you off -- excuse me sir -- on july 7th when mr. comey made the announcement of the case, you said on fox news first of all director comey is a skilled former prosecutor and concluded by saying it's not his problem but hillary clinton's problem and then in november, on november 6th, after mr. comey again made news in late october by reopening, if you will, the investigation you said again on fox news, you know fbi director comey did the right thing when he found in evidence he had no choice but to report it to the american congress, the investigation was over and correct that and say this investigation is ongoing now i'm

sure it's significant or he wouldn't have announced that. so in july and november, director comey was exactly the right thing you had no criticism of him and thought he was a skilled professional prosecutor and felt his last statement in october was fully justified, so how can you go from those statements to agreeing with mr. rosenstein and asking the president recommending he be fired. >> i think in retrospect as all of us began to look at that clearly and talk about it, as perspectives of the department of justice, once the director had first got involved and embroiled in a public discussion of this investigation, which would have been to never have been discussed publically and said he it was over then when he

found new evidence that came up i think he probably was required to tell congress that it wasn't over and new evidence had been developed. it probably would have been better and consistent with the rules of the department of justice to never have talked about the investigation to begin with. once you get down that road what is the kind of thing you get into, that went against classical prosecuting policy that i learned and was taught when i was a united states attorney. >> if i may ask another question, your whole premise is recommending to the president, was the actions in october involving secretary of state clinton, the whole clinton controversy. did you feel misled when the president announced his real reason for dismissing mr. comey

was the russian investigation? >> i am not characterize that fact -- i wouldn't try to competent on that. >> so you had no ink ling that there was anything to do with russia until the president declared not only on tv but in the oval office to the russian foreign minister saying that the pressure is off now i got rid of that nut job. that came to you as a complete surprise? >> all i can say senator reed is that our recommendation was put in writing and i believe it was correct. i believe that the president valued it but how he made his decision was his. >> you had no inkling he was considering the russian investigation. that is fair there is a scenario in which this whole weak

capitulation to clinton is a story basically. the cover story that the president tried to put out and then quickly abandoned and his real reason was russian investigation which if had been the case you in principle would recluse yourself from any involvement. thank you. >> senator mccain. >> over the last few weeks, the administration has characterized your previously undisclosed meetings with russian ambassador meetings you took in your official capacity as u.s. senator and a member of the senate armed services committee. as chairman of that committee let me ask you a few questions about that. at these meetings did you discuss the invasion of ukraine

and crime eyeah? >> i did senator mccain, i would like to follow-up on that. that is one of the issues i recall explicitly. the day before my meeting before the russian ambassador, i had met with the ukrainian ambassador and heard his concerns about russia and i raised them with him and he gave as you can imagine, not one inch. everything they did, the russians had done was correct. and i pushed back and they were testy on the subject. >> with you on the committee i can't imagine that -- did you raise concerns about russian's support for assad and his campaign against indiscriminate violence against his own citizens and chemical weapons. did you raise concerns about the russian interference in our

election process? >> i don't recall that. >> and if you spoke with the ambassador as a member of the arms services committee you presumably talked about russian security issues that you demonstrated as important to you as a member of the committee? >> did i discuss -- >> i don't recall you as being particularly vocal on such issues? >> repeat that senator mccain, i'm sorry. >> to hold russian security issues are important to the committee did you raise those with him? >> you mean -- issues -- >> in other words russia related security issues, in your c capacity of the foreign security committee. what meetings did you hold and

express a keen interest in? >> we may have discussed that. i don't have a real recall of the meeting, i was not making a report about it to anyone, i was just basically willing to meet and see what was discussed. >> and his response was? >> i don't recall. >> during the 2016 campaign season did you have contacts with any represent including any lobbyist or agent of a russian company outside of your capacity as --? >> i don't believe so. >> the fbi found that russian diplomats whose travel was suppose to track had gone missing and some turned up driving around the desert or driving around kansas and reportedly intelligence sources

report that after a year of tension, they indicated that russian's espionage has grown more bold -- you are watching live coverage of attorney general, jeff sessions testimony in washington, d.c. we are streaming it live at 6abc.com. brian taff is also in washington for us and will have more coming up in just a few minutes. meantime tuesday night the big story is the deliberation underway in norristown, montgomery county in bill cosby's sexual assault trial. it's more than 24 hours since the fate of america's dad was handed over to the jury. and we are awaiting a verdict as they continue to have deliberations.

jim is live now outside of the courthouse. >> reporter: good evening rick, i think you put your finger on it. this jury is asking questions, coming back and asking to have deposition passages reread to them. may be fair to say that this jury is struggling to reach a verdict in this case. this jury came back here at 9:00 this morning. and after working for four hours yesterday, if you thought this was going to be a quick and easy verdict, well you would be wrong, bill cosby arrived here early this morning, this time without a company of his wife, camille. so would this be the day that cosby learned his fate? would this jury from pittsburgh convict bill cosby of drugging and sexually assaulting andrea constand in 2004? or would this panel acquit cosby of one, two or three counts of