general. he acknowledged that then-f.b.i. director james comey voiced concerns about being left alone with president trump, after a february meeting. he declined to discuss any conversation he had with the president on firing comey. and, he defended his handling of his recusal from the investigation of russian meddling in the election. sessions also said he still does not remember a meeting with the russian ambassador at a trump speech in washington last year. and he said he never meant to mislead anyone during his confirmation hearings. >> let me state this clearly. colleagues, i have never met with or had any conversations with any russians or any foreign officials, concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election. in the u.s. further, i have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the trump campaign. i was your colleague in this body for 20 years, and the suggestion that i participated in any collusion, or that i was aware of any collusion with the rus

i think most people don't believe the attorney general. i don't think they believe he's telling the truth. i think he's evading, he's very careful. he's a lawyer he knows what he can't say, unlike trump who says pretty much whatever he feels like and has other people clean up the mess afterwards. >> i think 50% of the country believes sessions and 50% doesn't. we're pretty divided in this country. >> i'm surprised at that, the vast majority of the people do not believe donald trump. >> we'll see what happens in the next couple weeks. governor, thank you for joining us. >> thanks a lot nor having me on, greta. >> thanks. who should you believe, key differences between what the attorney general testified and what the former fbi director testified. look closely. hidden in every swing, every chip, and every putt, is data that can make the difference between winning and losing. the microsoft cloud helps the pga tour turn countless points of data into insights that transform their business and will enhance the game for players and fans. the micr

just in general. attorney general sessions: no, well, i met a lot of people, a lot of foreign officials. who wanted to argue their case for their country and to point out things that they thought were important. for their countries. but that's a normal thing i guess we talk about. senator rubio: as far as someone who is not an official, just a businessman or anyone walking down the street who struck you as someone trying to find out what you were up to, what the campaign was up to, you never remember any interaction in in hindsight appears suspicious? attorney general sessions: i'd have to wrack my brain but i don't recall it now. senator rubio: the republican platform was changed to not provide defensive weapons to ukraine, were you involved in that decision, do you know how that change was made or who was involved? attorney general sessions: i was not active in the platform committee. did not participate in that and don't think i had any direct involvement. senator rubio: do you know who did? do you

general lee then gave me orders to guide the army to general rhodes. a few lines are held by our exhausted troops. as the column of mississippians came up, lee's staff officer or member anita can't came of the message from general stephen ramser that he could hold that only a few more minutes. immediately with the column formed into a line under a tremendous fire and on a very difficult piece of ground. never did a brigade going to a fiercer battle under greater trials. never did a brigade do its duty more nobly. it was not recaptured, but the progress of the enemy was checked. they were driven into a narrow space. reflecting on the moment after the war, colonel venerable asserted, i believe few battle incidents reported in history rising grandeur over those two occasions when general lee went into the charge with the texans and money with the mississippians to battle at spotsylvania. questions lee's promotion to the command of this same army in 1862. granny lee, the king of spades were often attached to have a newspaper editors after his failure at th

is the deputy attorney general.he could have complained to the deputy or to me at any time if he felt pressured but i had no doubt he would not yield to any pressure. >> do you know if the president records conversations in the owe vul office or anywhere in the whitehouse. >> i do not. >> left me ask you this. if any president were to record conversations in his official of the whitehouse or the like would there be an obligation to preserve those records. >> i don't know, senator rubio. probably so. >> i want to go to the campaign for a moment. i'm sure you're aware it's been widely reported that russian intelligence agencies often pose not simply as an official but covers as businessmen, journalist and the like. at any point during the campaign did you have an interaction with anyone who in hindsight you look back and say they were trying to influence me hear gain insight that in hindsight you look back and wonder. >> i don't believe in my conversations with the three -- >> just in general. >> well, i met a lot of

deputy attorney general, mr. rosenstein, i just want to follow-up quickly on the two questions that senator shaheen asked you about the special counsel. has the president ever -- or discussed the special counsel in any way? >> no, he has not. >> and second, if president trump ordered you to fire the special counsel what would you do? >> senator, i'm not going to follow any orders unless i believe those are lawful and appropriate orders under the regulation, special counsel mueller may be fired only for good cause and i am required to put that cause in writing and so that's what i would do. if there were good cause, i would consider it. if there were no knot good cause it wouldn't matter to me what anybody says. >> thank you. i want to turn to the opioid crisis which plagues my state and so many others. drug overdoses were responsible for more than 59,000 deaths in this country including a record -- that is 104 more overdose deaths than the year before in my state. the situation is actually getting worse despite c

just in general. for their country and to point out things that they thought were important. that's a normal thing i guess we talk about. as faras normal thing i guess we talk about. as far as someone who wasn't an official from another country, a businessman or anyone who struck you as someone who was trying to find out what the campaign was up to, you don't remember any interaction that in hindsight appears suspicious?” have to wrack my brain but i don't re call have to wrack my brain but i don't recall it now. you on the foreign policy team, the republican platform was changed to not provide defensive weapons to ukraine, where you involved in that decision, do you know who was involved in making that change? i wasn't active in the platform committee, did not participate in that and don't think i had participate in that and don't think ihad any participate in that and don't think i had any direct involvement. do you know who did, do you have any recollection? i never watched the debate, if it occurr

general and chief lewis with this fax -- fats, because grant misidentified general kelly as having routed the troopers, to give one example. and in early's narrative, he summarily dressed down the joint committee on the conduct of the war, as it "gave a most preposterous account of atrocities committed upon the union dead and wounded after the battle of first manassas." relying on his personal knowledge and authentic official reports, early convinced the reader that even "federal surgeons left with a wounded could bear testimony to the falsehood of the report." early did not confine his use of primary sourced zingers to his enemies,, he also corrected those family toward him. in a revealing exchange with the man we heard about this morning, captain cook, early quibbled booka footnote from cook's published in 1870, an account usually regarded as fiction. early will still correct fiction. "the offending footnote read," "many officers of high character persistently declared that the troops at cedar creek were ordered a halt by general early." the writer was not present, cook admitted. in a l

attorney general jeff sessions in the hot seat. what he said about russia's meddling in the election. what he can't recall about his meetings with russians, what he refused to talk about. plus all the things he did say plus reaction from capitol hill when we continue. ...intelligent. ...explosive. but the true secret to his perfection... was a heart, twice the size of an average horse. ( ♪ ) beth is a total boss because she switched to the best deal in america: total wireless. she gets the largest, most dependable 4g lte network, and 5 gigs of high speed data for $35 a month. mommy didn't sign no contract. make it rain, beth, make it rain. $35, 5 gigs of 4g lte data. get a samsung galaxy s7 or bring your own phone. $35, 5 gigs of 4g lte data. and these kids are having a bake sale for their soccer team so i need some cash. can i give you my mother's maiden name or my first concert or - [team member] oh, well, now you can just use your phone. [customer] my phone? [team member] yeah, just open the wells fargo mobile app and request a

we're asking your thoughts on president trump's relations with his generals, his reliance on generals. 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents and others, 202-748-8002. also for afghanistan vets, that line is 202-748-80034. let's hear from marvin in philadelphia. good morning, democrats line. caller: yeah, i think that he needs to trust our allies and our military and trust himself, too. i think that it's a three stage. you cannot be basically willing to fight all the time. you've got to be able to have three ways on everything. hell snow host: yeah, we're here, marvin. so do you think that the president is right in the direction he's going in terms of asking -- you're saying allies, asking nato, for example, to contribute more to the defense effort? caller: yes, i think so. in a way that they're going to ontribute more, not going over , but in a way they're going to contribute more. host: let's go to our afghanistan vets line, pennsylvania. owen, welcome. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i just want to say that i'm an afghan vet, infantrym

you are here instead of the attorney general, and you are here as acting attorney general with regard to the special counsel, and you exercised the higher and would exercise the final decision with regards to special counsel bob mueller. that's because attorney general sessions is recused from that matter. on may 9, you delivered a memo to stoig sessions entitled rye storing public confidence -- restoring public confidence. your memo focused on director comey's conduct during the clinton email investigation. the way the director handled that investigation was wrong and you ultimately stated having to refuse to admit his errors, he could not be expected to implement the corrective actions is that correct? mr. rosenstein: yes. senator coons: on that same day attorney general sessions then sent a memo to president trump relying on your memo where the attorney general recommends director comey be removed, is that correct? mr. rosenstein: i believe that's correct. senator coons: during his january 10 confirmation hearing, a.g. sessions said stated he would recuse himself from any matters i

not exactlyssions: but generally. he chases down through the intelligence community and was not able to find evidence to that effect and that he sought republicans and democrats appear to tell him this was false and that there was no such facts anywhere that corroborated with the new york times had reported. nonetheless, after this committee took that on, it is one thing we spent substantially more time on that van russian measures, we have been through thousands of pages of information. really no different than where this whole thing started here there have been no reports i know of of any factual information. are you aware of any such information? atty gen. sessions: the so-called dossier? i believe that is the report senator franken hit me with when i was testifying. has beent substantially discredited that you would know more than i. this would suggest i participated in continuing communications with russians as a surrogate, that is absolutely false. >> has been talk about conversations and you had conversations w

>> not exactly. >> generally. >> that was -- generally i remember those -- >> mr. comey told us when he was here last week that he had a very specific recollection, in fact he chased it down through the intelligence community and was not able to find a scintilla of evidence to that effect. then he told democrats and republicans up here that this was false, there was no such fact anywhere that corroborated what "the new york times" had reported. nonetheless, after that, this committee took data on, one of the things we've spent really substantially more time on that than we have on the russian active measures, we've been through thousands of pages of information, interviewed witnesses, everything else, we're really no different than we were when this whole thing started. and there's been no reports that i know of any factual information in that regard. are you aware of any such information? >> is that what arose from the so-called dossier? i believe that's the report that senator franken hit me with when i was testifying. and it i think has been pretty substantially

general lynch had urged mr. comey to make this announcement so she wouldn't have to do it. but in, fact, it appears he did it without her approval totally and that is a pretty stunning thing. it is a stunning thing. it violates fundamental powers and then when he reaffirmed that -- the rightness he believed of his decision on may 3rd, i think it was, that was additional confirmation that the director's thinking was not clear. >> senator reid? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. first, a point, attorney general. the senator and others have raised the issue of long standing rules. if there are written rules, would you provide them to the committee, please? >> i will. >> thank you very much. now, senator cornyn ened then you concluded by saying essentially that it's not his problem. it's hillary clinton's problem. then in november on november 6 after mr. comey again made news in late october by re-opening, if you will, the investigation, you said again on fox news, you know, fbi director comey did the right thing

>> the attorney general recusal on public record and don that attacked and -- acting attorney general and actually does not know what we are investigating. >> so what appears to be the only comment jeff sessions made on this on march 2nd march 2nd, 2017 i decided to recuse myself for any matters related in any way to the president of the united states. so to understand the extent there may be counterintelligence investigation with those criminal investigations so who decides where the line is? and then to have a multiple process going on in those that was engaged in those measures against us. and there is no clarity from what he is recused from. >> can we do have clarity because those that made that determination and that official works in the deputy's office. >> so can you tell the public what the attorney general has recused from? director and trying to explain that would be inappropriate for me because we don't talk that subject matter while they are ongoing. that is what the prosecutors are doing. so with the public agency here is the delineation and also a process that we could d

it is a white-hot spotlight will waiting the attorney general, jeff sessions.lligence committee gearing up for the first time in five days, and minutes, the top prosecutor will give is you and all things russian. how much will he cover? how much of the private conversation with the president. deny? all that awaits us. as you listen to his testimony at what he says and does not say could be highly considered significant. good afternoon today. special coverage today. i bill hemmer on the "america's newsroom hq," afternoon version. and here is also >> shannon: 87. >> shannon: this is also more explosive testimony. a lot at stake. about 30 minutes from now.

>> not exactly. >> generally? >> but generally i remember those charges. >> mr.old us when he was here last week that he had a very specific recollection. in fact, he chased it down through the intelligence community and was not able to find that evidence and then sought out both republicans and democrats up here to tell them that this was false. that there was no such facts anywhere, that corroborated what "the new york times" had reported. nonetheless, after that, this committee took that on and we have spent really substantially more time on that than we have on the russian active measures. we've been through thousands of pages of information, interviewed witnesses and everything else. we're really no different than where we were when this whole thing started. but there's been no reports that i know of of any factual information in that regard. are you aware of any such information of collusion? >> that arose from the so-called dossier, senator risch? >> well, anywhere. >> i believe that's the report that senator franken hit me with when i was testifying and i

as a general matter, if an f.b.i. agent has reason to believe that a crime has been committed, do they have a duty to report it? >> that's a good question. i don't know that there's a legal duty to report it. they certainly have a cultural, ethical duty to report it. >> you're unsure whether they would have a legal duty? >> yeah, it's a good question. i've not thought about it before. there's a statute that prohibits knowing of a felony and taking steps to conceal it, but this is a different question. so, look, let me be clear, i would expect any f.b.i. agent who has any information about a crime to report it. >> me, too. but where you rest that obligation, i don't know. it exists. >> and let me ask you as a general proposition, if you're trying to make an investigation go away, is firing an f.b.i. director a good way to make that happen? by that, i mean -- >> yeah, doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but i'm hopelessly biased, given that i was the one fired. >> i understand it's personal. no, given the nature of the f

-- deputy attorney general? >> the president. >> so that is a possibility. >> anything is possible. >> i understand, that is what we know kerry there is great concern in all of this, as you can tell. i'll have another opportunity to and to you, deput attorney general sessions. a lot of my colleagues don't have the same opportunity, so they are concerned about him not being here. i want to thank you for being here. in west virginia we have a devastating epidemic. we have gotten hit harder than any other state and lost more people per capita than any other state. we are doing everything humanly possible. it without help from the attorney general's office, department of justice, everyone involved. i guess i would ask, what is your main approach to fighting the war on opiate addiction? thank you. this is an extremely high priority with me. i'm familiar of the opiate challenges in west virginia. in fact, the u.s. attorney, the administration worked closely with me on issues and participated closely in meetings that w

>> not exactly. >> generally? >> generally i remember those charges. >> mr. comey told us that when he was here last week, he had a very specific recollection. he chased it down through the intelligence committee. then he sought out both republicans and democrats to tell them that this was false, there was no such facts anywhere that cob rated with what "the new york times" reported. nonetheless, after this committee took that on one of the things we spent more time on that than we have on the russia active measures, we have been through thousand of pages of information, no different than where we were when this whole thing started. are you aware of any such information from collusion? >> is that from the dossier in. >> i believe that's the report that senator franken hit me when i was testifying and i think has been substantially. continuing communications with russians as a surrogate is absolutely false. >> mr. sessions, there's been all this talk about conversations and you had some conversations with the russians, senators up here on either foreign relati

a new lawsuit by the attorney general of maryland and the attorney general of the district of columbia. they allege the president is violating the u.s. constitution by accepting payments from foreign governments without the consent of congress, particularly at his new d.c. hotel. they'll seek access to the president's personal tax returns. this hour, i'll get reaction to all the breaking stories from democratic congresswoman and former prosecutor kathleen rice. and our correspondents and specialists are also standing by. >>> first, let's go to our justice correspondent jessica snyder. jessica, the attorney general will face tough questions from senators less than 24 hours from now. >> that's right, wolf. tough and intense questioning is expected, especially in the wake of james comey's testimony last week, where comey said sessions left him alone with the president and then didn't respond when comey told the attorney general he thought it was inappropriate, but questions do remain about how wide ranging sessions' testimony will be and if the white house might try to intervene. >> it's

>> in general, i did. i spoke to the attorney general, and i spoke to the new deputy attorney general mr. rosenstein when he took office and explained my serious concern about the way in which the president is interacting, especially with the fbi. and i specifically as i said in my opinion, i asked the attorney general, it can't happen that you get kicked out of the room and the president talks to me. in the room, and -- but why didn't we raise the specific -- it was an investigative interest to us to try to figure out what just happened with the president's request so i would not have wanted to alert the white house that it had happened until we figured out what are we going to do with this investigatively. >> your testimony was that you went to attorney general sessions and said, don't ever leave me alone with him again. are you saying that you also told him that he had made a request that you let it go, with regard to part of the investigation of michael flynn in. >> no, i specifically did not. i did no

. >> the attorney general doesn't know. the attorney general apparently slept through watergate. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts now. >>> tonight, a defiant jeff sessions denies clueding with russia while democrats accuse him of impeding the investigation. >>> plus, can the attorney general claim privilege on conversations with donald trump? if the president hasn't an voekted it? a former watergate prosecutor is with us to take that on. >>> and remember this rose garden victory lap over health care a few weeks back, that bill donald trump once called really incredible he is now calling mean. and the boat goes on as "the 11th hour" begins. -- beat goes on as "the 11th hour" begins. good evening once again from our headquarters here in new york. day 145 of the trump administration. it was all eyes on the attorney general today. his testimony today in front of his former senate colleagues was at times heated and combative. at times tedious and deeply unsatisfying. jeff sessions vehemently denied that he clued with russia and with voices raised at one point he and oregon d

>> in general, i did. i spoke to the attorney general and i spoke to the new deputy attorney general when he took office and explained my serious concern about the way in which the president is interacting, especially with the fbi. i specifically told the attorney general, it can't happen that you get kicked out of the room and the president talks to me. in the room -- it was of investigative interest to us to figure out what just happened. i would not have wanted to alert the white house that it had happened until he figured out, what are you going to do with this investigative leak? >> your testimony was that you went to attorney general sessions and said don't ever leave me alone with him again, are you saying that you also told him that he had made a request that you let it go with regard to part of the investigation of michael flynn? >> no, i specifically did not. i did not. >> you mentioned that from your very first meeting with the president, you decided to write a memo memorializing the conversatio

attorney general alberto gonzalez.alez is the dean at belmont university college of law and author of "true faith and allegiance." it is good to have you on the show as always, dean. >> chris, it is a pleasure to be with you. >> so, does the ag have a legal basis for saying i'm not going to answer because i want to preserve the president's right to claim immunity of the same conversations? >> there are a category of conversations with the president that enjoy constitutional protections. there is a normal process where the communications are protected. as a typical matter, generally, you go into a hearing with instructions from the white house as to which conversations the president will assert executive privilege. i understand the frustration. what congress should do now is write a letter to the attorney general saying here are the questions we want you to provide an answer to. either assert privilege or answer the question or suffer the consequences. for my perspective, it is inevitable the questions will have to be a

public service has gotten a bad rap in my generation and i think subsequent generations. i'm old. public service has gotten a bad rap. but forget that. just run for office. we are a small "d" democratic country. our government is of the people, by the people. why not you? why somebody else? why not you? but if you were never persuaded by that argument before, if you never felt motivated to serve your fellow citizens, if you never felt that impulse to shape the future of our country and your community, even if none of that stuff moved you in the past, today, we all got one big fat new, very persuasive reason why we should run for office. you should run for office if you're nosey, because it's the only way to satisfy an acute sense of nosiness. only people who once ran for office and want a seat in the united states senate and got themselves onto the intelligence committee, only those people got to hear the really juicy stuff today. >> what do you know about the russian bank v.e.b.? >> nothing that i can talk about in an open setting. >> was the fbi able to confirm any criminal alle

lou: deputy attorney general rod rosenstein testified ahead of attorney general jeff sessions. testified the apoint of a special counsel despite growing conflicts of interstating he sees no reason to fire mueller. >> under the regulation special counsel mueller may be fired only for good cause. if there were good cause, i would fire him. if there wasn't, it wouldn't matter what anyone says. lou: senator manchin point out the president could fire rosenstein for any reason at all. it doesn't matter he could still fire rosenstein and that might just lead to the firing if the president so desired, robert mueller. joining me now, constitutional law professor at south texas college of law. josh blackman. it's always good to see you. why is the attorney general making a statement like that that he knows to be certainly -- sort of suggests it's not not a unittary president which means the president has absolute control over the executive branch. >> the fact of the matter is the president is unittary and has the ultimate authority to control prosecutions. if he ordered rose' tine to fir

katie, how did in your judgment did the attorney general do today?think jeff sessions was fantastic. he was fired up, aggressive, passionate. you don't see him raising his voice and that force coming from sessions. that speaks from a man speak with a clear conscience standing by his convictions and refusing to be bullied by people in the senate he has known for decades. lou: they are not precip pro kaight. his colleagues for 20 years, he was one of the most respected senators among the 100. they didn't give a darn. and they attacked like the hyenas they are. and it was awful to watch. matt: i thought john mccain and marco rubio were particularly disrespectful and rough on him. i'm waiting for a democrat to step forward and say there is no there there. lou: dianne feinstein might be that person, calling as she did for an investigation much loretta lynch and her conduct with james comey, calling an investigation a matter. matt: republicans get stuck. we get hog-tied for what we are constitutionally allowed to do. the f.b.i. director serves at the pleas

attorney general sessions has. if you quickly pass through an reception line and shake somebody's hand come and say hello, nice to see them, is that the type of meeting referred to in the inquiry that senator senator franken put you then senator jeff sessions. is it the type of meeting in the senate judiciary committee, which then jeff sessions stated differently, was there an honest, misunderstanding on the part of jeff sessions of what was being asked about? i believe, and i think most of our colleagues do, these meetings were routine, mundane, and inaccurate nests. the question is where they truly discussed and revealed where he was under oath. in 20 minutes, 50 mins, we are going to have a spectacle of us sitting attorney general of the united states. a former united states senator being accused by some of his former colleagues, democrats, of having perjured himself in another environment when he was a united states senator. unheard of and almost thinkable. that is the first thing he has to resist before he eve

attorney general and the former attorney general were playing politics with investigations of lynch andessions. the attorney general's office has become a political office, that is bad for us all. i want to get to the bottom of that and it should be in judiciary. >> is this surprising to you? i feel like we all feel like it has become politicized. through all the things that we've seen. what is alleged here is shockin shocking. i don't know, i guess we have that. >> which is sad to me, it is very sad. that's got to be an office that rises above republican or democrat politics, it needs to be something that people can have faith in. especially with loretta lynch, there saying she verbally downgraded this matter. that is nothing short of playing politics because you are in the middle of the presidential election and that's a major problem. look back at some of the questions of prior attorney general's under president obama, whether it is issues of fast and furious, anything like that. these are real questions that i think have an impact on democracy beyond what it means for the next elect

that would fall to deputy attorney general roz rhoden today. still, the ceo of news max, a trump friend, that he was already thinking about termin e terminating him as special counsel. that was reiterated this morning on our morning program washington journal. you can see that if you go to c-span.org. click on the series tab and find washington journal and that's the segment are this morning. get a few more of your calls. carolyn is on our democrats line. >> caller: hi, how are you? >> good. >> caller: i taped it because i wasn't at home but the short part that i did see after i goat home, i think session is lying just like trump is lying and all the rest of them. they know what's going on and sessions was to me, he was nervous. he couldn't get his answers out good, to me. so like i said, i haven't seen all of it but i am going to rewind my tapes and watch it. >> why -- just to reberate it, if you didn't tape it we're going to reair it tonight. john on the independent line, go ahead. >> caller: thanks for taking my call. listen, i only got one

she was the attorney general of california prior. i don't think this number one will be directly confrontation but it's angus king. we've seen him at both the hearing with director of national intelligence dan coats as well as with james comey really able to elicit responses that made the ball move. >> listen to this exchange that senator angus king had with admiral mike rogers last week on the whole issue of executive privilege. >> right. >> why are you not answering these questions? is there an invocation by the president of the united states of executive privilege? is there or not? >> not that i'm aware of. >> then why are you not answering my questions. >> because i feel it's inappropriate. >> what you feel is not relevant, admiral. >> strong words. >> yes. but he's right. executive privilege is something that only the president can invoke. it's not called admiral privilege or attorney general privilege. if jeff sessions does today what mike rogers tried to do there and say under executive privilege or my conversations with the p

>> in general, i did. i spoke to the attorney general, and i spoke to the new deputy attorney general mr. rosenstein when he took office and explained my serious concern about the way in which the president is interacting, especially with the fbi. and i specifically as i said in my opinion, i asked the attorney general, it can't happen that you get kicked out of the room and the president talks to me. in the room, and -- but why didn't we raise the specific -- it was an investigative interest to us to try to figure out what just happened with the president's request so i would not have wanted to alert the white house that it had happened until we figured out what are we going to do with this investigatively. >> your testimony was that you went to attorney general sessions and said, don't ever leave me alone with him again. are you saying that you also told him that he had made a request that you let it go, with regard to part of the investigation of michael flynn in. >> no, i specifically did not. i did no

senator blunt. >> thank you, general. it's good to see you here together and know that your family continues to be proud and supportive of what you do. >> thank you, i've been blessed, indeed. >> i agree with that. let me get a couple of things clear in my mind here, notes i have taken. and you were talking on the april 27th, 2016, event, that's the mayflower hotel speech that the presidential candidate gave on foreign policy, you didn't have a room at that event where you had private meetings, did you? >> no, i did not. >> as i understand it, you went to a reception that was attended by how many people? >> i think two to three dozen. >> two to three dozen people. you went and heard a speech and might have seen people on your way out. >> correct. >> when you said you possibly had a meeting with mr. kislyak, you possibly met him? >> i didn't have any formal meeting with him. i'm confident of that. but i may have had an encounter during the reception and that's the only thing that i can't say with certainty i did not. >> th

attorney general eric holder. holders investigation comes after managers and employees were fired last week for claims of harassment, discrimination and bullying. recommendations are presented in sunday's board meeting. the board voted unanimously to adopt the investigations which include a new human resources process training and someone michael. it comes at a time of personal and professional turmoil. the 4-year-old mother died in a boating accident at the end of the night and his father is seriously injured. just last week a racing memo sent to her employees in 2013 is late. kalanick was seen yelling at the cooper driver. cooper has not issued anything so far. cheryl: how do you think will learn more about this investigations? >> we're expecting to get a closer look at what changes could be made. lauren: a lot to do. trained to look at what happened with myspace. the cultural management problem. thank you. lauren: the federal reserve to raise short-term interest rates again this week in the face of historically

you're here instead of the attorney general, and you're here as acting attorney general with regard tocial counsel, and you exercised the hire and would exercise the fire decision with regards to special counsel bob mueller. that's because attorney general sessions is recused from that matter. on may 9th, you delivered a memo to attorney general sessions entitled "restoring public confidence in the fbi," and your memo exclusively focused on director comey's conduct during the clinton e-mail investigation and concluded, "the way the director handled the conclusion of that investigation was wrong." and you ultimately stated, "having refused to admit his errors, the director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions." is that roughly correct? >> i believe it is, yes. >> and on that same day, attorney general sessions then sent a memo to president trump, relying exclusively on your memo, where the attorney general recommends director comey be removed. is that correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> and during his january 10 confirmation hearing, ag sessions stated h

>> is a general propositionsts. tried to make that investigation go away isio spiring be fbi director going to make that happen?. >> that doesn't make sense to me but i am biased.el >> by a understand it is personal spending given the nature of the fbi there a lot of bad things about me not being at the fbi.ad >> that impeded the investigation for the directors commitment and with the department ofof justice?. >> director mahler is an important part of that equation.f >> u.s. bank assets as a hero or a villain depending on the perspective during the clinton e-mail investigation and. e-mail but clearly were troubled by the conduct of this sitting attorney general lynch with a clique -- e-mail characterization the youth have been asked to except it is a matter not a criminalsk investigation it was a matter of president clinton's meeting on a the tarmac with a sittingto attorney general when his wife was subject to a criminal investigation to be subject to other matters in a classified setting but it seems to me you cl

one of the things i think is so special that general motors is the men and women at general motors.rked so hard during that period doing what needed to be done to get the restructuring completed. david: the government put some money in a general motors. did the government get its money back in some form or another over the years? mary: there are a couple of points. we -- there was a portion of what the government provided that was loans. they had some ownership in stock. we paid back the loans and the stock piece, they chose when to sell it. but i would also say there is a difference, but when you look at the jobs preserved and created because we invested billions of dollars in the u.s. since the time to either create or maintain jobs, from that perspective it has been successful. i will tell you that at general motors we will be forever grateful for what the government did. david: when you meet with members of congress, do they understand your issues? mary: there is a willingness to have a discussion and a seek to understand how our business operates, how we create jobs, and what l

>> not exactly. >> generally? >>s generally i remember those charges. >> mr. comey told us that he had a specific recollection.nc in fact he chased it down through the intelligence community and not able to find a sin tilla of evidence. no such facts anywhere that corroborated with what "the new york times" reported. nonetheless after this committee took that on is one of the things that we spent more time on that than we have on the russian act of measures. we have been through thousands of pages of information. ander we are no different than where we were when this whole thing started and no reports that i know of ofar any factual information. >>m is that arose from the dossier? >> well anywhere. >> i believe that is the report that senator franken hit me with when i was testifying. and i think it has been substantially discredited. but you wouldld know more than am but what was said that would suggest that i participate in continuing communications with the russians as a surrogate is absolutely false. >> t mr. sessions, there has be all ofru this talk about

thank you, attorney general sessions. the floor is yours. >> thank you very much, chairman burr and ranking member warner for allowing me to publicly appear before your committee today. i appreciate the committee's critically important efforts to investigate russian interference with our democratic process. such interference can never be tolerated, and i encourage every effort to get to the bottom of any such allegations. as you know, the deputy attorney general has appointed a special counsel to investigate the matters related to the russian interference in the 2016 election. i'm here today to address several issues that have been specifically raised before this committee, and i appreciate the opportunity to respond to questions as fully as the lord enables me to do so, but as i advise you, mr. chairman, in consistent with long-standing with department of justice practice, i cannot and will not violate my duty to protect the confidential communications i had with the president. now, let me address some issues directly. i

the president could ask the attorney general and in this cases the actliing attorney general, rod rosenstein because the attorney general has recused himself, but special counsel rules say it would have to be for cause. you could just imagine the type of debate that would ensue if rosenstein fired comey -- sorry, fired mueller and if that cause was valid or not. >> if muller and comey ever socialized together or pald around together, i have no reason to think they have or not, this is a very small town, that might be cause enough. farther down the road. ken, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, greta. >> with me, senator patrick leahy from the great state of vermont demanding republicans postpone a hearing with the appropriations committee until the attorney general sessions testifies. good evening, senator. >> good evening. >> attorney general sessions was supposed to be a witness before the appropriations committee tomorrow. what happened. >> he said twice he would be there. both times he went back. he was not there. it would be very unusual for the attorney general not to come and test

>> he's still attorney general. the fbi works on more than just the 2016 investigation. >> now, anderson, other committees do want to question jeff sessions as well including the senate judiciary committee, which has oversight over the justice department. chairman chuck grassley, the republican from iowa, telling me earlier today that he does want to hear from sessions himself before his committee as they look into the broader russia issue in their own panel going forward, anderson. >> is there any more to come with the attorney general sessions and the senate intelligence committee? >> it's unclear at the moment. this testimony that happened today really caught the committee by surprise. sessions offered on saturday to come before this committee. on tuesday the committee was really looking forward to having other big witnesses come forward. namely the president's son-in-law jared kushner. they're planning on interviewing him sometime this month, as early as this month. they were not prepared for the sessions testim

because he's the attorney general. i don't know whether he had any contact with any materials. >> was there any knowledge he should not have contact with any information about the russia investigation between the february 14th date and the day he was ultimately recused or recused himself on march 2nd? >> not to my knowledge. i don't know one way or another. >> did you speaking to the attorney general about the russia investigation before his recusal? >> i don't think so. no. >> do you know if anyone in the fbi department forwarded any documents or information or memos of any sort to the attention of the attorney general before his recusal? >> i don't know of any, remember any sitting here. it's possible but i don't remember any. >> do you know if the attorney general was involved in any aspect of the russia investigation after his recusal on the 2nd of march? >> i would assume not. i don't know of any information that would lead me to believe he did something to touch the russia investigation after the recusal. >> in y

as a general matter, if an f.b.i. agent has reason to believe that a crime has been committed, do they have a duty to report it? >> that's a good question. i don't know that there's a legal duty to report it. they certainly have a cultural, ethical duty to report it. >> you're unsure whether they would have a legal duty? i've th, it's a good question. before. there's a statute that prohibits knowing of a felony and taking steps to conceal it, but this is a different question. so, look, let me be clear, i would expect any f.b.i. agent who has any information about a crime to report it. >> me, too. but where you rest that obligation, i don't know. it exists. >> and let me ask you as a general proposition, if you're trying to make an investigation go away, is firing an f.b.i. director a good way to make that happen? by that, i mean -- >> yeah, doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but i'm hopelessly biased, given that i was the one fired. >> i understand it's personal. no, given the nature of the f.b.i. i meant what i said,