senate support you. ♪ it is a tradition for hiring officials for the department of justice. ourse of their tenure in the department, to argue before the supreme court of the united states. rod was interested in this because he started as an appellate lawyer throughout his career and was effective before the high court. >> he gave the supreme court arguments. amidst every thing else going against the best of what the solicitor general's office has, and they were thinking, this guy has it. >> rod had served 25 years in the justice department out of variety of levels. he was well suited to address the number of issues that had been percolating throughout the department for a number of years. >> one project he undertook, which i don't think anyone thought was possible, was re-doing the u.s. attorney manual. he went through section by section, taking out anything that was no longer applicable or redundant or was superseded, and created what is called the justice manual. we actually now have a true operating manual for the department of justice. >> one project he undertook was a re

department of justice withdrew from the program. again, to the credit of this commission the city and department you recognized have been forward-leaning. you made commitment to our residents and you are also putting yourselves out there in terms of being able to drive through the reform that was recommended by the department of justice. also within that context, i'm here to give you the larger picture, the department of justice brought with it financial support and technical support. they were army to tap into a national select group and bring a team of people here to help with that assessment. you committed and under that iteration of collaborative reforms san francisco was only police department that had a published report. you were a front runner in that regard. that commitment to follow through on that resulted if us being here. what happened between september 2017 and february 2018 was a significant amount of change within the city. i'm not here told you your history. in february 2018 the new collaborative reform initiative beg

the special counsel's office is part of the department of justice. as part of regulation, it was bound by that policy. charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. the department's written opinion explaining the policy makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. summarize s are indeed our report and i will them for you.f first, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting president because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents available. among other things, that evidence could be used if they were co-conspirators who could be charged now. the opinions says the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. beyond department policy, it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. that was justice department policy. those were the principles under which we op

department of justice. report by special declare recesses of the committee at any time. we welcome everyone to today's hearing on oversight of the u.s. department of justice. report by special counsel robert mueller iii in the 2016 presidential election and related matters. i will now recognize myself for an opening statement. attorney general barr has informed us that he will not appear today. although he works to accommodate his concerns, he objects to the prospect of answering questions by staff counsel and to the possibility that we may go into executive session to discuss certain sensitive topics. given the attorney general's lack of candor before other congressional committees, i believe my colleagues and i were right to insist on the extended questioning. to my knowledge, not even the ranking member was opposed to the idea of moving into closed session, if necessary. but even if democrats and republicans disagree on the format of this hearing, we must come together to protect the integrity of this chamber. the administration may not dictate the terms of a hearing i

you'll always be a friend to me and to the department of justice. lause] >> so another tradition at the department. when a deputy attorney general steps down is to present him with an american flag that has been flown over the main justice building. on behalf of your friends and colleagues at the department, it is my honor to present this flag to you. [applause] >> i believe we have a special presentation, if we can dim the lights. general. >> i first met rod when he came for an interview and applied for a clerkship in my chambers. my immediate impression was that i wanted him to clerk for me. he was extremely helpful as a clerk in terms of penetrating the issues in the cases, discussing them with me during first drafts and opinions, everything that a clerk could possibly be expected to do, he did extremely well. it was clear to me that he was going to have a brilliant career. >> first time i met rod was when i was back in the public integrity section in 1990. he was fresh from a clerkship there. he looked even younger than his age at that time. he m

linton, peter strzok, a lot of things have happened within the department of justice that should not have happened and i s hurt the reputation, and think the morale to some degree of the people that work in the department. that's very, very unfortunate. it's up to the attorney general, up people to shore and tell them, you've got a job to do, to sever the american people. can't lose sight of that, and you try not to because i've through this in terms of the criticism and the scrutiny, you don't read anything. the criticism, you don't listen to the criticism. unfortunately, my wife read word. it killed her, and i'm often in the ould you go work administration, and my answer if the president needs me, i would try to find a way to do it. let me do it, t we haveink that we all, a great country because of our leadership. deterred from serving in our government then i think we're all the worse for it a way to to find serve if called, and -- but let say this. it's hard. go in with your eyes open and your armor on. he more responsibility you assume the tougher it gets. it's unfair. don't go

the special counsel's office is part of the department of justice and by regulation it was bound by that department policy charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider. all of us summers in washington how has president trump responded. oh yes he took to twitter immediately and he's now trying to spin this to his direction to his favor basically if you will he said that there was not sufficient evidence that everything was said about this report that he was exonerated of course and because of there is not sufficient evidence that he is innocent but again what robert a smaller set that there is sufficient evidence perhaps that that he simply the president cannot be indicted because of the department of justice rules and the situation the law that a sitting president cannot be indicted. having kept quiet and silence in the during the 2 years of the investigation and since they report was published last month why is robert mueller choosing to speak now. has been a lot of pressure mounting on robert a smaller as well on the department of justice the democr

you only see part of the department of justice. >> that itself the big news in washington. but we led a complete revitalization of the law enforcement community. about 90%, 85, 90% of the department of justice is crime. fbi. dea. atf, marshall service, prison system. all the united states attorneys in 94 districts throughout the country. we rallied those. the morale is up. they work with local law enforcement. crimes, homicide jumped 12% -- >> you are listening to steph new ruehl at the salt conference interviewing former attorney general jeff sessions and new jersey governor chris christie. i will keep an eye on it. we will bring you a little more of it as it happens, we will get stephanie to talk about that remarkable decision. i want to move on to itseother , neither the attorney general or president trump will comply, before declaring to make a protective assertion of executive privilege. moments before the house

in the days since the department of justice released the recontacted version of the report, president trump has told congress he plans to fight all of our subpoenas. the average person is not free to ignore a congressional subpoena. nor is the president. his promise to obstruct our work extends far beyond his contacts with the russian government and allegations of on instruction to have justice. the president has also prevented us from obtaining information about voting rights, a.c.a. litigation and his cruel family separation policy among other things. the challenge we face is also not limited to this committee. the secretary of the treasury continues to ignore the clear, statutory obligation to produce the president's tax returns. the president's private attorneys sued chairman cummings in his personal capacity in an attempt to block the release of certain financial documents. ladies and gentlemen, the challenge we face is that the president of the united states wants desperately to prevent congress, a co-equal branch of government from providing any check whatsoever. to even his mo

the department of justice never commented on that. he department of justice actually declined to meet with the census bureau people who wanted to meet about it. so there was nothing before the secretary to say this census information would be an improvement, there was no comparison at all from the department of justice about whether this would be an improvement or not. it seems to me that at least with so much question about whether this information would be better or worse than the use of modeling from administrative records, the secretary had an obligation to find out the answer to that question. >> what if the answer was uncertain? >> if the answer is uncertain, then it is hard to invoke that as a reason. now we get back to the cost and the enumeration. that is, if it's unclear, we think it's worse. but if it's just unclear whether this question will improve voting rights enforcement, that is not sufficient to pay the cost of the steep decline in the enumeration because the enumeration is, after all, the primary purpose of the censu

of the attorney general to defend the department. so one of the things that i lament and i think talking to other former leaders of the department of justice is the reputation of the department has endured you with all the stuff, action that people like jim kony interview or press conference about hillary clinton, either store and i mean, just a lot of things have happened within thedepartment of justice that should not have happened . and it's hard, it's reputation that i think the morale to some degree of people that work at the apartment and i think that's very unfortunate and it's such for the attorney general, bill barr to try to make sure of people and tell them you got a job to do to serve the american people so you can't lose sight of that. and if you try not to, because i've been through this in terms of the criticism and scrutiny, you don't read anything, you don't read the criticism, you don't listen to criticism and unfortunately my wife read every word . it killed her. and i'm often asked would you go work in the ministration? my answer is if the president needs me, i would try to find a way to do it. my wife wouldn't let me d

before the bombshell news of yesterday evening, 11 of my senate colleagues and i called on the department of justice inspector general, and office of responsibility to investigate the way you have handled the mueller report. i wanted them to determine whether your actions then complied with the department's policies and practices and whether you have demonstrated sufficient impartiality to continue to oversee the 14 other criminal matters that the special counsel referred to in other parts -- to other parts of the department of justice. now we know more about your you have betrayed that trust. america deserves better. you should resign. i have some questions for you. is the white house exerting any influence on your decision whether to allow special counsel mueller to testify in congress and when? >> no. >> now you've been clear today that you don't think that any of the ten episodes of possible obstruction that the special counsel outlined is a crime. i disagree. but you seem to think that if it's not a crime, then there's no problem. nothing to see here. nothing to worry about. with apologies to a

before the bombshell news of yesterday evening, 11 of my senate colleagues and i called on the department of justice inspector general and office of professional responsibility to investigate the way you have handled the mueller report. i wanted them to determine whether your actions complied with the department's policies and practices and whether you have demonstrated sufficient impartiality to continue to oversee the 14 other criminal matters that the special counsel referred to in other parts -- to other parts of the department of justice. but now we know more about your deep involvement andn trying to cover up for donald trump. being attorney general of the united states is a sacred trust. you have betrayed that trust, america deserves better. you should resign. i have some questions for you. is the white house exerting any influence on your decision whether to allow special counsel mueller to testify in congress and when? >> no. >> now you've been clear today that you don't think that any of the ten episodes of possible obstruction that the special counsel outlined is a crime. i disagree. but

>> lot of great lawyers in the department of justice. he assembled a very competent team. >> are they meticulous investigators who will hunt down every witness and every piece of evidence? >> i think they are tenacious investigators. >> are they devoted to finding the truth? >> yes. >> are they masters at taking down hardened criminals, foreign and domestic? >> yes. >> if there were evidence to warrant a recommendation for collusion charges against the president, do you believe special counsel team would have found it? >> yes. >> and if there were evidence to warrant your recommendation for obstruction of justice charges against the president, do you believe the mueller team would have found it? >> i think that they canvassed the evidence exhaustively. they didn't reach a decision on it. the questions you've been asking raises a question that i wanted to say when senator hirono was talking. how did we get to the point here where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the russians and accused of being

i believe the department of justice, under the obama administration, was profoundly politicized. and was weaponized to go after political opponents of the president. , would youthe case agree that politicizing the department of justice and weaponizing it to go after your political opponents is an abuse of power? atty. gen. barr: i think it is an abuse of power, regardless of who does it. >> of course. knowledge, of your when did surveillance of the trump campaign begin? deposition --r: the position today appears that it began in july, but i do not know the answer to the question. >> it is an unusual thing, is it not, for the department of justice to be investigating a candidate for president, particularly a candidate from the opposing party of the party in power? atty. gen. barr: yes. if the obama administration investigated any other candidates running for president? atty. gen. barr: i don't know. >> do we know if they wiretapped any -- atty. gen. barr: i guess they were investigating hillary clinton for the email. >> do we know if there were wiretaps? atty. gen. barr:atty. gen.

he said that the constitution requires a process outside of the criminal justice system, outside of the justice department system, to handle what the president is accused of doing here. he's saying, essentially, what he did not say in this report, by the way, you know, if they had -- by the way, if he had said that in the report, i think it would have been a lot less speculation about, well, did he -- was mueller trying to punt to congress. today, he made clear, i think, that that is exactly what this was intended to do. that we couldn't do it at the justice department, we can't even indict a sitting president under seal, and unseal it after he leaves office. what we are allowed to do is investigate and then allow a separate process to handle it, if that is necessary. >> in this report, obviously, we said this at the time, is a road map for impeachment. and like evan said, what he just described for the first time, hearing him and seeing him, was why they did this, and more importantly, why he fundamentally did not believe that they could go any further within their probe. >> he said it would be unconstit

now the fcc is saying if you do that we are ok with it, now the department of justice say not. usually have that kind of contradiction with the department of justice and the fcc? kevin: we have in many situations where is regulated industry because the department of justice looks at it from a competition standpoint. the federal communication looks at it from a public interest standpoint. have been disagreements between the commerce department and the department of justice and the department of transportation. the national transportation service board allowed a railroad merger the doj opposed. it is not common, but there are cases whether his disagreement. i am unaware of any case were the doj has moved to block a transaction the fcc has approved. david: that is interesting. jennifer, as we go back to the possibilities, one of the issues is they require more and more divestiture, it gets less and less attractive for the partners. if the doj says you're not getting rid of enough of your prepaid visit, you have to get rid of more, at what point does it not become beneficial to the

the president said, i put in an attorney general that never took control of the justice department, jeff sessions. that day sessions issued a press statement that said, i took control of the justice department the day i was sworn in. the next day the president tweeted a response, department of justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations. jeff this is great what everyone wants we will look into all of the corruption on the other side including deleted emails, lies and leaks, page, abuse, christopher steele and the clinton foundation, illegal surveillance of jump campaign in russia collusion and so much more. open up papers and documents with no redaction. come on jeff, you can do it. the country is waiting. the day after the midterm elections the president replaced sessions with his chief of staff as acting attorney general. in analyzing the president's efforts that sessions on recuse himself and regain control of the russian investigation the following considerations in evidence are relevant to the elements of obstruction of justice. intrusive act, to determine

i believe the department of justice, under the obama administration, was profoundly politicized. and was weaponized to go after political owe boents of, opponents of the president. if that is the case, would you agree that politicizing the department of justice and weaponizing it to go after your political opponents is an abuse of power? >> i think it is an abuse of power regardless of who does it. >> of course. >> yes. >> to the best of your knowledge, when did surveillance of the trump campaign begin? >> the position today appears to be it began in july, but i do not know the answer to the question. >> it is an unusual thing, is it not, for the department of justice to be investigating a candidate for president, particularly a candidate from the opposing party of the party in power? >> yes. do we know if the obama administration investigated any other candidates running for president? >> i don't know. >> do we know if they wire tapped -- >> well, i guess they were investigating hillary clinton for the email, the email -- >> do we know if there were wiretaps? >> i don't know. >>

the department of justice, some noise being made they may block him from testifying. he is still an employee of that department and he can do that. why is he still there under doj and how can you get him before your committee if the doj blocks it? >> so, the trump administration has made some arguments that senior advisers to the president should not have to testify before congress. there is no legal defense for the department of justice to hold robert mueller from testifying. not only is he not a senior adviser of donald trump, he was the guy investigating donald trump, and so case precedent and what we've seen in our history is that in watergate, the special prosecutor leon jaworski, testified before congress. during the clinton administration, ken starr testified before congress. there is really no legal reason to keep robert mueller from testifying before congress. >> ultimately then is that something you would also have to pursue in the courts? >> potentially if it resorts to us having to issue a subpoena. it's not clear to me -- you have a good question why rober

that's because we have two department of justices. we have the department of justice led by bill barr who made his own determination of obstruction of justice and then we have what bob mueller found. he made very clear today that he was not saying that the president did not obstruct justice. he said if i could tell you the president didn't commit a crime, i would say so. the fact i haven't is only because of this constitutional restriction that the department of justice has imposed on me. >> the fact they did not have testimony from the president aside from the written answers. they didn't push that. ken, pick this up here. there's a lot they could not get to both because of the refusal of the president to testify, other witnesses not being able. people changing their story. manafort and the problems that they had with him as a witness. there are a lot of reasons why they could not reach conclusions about what did or did not happen. >> that's correct. including the destruction of e-mails and other evidence. it's also the case because o

it says -- and the department of justice. it says, the attorney general has previously stated that the special counsel will repeatedly affirmed that he was not saying that, but for the olc opinion, he would have found the president obstructed justice. the special counsel's report and his statement today made clear that the office concluded it would not reach a determination one way or the other, about whether the president committed a crime. there's no conflict between these statements. is that how you interpreted it, as well, that there's no conflict between their two statements? >> i'll tell you how i interpret it. but first, if i could comment on the politics of impeachment, i don't know, honestly, which way that cuts. there are good arguments to be made about how it will excite one base or the other if you do or if you don't bring an impeachment. but frankly, i think the issue is of such great importance, we need to look at it from an apolitical perspective. what's the right thing to do for the country. and at this point,

the constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing. beyond department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. it would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of the actual charge. that was justice department policy and those were the principles on which we operated. and we concluded that you would reach a determination one way or another on whether the president committed a crime that is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions about the president. we conducted an independent investigation and reported to the attorney general. the attorney general concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to congress and the american people. at one point in time, i requested that certain portions of the report be released and that the attorney general preferred to make the entire report public all at once, and we appreciate that the attorney general made the report largely public. do not question his good faith in that decision. i hope and expect this to be the

now, mueller declined to take a position because of the existing department of justice office of legal counsel policy that you cannot indict a sitting president. he intended to leave the matter to congress. he laid the evidence out in the mueller report that made clear that the president of the united states obstructed justice. and don't just take my word for it. just yesterday over 600 former federal prosecutors wrote a letter stating that, quote, the conduct of president trump described in special counsel robert mueller's report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the office of legal counsel policy against indicting a sitting president, would result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice. so, i'm going to read their letter because i think it's important and i want to make sure it's in the record here. here is the letter from more than 600 former prosecutors. quote, we are former federal prosecutors. we served under both republican and democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system, as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecut

department of justice in contempt for refusal to comply. for purposes of mark up and move that the committee reported favorably to the house. >> mr. chairman, i demand the question of consideration. >> before we read the bill? >> i believe this is when the motion lies. >> the question of consideration is not debatable. the question is, shall the committee consider the committee report. all those in favor say aye. opposed? >> no. >> the ayes have it. >> roll call, please. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. nadler. yea. >> ms. lofgren reports yea. >> mr. cohen? >> mr. cohen votes. mr. richmond votes. >> you are watching what is called a mark up on capitol hill. not something we typically would be showing you. sort of how the sauceling is made, but in this instance it is critically important. pete, they're calling the role on a republican maneuver to have a question of consideration here hold off reading the bill for now. . >> any doubt if this is a partisan affair. this is a largely ceremonial vote and the republicans know it will not suc

that is among the reasons why the department of justice established our office. that is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. the matters we investigated were of paramount importance. it was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. when a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. let me say a word about the report. the report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate. the first volume details numerous efforts emanating from russia to influence the election. this volume includes a discussion of the trump campaign's response to this activity and our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy. the reportnd volume, describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the president. the order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate