and state law enforcement officials despite the large game in 2016 the inspector general for department of justice express concern many states and localities receiving federal grants were not complying with the terms of 1373. against that backdrop the executive order with the secretary of department ofhe homeland security to cabinet officials charged with enforcement to utilize their legal authority to enforce a statute including to place conditions on grants requiring compliance with the law. the executive order does not rewrite the law or vocal powers or instruct justice or dhs to engage in constitutional activity exacted is just the opposite. at every turn e it states it shall be consistent with law to approach that he has reconfirmed in court into the department. so to enjoy enforcement with three fundamental respects that the district court for any action taken under it is directed to cabinet officials to use their discretion to place them where they are appropriate and none of that happened. it actually ordered a facial challenge there is noap implied contract and that appropriate standard w

it is directed only the department of justice as grantmaking components but has no effect on any other agency of the federal government. certainly no effect on the department of homeland security. we know that the president continues to intend executive order to defund matrices and we know that the department of homeland security home even mr. -- acknowledges is subject to the direction of the executive order to deny funds to century cities interprets the order differently than the attorney general memorandum. we have a statement of the acting director of i.c.e. , and congressional testimony where he says that what this order does is it allows the department homeland security to defund grants to cities that do not honor detainers and do not allow i.c.e. access to their jails. that is my interpretation that the attorney general memorandum gives it. even if you credit the memorandum i think you should treat it only as a directive to grantmaking departments within the department of -- grantmaking components within the problem justice to implement this in a certain way and we have nothing

there's a lot of pressure on the federal bureau of investigation and on the department of justice to produce these documents. i think the fact that they've now appointed two united states attorneys, one to oversee the investigation from outside of the main department of justice. i still think we need a special counsel into what my committee and chairman gowdy's committee are looking into with regard to how the fbi handled investigations into hillary clinton and into both campaigns in 2016 and into 2017. we have made progress in that regard. now we have a new united states attorney overseeing the production of these documents. we don't have the documents yet. we don't have access to the documents. but i believe we will have them very soon based upon the discussions that we're undertaking. if we do not we are prepared to take additional steps and i believe that people in the administration very much want to have the congress get these documents so that we can a, conduct our investigation but b, also recognize that right of the congress and the american people to have access to informati

treat it only as a directive to grant making departments within the department of -- grant making components within department of justice. to implement this order in a certain way. and we have nothing from the department of homeland security to disspell the statements of the acting director of i.c. whomplete tells us they're going to -- i.c.e. who tells us they're going to interpret this very differently. i think this is remarkable bli similar to the washington vs. trump case. the first travel ban case. where the court was faced with a very broad executive order that purported to deny the ability to re-enter the country, to holders of green cards, to lawful permanent residents, and then there was a statement from the white house council that purported to be -- counsel that purported to be an authoritative interpretation of the executive order that said, no, it doesn't apply to green cardholders at all. and this court quite appropriately was skeptical of that and said, you know, the white house counsel just doesn't have the authority to rescind an executive order. similarly, the attorney general does not have the authori

with a single federal agency but the department of homeland security is responsible for implementing and enforcing america's immigration laws to the department of justice is the agency with jurisdiction over the immigration court that has been the subject of scholarly debate from 30 years although many agree the court to be approved there is no consensus on how that should change some scholars and advocates say they need to be completely overhauled and argued congress should have a separate court on immigration court outside of the jurisdiction between the department of justice and executive branch. in their view the article one court can reduce the case backlog to ensure that immigration judges remain impartial and independent but of course on another complex topic there is another point of view. not everybody agrees the court system is one needed. instead they creating the article one core is duplicate to the does nothing to resolve the current case backlog entities will the problem is the resource challenge with the polls for current immigration laws. both republican and democrat have struggled how to reduce the caseload in the immigration court and

breaches of the foreign emoluments clause, allegations of obstruction of justice and preserving the independence of the departmentof justice among other matters. democrats have hoped to initiate action by writing letters to the administration and house leadership participating in forums and forcing votes of inquiry, releasing reports and introducing legislation. unfortunately, nearly all letter s sent by our members have received no response, and all of our letters of inquiry have been rejected by the majority. the silence speaks that administration run amok and the majority willing to turn a blind eye to gross misconduct. significantly, these oversight efforts help lay the predicate for action, if democrats are to retake the house majority in the fall. notwithstanding the best efforts of the minority, it is clear more needs to be done immediately. i believe congress needs to take several commonsense actions right now to protect the integrity of the department and help restore accountability to our government. one, pass the special counsel independence and integrity act, which is bicameral and bipartisan in its s

you're at the helm of the justice department under siege. this is your chance to talk about how you're going to protect it. and, in that regard, don't let the justice department turn its back on a proud tradition of being a guardian of equal justice for all. including the most vulnerable in our society, the most disadvantaged. be careful, voting rights, civil rights, immigration, giving equal protection to all, including the most vulnerable in our society. it is the department of justice that is there for all of us, every american. i want to make sure the attorney general has the tools and the ability to do that. leahy, thank you very much. we will welcome our witness today. i welcome attorney general sessions to this subcommittee hearing. and i recognize you for your opening statement. mr. sessions: thank you, very much, chairman moran and chairman shaheen. friends and former colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to be with you. to bearticularly pleased able to congratulate my former senior senator for 20 years, senator shelby chosen to

you should treat it only as a directive to grantmaking department in the department, grantmaking components into the permit of justice to implement this order in a certain way and we have nothing from the department of homeland security to dispel the statement of acting director of ice. to interpret this executive order differently. this is remarkably similar to the washington versus trump case where the court was faced with a broad executive order that purported to deny the ability to reenter the country to holders of green cards, lawful permanent residents and there was a statement from the white house counsel that purported to be an authoritative interpretation of the executive order that said no, it doesn't apply to green card holders at all at this court was skeptical of that and said the white house counsel just doesn't have the authority to rescind and executive order. similarly the atty. gen. does not have the attorney the authority to rescind this executive order nor binder the department in the federal government to his version of the executive order, at least not in an internal memorandum like this that is

it is from my own experience at the department of justice. us tosor north asked consider whether the president's relationship with the department and with the bureau today is consistent with established , and and practices similarly, whether congressional oversight of the department and the fbi today are consistent with norms and standards. starting with the president, first of all, there is nothing normal about how this president considers his relationship with the department of justice and the fbi. whether it's through tweets, the public statements, or comments of his surrogates like sarah sanders or sean hannity, his own view of the authority he would like to have wishes to have over the department of -- in terms of actually playing a role in individual investigations, which investigations should be started, which investigations should be ended, etc., that's not normal. every administration since watergate has had strict rules and policies that govern the exchange of information between the white house and the department of justice. while i

in our view the immigration courts must be moved out of the department of justice to ensure that judges have full dependence without fear of reprisal or improper political influence. ththey need was emphasized by te recent announcement on the pendinpending imposition of thee production quotas for immigration judges. we believe this would spur more appeals as well as prevent federal courts and as well as result in more that would in turn increase the backlog in immigration courts. kindly disposition of cases is important but not if it is to come at the expense of due process. finally, i want to express dismay over the department of justice's planned suspension of the legal orientation program. contrary to what you just heard, the program that is being suspended has an annual budget of $8 million. it's not just a 2012 study that determined that this program reduced the amount of time for detainees to be adjudicated in fact since the department of justice piloted the program back in 1989 they found at that point there was a 20% reduction in the amount of time while increasing the percentag

you're at the helm of the justice department. this is your chance to talk about how you're going to protect it. and in that regard, don't let the justice department turn its back on a proud tradition of being equal justice for all. including the most vulnerable in our society. the most disadvantaged. be careful. it was the most vulnerable in our department of justice is there for all of us, for every american, and i want to make sure that the attorney general has the tools and the ability to do that. >> thank you very much. we now will recognize our witness today. i welcome once again attorney general sessions so this subcommittee hearing and recognize your opening statement. >> thank you very much, chairman moran, and ranking member shaheen, distinguished members of this committee, friends and former colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to be with you. i'm particularly pleased to be able to gre able to congratulate my former senior senator for 20 years, shelby for being chosen to chair this historic committee. it is a tremen

then he basically was given run of the justice department. 't answer to anyone on a day-to-day basis. the justice department is out of control. mueller seems to be running the show on many issues including directing department of justice resources to raid the apartment of the lawyer of the president of the united states on whether there was a campaign violation of a little over a $100,000. that special operation is going to destroy the reputation of the justice department if the president doesn't take action. lou: i think it's too late for that. if there is anyone in this country who thinks this department of justice leadership is competent, is impartial and fair and committed to justice instead of a partisan result in the interest of the deep state and not the united states of america, then they haven't been paying attention to anything going none the nation's capital. >> i agree. the problem the justice department has, it has little credibility with many americans. jeff sessions doesn't understand the crisis his agency is in. those agencies

>> the department of justice issue anything? not that i know of. >> nothing issued by the department of justice? >> regarding the lop? not that i'm aware of. >> i think there was some confusion about that. when you have a backlog there are a couple of things you need to do. one or the other or perhaps both. you need more judges. and then you need to better case management systems and it sounds like the immigration courts are in the dark ages when it comes to things like teleconferencing and electronic filing and the like but it sounds like both the gao and your office, mr. mchenry, are working on those. what i would like to talk about is the supreme court decision, the sessions versus demaya. going back to 1990 the supreme court developed what's known as a categorical approach, mr. mchenry, in determining sentencing and mandatory sentences for the repeat criminal act. since that time they've been applied in the immigration context. now the supreme court yesterday rendered a decision that now affects how immigration judges analyze

i understand with the hypocrisy playing out at the department of justice. rod rosenstein believes he can oversee an investigation into obstruction of justice regarding the firing of james comey. when it was rod rosenstein who wrote the memo recommending the firing of james comey. at the same time, you have them appointing a special counsel to look into the president while they are appointing their own staff members and department to investigate their own conduct. it's that hypocrisy that has the president at this level of frustration and it would be warranted if we made changes at the very top of the department of justice. >> harris: sessions, the attorney general, the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, i remember a picture of the two of them at dinner at some point? what does all this mean when you look at how they've handled all of this and what the president might do going forward? >> it's very clear to me that rod rosenstein is in charge and jeff sessions is doing what he says. when we asked the attorney general to define the scope of his recusal, h

of score. get your free business mentor at score.org. gregg: the justice departmentailing to comply with a deadline on hillary clinton, fisa abuse and the trump russia case. they have received 3,000 out of 1.2 million documents they are sneak a subpoena. joining me now, renowned harvard slaw school professor, alan dershowitz. professor, great pleasure to have you with us. is it your sense the department of justice and to some extent think they are above the law and don't have to answer to it, or they are engaged in a cover-up of incriminating documents or both? >> it could be innocent as well. these are overwhelming numbers of document. gregg: the subpoena came out 7 months ago. >> you have to make sure they are doing the same thing as they do when democrats and republicans seek the documents. the justice department is in veal trouble because the american public doesn't trust our justice system. they think it's partisan. gregg: we found out a couple days ago there wasn't just one ordinarier in the appointment of robert mueller for special counsel. one was for public

when trey gowdy went down to the department of justice to see it, they were redacted. ey agreed to allow trey gowdy to see it. he went back down there and it was still redacted. the nerve of those people who have the chairman of the oversight committee go down there andshot not show him what the american people were looking for. they ought to yank jeff sessions and director wray and have them raise 'right hand and explain to the american people why they can't see it. what is it you think congress couldn't see. gregg: it's a classic excuse by the department of justice. it may be confidential to many americans. >> trey gowdy, devin nunes, they have all the security clearances you possibly could have. they are elect bid their colleagues to chair the committees. the next day he should have been out there trying to hold these people in contempt. but the leadership within the republican party, they don't have the guts to do it. >> should jeff sessions, rod rosenstein and christopher wray be held in contempt? >> if it would mean something. but like we learned with eric holder.

joining us is one of the 11 lawmakers who made that referral to the department of justice. ongresswoman, claudia tenney. thanks for being with us. on the matter of comey, you identified a myriad of crimes you suspect he may have committed which include theft of government documents, mishandling classified information, abuse of power, obstruction of justice and perjury. have you heard anything back from doj and, you know, are you optimistic? >> we haven't heard anything directly but we do have good news. one of the top news stories is the inspector general referred an drew maccabe for investigation of potential charges which is a good sign. i cannot believe james comey. he's every psychologist and psychiatrist across the country must be saying what's going on, this guy is unraveling in front of our eyes. it looks like a therapy tour. a lot of pressure has to be put on these people. i would like to see some transparency and accountability. let'let's restore faith in the . we have people running amok. gregg: he was trying to profit from his own wrongdoing. this was an adoration

did the department of justice provide anything about the lop anything in 2015. >> the department of justice issued, not that i'm aware of. >> and nothing from the defendant of justice from the lop from the 2017. >> not from the lop. >> i guess some confusion about that. you do background, one or the other or perhaps both, you need more judges which you talked about, mr. mchenry and better case management sometimes and it sounds like the immigration courts are in the dark ages when it comes to teleconferencing and the like. it sounds like the gao and your office, mr. mchenry are working on those. what i'd like to talk about is the court decision versus dimaya, if i'm pronouncing that correctly, and the supreme court had a categorical approach for mandatory minimums for serial repeat offenders under the armed criminal act. since that time those have been applied to the immigration context, but now the supreme court yesterday rendered a decision that affects how immigration judges analyze criminal convictions and i think you alluded to that earlier. do you think that the dimaya decision will b

within department of justice. rior to his current position director mchenry serve as an administrative law judge for the office of chief administrative hearing officer of the chief minister hearings officer picky also served as deputy associate attorney general and the department just as working right of immigration related litigation matters and is an assistant chief counsel with u.s. immigration and customs enforcement, otherwise known as i.c.e. within the department of homeland security. director mchenry has a bachelors of science from georgetown university and foreign service and a masters of art and political science from vanderbilt and a juris doctorate from vanderbilt law school. thank you both for being here today. ms. gambler, we will recognize you first foror any open remarkk you care to make. obviously any extended wit remarks were made part of the record so you can feel free to summarize. >> thank you -- >> if you would -- senator durbin reminded me, we need to administer the oath so if you would stand.

- if a special counsel is fired now, today or any time in the future, appointed within the department of justice that special counsel can petition a court to look at whether or not they removed under the regulatory requirement of the department of justice for removal. no more than that. you get a chance to petition the court to see if your firing fell within the department of justice regulations which senator feinstein has read. conflict of interest. other good cause. to me, that is a check and balance that makes sense. all of these cases are going to be controversial. he is not a civil servant. in the true sense of the word. they are not a political appointee, either. i think the public would be well served if there was a judicial check and balance. that -- for the special counsel to petition the court to look at their dismissal. that is all we are asking. i think that makes perfect sense . why are we doing this? the rule of law in america stood the test of time in this regard. no one is above it. can't say that in russia. can't say that in a lot of places but you can say in the america. we've

a deal they announced to get documents from the department of justice. the deal it turns out without any in the announcement, any statement of detail or specifics offering 400,000 documents available for their review. that means 800,000 will not be. what are they playing at? >> we need to figure out what's so special about these 400,000. all i know is for the last 6 to 8 months he time we wanted something i is when they stonewall. oonlt time we give us something is when we threaten action. based upon recent history from these agencies they did not agree to give us everything we know we need. lou: congressman. great to have you with us. appreciate it. up next, the deep state swamp is in desperate need of further draining. new revelations that the obama department of justice tried to shut down the clinton foundation investigation. ed rollins will join us with that and more. you ok there, kurt? we're about to move. karate helps... relieve some of the house-buying... stress. at least you don't have to worry about homeowners insurance. call geico. geico... hel

with support of the department of justice. maybe we can get something done, congressman. >> let me know. because i'm real serious about this. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, judge. recognize the gentleman of washington state, mr. kilmer. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thanks, mr. attorney general, for being with us. it was a pleasure to get to meet your family out in washington state. they were residents of my district for a spell. >> they did love it. i got the say. >> it is a great place. i want to ask you follow up on something that was touched on in the opening comments and referenced marijuana policy and the complexity where you have states, including washington state, where in our state voters passed an initiative to legalize adult use. i know there are other states that are in a similar circumstance. the last administration issued what was known as the cole memo to try to set some rules of the road for certainty, not just to states but to small business owners in a state like mine, to triba

attorney who worked at the department of justice, with james comey, and former united states department of justice assistant chief deputy. and over here, at the other table are our legal analysts who i will be going to for details on all of the charges, former u.s. attorney and trial attorney. okay. let's get right to the first set of possible charges against james comey -- comey involving his handling of the hilary clinton e-mail investigation. the charges we are talking about are obstruction of justice and perjury. let's get some insight now from you about those charges and then we will debate them. >> perjury is pretty well known the traditional elements are knowingly false statement under oath in a proceeding whether before congress, a grand jury, obstruction is more open ended. it's one of the prosecutor's best friends. traditionally the elements include falsification of documents concealing evidence or making a false statement. but it also has a broader category, the interfering with the proper administration of law. the key to obstruction is showing a corrupt intent. what would h

because they can apply for work or they're waiting for the case to be hammered you know what the department of justice would like to see is a judge's processing somewhere in the region of seven hundred cases a year at the moment the average is just under about six hundred eighty so the department of justice says this isn't a huge leap this is just probably dealing with three cases a day for every judge and they point to the fact that some judges deal with more than a thousand cases in the year but the difficulty is some immigration cases are a lot more complicated than others know immigration judges when they signed a new collective agreement with the government there greed to the introduction of some quarters and so the department of justice is saying from the beginning of the new financial year and tobar we want to see this going forward it could be open to challenge in the courts particularly from people who would be concerned the judges are more interested in processing the number of cases rather than jus a process in their courtrooms so although the department of justice issued this statement to

they lied about not having e-mails between the department of justice and the fbi on the lynch tarmac eting. i mean, if they are able to just be -- just delay, then justice delayed forces justice denied. we can't just start being nice. >> no, we can't be nice. i told my colleagues this is not a time for being nice. that time was over long ago. there has been several times where we've been told documents didn't exist and then we find out days, even months, several months later that in fact documents do exist. so the fact -- and i want to go back to what you were talking about in your opening statement. here's something else i would like your viewers to think about and to see who they believe. in january of 2017, we were briefed on the dossier, the now famous dossier. we were told by mr. comey -- we were told by mr. comey when we asked in early 2017 where did this come from? and he said well, he says i think it -- it was started from republicans. well, he never told us that it wasn't started by republicans. that in fact was a lie. and then he came back and said that maybe some democrats