and in the department of justice, you can be sure of that. [laughter] [applause] there is no doubt that this is a historic thing. there is no doubt the federalist society has made a positive difference for our legal system, i cannot name one entity over the last 35 years to my recollection that has come close to the influence of the federal society on a single important subject facing america. it is unbelievable how much progress has been made. your work has been the core of our relentless efforts to restore the rule of law in this great nation. more than the rule of law, it is the fundamental moral order of a created universe that is so ably advanced by our constitutional system. what a difference a year makes. [laughter] elections really do have consequences. [laughter] president trump is appointing extremely well qualified, highly respected judges, professionals, skilled, brilliance, who will be neutral. not taking sides in the game. he is not appointing politicians, or activists looking to advance an agenda, but faithful jurors speaking t

and in the department of justice, you can be sure of that. [laughter] [applause] there is no doubt that this is a historic thing. there is no doubt the federalist society has made a positive difference for our legal system, i cannot name one entity over the last 35 years to my recollection that has come close to the influence of the federal society on a single important subject facing america. it is unbelievable how much progress has been made. your work has been the core of our relentless efforts to restore the rule of law in this great nation. law, it ishe rule of the fundamental moral order of a created universe that is so ably advanced by our constitutional system. what a difference a year makes. [laughter] elections really do have consequences. [laughter] appointingrump is extremely well qualified, highly respected judges, professionals, skilled, brilliance, who will be neutral. in the game.des he is not appointing politicians, or activists looking to advance an agenda, but faithful jurors speaking to -- looking to abide the law under th

for now, at the department of justice, this is what we are going to do. i'm announcing today, this process is over. [applause] all department of justice opponents will issue guidances to impose new obligation on any party outside the executive branch. we will review and repeal existing guidance documents that violate this commonsense principle. we will also now honor a directive that has been on the books at the department of justice since it was ordained by the man sitting to my right when he was attorney general. i am ending regulation by litigation. when special interests could sue an agency and get the agency to agree to a settlement to impose, in effect, a new regulation on to advance an agenda is over. [applause] the department of justice is duty bound to defend laws as they are written. regardless of whether or not the government likes the result. our agencies must follow the law. judges and our courts must apply. as we know, some judges fail to respect congress and the executive branch. one particularly striking was a federal judge in brooklyn that

of politicization. whoever is attorney general, the justice department must even handedly administer justice. you have recused yourself from matters stemming from the 2016 election, but there are significant concerns that the partisanship of the fbi and the department has weakened the ability of each to act objectively. i look forward to hearing your thoughts on this and what steps you are taking to remove politics from law enforcement. however, these investigations are but a few of the many important issues we need to discuss today. for instance, we just overwhelmingly reported the usa liberty act out of committee last week. this bipartisan legislation would reauthorize section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. the administration has chosen to oppose any reform of the law. i understand the desire for a clean reauthorization of this vital program. however, i believe this stance is a miscalculation that risks further eroding trust in our intelligence apparatus. we hope we can work with you now that the usa liberty act -- which reauthorizes a law that is vital to our nation's bat

for now, at the department of justice, this is what we are going to do. i'm announcing today, this process is over. [applause] all department of justice opponents will issue guidances to impose new obligation on any party outside the executive branch. we will review and repeal existing guidance documents that violate this commonsense principle. we will also now honor a directive that has been on the books at the department of justice since it was ordained by the man sitting to my right when he was attorney general. i am ending regulation by litigation. the days when special interests could sue an agency and get the agency to agree to a settlement to impose, in effect, a new regulation on to advance an agenda is over. [applause] the department of justice is duty bound to defend laws as they are written. regardless of whether or not the government likes the result. our agencies must follow the law. judges and our courts must apply. as we know, some judges fail to respect congress and the executive branch. one particularly striking example was a federal judge

from 1996 to his confirmation to leave the department of justice mr. session served as a united states senator for alabama. previously attorney general sessions served as an assistant united states attorney and united states attorney for the southern district of alabama. alabama attorney general, and captain in the united states army reserves. attorney general sessions is a graduate of huntington college and the university of alabama law school. welcome, attorney general sessions. your anti-written statement will be entered into the record, and we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes but i noted the ranking member took a few more minutes than that, if you find that necessary please feel free to do that as well. welcome. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, is an honor to be before this distinguished committee, having served 20 years on your counterpart in the senate, the senate judiciary committee. mr. chairman, i must note that i note with regret your announcement of retirement, and i know that our relationship has been good in the pa

what has surprised you now that you are the -- working in the department of justice? mr. readler: i knew washington would be political. it may be more political than i expected. one of the great things about the in the department of justice , a gives you a window into the entire federal government because whether it is the president, congress or any federal agency, we represent all of them in their significantly will matters. in one situation, working with the department of the on national implications. you are working with hhs on health care. a lot of immigration matters, a lot of financial matters. i get a window into the whole range of operation. it has been a wonderful way to get introduced to washington. i am enjoying it. it has been a wonderful experience so far. mr. beckett: a few questions from the audience. what is the biggest constitutional issue that america faces today? i highlighted some of the cases that are getting a lot of attention. those are in the news quite a bit. i think the first amendment with -- of its contours will be will have interesting issues t

sessions: department of justice has a number of key positions. the deputy attorney general has supervisory responsibility for all of our investigative agencies, it basically, the entire department. the associate handles part of that, and the deputy and associate reports through the deputy to the attorney general the fbideputy, director, for example, reports through an to the deputy, not directly to the attorney general. is andrew mccabe's responsibility and role? atty. gen. sessions: i think he is classified as the number two guy at the fbi. >> in a position, for instance, mr. comey's position was terminated. mr. mccabe was acting director for a time until a new director was nominated. and mr. rosenstein has been serving with you and had served previously. was anything done to question or that any potential jewel -- potential conflicts they might've had with things like the mueller investigation, the russian investigation, or anything like that? atty. gen. sessions: it's a responsibility i guess of a person involved in an investigation to be sure

mueller i believe. >> moving to a new question, on october 6th, the department of justice actually you on behalf of the department of justice issued a 25-page memo to all federal agencies purported to provide guidance on religious liberty protections under federal law. in the guidance, you direct -- you indicate that exemption or accommodation for religious organizations from anti-discrimination law might be required even where congress has not expressly exempted religious organization, you remember that, right? >> yes. >> okay. would that mean under your interpretation an imemployee of fema could provide disaster assistance when an unmarried couple live together based on the employee's belief a man and woman should not live together before marriage? >> i don't believe it's interpreted that way -- >> thank you, i'd really -- >> i will try to answer -- >> yes or no, will the guidance you provided permit a hud funded shelter to refuse to house an unmarried pregnant woman based on the grant recipient's belief that sex outside of marriage is a sin, yes or no? >> every matter -- first, i do

the department of justice and you on behalf of the department of justice issued a 25 page memo perporting to provide guidance under federal law. you indicate that an exemption or combination for religious organizations from anti-discrimination law might be required where congress as not exempted religious organizations. you remember that, right? >> yes. >> with that being under your interpretation that fema can refuse disaster relief to a married couple that men and women should not cohabitate before marriage. >> i don't believe it could be interpreted that way. >> this is a yes or no. would the quitance you provided to refuse to house an unmarried pregnant woman believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin, yes or no? >> every matter -- first, i don't think so. number one. under the guidance. also the guidance does not repeal established laws that are in place and it was written that guidance was to clarify that establish of time. >> i appreciate your answer. now to the papadopoulos issue. you said you had forgotten and said you were not being dishone dishonest, but you forgot. do you r

the independence of the department of justice. in my judgment, 2016 and 2017 have been challenging years for the doj. the decision to charge someone carries with it multiple layers of review. there is the grand jury, the trial judge, posttrial motions, courts of habeas corpus, the media, congress. but the decision to not charge someone does not carry with it the same corresponding layers of review. in some instances, it is every bit as important why law enforcement did not do something and why prosecutors did not do something. i am not interested in relitigating the fbi's decision not to charge secretary clinton. the decision has been made and explain and i am not interested in relitigating it. but i am interested in reviewing 2016 and 2017 with respect to the doj. there was a time when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were interested in having some of these questions answered. it was not even a year ago when some of my democrat friends wanted jim comey prosecuted. that was 12 months ago. it was absurd then and now. but

practice init a your department of justice to allow immunized witnesses >> is it a practice in your department of justice to allow immunized witnesses to sit in on investigations? mr. sessions: not would not be a normal practice for sure. few of the anomalies that have taken place and how the department of justice and fbi have handled these investigations and prosecutions prior to 2016 and now apparently a departure from how you are handling them. these irregularities have shaken the faith and trust of people in our department of justice. i'm of the opinion that for the last eight years we have survived the last presidency in my lifetime my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent their time trying to make us think it is our current president. ,lected officials come and go but right now, where we are, what our history will not tell us is what happens if i were people lose all faith and trust in the department of justice and fbi to fairly investigate and prosecute violations of the role of law? every time you and i have held the same position in the department of justice. -- as were

, and department of defense, changing obama policy they are doing exactly will what obama did i am urging department of justice department of defense to come up with new protocols, to hold trir suspects soldiers caliphate people killed ambassador as enemy combat apts in the future future you -- >> president trump is urging, are justice department fbi to investigate, about hillary clinton and democrats on everything from uranium to russia dossier e-mails, arrangement we talked about about with dnc, here is the president. >> they should be looking at the democrats, they should be looking at podesta all that dishonesty should be looking at a lot of things, and a o lot of people are disappointed in the justice department including me. >> senator is the president crossing the line when he encourages almost directs his justice department and fbi to investigate and perhaps prosecute his us political opponents? yes, it is my view that president trump as a commander in chief should be focusing on his department of defense to make sure if we capture sob involved in benghazi tax we don't put him in federal court without

of politization. whoever is attorney general, the justice department must even handily administer justice. you have recused yourself from matters stemming from the 2016 election, but there are significant concerns that the partisanship of the fbi and the department has weakened the ability of each to act objectively. i look forward to hearing your thoughts on this and what steps you are taking to remove politics from law enforcement. however, these investigations are but a few of the many important issues we need to discuss today. for instance, we just overwhelmingly reported that the usa liberty act out of committee last week. this bipartisan legislation would reauthorize section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. the administration has chosen to oppose any reform of the law. i understand the desire for a clean reauthorization of this vital program. however, i believe this stance is a miscalculation that risks further eroding trust in our intelligence apparatus. we hope we can work with you now that the usa liberty act, which reauthorizes a law that is vital to our nation's

you continued that service by leading the department of justice, an agency that by its very nature is prone to controversy because of the varied opinions on what it means to seek and obtain justice. however, you clearly understand the department you need must have confidence of the american people even when your decisions are not always well deceived. -- received. your first year leading the department of justice has not been without difficulty, which is expected at the outset of a new administration. while much has been done to correct the improper administration of justice under the obama administration, more work must be done to make sure the department is operating to impartially administered justice. our last doj oversight hearing was beyond disappointing. attorney general loretta lynch gave the least transparent testimony i can recall in my time in congress. it was plainly a disservice to the american people. ms. lynch failed to respond substantively to almost every question. and, the attorney general was held in contempt for his own stonewalling for the reckless operations. i e

>> the department of justice has a number of key positions. the deputy attorney general has supervisory responsibility for all of our investigative agencies and basically the most -- well the entire department. the associate handles a part of that and the deputy and associate reports through the deputy to the attorney general. and the fbi director, for example, reports through and to the deputy, not directly to the attorney general. >> so what's andrew mccabe 's responsibility? >> i think he is classified as a number two guy at the fbi. >> and in their positions, for instance, mr. comey's position was terminated mr. mccabe was acting director i think for a period of time until a new director was nominated. and mr. rosenstein has been serving with you and had served previously. was anything done to question or vet any potential conflicts those two gentlemen might have had with things like the mueller investigation, with russian investigation or anything like that? >> it's the responsibility, i guess, of the person involved in an investigation to

history won't tell us is what happens to our republic if people lose all faith and trust in the department of justice and the fbi to fairly investigate and prosecute violations of the rule of law. at one point in time you and i held the same to position in the department of justice. i was u.s. attorney as were you. you have obviously been promoted. if public opinion polls tell us anything, the chair i hold right now signals that i've been demoted. but my time as u.s. attorney taught me something you said in your opening. which is that the department of justice must always transcend politics to uphold the rule of law. i think more than anything else, the american people want to hear from you today is that that is in fact the case. lady justice is supposed to be holding a set of scales, wearing a blindfold. she's not supposed to have her finger on the scales. i think the american people have every reason to question whether or not that's where we are right now. more than anything else what i am asking from you is to hear from you that you are prepared -- no, that you are committed to go wherever the fa

after all e -- we're just the department of justice. they are the department of defense, what can we possibly learn from that? obviously that would be wrong and obviously that would be a mistake particularly when you look across that boundary to military law and see these examples right on point that they did not bother to discuss or disclose. but then it gets better still. the o.l.c. memos failed to disclose prosecutions by the department of justice for waterboarding. not some case that never got reported someplace that was just a trial and you'd have to look deep into your own records to try to find what took place perhaps without a reported decision, just a verdict from the jury. this was a case that was extensively documented with writings by the trial court judge, a united states district judge in the state of texas, that went up on appeal to the circuit court of appeals, and the united states circuit court of appeals wrote a decision on appeal of the district court's decision. what were the facts? the facts were that there was a lo

it is in the manual of the department of justice for what's required. we've only had two. -- senatoras danforth took over that investigation as special counsel. and mr. mueller. each of those are special factual situations. we will use the proper standards and that's the only thing i can tell you mr. jordan. you can have your idea but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and evaluate whether it meets the standard. >> we know the clinton campaign, the democrat national committee, paid for through the law firm, the dossier. it looks like the fbi was paying the author of that document. it sure looks like a major political party was working with the federal government to turn an opposition research document into an intelligence document, take that defies a court so they could get a warrant to spy on americans associated with president trump's campaign. a secondhat warrant special counsel? 20 members of this committee wrote you come asking you to do. >> mr. comey is no longer the director of the fbi. we have an excellent man of integrity and ability

>> the department of justice has a number of key positions. the deputy attorney general has supervisory responsibility for all of our investigative agencies and basically the most of -- well, the entire department. the associate handles a part of that p and the deputy and the associate reports through the deputy to the attorney general. and the deputy, the fbi director, for example, reports through the and to the deputy. not directly to the attorney general. >> okay. and so what's andrew mccabe responsibility and role? >> i think he's classified as a number two guy at the fbi. >> okay. and in their positions, for instance, when mr. comey's position was terminated, mr. mccabe was acting director, i think for a period of time until a new director was nominated. and mr. rosen stein has been serving with you and had served previously. was anything done to question or vet any potential conflicts those two gentlemen may have had with things like the mueller investigation, with russian investigation, or anything like that? >> it's the responsibility i

but we have an experienced team in the department of justice. we do try to handle each case professionally. we have a good chief now of the anti-trust division, and i'm not able to announce any new policies at this time, congressman. >> will there be a discussion concerning vertical and horizontal mergers when it comes to the so-called term behavior conditions where two companies that merge in may have to divest? could there be future discussion about when this behavioral condition could be implemented? >> well, the vertical/horizontal issue is something that has always been part of the discussion. i don't think it's dispositive of any final decision, but i'm really not able at this time to comment on anything that would be part of an ongoing matter. >> i understand. >> i appreciate you giving me an opportunity to not attempt to answer that. >> i'm going to switch to human trafficking. when i was a u.s. attorney, we handled some very heartbreaking and very severe situations concerning human trafficking. i know that you understand, like i understa

>> the department of justice has a number of key positions. the deputy attorney general has supervisory responsibility for all of our investigative agencies and basically, the entire department. the associate handles a part of that, and the deputy and associate report to the attorney general and the deputy, the fbi director for example, reports through and to the deputy. not directly to the attorney general. >> what is andrew mccabe's responsibility? >> i think he is classified as a number two guy at the fbi. >> and their positions, mr. comey's position was terminated. and in the was a new director nominated, and mr. rosenstein has been serving with you and served previously. was anything done to question that any conflicts of those two gentlemen that they may have had with things like the mueller investigation, russian investigation or anything like that? >> it is a responsibility of the person involved in the investigation to be sure that nothing they do has a conflict of interest or that should require recusal. >> i appreciate that that is a

of politicalism. whoever is attorney general, the justice department must even handedly administer justice. ve recused yourself from matters stemming from the 2016 election but there are significant concerns that the partisanship of the f.b.i. and the department has weakened the ability of each to act objectively. i look forward to hearing your thoughts on this and what steps you are taking to remove politics from law enforcement. however, these investigations are put a few of the many important issues we need to discuss today. for instance, we just overwhelmingly reported the usa liberty act out of committee last week. this bipartisan legislation would reauthorize section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. administration has chosen to oppose any reform of the law. i understand the desire for a clean reauthorization of this vital program. however, i believe this stance is a miscalculation that risks further eroding trust in our intelligence apparatus. we hope we can work with you now that the usa liberty act, which reauthorizes a law that is vital to our nation's battle agains

department of justice within forty eight hours of transmission and i'll tell you that it will take a long time to adjust to the still reality and even to figure out whether it is possible in the first place does that mean that every tweet that gets posted by america requires a disclaimer does our channel in the u.s. now have to send all its tweets to the u.s. department of justice many experts have argued that in the twenty first century with the current social media output which is normal for all news organizations it is simply impossible although this cracked out on r.t. america has been ignored largely by those who you would expect to speak on the issues with freedom of speech and didn't go completely unnoticed take the committee to protect journalists that's a new york based ngo they were very critical of the ultimatum said by the u.s. department of justice and here's bits of their statement compelling to register under far as a bad idea we're on comfortable. with governments deciding what constitutes journalism or propaganda and you may well argue that the us authorities are app

of these questions. if i'm confident the justice department is looking at some of these questions. 't help the president. >> chris: let me take the counterargument, the president does nominate the attorney general, the justice department is part of his administration. if there had been violations of the law, you just heard lindsey graham say that he thinks there have been violations of the law by the clintons, some of these deals, uranium one, the gps fusion, why not say to them, take a >> this is an authoritarian instinct so i think he's exactly right when he says you don't punish your political opponents by putting the mechanism of law enforcement on them without saying there has to be a real basis. this is a law enforcement decision, this is not a political act, and you don't go after the courts or the military courts and in terms of some of the things we've had this week, we were undermining something that is core to america, which is our law enforcement system. that's what he's doing by trying to pressure attorney general sessions into taking an act against hillary clinton. wit

department of justice has sued to stop a t.n.t.'s proposed eighty five billion dollars acquisition of time warner now eighty n.t. is the united states biggest telecoms company time warner a major producer of media content department of justice says allowing both companies to merge would mean a concentration of power detrimental to conceive this president donald trump's outspoken dislike for time warner's news channel c.n.n. some also see a political dimension at play. plans by eighty and t.v. to purchase time warner one of the leading media companies in the u.s. we're ready controversial when they were announced in two thousand and sixteen even before he became president donald trump was already critical. a deal we will not approve in my administration because it's too much concentration of power in the hands of too few. trump has called c.n.n. which is owned by time warner fake news this is why plans by the department of justice to sue eighteen t. to stop its acquisition of time warner a controversial but c.e.o. has said he will fi

department heads. the secretary of the treasury is the chairperson. the rest are the heads of the departments of justice, homeland security, commerce, defense, state and energy, plus the office of the u.s. trade representative and the office of science and technology. that's cfius. all department heads approved the sale, not hillary clinton. we don't know definitively if secretary clinton participated. the then secretary of state -- a assistant secretary of state represented hillary clinton on cfius. she said the secretary teary never intervened. secretary clinton or the committee could stop a deal of this kind. the committee members evaluate a sale of anything related to national security. by law, if one member objects, the president and only the president can veto such a transaction. no committee member of the nine objected. federal approvals were also needed. the nuclear regulatory commission approved the sale on november 24 of 2010 and in doing so stipulated that no uranium produced may be exported. so where does the uranium go? well, the energy information administration or eia reports that unless

we have an experienced team in the department of justice. we do try to handle each case professionally. we have the chief of the antitrust division and i'm not able to announce any new policies at this time, congressman. >> will there be a discussion concerning vertical and horizontal mergers when it comes to the so-called term behavioral conditions where two companies that emerge may have to divest and could there be future discussion as to when this behavioral condition would be implemented? >> the vertical and horizontal issue is something that has been part of the discussion. i don't think it's any final decision, but i'm really not able at this time to comment on anything that would be part of an ongoing matter. >> i understand. >> i appreciate you giving me an opportunity to not attempt to answer that. >> i'm going to switch to youhu trafficking. as a u.s. attorney, we handled very heart breaking and very severe situations concerning human trafficking. i know thaw understand like i understand the challenges involved there. what can you

over the years, over the past 40 some years, different solutions have been employed by the department of justice, not just because they make sense, but because the department's guidelines require them to consider them. in this case, the point we want to make is we offer those types of solutions. for whatever reason, they were not sufficient here. >> okay. the next question we will take from the conference bridge. ryan from the washington post. >> hello. i'm wondering if you can respond to the portion of the critique that site at&t own criticism of the deal as a bad deal over some of the same concerns that d.o.j. is raising with the time warner merger. >> i'm happy to answer that. those are quotes taken out of contacts. that's remember what the comcast deal was. it in involved a major big for network, strong regional networks, dominant positions in local markets in terms of video platforms. dominant from positions in broadband, and in an era which is much less developed and much less competitive back in 2009, 2010, 2011, all of those factors are wildly different in our case. we've got much more c

over the past eight years the department of justice has penalized many mortgage lenders who participated in the federal housing administration's mortgage insurance program, a program that provides access to mortgages for some of america's first-time home buyers. unfortunately, the department of justice still continues even today to use the false claims act to impose penalties on mortgage lent lenders, many of whom were guilty of only material deficiencies in their loan applications. minor issues that years later people came back trying to find a mistake so that they could pin the tail, a fine on some mortgage learned. my colleagues and i have objected to these actions by the department of justice because many of the shortcomings in these loan applications were never intended as efforts to defraud anyone but merely technical oversights. perhaps facts that might have not been completely known at the time. the loan application. many long-time mortgage lenders have exited this program because they cannot risk opening themselves to the penalties that have been imposed, i think, unwisely by th

he objects to the department of justice pursuing justice. instead of pursuing donald trump's grudge matches with hillary clinton who got got 3 million more votes than donald trump did in the election and also tonight john kelly is on his way out of the country stopping in hawaii on his way to an asian trip with the president who must be so very proud of john kelly for doing what donald trump would do if he was caught telling a stream of angry lies about a black member of congress. john kelly completed two full weeks now of refusing to apologize to congresswoman wilson after the proof he lied about her was revealed on videotape two weeks ago. now when you find yourself in a test of character, no matter how big or small, and you choose to do exactly what donald trump would do, you are living in a very dark place and you are not the adult in any room. turns out the only adult in the room in the trump white house is special prosecutor robert mueller who's haunting every room of that white house now. >> a lot of people are disappointed in the jus

does this not hurt the department of justice's case? m at&t that earlier this month they were advised by the department of justice, well, maybe you want to divest, maybe you want to spin off cnn, turner classic? what does the president's actions that -- do for the department of justice here? >> making comments after announced does not go at all because typically the president doesn't comment on pending litigation and i have to assume the merging parties are going to make quite a bit of it. it's the fact that the government's theory is somehow that once they own time warner content, they'll jack the price up to the other cable and video providers so much so that they'll refuse the programming and it's all going to move over. people are suddenly going to cut their cable and put an antenna on their roof. i think that the evidence that that will happen is going to be pretty slim. yet i see that as an integral part of the case. >> politics has always been prevalent in this. gentlemen, thank you. >>> up next, after spending a spree, really, th

and hearing on oversight of the justice department. parliamentary inquiry is to. >> without objection. >> thank you. they said a number of things that we can work together. bull to be able to put in the record and answer to the creation of task force on sexual crimes against children. >> i don't think that's parliamentary objection. >> but if i can put it in the record, please. >> i don't think that's apartmently objection. >> i'm sorry, pardon me? >> and the parliament inquiry is we will have opportunity for questions to be put in the record. and one on the 702 regarding sharing information with foreign entity that interfered with the electi election. >> gentle lady. >> i thank you. i yield back. >> now recognize myself for five minutes. and general sessions, you have to know that i hold you in tremendously high regard. i know you've had a bumpy ride but some of you appreciate who you are. with that, as the justice department knows, the house and senate have conducted investigations into the illegal sail of illegal body part of babies

will the department of justice look at that and say that seems pretty backwards. why are we talking about a uhf way of counting when everybody's gone digital. i hope based on what we see at today's department of justice anti-trust division, which is pretty aggressive with the at&t time warner merger, i hope we see the same level with this merger and they discontinue this rather odd regression to the '70s that chairman pie has chosen for counting households. >> that is unfair alice in wonderland description of what the chairman did. all chairman pie did is say that you were going to reexamine the so-called uhf discount, which is just a way of measuring the 39%, you have to think about the 39% at the same time and think about what the public interest is. that's all he did. and that, i think, is almost inarguably correct. the 39% cap is highly antiquated in this day and age. if you're going to look at one, you should look at the other. that's all he said. he said the wheeler commission, which had only just changed rule a few months before, because this was on a motion

>> no. >> at the department of justice? >> no. >> at the white house? >> no. >> any member of congress? >> is well, i don't know if these conversations may have come up at some time, but not directly. i don't recall at this moment any such discussion. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. we've got a lot of people waiting to ask questions. recognizing the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. >> thank you. does your recusal from investigations related to the interference by russia in the 2016 presidential campaign apply to any investigations regarding efforts by the democratic national committee and the clinton campaign to secretly fund in -- dossier on candidate donald trump? >> anything that arises in this nature that may or may not be connected to my recusal on the question of the campaign and russia would be discussed between me, the senior ethics adviser at the department of justice and that's how i make my decision. that's what i promised to do when i was confirmed before the senate judiciary committee. and that's what i will do. i'm unable to

but we have an experienced team in the department of justice. we do try to handle each case professionally. we have a good chief now of the antitrust division. and i'm not able to announce any new policies at this time, congressman. >> will there be a discussion concerning vertical and horizontal mergers when it comes to so-called term behavioral conditions where two companies that are merging may have to divest? could there be future discussion as to when this behavioral condition would be implemented? >> well, the vertical, horizontal issue is something that as always been part of the discussion. i don't think it's dispositive of any final decision. but, i'm really not able at this time to comment on anything that would be part of an ongoing matter. >> understand. >> and i appreciate you giving me an opportunity to not attempt to answer that. >> i'm going to switch to human trafficking. when i was a u.s. attorney, we handled some very heart breaking and very situations concerning human trafficking. and i know that unde you undersd like i unders

is there a danger here of the president politicizing the justice department? obviously the justice department is saying that has not happened in this case. but is that specter there? are you concerned about it? >> of course that specter is there and, again, we'll let the process work out to see if whether in fact this was driven by something the president said or did. it's not just a specter, it's a weekly occurrence with this president. firing jim comby to relieve pressure. weighing in on what kind of punishment the new york terrorist should get. urging his attorney general to investigate his political opponent. politicizing the justice department is what this president does before breakfast. >> all right. congressman himes, thank you very much. we appreciate that. >>> coming up, we're standing by for that news conference we mentioned from at&t and time warner. >>> also, doctors examining a defector to find a shocking revelation, appalling health conditions in north korea. you're in "the situation room." ride-along, captain! e i've never been in one of these b

the republicans in congress sent the department of justice letters in july and in september. ey said hey, we think a bunch of laws have been zone here. we're talking about criminal referral from the department to the department of justice from the congress. representative jim jordan, who is on the house oversight committee, says this is why there is a potential for a special counsel which, by the way, the attorney general has left open that possibility. >> what we do know is what you brought up, laura, james comey called the investigation a matter not an investigation. james comey began drafting exoneration letter of hillary clinton before the investigation is over. when he ultimately gets fired which he should have been a long time ago, when he gets fired what's he do? leaks a government document to a friend through the "new york times" what was his goal he? told us under oath create momentum for special counsel. who does that special counsel have to be his best friend special counsel bob mueller who was the guy implicated in uranium one deal. when all this comes out not to m

they racedt a minimum a specter of collusion between the department of justice and department of homeland security. the prioritization of recent inference including the surgeance of unaccompanied minors and immigrants were likewise ill advised and poorly executed. ignoring the spikes of asylum fraud eoyr chose its program based on expediency rather than based on prudence. of utmost concern to this subcommittee is the current backlog of pending cases. i am appalled but really not surprised that the previous administration created conditions that ult matly resulted in a backlog of almost 630,000 pending cases nationwide. this number represents a 22% increase in fiscal year 2017 and is simply unacceptable. the government accountability office's recent report on management practices at eoyr and the backlog identified several possible solutions including reforming the hiring process for immigration judges and updating internal oversight practices to ensure better daca management. the goa report noted coiniances were a contributing factor to the backlog. it found that court saw a 23% increase i

what does that mean for the department of justice? wouldpartment of justice look at that and say, i guess the expert agency that uses rules from 1975 should apply today. gothis one, we are going to back in time to 1975. will the department of justice look at that say, i guess they must know more than we do about how to count households. or, with a department of justice say that seems pretty backwards. why are we talking about an analog uhf way of counting when everyone has gone digital? itope based on what we see today's doj antitrust division, i hope we see the same level of energy and enforcement when it , and thathis merger they disregard this rather odd regression to the 1970's that the chairman has chosen for counting households. >> that's an allison wonderland description. >> say that again. inthat is an unfair, alice wonderland description of what the chairman did. the chairman said if you were that to measure the 39%, you have the think about the 39% and think about what the public interest is. that's all he did. and i think th

. >> martha: in terms of the issue, the president has said that he would like the justice department be more open-minded to reopening some of the investigations with regards to hillary clinton and with regard to uranium one in particular. here's an exchange with your colleague, mr. jordan, congressman jordan on the issue of appointing a special counsel with that in mind. watch this. >> what's it going to take to actually get a special counsel? >> it would take a factual basis that meets a standard of the appointment of a special counsel. >> we know one fact, we know the clinton campaign and the national committee paid through the law firm for the dossier. we know that happened and it sure looks like the fbi was paying the author of that document. doesn't that warrant naming a second special counsel, as 20 members of this committee wrote you asking you to do? >> martha: congressman, do you think we will see a special counsel appointed by attorney general sessions based on what you heard today? >> i don't know, but i did like his answer, which is we will follow the facts wherever they

>> it's in the manual of the department of justice of what's required. we've only had two. the first one was the waco janet reno senator danfoss who took over that special counsel and mr. mueller. each of those are pretty special factual situations. and we will use the proper standards. that's the only thing i can tell you, mr. jordan. >> i appreciate that. >> you can have your ideas, but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it meets a standard -- >> so let me ask you this. we know one fact. we know the committee paid for. and it sure looks like the fbi was paying the author of that document and it sure looks like a major political party was working with the federal government to then turn an opposition research document of national enquirer story to an intelligence document, take that to the court so they can then get a warrant to spy on the campaign. that's what it looks like. doesn't that warrant naming a second special counsel as 20 members of this committee wrote you three and a half months ago asking you to do. >> well, mr. comey is no