we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. this is cnn's special live coverage of attorney general jeff sessions' testimony. i'm jake tapper in washington. >> and i'm wolf blitzer. there will be key issues raised last week by fired fbi director james comey in front of this very same committee. also, about his meetings with russians officials, and sessions' recusal and about the

moment when comey claimed the president cleared the oval office to ask comey to let go of the investigation into the fired national security adviser michael flynn. >> also happening now, sessions' deputy attorney general rod rosenstein is testifying where he, too, could face important questions. let's go first to the main event and cnn's manu raju who is outside of the senate intelligence committee room. are we expecting the same kind of fireworks when comey told his story last week? >> reporter: indeed we are. this is the first time he's testified publicly since his confirmation proceedings and since then he's had to amend his testimony when he did not disclose two contacts he had with russian officials, sergey kislyak. expected to be questioned about that and a possible third interaction that he had with

kislyak last year at the m mayflower hotel and his firing with james comey and whether he recused himself and the things that comey raised last week, raising questions about the specific interactions that trump had with comey about michael flynn and about whether to drop that investigation. now, this comes as a number of committees are still ramping up their investigations into the russia matter, including the senate judiciary committee. chuck grassley telling me earlier today he wants to hear from jeff sessions before his own committee and also wants to look into other matters about russia and the fbi and does not rule out looking into the issue of obstruction of justice. take a listen. >> senator feinstein wanted to talk to me by phone today. i sent word back that i'd like to have her and i sit down face-to-face and we'll work out

all of the subpoenas and all of the stuff we have to do in the future and work out a whole program. >> are you okay, though, looking into the potential of obstruction of justice? is that something that -- >> i think we're going to leave that to a conversation with feinstein. >> reporter: so this may not be sessions only testimony before congress. expect him also to come before the senate judiciary committee, jake, and also listen to see what sessions will actually say before this committee. we don't know if election earth executive privilege yet. our colleague will ask the top democrat on the committee mark warner whether he expected that to happen. we'll see what he decides to do in a matter of moments here, jake. >> of course, top intelligence figures did not exert executive privilege but also declined to answer questions which may be what we see from attorney general sessions.

manu, thank you. wolf? >> rod rosenstein testified at another hearing before the senate saying he sees no good reason to fire the special counsel in the russia investigation robert mueller, a move the president has said to be considering. today, president trump is traveling to milwaukee. jeff zeleny is traveling with the president. how closely is the president watching this hearing? >> reporter: wolf, the white house is watching this incredibly closely. the president is flying here to wisconsin. he left the white house just a few moments ago. you can bet those televisions on air force one will be watching this hearing. and so interesting on so many levels. there's no republican who is a bigger supporting than jeff sessions. he drew the ire of the president when he recused himself from the russia investigation.

he will be watching with great interest because this has been a discord between the president and sessions. the president is coming here to wisconsin to talk about jobs and he's traveling with ivanka trump as well talking about apprenticeships. wisconsin is one of the states that the president won, the first republican to win since 1985. all of that, wolf, even here in wisconsin, talking about the russia investigation as well here. he a you can bet he'll be making a series of remarks when he lands at the airport and even having a fund-raiser this evening before returning to the white house but all along the way you can bet he'll be watching his attorney general testify and we'll see his reaction and outcome as the day goes on. >> there's been tension between the attorney general and the president in recent weeks and months. jeff zeleny, thanks very much.

let's go back to jake in new york. >> thanks, wolf. here with me to discuss the high stakes, we have senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin, matthew whitaker and gloria borger. jeffrey, let's start with a story that's been breaking in the last day or so, which is that according to chris ruddy, a friend of president trump's, it's possible that president trump might assert executive privilege and fire robert mueller, who is the special counsel investigating the russia investigation. >> and that's where today's earlier hearing comes into play. rod rosenstein testified before a different committee and he was asked about this because this really goes to him. the president cannot directly fire robert mueller under the justice department regulations. he would have to ask the attorney general to fire mueller. the attorney general is recused so it would be up to rod

rosenstein. rosenstein was asked repeatedly about this issue and said, i see no basis for firing robert mueller and i would only fire him for good cause. so i think he basically put to president trump today, if you want to fire robert mueller, i'm going to quick first. saturday night massacre style the way elliott richardson and william rucklehaus quit in 1973. so the chances of any attempt to fire mueller dropped considerably today after rosenstein's testimony. >> although, matthew, we should point out, president trump is a disruptor and does things differently. maybe two or three weeks ago if someone had said the same thing to you about firing james comey, perhaps you would have said the same thing. >> perhaps. >> who knows? >> who does know. and this president seems to use these types of situations to distract or change the narrative from whatever i guess is

strengthening the workforce week, if i recall. >> apprenticeships. >> yes. but i could see this discussion play out and the department of justice pushing back. but at the same time, this is not the old independent counsel. this is a special counsel that does fit in to the executive branch and ultimately the president is in charge of discharging the full menu of executive jobs. >> yeah. and so it's not a question about whether or not he could achieve it. and then rod rosenstein would do the job and -- >> politically, what would it mean. >> . >> i think it would mean that republicans would melt away from this president. you know, you could also -- this is another scenario. you could also go back to the congress. i mean, i understand that the congress is controlled by republicans. but you could always go back to the congress and pass an independent counsel law, which is what they had before who was

totally independent and could not be fired by the president and that law took effect, i believe, as a result of ken star starr. >> well, as a result of the saturday night massacre. >> so that if congress were outraged enough by it in a bipartisan way, they could always pass a law about it. >> matthew, i've been hearing a lot of conservatives casting aspersions on the integrity of robert mueller and saying he could be fired or he's biased or whatever. you worked with him presumably when -- >> he worked with me when i was fbi director and i agree with rod. i don't see any current reason or good reason that bob mueller shouldn't stay in that special counsel role. i think, from what i can tell, there's been an attempt over the last couple of days to discredit or discount some of the members of his team that he's assembled.

but at the same time, there is no honest person that sits in the world of politics and in the world of law that can find anything wrong with bob mueller. i mean, if something is wrong with bob mueller as we sit here today and it's based on his public reputation and what we all know about him, i think our republic is in more trouble. >> in terms of donations to democrats, you can't beat donald trump? >> that's right. >> chuck schumer's biggest support. >> and also, this business of criticizing the independent counsel, the special prosecutor who was investigating the president, this is part of the program. i mean, you certainly remember how the clinton people went after ken starr. >> absolutely. >> with fervor. if mueller really starts to take action against trump or people close to him, he is going to become a figure in the political crossfire. i think, given his background,

he's very well situated. >> we need to sneak in a quick break. stay with us. garfunkel (instrumental) is that good? yeah it's perfect. bees! bees! go! go! go! [ girl catching her breath } [ bees buzzing inside vehicle ] the all-new volkswagen atlas. with easy-access 3rd row. life's as big as you make it. will you be ready when the moment turns romantic? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure.

do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis. whuuuuuat?rtgage offer from the bank today. and get medical help right away. you never just get one offer. go to lendingtree.com and shop multiple loan offers for free! free? yeah. could save thousands. you should probably buy me dinner. pappa's eatin' steak tonight.

no. at lendingtree, shop and compare loan offers from top lenders and in just 5 minutes, you could save thousands. lendingtree, when banks compete, you win. i love date night. somebody's ruining it. yeah. well you could leave if you wanted to?

all right. the president of the united states is boarding air force one. he's getting ready to leave joint base andrews for the flight to milwaukee to talk about health care and jobs and other issues. in a moment, jeff sessions will enter the crossfire of senate intelligence committee. i'm wolf blitzer. >> and i'm jake tapper. he will discuss his role in the firing of fbi director james comey. >> all of this comes amid some swirling questions about whether president trump is considering removing the recently appointed special counsel in the russia probe. let's bring in our political round table here in washington. john king, is that really realistic at all that he could potentially set the stage for firing of robert mueller? >> if you talk to people around the white house, no one says that the president is thinking

about firing bob mueller. but ruddy said that he was at the white house talking to other people and the fact that he went on television and said, i'm told the president is thinking about this and i think it's a really bad idea, that's a friend of the president trying to stir a conversation that the president will then see on television. he'll see paul ryan asked about this, rod rosenstein asked about this. it's a friend of the president trying to tell him, dial it back. what we do know is that the reason the friend is concerned about this, the president is venting in ways about bob mueller in ways that he did with james comey. i can't control this, it is a cloud over my white house, why is this spinning out of control. they remember he stunned everybody by firing james comey so i think they may be getting out ahead of it. maybe. but these are friends of the president in an odd way trying

to do him a favor. >> how forthcoming do you think the attorney general is going to be because there could be sensitive questions that will come up. >> i think the interest level will be in the interaction between jeff sessions and james comey. i think he's quite loyal to the president who has a story that wants to get or answer jim comey so i think it's going to be different and much more confrontational in that regard. it was noted in "the new york times" this morning than the senatorial privilege is gone now. it's going to be much more confrontational. >> he's got to be very, very blunt in giving the explanations or he'll face even further trouble. >> that's right. you saw frustrations with previous hearings, frustrations on the part of the senators saying don't come to a senate hearing if they don't have answers. he's in a tough place because

he's loyal to this president. our reporting has shown that the president has been frustrated with his recusal from the russia investigation. so you know president trump will be watching and in some ways sessions obviously is going to have that on his mind, this sort of relationship with donald trump that is in some ways sour. we'll see what republicans do. they have been frustrated with some of these witnesses as well and then democrats, people like kamala harris who has been very aggressive in terms of engaging with a lot of these witnesses who has called for sessions to resign for his post. so it will be a real challenging hearing for jeff sessions as he, in some ways, fights for his job in some ways. apparently at some point he might have offered his resignation to the president because the president was so frustrated with his recusal but also what are the terms of his recusal? he clearly has been involved in some decisions related to the vush that investigation because he recommended that comey be fired. so i think that will be a very

pointed line of questioning as well, particularly from democrats. >> david urban, you're a supporter of the president and you've worked hard to get him to become president of the united states. what is the best strategy for the administration right now in dealing with this overall russia investigation? let's start with sessions? >> wolf, i think today -- it's never a good day to be in front of the senate intelligence committee testifying. i think it's an opportunity for the attorney general to get the other side of the story out. manu said it appropriately before. he talked about contacts. there's a lot to be made here between these interactions between the attorney general and the ambassador -- the russian ambassador. we know he met with the russian ambassador once and we know that he had some incidental contact on july 18th with some other

ambassadors present and then there's a report that jim comey gives of a possible third interact at mayflower which was intercepted between two russian agents which the attorney general i believe is going to say it never happened. the attorney general is going to get to give another side of the story. the administration will get their side out. it will take up a lot of space and because up until this point, we've only heard from one of the participants, director comey. we've only heard his side of the story, his version of the facts and there is no -- there's just two versions of the same story. >> you agree, angela rye? you're a democrat. >> i actually don't agree, surprisingly. one of the things that i think this administration is going to have to solve for us is something that began on the campaign trail, wolf, and that is that donald trump from the outset decided that he was going to try to drain a swamp by not being transparent. he started that with the tax

returns. and from there we continue to see layer after layer, person after person being compromised, potentially with his administration having some type of ties to his administration, whether they're key advisers, allies, working on the transition team or someone like jeff sessions, so not only a loyal but some of us would say a ride or die trump supporter and to that end had potential contact while in office in the senate, while he was on the transition team. i'm sorry. just one second. and failed to disclose these potential meetings during his confirmation hearing and that is what makes -- david, i'm not finished. give me one second. and that is what makes draining a swamp really, really challenging. >> let's go to the facts. i know you have feelings. feelings aren't factual. they are not facts. >> they are disputable facts. but they are not alternative facts. what we know is that he had a meeting along with 30 other

foreign dignitaries and ambassadors and they said no reason to put it on your fs-86. we know that he briefly had interaction at a reception after a speech. those aren't contact -- contacts don't equal collusion. >> one of the things that i think david is appropriately turning to is the underlying questions about what the contacts, appropriate, inappropriate were between trump officials and russia at different points. the difficult for sessions is he will face though questions and then he'll have to answer for the president's actions which appear to be covering up for something, whether there's anything to cover up for, we don't know. but his behavior is raising so many questions that -- >> hovering overall of this, john king, is the fact that the president really hated the fact that sessions recused himself. he saw that as a sign of

weakness and also sees that as opening the door for a special counsel robert mueller and you don't know where that investigation is going to go. >> and it comes back to an issue of control. the president was the ceo and when he said this, do this, it got done. he's mad at jeff sessionses a a we've lost control. those are the questions and it's just a person fall frustration and reaction because it is impeding his agenda in washington or was it something more nefarious. those are the big questions. and just quickly to david's point, if the attorney general just didn't disclose these things because they are stubborn and they have to be pushed for transparency, that's very different. this is a chance for the attorney general to lay it out there. >> the first time we'll hear directly from him and all of these sensitive issues. the hearing room is filling up.

the photographers are there as well. sessions has a lot of questions that he'll have to answer at any moment now. the attorney general of the united states will stop facing tough questions from the senators. we'll have extensive live coverage. that's next. be the you who doesn't cover your moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. be the you who shows up in that dress. who hugs a friend. who is done with treatments that don't give you clearer skin. be the you who controls your psoriasis with stelara®

just 4 doses a year after 2 starter doses. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tuberculosis. before starting stelara® tell your doctor if you think you have an infection or have symptoms such as: fever, sweats, chills, muscle aches or cough. always tell your doctor if you have any signs of infection, have had cancer, if you develop any new skin growths or if anyone in your house needs or has recently received a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions can occur. do not take stelara® if you are allergic to stelara® or any of its ingredients. most people using stelara® saw 75% clearer skin and the majority were rated as cleared or minimal at 12 weeks. be the you who talks to your dermatologist about stelara®. "how to win at business." step one: point decisively with the arm of your glasses. abracadabra. the stage is yours. step two: choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly

and win at business. you need one of these. you wouldn't put up with an umbrella that covers you part way, so when it comes to pain relievers, why put up with just part of a day? aleve, live whole not part. tell you what, i'll give it to you for half off. i just saved a bunch of money on my car insurhuh. with geico. i should take a closer look at geico... geico can help with way more than car insurance. boats, homes, motorcycles... even umbrella coverage. this guy's gonna wish he brought his umbrella. fire at will! how'd you know the guy's name is will? yeah? it's an expression, ya know? fire at will? you never heard of that? oh, there goes will! bye, will! that's not his name! take a closer look at geico.

great savings. and a whole lot more.

the future isn't silver suits anit's right now.s, think about it. we can push buttons and make cars appear out of thin air. find love anywhere. he's cute. and buy things from, well, everywhere. how? because our phones have evolved. so isn't it time our networks did too? introducing america's largest, most reliable 4g lte combined with the most wifi hotspots. it's a new kind of network. xfinity mobile. welcome back to cnn's special live coverage of jeff sessions' testimony. this may be another round of dramatic testimony. >> it certainly could. among the issues, sessions will be questioned about revelations

from last week's explosive testimony by the fired fbi director james comey, his role in the decision to fire comey and his meetings with russian officials. jake? >> wolf, i want to continue the conversation with my panel here. we were talking, before the break, about the fact that when bill clinton was being investigated by then independent counsel ken starr, there were efforts to discredit ken starr by democrats. newt gingrich has been saying that there's no way bob mueller, the special counsel looking into the special investigation will be fair in criticizing him. here's what newt gingrich had to say back in 1998. >> the fact is, if he wants to fire ken starr, he can do it in the morning. if he doesn't want to fire ken starr, he can tell his staff to shut up, because there's something -- [ applause ] there is something profoundly

demeaning and destructive to have the white house cy systematically undermine the department of justice. and when i watch these paid hacks on television, to be quite honest, i am sickened by how unpatriot cl unpatriotically they undermine. >> interesting words, in retrospect. gloria, we have seen this play out with democrats attacking the independent prosecutor, in this case, even a counsel. and now we see paid hacks on the other side going after bob mueller. >> yeah. in fact, it was newt gingrich who said they probably could and should fire bob mueller. so this act is complicated and it was changed in 1999. >> the act of kree creating a sl counsel? >> after ken starr. there was a sense that if you

give someone too much independence, there's no accountability. and there has to be a way for someone to be accountable to someone after ken starr. so they came up with this compromised solution, which is that the president can actually fire mueller and ken starr could not be fired at that point so i think they were looking for a middle ground here. the question is, that nobody can answer, nothing is perfect here. would it be a great solution for the president of the united states to ask rod rosenstein, who would then resign, so ask somebody else, to fire the independent counsel? no. but can he do it? absolutely. >> all of these structures, independent counsel, are designed, at least in a general way, to try to take politics out and make people independent. the story of washington, though, is that politics is never out. and even if people are independent and even if they have as impeccable credentials

as robert mueller does, they are going to be attacked politically. i don't have a great problem with that. the idea that politics can be sealed off, even from the legal process, you know, is a dream that's not worth having. >> but this law was written so that you wouldn't have any accountability to anybody, that you couldn't run wild. >> and along the same lines that jeff is talking about, remember, politics means it's responsive to the people. that's where anytime i talk to somebody about setting up a truly independent law enforcement or prosecutorial agency not accountable to the politicians and, therefore, the people, i think that scares all of us. someone who had an inability to ruin people with a crime before you have a trial, that's an awesome power and why it's limited and subject to hiring and firing by the president. >> and when we go over the testimony, that james comey gave last week and we can see him

giving demonstrations, if you believe his testimony, as to why having a special prosecutor might be a better idea or at least some sort of independent judicial branch because the attorney general is not necessarily that. he testified that he felt queasy when then attorney general loretta lynch, president obama's attorney general, told him to call the hillary clinton investigation into her private e-mail server, called it a matter instead of an investigation. and then, of course, there was what he felt was a directive from president trump. and with a lack of support from attorney general jeff sessions. i suspect he'll be asked why weren't you there for your fbi director who was feeling the heat. >> i would not hold my breath. whether he recites privilege or

refuses to discuss those sorts of issues, i think he'll be very wary of discussing that. i don't know if he has a legal right to do it but in the real world here, there's no judge that is going to force him to answer a question. yes, theoretically, if he doesn't answer some questions, the committee could try to hold him in contempt. but in the real world in a practical sense, he's going to answer the questions he wants to answer and not answer the ones he doesn't and my guess he won't a answer a lot. >> matthew, i may push back on james comey's description of how he asked jeff sessions, don't leave me alone with president trump and jeff sessions didn't really give him much of a response and certainly not support. >> we're going to find out pretty quickly whether james comey's testimony was credible and how credible it is based on what jeff sessions' recollection is but we'll see how many times

executive privilege is exerted and things that he can't talk about in an open session. he told his story but at the same time -- >> you know, comey left a lot of bread crumbs out there about sessions saying that we knew a couple weeks before he was likely to recuse himself but there was something i know that was problematic about sessions that i can't tell you in an open session. so the question is, is that about extra meetings that the attorney general might have had with kislyak. >> the ambassador? >> the russian ambassador. and also the question that maybe he can answer without going to executive privilege about what was your thinking about why you didn't recuse yourself in the firing of james comey since you had recused yourself in the russia investigation? >> that will be a big part. >> can i say one thing about executive privilege? we're slipping into the shorthand here of jeff sessions citing the executive privilege.

jeff sessionses has no executive privilege. donald trump has executive privilege. any time he refers to executive prif edge wil privilege, i expect democrats will say, did the president or counsel or someone instruct you to cite executive privilege because if the answer is no, he has no right to cite executive privilege. only the president has that right to protect. >> and another big topic is if jeff sessions recused himself, as he announced he was going to do because he had not been fully accountable and transparent about his meetings with russian officials then explain how he made the recommendation to president trump to fire james comey. >> the whole reason is the president has explained why he fired james comey. jeff sessions has not necessarily. we've seen the rosenstein memo so we have a sense of what he

didn't do appropriately. jeff sessions could have had different reasons to fire jim comey. >> in fact the rosenstein memo didn't mention how he dealt with the hillary clinton investigation. i've got to send it back to james comey. >> i just saw jim risch and ron wyden, kamala harris, and we are waiting for richard burr the chairman to show up and mark warner the vice chairman. they will make opening statements. the attorney general will have an opportunity and then the rounds of the republicans and democratic members will all have a chance to start asking serious questions. >> you're politely saying that the senate will be the senate. you mentioned chairman burr. often the witnesses meet with the chairman and co-chairman. senator burr is critical here.

he's a republican but he owes his job to donald trump, many people say, and you saw -- >> senator mccain is showing up. he's the chairman of the armed services committee but he's automatically like senator reed and they are also members of this committ this committee. >> richard burr got quite exasperated and said you shouldn't come before congress unless you're willing to answer questions. he's a friend, former senator. and they tend to get more deference but i would put the emphasis on little. the attorney general has every right -- the president has a right to talk to his chief advisers in private. how broad is that right? that, to me, is the most interesting part here. how aggressive is chairman burr in challenging jeff sessions if he tries to hold back. >> senator tom cotton of arkansas as well. go ahead. >> it's really interesting to

me, the ten nor or of questions firing jim comey after he recused himself from the russia investigation, that becomes quite important. listening to the house speaker, for example, gently chiding the president is an example that republicans are still on board with this president and, therefore, this ey will not cal the president out. we get a window into where that patience level is. >> and some of the splits. there are some moderates on this committee. people like susan collins have been more critical. rubio, for instance, was seen from the hearing before with comey as running interference in many ways and he got some -- and he pushed back on that notion. it will be interesting to see some of the splits in the republican party, people who are much more pro trump, people like

tom cotton who we saw walking in with john mccain at some point and then people who are much more moderate to see if there are any changes. >> and mccain is a question mark because they thought he was going to be tough and ask tough questions. we'll see where he is today. he had a line of questions that seemed confused at best. he had to clarify it later to jim comey. >> i've always been fascinated by this committee when they have an open session like this. this is the senate intelligence committee and there you see jeff sessions walking in now. he's going to be greeted by various senators and photographers who are going to take pictures. you can see his family members and staff behind him. he'll be sworn in, angela, but this is a committee where the members get access to the most sensitive intelligence information, classified information that they can't really discuss publicly but they know about it and sometimes that

shapes their questions. >> absolutely. there are things that the american people are not privy to. they have to walk a delicate balance without running afoul of the rule. >> there's the chairman and vice chairman, senator burr and senator mark warner of virginia shaking hands with the attorney general. as i said before, i assume he'll be sworn in. he will have testimony under oath. >> that's a tough part for the attorney general, trying to be responsive but -- still answering questions but not violating any sensitive information that might be a part of this russia probe in front of this committee. jeff toobin a few minutes ago said he's going to have to walk a fine line and look like he's not obstructing. >> because the attorney general, also, is the recipient of the enormously classified information. they have to be very sensitive how far they go in an open session. >> and david's point about how

aggressive are the republicans, number one, and a lot of republicans are frustrated at the white house because those who serve well jeff sessions, do they think that they are in cahoots with the russians? so they are wondering why aren't you getting ahead of this and spilling everything that you know. if you did nothing wrong, spill it all out. if you went to a meeting in hindsight, get over -- if it's a couple of embarrassing things, get it out and get it over with. it's the fact that it's dragging out so long. they take time but a lot of republicans -- >> all right. here we go. there's the chairman, richard burr, of north carolina. >> attorney general sessions, appreciate your willingness to appear before the committee today. i thank you for your years of

dedication to this body and your recent leadership at the department of justice. as i mentioned when director comey appeared before us last week, this committee's role is to be the eyes and ears for the other 85 members of the united states senate and for the american people ensuring that the intelligence committee is operating lawfully and has the necessary tools to keep america safe. the community is a large and diverse place. we recognize the gravity of our investigation into russia's interference in the 2016 u.s. elections but while we investigate russia, we are scrutinizing cia's budget while we're investigating russia and we're still scrutinizing cia's budget, nsa 702 program, our nation's satellite program and the entire ic effort to recruit and retain the best talent we

can find in the world. more often than not, the committee conducts its work behind closed doors. a necessary step to ensure that our most sensitive sources and methods are protected. the sanctity of these sources and methods are at the heart of the intelligence committee's ability to keep us safe and keep our allies safe from those who seek to harm us. i've said repeatedly that i don't believe any committee -- that the committee does should be done in public. but i also recognize the gravity of the committee's current investigation and the need for the american people to be presented the facts so that they might make their own judgments. it is for that reason that this committee has now held its tenth open hearing of 2017. more than double that of the committee in recent years and the fifth on the topic of

russi russian interference. attorney general sessions, this is your opportunity to separate fact from fiction and set the record straight on a number of allegations reported in the press. for example, there are several issues that i'm hopeful we will address today. one, did you have any meetings with russian officials or their proxies on behalf of the trump campaign or during your time as attorney general. two, what was your involvement with candidate trump's foreign policy team and what were their possible interactions with russians? three, why did you decide to recuse yourself from the government's russia investigation? and, fourth, what role, if any, did you play in the removal of then fbi director comey? i look forward to a candid and honest discussion as we continue to pursue the truth behind russia's interference in the 2016 elections. the committee's experienced staff is interviewing the relevant parties having spoken

to more than 35 individuals to date to include just yesterday an interview of former homeland security secretary jey johnson. we also continue to review some of the most sensitive intelligence in our country's possession. as i've said previously, we will establish the facts, separate from rampant speculation and lay it out for the american people to make their own judgment. only then will we as a nation be able to put this episode to rest and look to the future. i'm hopeful that members will focus their questions today on the russia investigation and not squander the opportunity by taking political or partisan shots. the vice chairman and i continue to lead this investigation together on what is a highly charged political issue. we may disagree at times but we will remain a unified team with a dedicated, focused and professional staff working

tirelessly on behalf of the american people to find the truth. the committee has made much progress as the political winds blow forcefully around us and i think all members would agree that despite a ftorrant of publc debate on who should lead on this issue, the intelligence committee has lived up to its obligation to move forward with purpose and above politics. mr. attorney general, it's good to have you back. i would now turn to the vice chairman for any remarks he might have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to also thank the way that we're proceeding on this investigation. mr. attorney general, it's good to see you again. and we appreciate your appearance on the heels of mr. comey's review and testimony last week. i do, though, want to take a moment at the outset and first express some concern with the process by which we are seeing you, the attorney general, today. it's my understanding that you

were originally scheduled to testify in front of the house and senate appropriations committees today. i know those appearances have been canceled to come here instead. while we appreciate his testimony before our committee, i believe and i speak -- i believe i speak for many of my colleagues that i believe he should also answer questions from members of those committees and the judiciary committee as well. mr. attorney general, it's my hope that you will reschedule those appearances as soon as possible. i want to say at the outset, while we consider your appearance today as just the beginning of our interaction with you and your department. mr. attorney general, we have always expected to talk to you as part of our investigation. we believed it would be actually later in the process. we're glad to accommodate your request to speak to us today but we also expect to have your commitment to cooperate with all future requests and make

yourself available as necessary to this committee for as the chairman has indicated, this is a very important investigation. now let's move to the subject of today's discussion. let's start with the campaign. you were an early and ardent supporter of president trump. you were named as the national campaign advisory committee and much more than a surrogate. you were a strategic adviser. no doubt, you will have key insights about some of the key trump associates that were seeking to hear from in the weeks ahead. questions have also been raised about your own interactions with russian officials during the campaign. during your confirmation hearing in january, you said, quote, you did not have communications with russians. senator leahy later asked you in writing whether you had been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the russian

government about the 2016 election. you answered, i believe, with a definitive no. despite then, the fact is, as discovered later, that you did have discussions with russian officials. in march, you acknowledged two meetings with the russian ambassador. yet, there have been public reports about a possible third meeting at the mayflower hotel on may 27th. i hope today you will help clear up those discrepancies. we also expect and hope that you will be willing to provide the committee with any documents that we would need to shed light on this issue, such as e-mails or calendars. then, there's a topic of the firing of former fbi director comey. last thursday, we received testimony from mr. comey under oath he outlined his very troubling interactions with the president as well as the circumstances of his firing. a few disturbing points stood

out. first, mr. comey, who has decades of experience at the department of justice and at the fbi, serving under presidents of both parties, was so unnerved by the actions of the president that he felt, quote, compelled to fully document every interaction they had. mr. comey sat where you are sitting today and testified that he was concerned that the president of the united states might lie about the nature of their meetings. that's a shocking statement. we also heard that director comey took it as a direction from the president that he was to drop the fbi's investigation into former national security adviser general mike flynn. finally, we heard from mr. comey that he believed he was fired over his handling of the russia investigation. the president himself confirmed this in statements to the media.

this is deeply troubling for all of us who believe on both sides of the aisle. we have a lot of work in order to follow up on these alarming disclosures. mr. attorney general, your testimony today is an opportunity to begin the process of asking those questions. for instance, again, and i know others will ask about this, you recused yourself from the russia investigation yet you participated in the firing of mr. comey over the handling of that same investigation. we'll want to ask you about how you viewed your recusal and whether you believe you've complied with it fully. in addition, we heard from mr. comey last week that the president asked you to leave the oval office so he could speak one on one with mr. comey. again, a very concerning action. we will need to hear from you about how you viewed the president's request and whether you thought it was appropriate. we'll also want to know if you

are aware of any attempts by the president to enlist leaders in the intelligence community to undermine this very same russia investigation. most importantly, our committee will want to hear what you are doing to ensure that the russians or any other foreign adversaries cannot attack our democratic process like this ever again. i'm concerned that the president still does not recognize the severity of the threat. he, to date, i don't think has acknowledged the fact that russia intervened in our elections. the threat we face is real and it's not limited to us. the recent events in france gives us a stark reminder that all western democracies must take steps to protect themselves. i believe the united states can and must be a leader in this effort but it requires our administration to get serious about this matter. finally, in the past several

weeks, we've seen a concerning pattern of administration officials refusing to answer public, unclassified questions about allegations about the president and this investigation. we had a hearing with this subject last week. i want to commend the chairman who at the end of that hearing made very clear that our witnesses -- it was not acceptable for our witnesses to come before congress without answers. the american people deserve to know what is going on here. thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to the witness' testimony. >> attorney general sessions, if you would stand, i will administer the oath to you. raise your right hand, if you would, please. do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> please be seated. >> 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 processes. such irnterference 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 and consistent with long-standing department of justice practice, i cannot and will not violate my duty to protect the confidential communications i have with the president. now, let me address some issues

directly. i did not have any private meetings nor do i recall any conversations with any russian officials at the mayflower hotel. i did not attend any meetings at that event separate prior to the speech i attended by the president today i attended a reception with my staff that included at least two dozen people and president trump, though i do recall several conversations that i had during that prespeech reception, i do not have any recollection of meeting or talking to the russian ambassador or any other russian officials. if any brief interaction occurred in passing with the russian ambassador during that reception, i do not remember it. after the speech, i was interviewed by the news media. there was an area for that in a different room and then i left the hotel. but whether i ever attended a reception where the russian

ambassador was also present is entirely beside the point of this investigation into russian interference in the 2016 campaign. let me state this clearly, colleagues, i have never met with or had any conversation with any russians or any foreign officials concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the united states. 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, at least some of you, and i participated -- and the suggestion that i participated in any collusion that i was aware of any collusion with the russian government to hurt this country, which i have served with honor for 35 years, or to undermine the integrity of our democratic

process is an appalling and detestable lie. there is the assertion that i did not answer senator franken's question honestly at my confirmation hearing. colleagues, that is false. i can't say colleagues now. i'm no longer part of this body. but former colleagues, that is false. this is what happened. senator franken asked me a rambling question after some six hours of testimony that included dramatic new allegations that the united states intelligence community, the u.s. intelligence community, had advised president-elect trump, quote, that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government, closed quote. i was taken aback by that

explosive allegation, which he said was being reported as breaking news that very day. in which i had not heard. i wanted to refute that immediately. any suggestion that i was part of such an activity. i replied, quote, to senator franken this way. quote, senator franken, i'm not aware of any of those activities. i have been called a surrogate a time or two in that campaign and i did not have communications with the russians and i'm unable to comment on that, closed quote. that was the context in which i was asked the question and in that context, my answer was a fair and correct response to the charge as i understood it. i was responding to this allegation that we had met -- surrogates had been meeting with russians on a regular basis. it simply did not occur to me to

go further than the context of the question and to list any conversations that i may have had with russians in routine situations as i had had many routine situations -- meetings with other foreign officials. so please hear me now. and it was only in march, after my confirmation hearing, that a reporter asked my spokesperson whether i had ever met with any russian officials. this was the first time that question had squarely been posed to me. on the same day, we provided that reporter with the information related to the meeting that i and my staff had held in my senate office with ambassador kislyak as well as the brief encounter in july after a speech that i had given during the convention in cleveland, ohio. i also provided the reporter with a list of 25 foreign ambassador meetings that i had

had during 2016. in addition, i provided supplemental testimony to the senate judiciary committee to explain this event. so i readily acknowledged these two meetings and certainly not one thing happened that was improper in any one of those meetings. let me also explain clearly the circumstances of my recusal from the russia investigation into the irnterference with the 2016 election. i was sworn in on thursday, february 9th. the very next day, as i had promised to the judiciary committee i would do, at least at an early date, i met with career department officials, including senior -- a senior ethics official to discuss some things publicly reported in the press that might have some bearing on whether or not i should recuse myself in this

case. from that point, february 10th, until i announced my formal recusal on march 2nd, i was never briefed on any investigative details, did not access any information about the investigation. i received only the limited information that the department's career officials determined was necessary for me to form and make a recusal and as such i have no knowledge about this investigation as it is ongoing today beyond what has been publicly reported. i don't even read that carefully. and i have taken no action whatsoever with regard to any such investigation. on the date of my formal recusal, my chief of staff sent an e-mail to the heads of relevant departments, including by name to director comey of the fbi to instruct them to inform

their staffs of this recusal and to advise them not to brief me or involve me in any way in any such matters and, in kt ffact, have not. importantly, i recuse myself not because of any asserted wrongdoing or any belief that i may have been involved in any wrongdoing in the campaign but because a department of justice regulation, 28 cfr 45.2, i felt, required it. that regulation states in effect that department employees should not participate in investigations either came pain if they served as a campaign adviser. so the scope of my recusal, however, does not and cannot interfere with my ability to oversee the department of justice, including the fbi,

which has an $8 billion budget and 35,000 employees. i presented to the president my concerns and those of deputy attorney general rod rosenstein about the ongoing leadership issues at the fbi as stated in my letter recommending the removal of mr. comey along with the deputy attorney general's memorandum on that issue, which have been released publicly by the white house. those represent a clear statement of my views. i adopted deputy rod rosenstein's point he made in his memorandum and made my recommendation. it is absurd, frankly, to request that a recusal from a single specific investigation would render the attorney general unable to manage the leadership of the various department of justice law enforcement components that conduct thousands of

investigations. finally, during his testimony, mr. comey discussed a conversation that he and i had about the meeting mr. comey had with the president. i'm happy to share that recommendation following a routine morning briefing, mr. comey spoke to me and my chief of staff. while he did not provide me with any of the substance of his conversation with the president, apparently the day before, mr. comey expressed concern about proper communications protocol with the white house and with the president. i responded -- he didn't recall this, but i responded to his comment by agreeing that the fbi and the department of justice needed to be careful to follow department policies regarding appropriate contacts with the

white house. mr. comey had served in the department for better than two decades and i was confident that he had understood and would abide by the well-established rules limiting communications with the white house, especially about ongoing investigations. that's what is so important here and my comments encouraged him to do just that and indeed as i understand it, he in fact did that. our department of justice rules on communications between the department and the white house has been in place for years and mr. comey well knew them and i thought and assumed correctly that he complied with them. so i'll finish with this. i recused myself from any investigation into the campaign for president but i did not recuse myself from defending my honor against false allegations. at all times throughout the course of the campaign, the

confirmation process and since becoming attorney general, i have dedicated myself to the highest standards. i've earned a reputation for that. at home and in this body, i believe, over decades of performance. the people of this country expe expect an honest and transparent government and that's what we're giving them. this president wants to focus on the people of this country to ensure they are treated fairly and kept safe. the trump agenda is to improve the lives of the american people. i know some have different ways of achieving this but this is his agenda and it's what i share. importantly, as attorney general, i have a responsibility to enforce the laws of this nation, to protect this country from its enemies and to ensure the fair administration of justice and i intend to work every day with our fine team and

the superb professionals in the department of justice to advance the important work we have to do. these false attacks, the innuendoes, the leaks, you can be sure will not intimidate me. in fact, these events have only strengthened my resolve to fulfill my duty, my duty to reduce crime, to support our federal, state and local law enforcement officers who work on our streets every day. just last week, it was reported that overdose deaths in this country are rising faster than ever recorded. last year was 52,000. "the new york times" just estimated next year will be 62,000 overdose deaths. the murder rate is up over 10%. the largest increase since 1968. we are telling the gangs, the

cartels, the fraudsters and terrorists, we are coming after you. every one of our citizens, no matter who they are or where they live, has a right to be safe in their homes and communities. and i will not be deterred. i will not allow this great department to be deterred from its vital mission. thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member warner. i have a great honor to appear before you today and i will do my best to answer your questions. >> thank you for that testimony. i'd like to note for members the chair and vice chair will be recognized for ten minutes and members will be recognized for five minutes. and i'd like to remind our members that we are in open session. no references to classified or committee-sensitive materials should be used relative to your questions. with that, i recognize myself at this time for ten minutes.

general sessions, you talked about the mayflower hotel where the president gave his first foreign policy speech and it's been covered in the press that the president was there and you were there and others were there. from your testimony, you said you don't remember whether ambassador kislyak was there, the russian ambassador. is that correct? >> i did not remember that. but i understand he was there. and so i don't doubt that he was. i believe that representation is correct. in fact, he i recently saw a video of him coming into the room. >> but you never remember having a conversation or meeting with ambassador kislyak? >> i do not. >> and in that event, was there ever a private room setting that

you were involved in? >> no. other than the reception area that was shut off from i guess the main crowd. a couple dozen, two to three dozen people. >> i would take for granted at an event like this, the president shook some hands? >> yes, he came in and shook some hands in the group. >> you mentioned that there were some staff that were with you at that event. >> my legislative director at the time -- >> your senate staff? >> senate legislative director who was a retired u.s. army colonel, had served on the armed services staff with senator john warner before she joined my staff was with me in the reception area and throughout the rest of the events. >> were you there as a united states senator or as a surrogate of the campaign for this event? >> i came there as an interested

person, very anxious to see how president trump would do in his first major foreign policy address. i believe he had only given one major speech before that was at the jewish apec event so it was an interesting time for me to observe his delivery and the message he would make. that was my main purpose of being there. >> now, you reported two other meetings with ambassador kislyak, one in july on the sidelines of the republican convention, i believe, and one in september in your senate office. have you had any other interactions with government officials over the year in a campaign capacity? i'm not asking you from the standpoint of your senate life but in your campaign capacity? >> no. i've racked my brain to make sure i could answer those questions correctly and i did not. i would just offer for you that

the -- when asked about whether i had any meetings with russians by the reporter in march, we immediately recalled the conversation, the encounter i had at the convention and the meeting in my office and made that public. i never intended to not include that. i would have gladly reported the meeting, the encounter that may have occurred, that some say occurred in the mayflower if i had remembered it or if it actually occurred, which i don't remember that it did. >> general sessions, on march 2nd, 2017, you formally recused yourself from any involvement in the russia investigation being conducted by the fbi and the department of justice. what are the specific reasons that you chose to recuse yourself? >> well, the specific reason, mr. chairman, is a cfr -- code

of federal regulations put out by the department of justice as part of the department of justice rules and it says this. i'll read from it. 28 cfr 45.2. unless authorized, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person involved in the conduct of an investigation. it goes on to say for political -- in a political campaign and it says if you have a close identification with an elected official or a candidate arising from service as a principal adviser, you should not participate in an investigation of that campaign.

so many have suggested that my recusal is because i felt i was a subject of the investigation myself, that i may have done something wrong. but this is the reason i recused myself. i felt i was required to under the rules of the department of justice and as a leader of the department of justice i should comply with the rules, obviously. >> so did your legal counsel basically know from day one you would have to recuse yourself of this investigation because of the current statute? >> well, i do have a timeline of what occurred. i was sworn in on the 9th, i believe, of february. i then on the 10th had my first meeting to generally discuss this issue where the cfr was not discussed. we had several other meetings and it became clear to me over time that i qualified as a

significant -- a principal adviser-type person to the campaign and it was the appropriate and right thing for me to recuse myself. >> so this could explain director comey's comments that he knew that there was a likelihood that you would recuse yourself because he was familiar with this same statute? >> well, probably so. i'm sure that the attorneys in the department of justice probably communicated with him because, mr. chairman, let me say this to you clearly. in effect, as a matter of fact, i recused myself that day. i never received any information about the campaign. i thought there was a problem with me being able to serve as attorney general over this issue and i felt i would possibly have to recuse myself and i took the position, correctly, i believe, not to involve myself in the

campaign in any way and i did not. >> you made a reference to your chief of staff sending out an e-mail immediately notifying internally of your decision to recuse. would you ask your chief of staff to make that e-mail available. >> we would be pleased to do so and i think i have it with me now. >> thank you, general sessions. have you had any interactions with the special counsel robert mueller since his appointment? >> i have not. with regard to the e-mail we sent out, mr. comey being director comey indicated that he did not know that when i recused myself or did not receive notice, one of those e-mails went to him by name so a lot happens in our offices. i'm not accusing him of any wrongdoing, but in fact, it was sent to him and to his name. >> okay. general sessions, as you said, mr. comey testified at length before the committee about his interactions with the president in some cases highlighting your

presence at those meetings and you addressed the meeting where all were asked to leave except for director comey and he had a private meeting with the president and you said that he did inform you of how uncomfortable that was and your recommendation was that the fbi and doj needed to follow the rules limiting further correspondence. did director comey ever express additional discomfort with conversations that the president might have had with him? because he had two additional meetings and i think a total of six phone calls. >> that is correct. there is nothing wrong with the president having a communication with the fbi director. what is problematic for any department of justice employee is to talk to any cabinet persons or white house officials

about ongoing investigations that are not properly cleared through the top levels of the department of justice and so it was a regulation i think that is helping and i think we needed to restore discipline within our department to adhere to just those kinds of rules and leaking rules and other things that i think are a bit lax and need to be restored. >> you couldn't have had a conversation with the president about the investigation because you were never briefed on the investigation? >> that is correct. i would note that with regard to the private meeting that director comey had, by his own admission, i believe, there are as many as six such meetings. several of him he had with president trump. i think he had two with president obama. so it's not improper per se, but i would not be justified for a

department official to share information about an ongoing investigation without prior review and clearance from above. >> general sessions, just one last question. you were the chair of this foreign policy team for the trump campaign. to the best of your knowledge, did that team ever meet? >> we met a couple of times, maybe. some of the people did. but we never functioned, frankly, mr. chairman, as a coherent team. >> were there any members of that team you never met? >> yes. >> okay. vice chairman? >> thank you, general sessions. as i mentioned in my opening statement, we appreciate your appearance here but we do see this as the first step and i would like to get your commitment that you will agree to make yourself available as the committee needs in the weeks and months ahead.

>> senator warner, i will commit to appear before this committee and other committees as appropriate. i don't think it's good policy to continually bring cabinet members or the attorney general before multiple committees going over the same thing -- >> the appropriations committee and judiciary committee may -- >> i gave you my answer. >> can we get your commitment, since there be questions about some of these meetings that took place or not, that we could get access to documents, memoranda, your day book or something so we can -- >> mr. chairman, we'll be glad to provide appropriate responses to your questions and review them carefully and try to be -- >> yesterday, a friend of the president was reported to suggest that president trump was considering removing director mueller as special counsel. do you have confidence in director mueller's ability to conduct his investigation fairly

and impartially? >> well, first, i don't know about these reports and have no basis to -- >> but i'm asking you, sir, do you -- >> and their validity. i have known mr. mueller over the years. he served 12 years as a fbi director. i knew him before that. and i have confidence in mr. mueller. >> so you have confidence in -- >> but i'm not going to discuss any hypotheticals and what might be a factual situation in the future that i'm not aware of today because i know nothing about the investigation. and i fully recuse -- >> i have a series of questions, sir. do you believe the president has confidence in mr. mueller? >> i have no idea. i have not talked to him about it. >> now, if we commit to this committee not to take any personal actions that might result in director mueller's firing or dismissal? >> well, i think i probably could say that with confidence because i'm recused from the investigation. in fact, the way it works, senator warner, is that the

acting attorney general -- >> i'm aware. i just want to get you on the record that you would not -- >> deputy attorney general -- >> with your recusal, you would not take any actions to have special investigator mueller removed. >> i don't think that would be appropriate for me to do. >> to your knowledge, has any department of justice officials been involved with conversations about any possibility of presidential pardons about any of the individuals involved with the russia investigation? >> mr. chairman, i'm not able to comment on conversations with high officials within the white house. that would be a violation of the communications rule that i have to adhere to. >> just so i can understand, is the basis of that based on executive privilege or what -- >> my -- it's a long-standing policy that the department of

justice not to comment on conversations that the attorney general has had with the president of the united states for confidential reasons that really are founded in the co-equal branch of powers and the constitution of the united states. >> but that -- so -- just so i'm understanding, does that mean you're claiming executive privilege here today, sir? >> i'm not claiming executive privilege because that's the president's power and i have no power to claim executive privilege. >> what about conversations with other department of justice or other white house officials about potential pardons? not the president, sir. >> mr. chairman, without in any way suggesting that i have had any conversations concerning pardons, totally apart from that, there are privileges of communication within the department of justice that we share, all of us do. we have a right to have full and robust debate within the department of justice. we encourage people to speak up

and argue cases on different sides and those arguments are not to be revealed. historically we've seen that they should not be revealed. >> i hope that you would agree since you recused yourself from this investigation that if the president or others would pardon someone during the midst of this investigation while our investigation or director mueller's investigation, that would be i think problematic. let me -- i want to -- one of the comments you made in your testimony was that you had reached this conclusion about the performance of then director comey's ability to lead the fbi, that you agreed with deputy attorney general rosenstein's memo. the fact that you had worked with director comey for some time, did you ever have a conversation as a superior of director comey with his failure to perform or some of these accusations that he wasn't running the fbi in a good way or that somehow the fbi is in

turmoil? did you have any conversations with director comey about these subjects? >> i did not. >> so you were his superior and there was some fairly harsh things said about director comey. you never thought it was appropriate to raise those concerns before he was actually terminated by the president? >> i did not do so. a memoranda was prepared by the deputy attorney general, who evaluated his performance, noted some serious problems with it. >> and you agreed with those conclusions? >> i agreed with those. in fact, senator warner, we had talked about it even before i was confirmed and before he was confirmed. it's something that we both agreed to, that a fresh start at the fbi was probably the best thing. >> it again seems a little -- i could understand if you talked about that before you came on, you had a chance for a fresh

start, there was no fresh start. suddenly we're in the midst of the investigation and the timing that seems peculiar, at least to me was out of the blue, the president fires the fbi director and if there are all of these problems of disarray and a lack of accord at the fbi, things that the acting fbi director denied was the case, i would have thought that somebody would have had that conversation with the director comey. he at least would have been owed that. let's go to the april 27th meeting. it's been brought up, i think the chairman brought it up, by the time april 27th had come around, you had been named as the chair of then candidate trump's national security adviser r adviser. >> that was at the mayflower hotel? >> yes, sir. >> and my understanding was that the president's son-in-law jared kushner was at that meeting as well? >> i believe he was, yes. >> you don't recollect whether mr. kushner had any

conversations with ambassador kislyak at that session? >> i do not. >> and to the best of your memory, you had no conversations with ambassador kislyak during that time? >> i don't recall it. it's conceivable that that occurred. i just don't remember it. >> but there was nothing in your notes or memory so that when you had a chance and you did -- and i appreciate you corrected the record about the other two sessions in response to senator franken and senator leahy, this didn't pop into your memory, that maybe in the overabundance of caution that you ought to report that, this session as well? >> well, i guess i could say that i possibly had a meeting but i still do not recall it and i did not in any way fail to record something on -- in my testimony or in my subsequent letter intentionally false. >> i understand that, sir.

i'm just trying to understand, you corrected the record and clearly by the time you had a chance to correct the record, i would have thought that you would have known that ambassador kislyak was at that april 27th session and received quite a bit of press notoriety and, again, echoing what the chairman has said just, again, for the record, there was no other meeting with any other officials of the russian government during the campaign season? >> not to my recollection. and i would just say, with regard to the two encounters, one at the mayflower hotel that you referred to. >> yes, sir. >> i came there not knowing he was going to be there. i don't have any recollection of even knowing he would be there. i didn't have any communications with him before or after that event. and likewise, at the event at the convention, i went off the convention grounds to a college

campus for an event that had been set up and -- >> at the mayflower -- >> let me follow up on that one. i didn't know he would be in the audience. >> so at the mayflower, there was this, i guess, v.i.p. reception first and then people went into the speech. >> that's my impression. that's my recollection. >> and you were part of the v.i.p. reception? >> yes. >> general sessions, one of the troubling things that i need to sort through is, mr. comey's testimony last week was that he felt uncomfortable when the president asked everyone else to leave the room. he left the impression that you lingered, perhaps feeling uncomfortable about it as well. i'll let you answer correct if that's not the right impression. after this meeting took place, which clearly director comey

felt had some level of uncomfortableness, you never asked director comey what took place in that meeting? >> well, i would just say it this way. we were there. i was standing there. and without revealing any conversation that took place, what i do recall is that i did depart -- i believe everyone else did depart and director comey was sitting in front of the president's desk and they were talking. so that's what i do remember. i believe it was the next day that he said something, expressed concern about being left alone with the president. but that in itself is not problematic. he did not tell me at that time any details about anything that was said that was improper. i affirmed his concern that we should be following the proper guidelines of the department of justice and basically backed him up in his concerns and that he should not carry on any

conversation with the president or anyone else about an investigation in a way that was not proper. i felt he so long in the department, former deputy attorney general, as i recall, knew those policies probably a good deal better than i did. >> thank you. but it did appear that mr. comey felt that the conversation was improper? >> he was concerned about it. and his recollection of what he said to me about his concern, i don't -- is consistent with my recollection. >> senator risch? >> attorney general sessions, good to hear you talk about how important this russian interference and active measures in our campaign is. i don't think there's any american who would disagree with the fact that we need to drill down to this, know what happened, get it out in front of the american people and do what we can to stop it. and that's what this committee was charged to do and that's

what this committee started to do. as you probably know, on february 14th, "the new york times" published an article alleging that there was constant communications between the trump campaign and the russians and collusion regarding the election. do you recall that article when it came out? >> not exactly. >> generally? >> but generally i remember those charges. >> 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 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 it -- i think it's been pretty substantially discredited but you would know more than i. but what was said that would suggest i participated in the continuing communications with russians as a surrogate is absolutely false. >> mr. sessions, there's been all this talk about conversations and that you had some conversations with the russians. senators up here who are on either foreign relations intelligence armed services,

conversations with officers of other governments or ambassadors or what have you are every day occurrences here, multiple time occurrences for most of us. is that a fair statement? >> i think it is. >> and if you run into one in the grocery store, you'll have a conversation? >> yes and nothing improper. >> on the other hand, collusion with a russian or any other government for that matter when it comes to our elections would certainly be improper and illegal. would that be a fair statement? >> absolutely. >> are you willing to sit here and tell the american people unfiltered by what the media is going to put out that you participated in no conversations of any kind where there was collusion between the trump campaign and any other foreign government? >> i can say that absolutely and i have no hesitation to do so. >> mr. sessions, you're a former u.s. attorney, and attorney general of the u.s. you parteicipated in the trump

campaign. as such, you traveled with the campaign, i gather? >> i did. >> you spoke for the campaign? >> a number of occasions. i was not continually. >> based upon your experience and based upon your participation in the campaign, did you hear even a whisper or a suggestion or anyone making reference within that campaign that somehow the russians were involved in that campaign? >> i did not. >> what would you have done had you heard that? >> well, i would have been shocked and i would have known it was improper. >> and headed for the exit, i suppose? >> well, maybe. so this was, you know, a serious -- this is a serious matter. because what you're talking about, hacking into a private person or dnc computer and obtaining information and spreading that out, it's not right and it's likely that laws were violated if that actually occurred. so it's an improper thing. >> mr. sessions, has any person from the white house or the

administration, including the president of the united states, either directed you or asked you to do any unlawful or illegal act since you've been attorney general of the united states? >> no, senator risch. >> thank you. >> senator feinstein? >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. welcome, attorney general. >> thank you. >> on may 19th, mr. rosenstein in a statement to the house of representatives essentially told them that he learned on may 8th that president trump intended to remove director comey. when you wrote your letter on may 9, did you know that the president had already decided to fire director comey? >> senator feinstein, i would say that i believe it's been made public that on the -- the

president asked us our opinion, it was given and he asked us to put that in writing and i don't know how much more he said about it than that but i believe he has talked about it and i would let his words speak for himself. >> well, on may 11th, "nbc nightly news," two days later, the president stated he was going to fire comey regardless of the recommendation. so i'm puzzled about the recommendation because the decision had been made. so what was the need for you to write a recommendation? >> well, we were asked our opinion and when we expressed it, which was consistent with the memorandum and the letter we

wrote, i felt comfortable and i guess the deputy attorney general did, too, in providing that information in writing. >> so do you concur with the president that he was going to fire comey regardless of recommendation because the problem was the russian investigation? >> senator feinstein, i guess i'll just have to let his words speak for himself? i'm not sure what was in his mind explicitly when we talked with him. >> did you ever discuss director comey's fbi handling of the russia investigations with the president or anyone else? >> senator feinstein, that would call for a communication between the attorney general and the president and i'm not able to comment on that. >> you are not able to answer the question here whether you ever discussed that with him? >> that's correct. >> and how do you view that

since you discussed his termination, why wouldn't you discuss the reasons? >> well, i -- those were put in writing and sent to the president and he made those public, so he made that public. >> so you've had no verbal conversation with him about the firing of mr. comey? >> well, i'm not able to discuss with you or confirm or deny the nature of our private conversations that i may have had with the president on this subject or others. and i know that how this will be discussed but that's the rule that has been long adhered to by the department of justice, as you know, senator feinstein. >> you're a long-time colleague, but we heard mr. coats and we heard admiral rogers say essentially the same thing when it was easy just to say if the

answer was no, no. >> well, easy -- it would have been easier so say if it was yes, yes. but both would have been improper. >> okay. so how exactly were you involved in the termination of director comey? because i am looking at your letter dated may 9th and you say the director of the fbi must be someone who follows faithfully the rules and principles, who sets the right example for our law enforcement officials, therefore, i must recommend that you remove director comey and identify an experienced and qualified individual to lead the great men and women of the fbi. do you really believe that this had to do with director comey's performance with the men and

women of the fbi? >> there was a clear view of mine and deputy attorney general rosenstein as he set out at some length in his memoranda, which i adopted and sent forward to the president, that we had problems there and it was my best judgment that a fresh start at the fbi was the appropriate thing to do and when asked, i said that to the president is something i would adhere to, deputy rosenstein's letter dealt with a number of things. when mr. comey declined the clinton prosecution, that was really a userpatien and a stunning development. the fbi is an investigative

team. they don't discuss prosecution policies. and so that was a thunderous thing and also commented at some length on the declination on the clinton prosecution, which you shouldn't do. policies have been historic u if you decline, you decline and don't talk about it. there are other things that indicated to me a lack of discipline and caused controversy on both sides of the aisle and i had come to the conclusion that a fresh start was appropriate and did not mind putting that in writing. >> my time is up. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> senator rubio? >> thank you. thank you for being here, attorney general. i want to go back to february 14th and close the loop on the details. director comey provided great detail about that day. what i've heard so far is that there was a meeting in the oval office on the 14th. at some point, the meeting concluded and the president -- everyone got up to leave and the

president asked everyone to stay behind, correct? >> that's a communication in the white house that i would not comment on. >> do you remember seeing him stay behind? >> yes. >> and his testimony was that you lingered. and his view of it was you lingered because you knew that you needed to stay. that was his characterization. do you remember lingering and feeling like you needed to stay? >> i do recall being one of the last ones to leave. >> did you decide to be one of the last ones to leave? >> i don't know how that had occurred. i think we had finished a counterterrorism briefing. there are a number of people that were there and people were filtering out and i eventually left and i do recall that i think i was the last or one of the last two or three to leave. >> would it be fair to say that you felt like perhaps you needed to stay because it involved the fbi director? >> well, i don't know that -- how i would characterize that,

senator rubio. i left. it didn't seem to me to be a major problem. i knew that director comey, a long-time experienced individual of the department of justice could conduct himself well. >> he characterized it as he went up to you and said, never leave me alone with the president again, it's not appropriate, and this is his characterization, that you just kind of shrugged as if to say, what am i supposed to do about it? >> well, i think i described it more completely, correctly. he raised that issue with me, i believe, the fex dnext day. i think that is correct. he expressed concern to me about that private conversation. and i agreed with him, essentially, that there are rules on private conversations with the president. but there's not a prohibition on a private discussion with the president, as i believe he's

acknowledged a six or more himself with president obama and president trump. so i didn't feel like that -- and he gave me no detail about what it was that he was concerned about. >> so -- >> i didn't say i wouldn't be able to respond if he called me. he certainly knew that with regard to -- that he could call his direct supervisor, which within the department of justice, a direct supervisor to the fbi 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 that he would not yield to any pressure. >> do you know if the president records conversations in the oval office or anywhere in the white house? i do not. >> if in fact any president was to record conversations in their official duties in the white house with 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. as i'm sure you're aware, it's been widely reported russian intelligence agencies often pose not simply as an official but a journalist and the like, at any point in the campaign, did you have an interaction with anyone who in hindsight you look back and say they tried to gain influence and in hindsight you look back and wonder? >> i don't believe in my conversations with the three times -- >> not -- just in general. >> well, i have 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 never -- >> that's a normal thing i guess we talk about. >> but as far as someone who is not an official from another

country, a businessman walking down the street, who struck you that they were trying to figure out what you were up to or the campaign was up to, you never look back and in hindsight think it feels suspicious? >> i'd have to rack my brain but i don't recall that now. >> 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 in making that change? >> i was not active in the platform committee, did not participate in that and don't think i had any direct involvement. >> do you know who did or you have no recollection of a debate about that issue internally in the campaign? >> i never watched the debate, if it occurred, on the platform committee. i think it did. so i don't recall that, senator rubio. i'd have to think about that. >> thank you. >> senator wyden? >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, thank you for holding this meeting in the open

and in full view of the american people where it belongs. i believe the american people have had it with stonewalling. americans don't want to hear that answers to relevant questions are privileged and off limits or that they can't be provided in public or that it would be, quote, inappropriate for witnesses to tell us what they know. we are talking about an attack on our democratic institutions and stonewalling of any kind is unacceptable. and general sessions has acknowledged that there is no legal basis for this stonewalling. so now to questions. last thursday, i asked former director comey about the fbi's interactions with you, general sessions, prior to your stepping aside from the russian investigation. mr. comey said that your continued engagement with the russian investigation was, quote, problematic, and he, mr.

comey, could not discuss it in public. mr. comey also said that fbi personnel had been calling for you to step aside from the investigation, at least two weeks before now, in your prepared statement you stated you received only, quote, limited information necessary to inform your recusal decision, but given director comey's statement we need to know what that was. were you aware of any concerns that the fbi or elsewhere in government about your contacts with the russians or any other matters relevant to whether you should step aside from the russian investigation? >> senator wyden, i am not stonewalling. i'm following the historic policies of the department of justice. you don't walk in to any hearing or committee meeting and reveal

confidential communications with the president of the united states who is entitled to receive confidential communications and your best judgment about a host of issues, and -- and to be accused of stonewalling for not answering them so i would push back on that. secondly, mr. comey, perhaps he didn't know, but i basically recused myself the day -- the first day i got into the office because i never accessioned files, i never learned the names of investigators, i never met with them. i never asked for any documentation. the documentation, what little i received, was mostly already in the media and was presented by the senior ethics public responsibility, professional responsibility attorney in the department, and i made an honest and proper decision to recuse myself, as i told senator feinstein and the members of the

committee i would do when they confirmed me. >> general sessions, respectfully, you're not answering the question. >> well, what is the question? >> the question is mr. comey said that there were matters with respect to the recusal that were problematic, and he couldn't talk about them. what are they? >> why don't you tell me. there are none, senator wyden. there are none! i can tell you that for absolute certainty. you -- this is a secret innuendo being leaked out there about me, and i don't appreciate it, and i tried to give my best and truthful answers to any committee i've appeared before, and it's really people sort of suggesting innuendo that i have been not honest about matters, and i've tried to be honest. >> my time is short. you've made your point that you think mr. comey is engaging in

innuendo. we're going to keep digging. >> well, senator wyden. he did not say that. >> he said it was problematic, and i asked you what was problematic about it. >> some of that leaked out of the committee that he said in closed sessions. >> okay. one more question. i asked former fbi director whether your role in firing him violated your recusal given that president trump said he fired comey because of the russian investigation. director comey said this was a reasonable question. so i want to ask you just point blank why did you sign the letter recommending the firing of director comey when it violated your recusal? >> it did not violate my recusal. it did not violate my recusal. that would be the answer to that. the letter that i signed represented my views that had been form late for some time.

>> mr. chairman, just if i can finish, that answer in my view doesn't pass the smell test. the president tweeted repeatedly about his anger and investigations into his associates and russia. the day before you wrote the letter he tweeted that the collusion story was a total hoax and asked when will this taxpayer funded charade end? i don't think your answer passes the smell test. >> senator wyden, i think i should be allowed to briefly respond at least and say the letter, the memorandum that senator -- that deputy rosenstein wrote and my letter that accompanied it represented my views of the situation. >> i'll ask that on the second round. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general sessions, i want to clarify who did what with regard to the firing of

mr. comey. first of all, let me ask you when did you have your first conversation with rod rosenstein about mr. comey? >> we talked about it before either one of us were confirmed. it was a topic of, you know, conversation among people who had served in the department a long time. they knew that what had happened that fall was pretty dramatically unusual. many people felt it was very wrong, and so it was in that context that we discussed it, and we both found that we shared common views that a fresh is that right would be appropriate. >> and this was based on mr. comey's handling of the investigation involving hillary clinton in which you said that he usurped the authority of prosecutors at the department of

justice? >> yes, that was part of it and the commenting on the investigation in ways that go beyond the proper policies. we need to restore, senator collins, i think the classic discipline in the department. my team, we've discussed this. there's been too much leaking and too much talking publicly about investigations. in the long run the department's historic rule lets you remain mum about ongoing investigations is the better policy. >> now subsequently the president asked for you to put your views in writing you've testified today, and i believe you were right to recuse yourself from the ongoing russia investigation, but then on may 9th you wrote to the president recommending that mr. comey be dismissed, and obviously this went back many months to the

earlier conversations you had had with mr. rosenstein, but my question is why do you believe that your recommendation to fire director comey was not inconsistent with your march 2nd recusal? >> thank you. the recusal involved one case involved in the department of justice and in the fbi. they conduct thousands of investigations. i'm the attorney general of the united states. it's my responsibility to our dblgt and our committees to ensure that this department is run properly. i have to make difficult decisions, and i do not believe that it is a sound position to say that if you recuse for a single case involving any one of the great agencies like d. ea or

u.s. marshals or atf that are part of the department of justice you can't make a decision about the leadership in that agency. >> now, if you had known that the president subsequently was going to go on tv and in an interview with lester holt of nbc would say that this russian thing was the reason for his decision to dismiss the fbi director, would you have felt uncomfortable about the timing of the decision? >> well, i would just say this, senator collins. i don't think it's appropriate to deal with those kind of hypotheticals. i have to deal in actual issues, and i would respectfully not comment on that. >> well, let me ask you this. in retrospect do you believe that it would have been better for you to have stayed out of

the decision to fire director comey? >> i think it's my responsibility. i mean, i was appointed to be attorney general, supervising all the federal agencies is my responsibility. trying to get the very best people in those agencies at the top of them is my responsibility, and i think i had a duty to do so. >> now, director comey testified that he was not comfortable telling you about his one-on-one conversation with the president on february 14th because he believed that you would shortly recuse yourself from the russian investigation which you did, yet director comey testified that he told no one else at the department outside of the senior leadership team at the fbi. do you believe that the director had an obligation to bring the information about the president

saying that he hoped he could let michael flynn go to someone else at the department of justice? there are an awful lot of lawyers at the department of justice, some 10,000 by last count. >> i think the appropriate thing would have been for director comey to talk with the acting deputy attorney general who is his direct supervisor. that was dana boente who had 33 years in the department of justice and was even then still serving for six years and continues to serve of as attorney general appointed by president barack obama, so he's a man of great integrity and everybody knows it, a man of decency and judgment. if he had concerns, he should have raised it to deputy attorney general boente who would be the appropriate person in any case really, but if he had any concern that i might be recusing myself, that would be a double reason for him to share

it with deputy attorney general boente. >> thank you. >> senator heinrich. >> attorney general sessions, has the president ever expressed his frustration to you regarding your decision to recuse yourself? >> senator heinrich, i'm not able to share with this committee prifrlt -- >> you're invoking executive privilege. >> i'm not able to invoke executive privilege. that's the president's prerogative. >> my understanding is that you took an oath, you raised your right hand here today and you said that you would solemnly tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and now you're not answering questions. you're impeding this investigation, so my understanding of the legal standard is that you either answer the question. that's the best outcome. you say this is classified, can't answer it here. i'll answer it in closed session. that's bucket number two. bucket number three is to say

i'm invoking executive privilege. there is no appropriateness bucket. it is not a legal standard. can you tell me why what are these long-standing d. oj rules that protect conversations made in the executive without invoking executive privilege? >> senator, i'm protecting the president's constitutional right by not giving it away before he has a chance to review it. >> you can't have it both ways. >> and second i am telling the truth in answering your question and saying it's a long-standing policy of the department of justice to make sure that the president has full opportunity to decide these issues. >> can you share those policies with us. are they written down at the department of justice? >> i believe they are. >> this is the appropriateness legal standard for not answering congressional inquiries. >> that's my judgment that it would be inappropriate for me to

answer and reveal private conversations with the president when he has not had a full opportunity to review the questions and to make a decision on whether or not to approve such an answer, one. there are also other privileges that could be invoked. one of the things deals with the investigation of the special counsel as other -- >> we're not asking questions about that investigation. if i wanted to ask questions about that investigation, i'd ask those of rod rosenstein. i'm asking about your personal knowledge from this committee which has a constitutional obligation to get to the bottom of this. there are two investigations here. there is a special counsel investigation. there is also a congressional investigation, and you are obstructing that congressional delegation -- investigation by not answering these questions,

and i think your silence, like the silence of director coats, like the silence of admiral rogers speaks volumes. >> i would say that i have consulted with senior career attorneys in the department. >> i suspect you have. >> and they believe this is consistent with my duties. >> senator risch asked you a question about appropriateness if you had known that there had been anything untoward with regard to russia in the campaign, would you have headed for the exits? your response was maybe. why wasn't it a simple yes? >> well, there was an improper illegal relationship in an effort to impede or to influence the campaign i absolutely would have depart. >> i think that's a good answer. i'm not sure why it wasn't the answer in the first place. i find it strange that neither you nor deputy attorney general

rod rosenstein brought up performance issues with director comey, and, in fact, deputy fbi director mccabe has directly refuted any assertion that there were performance issues. this is troubling because it appears that the president decided to fire director comey because he was pursuing the russia investigation and had asked you to come up with an excuse. when your assessment of director comey didn't hold up to public scrutiny, the president finally admitted that he had fired director comey because he was pursuing the russia investigation, ie the lester holt investigation. you said you did not break recusal when you participated in the comey firing, that it was related to russia and not department mismanagement. how do you square those two things? >> you have a lot in that question. let me say first within a week

or so, i believe may 1rd, director comey testified that he believed the handling of the clinton declination was proper and appropriate and he would do it again. i know that was a great concern to both of us because it did not -- that represented something that i think most professionals in the department of justice would totally agree that the fbi investigative agency does not decide whether to prosecute or decline criminal cases. pretty breathtaking usuchation of the responsibility of the attorney general. so that's how we felt. that was sort of additional concern that we had heading the fbi someone who boldly asserted the right to continue to make such decisions. that was one of the things we

discussed. that was in the memorandum i believe and it was also an important factor for us. >> before i recognize senator blunt, i would like the record to show that last night admiral rogers spent almost two hours in closed session with the -- with almost the full committee fulfilling his commitment to us in the hearing that in closed session he would answer the question, and i think it was thoroughly answered and all members were given an opportunity to ask the question. i want the record to show with what senator heinrich stated. senator blunt. >> thank you, chairman. attorney general, good to see you here and good to see mary. i'm sure there's probably other places you would both rather be today but you always looked at public service as something you did together and 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. i agree with that. let me just get a couple of things clear in my mind here of notes i've taken while people were asking questions, and you were talking. on the april 27th, 2016 event, i think 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. >> and 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 weren't and heard a speech and may have seen people on your way out? >> correct. >> so when you said you possibly had a meeting with mr. kislyak, did you mean 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. that's the only thing i cannot say with certainty i did not. that's all i can say. >> that's what i thought you were saying, but sometimes when i hear meeting, that would mean more to me than i met somebody. you might have met him at the reception. could you have melt other ambassadors at that reception as well? >> i could. i remember one in particular that we had a conversation with, whose country had an investment in alabama and we talked at length about that, i remember that, but otherwise i have no recollection of a discussion with the russian ambassador. >> all right. so you were there. you've read since he was there you may have seen him, but you had no room where you were having meetings with individuals to have discussions at the mayflower hotel that day. >> yes, that is correct. >> whenever you talked to mr. comey after he had had his

meeting with the president, you think that was probably the next day. you didn't stay afterwards and see him after he left the oval office that night? >> no. i understand his testimony may have suggested that it happened right afterwards, but it was either the next morning, which i think it was, or maybe the morning after that. it was we had a three times a week national security briefing with fbi that i undertake, and so it was after that that we had that conversation. >> where you had that conversation. what i'm not quite clear on is did you respond when he expressed his concern or not? >> yes, i did respond. i think he's incorrect. he indicated i believe that he was not totally sure of the exact wording of the meeting, but i do recall, my chief of

staff was with me, and we recall that i did affirm the long-standing written policies of the department of justice concerning communications with the white house. we have to follow those rules and in the long run you're much better off if you do. they do not prohibit communications one-on-one by the fbi director with the president, but if that conversation moves into certain areas, it's the duty -- the rules apply to the department of justice, so it's a duty of the fbi agent to say, mr. president, i can't talk about that. that's the way that should work, and apparently it did because he says he did not improperly discuss matters with the president. >> when mr. comey talked to you about that meeting, did he mention mr. flynn? >> no. he mentioned no facts of any kind. he did not mention to me that he had been asked to do something

he thought was improper. he just said he was uncomfortable i believe with it. >> after that discussion with mr. comey -- >> actually i don't know that he said he was uncomfortable. i think he said maybe it was what he testified to was perhaps the correct wording. i'm not sure exactly what he said, but i don't dispute it. >> well, exactly what i think -- what i remember him saying was that you didn't react at all and kind of shrugged, but you said you referred him to the normal way that these meetings are supposed to be conducted. >> i took it as a concern that he might be asked something that was improper and i affirmed to him his willingness to say no or not go in an improper way, improper direction. >> just finally, i'm assuming you wouldn't talk about this because it would relate to the may 8th meeting, but my sense is

that no decision is final until it's carried out. i guess is that there are people at this d. ais who have said they were going to let somebody go and was going to fire somebody and never did that, so the fact that the president said that on may 8th doesn't mean that it the information he got from you on may 9th was not necessary or impactful, and i'm sure you're not going to say how many times the president said we ought to get rid of that person, but i'm sure that's happened, and, chairman, i'll yield. senator king. >> mr. attorney general, thank you for joining us today. >> thank you. >> i respect your willingness to be here. you testified a few minutes ago i'm not able to invoke executive privilege. that's up to the president. has the president invoked executive privilege in the case of your testimony here today? >> he has not. >> then what is the basis of your refusal to answer these questions.

>> senator king, the president has a constitutional -- >> i understand that, but the president hasn't asserted that. you said you don't have the power to exert executive privilege so what is the legal basis for your refusal to answer the questions? >> i'm protecting the right of the president to assert it if he chooses and there may be other privileges that could apply in this circumstance. >> well, i don't understand how you can have it both ways. the president can't not assert it, and you've testified that only the president can assert it and yet i just don't understand the legal basis for your refusal to answer. >> what we try to do, i think most cabinet officials, others that you questioned recently, officials before the committee, protect the president's right to do so. if it comes to a point where the issue is clear and there's a dispute about it, at some point the president will either assert the privilege or not or some

other privilege would be asserted, but at this point i believe it's premature -- >> you're asserting a privilege -- >> it would be premature for me to deny the president a full and intelligent choice about executive privilege. that's not necessary at this point. >> you testified a few minutes ago, that quote, we were asked for our opinion. who asked for your opinion. you testified we were asked for our opinion. >> my understanding is i believe i'm correct in saying the president had said so. >> he didn't ask you directly. >> i thought you were asking about the privilege. >> if you want to go back to the -- >> you said, quote, we were asked for our opinion, you and mr. rosenstein. >> i believe that was appropriate for me to say that because i think the president had said -- >> i'm just asking for your

opinion. who asked you for your opinion? >> yes, right. the president asked for our opinion. >> all right. so you just testified as to the content of a communication to the president. >> but i believe he's already revealed that. i believe i'm correct in saying, that that's why i indicated that when i answered that question, but if he hasn't and i'm in error, i would have constricted his constitutional right of privilege. you're correct. >> you're being selective about the use -- >> i'm doing so only because i believe he made that piece of information public. >> did the question of the russia investigation in the firing of james comey come up? >> i cannot answer, that because it was a communication by the president or if any such occurred it would be a communication that he has not waived. >> but he has not asserted the executive privilege. >> he's not exerted executive privilege. >> do you believe the russians interfered with the 2016

elections? >> it appears so. the intelligence community seems to be united in that, but i have to tell you, senator king, i know nothing but what i've read in the paper. i've never received any details, briefing on how hacking occurred or how information was alleged to have influenced the campaigns. >> between the election, there was a memorandum from the intelligence community on october 9th, that detailed what the russians were doing after the election, before the inauguration. you never sought any information about this rather dramatic attack on our country? >> no. >> you never asked for a briefing or attended a briefing or ruled are the intelligence reports? >> you might have been very critical if i as an active part of the campaign was seeking intelligence related to something that might be relevant to the campaign. i'm not sure -- >> i'm not talking about the campaign. i'm talking about what the russians did. you received no briefing on the russian active measures in

connection with the 2016 election. >> no, i don't believe i ever did. >> let's go to your letter of may 9th. you said based upon my evaluation and for the reasons expressed by the deputy, was that a written evaluation? >> my evaluation was an evaluation that had been going on for some months. >> is there a written evaluation? >> i did not make one. i think you could classify deputy attorney general rosenstein's memorandum as an evaluation, and he was the direct supervisor of the fbi director. >> and his evaluation was based 100% on the handling of the hillary clinton e-mails, is that correct? >> well, and a number of other matters as i recall, but he did explicitly lay out the errors that he thought had been made in that process by the director of

the fbi. i thought they were cogent and accurate and far more significant than i think a lot of people have understood. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator langford. attorney general sessions, good to see you again. >> thank you. >> you've spoken very plainly from the beginning from your opening statement all the way through this time. i am amazed at the conversations as if an attorney general have never said there were private conversations with the president and we don't need to discuss those. it seems to be a short memory about some of the statements eric holder would and would not make to any committee in the house or the senate and would or would not turn over documents even requested. that had to go all the way through the court systems for the president saying and the president can't hold back documents and the attorney general can't do that so somehow the acquisition that you're not

saying every conversation about everything, there's a long history of attorney generals standing beside the president saying there are some conversations that are confidential, and then it can be determined from there. it does seem as well that every unnamed source story somehow gets a hearing. i was in the hearing this morning with rod rosenstein as we dealt with the appropriations request that originally you were expected to be at, that rod rosenstein was taking your place. he was very clear and peppered with questions about russia during that conversation as well. he was very clear that he has never had conversations with you about that and that you have never requested conversations about that. he was also peppered with questions of the latest rumor of the day that somehow the president is thinking about firing robert mueller and getting rid of him and was very clear that rosenstein himself said i'm the only one that could do that, and i'm not

contemplating that nor would i do that and no one has any idea where the latest unnamed sourced story of the day is coming from, but somehow it's grabbing all the attention. do i want to be able to bring up a couple of things to you specifically. one is to define the word recuse, and i come back to your e-mail that you sent to jim comey and others that day, on march the 2nd. this was what you had said during -- in your e-mail. after careful consideration following meetings with career department officials over the course of the past several weeks the attorney general has decided to recuse himself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for president of the united states. the attorney general's recusal is not only with respect to such investigations, if any, but also extends to the department responses to congressional and media inquiries we lated to such investigations. is that something you have maintained from march 2nd on? >> absolutely. actually i maintained it from the first day i became attorney

general. we discussed those matters, and i felt until -- until and if i ever made a decision to not recuse myself i should not, as an abundance of caution, involve myself in studying the investigation or evaluating it so i did not. i also would note that the memorandum from my chief of staff directs these agencies and one of the people directly it was sent to was james b. comey, director of the fbi. you should instruct members of your staffs to not -- not to brief the attorney general or any other officials in the office of the attorney general about or otherwise involve the attorney general or other officials in the office of the toirng attorney general in any such matters and we took the proper and firm and crystal clear position that the recusal meant

recusal. >> relating to this april 27th meeting, non-meeting in the same room at the same time, the national interest was asked specifically about this who was the host of that event them. stated this in writing. the center of national interest decided whom to invite. the trump campaign did not determine or approve the invitationly, guests of the list included democrats and republicans with some supporting other candidates. most of the guests were washington-based foreign policy experts and journalists and russian ambassador kislyak was invited to the speech and several other ambassadors. we regularly invite ambassadors to our events to facilitate dialogue and we seated all four in the front row during the speech in deference to the diplomatic status. the trump campaign had nothing to do with the seating campaign and the center for national interest extended equal treatment for those attending and invited each to a short reception prior to the trump speech. the reception included

approximately two dozen guests in a receiving line. the line moved quickly and any conversations with mr. trump in that setting were inherently brief and could not be private. a recollection is that the interaction between mr. trump and ambassador kislyak was limited to exchange of pleasantries, appropriate on any such occasions. not aware of any conversations between ambassador kiltsiac and senator jeff sessions at the reception but in a small group setting like this one that anyone could have engaged in had a meaningful conversation without drawing attention from others present. do you have any reason to disagree with that? >> i think that's a very fair description of the reception situation. i appreciate them having made that statement. >> i yield mac. >> senator manchin. >> thank you, mr. attorney general, for being here. >> thank you, senator manchin. >> i want to follow up on what senator king had asked concerning. you are and i are about the same vintage and back in our lifetime we've never known the

russians -- the russian government or the russian military to ever be our friend and wanting the same things we wanted out of life. with that being said, the seriousness of this russian hacking is very serious to me and concerning, and you're saying that you had not been briefed on that. october -- i think it was october 9th, when it was known that the o d. ni i think at that time mr. clapper and also mr. jeh johnson, homeland security made that public what was going on, then on december 29th president obama at that time expelled 35 russian diplomats, denied access to two russian-owned compounds and broadened the existing sanctions. sir, i would ask did you have any discussions at all -- have you had any discussions at all or sat in on any type of meetings or recommendations made to remove those sanctions?

>> i don't recall any such meeting. >> and during the time not from the president being inaugurated on january toth, prior to that in the campaign, up until and through the transition, was there ever any meetings that he showed any concern or consideration or just inquisitive of what the russians were really doing and if they had really done it? >> i don't recall any such conversations. i'm not sure i understood your question. maybe i better listen again. >> you were part of the national security team, so if he would have heard something about russia and with their capabilities and our concern about what they could do to our election process, was there ever any conversations concerning that whatsoever? >> i don't recall it, senator manchin. >> i know it's been asked of you things, your executive privilege in protecting the president. i understand that, but also when we had mr. comey here, you know, he couldn't answer a lot of things in open session. he agreed to go into a closed session. would you be able to go in a

closed session. would it change your answers to us or your ability to speak more frankly on some things we would want to know. >> senator manchin, i'm not sure. the executive privilege is not waived by going in camera or in closed session. it may be that one of the concerns is that when you have an investigation ongoing as the special counsel does it's often very problematic to have persons, you know, not cooperating with that counsel and the conduct of the investigation which way or may not be a factor in going into closed session. >> it would be very helpful, i think the committee, a lot of questions that they would like and you would like to answer if possible and maybe we can check into that a little further. if i could, sir, did you have any meetings, any other meetings with russian officials that have not previously been disclosed? >> i've rocked my brain and i do

not believe so. >> are there any other -- >> i can assure you that none of those meetings discussed manipulating the campaign in the united states in any way shape or form or any hacking or any such ideas. >> i'm going to go quick through this. any other meetings between russian government officials and any other trump campaign associates that have not been previously disclosed that you know of? >> i don't recall any. >> to the best of your knowledge, did any of the following individuals meet with russian officials at any point during the campaign? you can just go yes or no as i go down through the list. >> paul manafort. >> repeat that now. >> to the best of your knowledge, sir, did any of these following individuals meet with russian officials at any point during the campaign, and you can just yes or no on this. >> paulman -- paul manafort. i don't have any indications that he has. >> steve bannon. >> i have no information that he

did. >> general michael flynn. >> i don't recall it. >> reince priebus? >> i don't recall. >> steve miller? >> i don't recall him ever having such a session. >> corey lewandowski. >> i do not recall any of those individuals having any meeting with russian officials. >> carter page. >> i don't know. >> and would i finally ask this question, because i always think -- we try to -- you have an innate knowledge. >> there -- there may have been some published accounts of mr. page talking with russians, i'm not sure. i don't recall though. >> as a former senator you bring a unique holistic perspective to this investigation because you've been on both sides. >> i have indeed. all in all it's better on this side. >> okay. >> nobody gets to ask you about your private conversations or your staff. >> here you go. give us a chance to give us some vice. if you were sitting on this side of the d. ais, what question

would you be asking? >> i would be asking whether or not -- i would be asking questions related to whether or not there was an impact on this election. >> and what part of the story do you think you're missing? >> by a foreign power, particularly the russians, since the intelligence community has suggested and state tad that they believe they did, but i do think members of this government have offices to run and departments to manage and they -- and the questions should be focused on that. >> is there a part of the story we're missing, so sorry, mr. chairman, is there a part of the story that we're missing? >> i don't know because i'm not involved in the campaign and had no information concerning it. i have no idea at what stage it is. you members of the committee know a lot more than i. >> thank you, general sessions. >> general sessions, i will assure you we're very much focused on russia's involvement. >> doesn't seem like to. >> and our hope is that as we complete the process we will lay the facts out for the american

people so they can make their own determinations as well. grateful for what we've done. senator cotton. >> well, i am on this side of the d. ais and i could say a very simple question that should be asked. i am on this side of the d. ais. a very simple question that should be asked is did donald trump or any of his associates in the campaign collude with russia in hacking those e-mails and releasing them to the public? that's where we started six months ago? we have now heard from six of the eight democrats on this committee and too my knowledge i don't think a single one of them asked that question. they have gone down lots of other rabbit trails but not that question. maybe that is because jim comey said last week as he said to donald trump on three times he assured him he was not under investigation. maybe it's because multiple democrats on this committee have stated they have seen no evidence thus far after six months of our investigation and ten months or 11 months of an fbi investigation of any such collusion. i would suggest what do we think happened at the mayflower?

mr. sessions, are you familiar with what spies call trade craft? >> a little bit. >> that involves things like covert communications and dead drops and brush passes, right? >> that is part of of it. >> do you like spy fiction, daniel silva, jason matthews? >> yeah, alan firts, david ignatius. >> do you like jason bourne or james bond moveies? >> no, yes, i do. >> have you ever ever in any of these fantastical situations heard of a plot line so ridiculous that a sitting united states senator and an ambassador of a foreign government colluded at an open setting with hundreds of other people to pull off the greatest caper in the history of espionage? >> thank you for saying that, senator cotton. it's just like through the looking glass. i mean, what is this?

i explained how in good faith i said i had not met with russians because they were suggesting i as a surrogate had been meeting continuously with russians. i didn't meet with them and now the next thing you know i'm accused of some reception plotting some sort of influence campaign for the american election. it's just beyond my capability to understand, and i really appreciate, mr. chairman, the opportunity to at least to be able to say publicly i didn't participate in that and know knowing about it. >> and i gather that's one reason why you wanted to testify today in public. last week mr. comey in characteristic dramatic and theatrical fashion alluded to innuendo, that there was some kind of classified intelligence that suggested you might have colluded with russia or that you might have otherwise acted improperly. you've addressed those allegations here today. do you understand why he made

that illusion? >> actually i do not. nobody's provided me any information. >> thank you. my time is limited and i have a lot of questions. mr. blunt asked you if you had spoken in response to mr. comey's statement to you after his private meeting with the president on february 14th or february 15th. you said that you did respond to mr. comey. mr. comey's testimony said that you did not. do you know why mr. comey would have said that you did not respond to him on that conversation with you on february 14th or 15th? >> i do not. it was a little conversation, not very long, but there was a conversation, and i did respond to him, perhaps not to everything he asked, but he -- i did respond to him. i think in an appropriate way. >> do you know why mr. comey mistrusted president trump from their first meeting on january 6th? he stated last week that he did.

he didn't state anything from that meeting that caused him to have such mistrust. >> i'm not able to speculate on that. >> let's turn to the potential crimes that we know have happened h.leaks of certain information. here's a short list of what i have. the contents of alleged transcripts of alleged conversations between mr. flynn and mr. kislyak, the contents of president trump's phone calls with australian and mexican leaders, the content of mr. trump's meetings with the russian foreign minister and the ambassador, the leak of manchester bombing -- the manchester bombing suspect identity and crime scene photos and last week within 20 minutes of this committee meeting in classified setting is with jim comey, the base its of mr. comey's innuendo was. are these leaks serious threats to our national security, and is the department of justice taking them with the appropriate degree of seriousness and investigating and ultimately going to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law? >> thank you, senator cotton.

we have had one successful case very recently in georgia. that person has been denied bail i believe and is being held in custody, but some of these leaks, as you well know, are extraordinarily damaging to the united states security, and we have got to restore a regular order principle. we cannot have persons in our intelligence agencies, our investigative agent significance or in congress leak sensitive matters on staff, so this is -- i'm afraid will result -- is already resulting in investigations, and i'm -- i fear that some people may find that they wish they hadn't leaked. >> thank you. my time has expired but for the record it was stated earlier that the republican platform was weakened on the point of arms for ukraine. that is incorrect. the platform was actually strengthened, and i would note that it was the democratic president who refused repeated bipartisan requests of this

congress to supply those arms to ukraine. >> senator harris. >> attorney general sessions, you have several times this afternoon prefaced your responses by saying to the best of your recollection. just on the first page of your three-pages of written testimony, you wrote nor do i recall, do not have recollection, do not remember it, so my question is for any of your testimony today, did you refresh your memory with any written documents, be them your calendar, written correspondens, e-mails or anything of that sort? >> i attempted to refresh my recollection but so much of this is in a wholesale campaign of extraordinary nature that you're moving so fast that you don't keep notes, you meet people. i didn't keep notes of my conversations with the russian ambassador at the republican

convention. i didn't keep notes on most of these things. >> will you provide this committee with notes that you did maintain? >> as appropriate i will supply the committee with documents. >> can you please tim me when you say appropriate. >> i would have to consult with lawyers in the department who know the proper procedure before disclosing documents that are held within the department of justice. i'm not able to make that opinion said. >> sir, i'm sure you prepared for this hearing today and most of the questions that have been presented to you were predictable. so my question to you is did you then review with the lawyers of your department if you as the top lawyer are unaware what the law is regarding what you can share with us and what you cannot share with us, what is privileged and what is not privileged. >> we discussed the basic parameters of testimony. i frankly have not discussed documentary disclosure rules. >> will you make a commitment to this committee that you will

share any written correspondence, be they your calendars, records, notes, e-mails or anything that has been reduced at any point in time in writing to this committee where legally you actually have an obligation to do so. >> i will commit to reviewing the rules of the department and as and when that issue is raised to respond appropriately. >> did you have any communications with russian officials for any reason during the campaign that have not been disclosed in public or to this committee? >> i don't recall it, but i have to tell you i cannot testify to what was said as we were standing at the republican convention before the podium where i spoke. >> my question -- >> i don't have memory naff. >> it is a relates to your knowledge. >> to the best of my knowledge. >> did you have any communication with any russian businessman or any russian

nationals? >> i don't believe i had any conversation with russian businessmen or russian nationals. >> are you aware of any communications -- >> a lot of people were at the convention, it's conceivable -- >> sir. >> well, you let me qualify -- if i don't qualify, it you'll accuse me of lying so i need to be correct as best as i can. >> i do want you to be honest. >> and i'm not to be able to be rushed this fast. it the makes me nervous. >> are you aware of any communications with other trump campaign officials and associates that they had with russian officials or any russian nationals? >> i don't recall that. >> and are you aware -- >> at this moment. >> are you aware of any communications with any trump officials or did you have any communications with any officials about russia or russian interests in the united states before january 20th? >> no. i may have had some conversations, and i think i

did, with the general strategic concept of the possibility of whether or not russia and the united states could get on a more harmonious relationship and move off the hostility. the soviet union did in fact collapse. it's really a tragic strategic event that we're not able to get along better than we are today. >> before being sworn in as thoerng, how did you typically communicate with then candidate or president-elect trump? >> would you repeat. >> before you were sworn in as attorney general, how did you typically communicate with then candidate or president-elect trump? >> i did -- >> i did not submit memorandum. i did not make formal presentations. >> did you ever communicate with him in writing? >> i don't believe so. >> and you referred to a long-standing d. oj policy. can you tell us what policy it is that you're talking about. >> well, i think most cabinet

people as the witnesses you had before you earlier, those individuals declined to comment because we're all about conversations with the president -- >> sir, i'm just asking you about the d. oj policy you've referred to. >> a policy that goes beyond just the attorney general. >> is that policy in writing somewhere? >> i think so. >> so did you not consult it before you came before this committee knowing we would ask you questions about that? >> well, we talked about it. the policy is based -- >> did you ask that it be shown to you? >> the policy is based on the principle that the -- >> sir, i'm not asking about the principle. i'm asking -- >> well, i'm unable to answer the quotes. >> chairman -- >> did you not ask your staff to show you the policy that would be the basis for you refusing to -- >> the witness should be allowed to answer the question. >> senators will allow the chair to control the hearing. senator harris, let him answer. >> please do. >> thank you. >> we talked about it, and we

talked about the real principle that's at stake is one that i have some appreciation for as far as having spent 15 years in the department of justice, 12 as you united states attorney, and that principle is that the constitution provides the head of the executive branch certain privileges and that members -- one of them is confidentiality of communications, and it is improper for agents of any of the department -- any departments in the executive branch to waive that privilege without a clear approval of the president. >> mr. chairman. >> and that's the situation we're in. >> i asked for a yes or no. did -- >> the answer is yes, i consulted. >> the senator's time has expired. >> apparently not. >> senator cornin'. >> attorney general sessions, former director comey in his letter to fbi employees when he was terminated started this way.

he said i've long believed that a president can fire an fbi director for any reason or no reason at all. do you agree with that? >> yes, and i think that was a -- good for him to say because i believe we're going to have a new and excellent fbi director, a person who is smart, disciplined, with integrity and proven judgment that would be good for the bureau, and i think that statement probably was a valuable thing for director comey to say. i appreciate that he did. >> just to reiterate, the timeline of your recusal and the rosenstein memo and your letter to the president recommending the termination of director comey, you recused from the russian investigation hon march the 2nd, correct? >> the formal recusal took place on that date. >> the letter that you wrote

forwarding the rosenstein memo to the president as a basis for director comey's termination was dated may the 9th, a couple of months after you had recused from the russian investigation, correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> so isn't it true that the russian investigation did not factor into the -- into your recommendation to fire director comb? >> that is correct. >> the memorandum written by the deputy attorney general, your letter to the president forwarding that recommendation didn't mention russia at all. is that your recollection? >> that is correct. >> so let's review what the basis was of deputy attorney general rosenstein's recommendation. he wrote in his memo on may the 9th. he said i cannot defend the director's handling of the

conclusion of the investigation of secretary clinton's e-mails, and i do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken, and, of course, he's talking about director comey. he went on to say the director -- that was director comey at the time was wrong to usurp the attorney general's authority on july the 5th, 2016. you'll recall that was the date of the press conference he held. he went on to say that the fbi director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the justice department. finally, he shade compounding the error, the director ignored another long-standing principle, that we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. in fact, there is written policy from the department of justice,

is there not, entitled election year sensitivities. are you familiar with the prohibition of the justice department making announcements or taking other actions that might interfere with the normal elections? >> i am generally familiar with that. some of those were the holder memoranda after my time in the department. >> well, let me -- >> there's always been rules about it though. >> well, let me ruled just an excerpt from a memo from the attorney general. march theth, 2012, entitled election year sensitivities. it says law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. such a purpose is inconsistent with the department's mission

and with the principles of federal prosecution. do you agree with that? >> essentially, yes. >> so what essentially the deputy attorney general said is that former director comey violated didn't of justice directives when he held a press conference on july the 5th, 2016. he announced that secretary clinton was extremely careless with classified e-mail and went on to release other derogatory information, including his conclusion that she was extremely careless but yet went on to say that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute her. that is not the role of the fbi director, is it? that is a job for the prosecutors at the department of justice. that's what was meant by deputy attorney general rosenstein when he said that director comey usurped the role of the department of justice prosecutors. is that right?

>> that is correct, and former attorney general bill barr wrote an op-ed recently in which he said he had assumed that attorney 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, and it violates fundamental powers and then when he reaffirmed that the rightness he believe of his decision on may 3rd, i think it was, that was additional confirmation that the director's thinking was not clear. >> senator reed. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. first, to a point, attorney general. senator heinrich 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 has made the point that director comey's conduct was unprofessional with respect to the clinton campaign? >> i respect everything that the deputy attorney general put in his memoranda as good and important factors to use in determination whether or not he had conducted himself in a way that justified continuing in office. i think it pretty well speaks for itself, and i believe most of it did deal with that. the discussion about his performance was a bipartisan discussion. it began during the election time. democrats were very unhappy

about the way he conducted himself and in retrospect, in looking at it, i think it was more egregious than i may have even understood at the time. >> general, if i may, and i don't want to cut you off. >> i'll let you go, sorry. >> excuse me, sir, on july 7th when mr. comey made his first announcement about the case, you were on fox news, and you said, first of all, director comey is a skilled former prosecutor and then you concluded by saying essentially that it's not his problem. it's hillary clinton's problem. then in november, on november 6th, after mr. comey again made news in late october by reopening, if you will, the investigation, you said, again, on fox news, you know, fbi director comey did the right thing when he found new evidence. he had no choice but to report

it to the american congress where he had under oath testified. the investigation was over. he had to direct that and say this investigation ongoing now. i'm sure it's significant, or else he wouldn't have announced that. so in july and november director comey was doing exactly the right thing. you had no criticism of him. you felt that in fact he was a skilled professional prosecutor. you felt that his last statement in october was fully justified so how can you go from those statements to agreeing with mr. rosenstein and then asking the president or recommending that he be fired? >> i think in retrospect, as all of us began to look at that clearly and talk about it as respectives of the department of justice, once the director first got involved and embroiled in a public discussion of this

investigation which would have been better never to have been discussed publicly, and said he -- it was over, then when he found new evidence that came up, i think he probably was required to tell congress that it wasn't over, that new evidence had been developed. it probably would have been better and would have been consistent with the rules of the department of justice to never have talked about the investigation to begin with. once you get down that road, that's the kind of thing that you get into that went against classical prosecuting policies that i learned and was taught when i was united states attorney and assistant united states attorney. >> if i may ask another question. your whole premise in recommending to the president was the actions in october involving secretary of state

clinton, the whole clinton controversy. did did you feel misled when the president announced that his real reason for dismissing mr. comey was the russia investigatinging? >> i don't have -- i'm not able to characterize that fact. i wouldn't try to comment on that. >> so you had no inkling that there was anything to do with russia until the president of the united states basically declared not only on tv but in the oval office to the russian foreign minister saying the pressure is off now. i got rid of that nutjob. that came to you as a complete surprise? >> well, all i can say, senator reed, that our recommendation was put in writing and i believe it was correct and i believe the president valued it, but how he made his decision was his process. >> and you had no inkling that he was considering the russia investigation? >> well, i'm not going to try to

guess what i thought about that. >> that's fair. there is a possibility -- there is a scenario in which this whole recapitulation of clinton was a story basically, a cover story that the president tried to put out and he quickly abandoned and his real reason was the russia investigation which if it had been the case i expect you would have recused yourself from any involvement. >> thank you. >> senator mccain. >> over the last few weeks the administration has characterized your previously undisclosed meetings with russia ambassador kiltsiac as meetings you took in your official capacity as a u.s. senator and a member of the senate armed services committee. as chairman of the that

committee let me ask you a few questions about that. at these meetings did you raise concerns about russia invasion of ukraine or annexation of crime snarks. >> i did, senator mccain, and i would like to follow up a little bit on that. that's one of the meetings -- that's one. issues that i recall explicitly. the day before my meeting with the russian ambassador i met with the ukrainian ambassador, and i heard his concerns about russia, and so i raised those with mr. kislyak, and he gave, as you can imagine, not one inch. everything they did, the russians had done, according to him was correct, and i remember pushing back on it and it was a bit testy on that subject. >> knowing you on the committee, i can't imagine that. did you raise concerns about russia's support for president bashar al assad and his campaign of indiscriminate violence against his own citizens including his use of chemical

weapons? >> i don't recall whether that was discussed or not. >> did you raise discussions about russia's interference in our electoral process or interferences of the electoral processes of our al sniz. >> i don't recall that being discussed. >> at those meetings, if you spoke with ambassador kislyak in your capacity as a member of the armed services committee you presumably talked to him about russia-related security issues that you have demonstrated as important to you as a member of the committee? >> did i discuss security issues -- >> i don't recall you being particularly vocal on such issues. >> repeat that, senator mccain, i'm sorry. >> the whole russia-related security issues that you demonstrated is important to you as a member of the committee, did you raise those with him? >> you mean such issues as nuclear issues? >> yeah. in other words, russia-related security issues, in your

capacity as the chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee, what russia-related security issues did you hold hearings on or other-wise demonstrate a keen interest in? >> we may have discussed that. i just don't have a real recall of the meetings. i was not making a report about it to anyone. i just was basically willing to meet and see what he discussed. >> and his response was? >> i don't recall. >> during that 2016 campaign season, did you have any contacts with any representative, including any american lobbyist or agent of any russian company within or outside your capacity as a member of congress or a member of the armed services committee? >> i don't believe so. >> politico recently reported in the middle of the 2016 election the fbi found that russian diplomats whose travel to the state department was supposed to

track had gone missing. some came up wandering around the desert and driving around kansas and reportedly intelligence services reported after a year of inattention these movements indicate, one, that moscow's espionage ground game has grown stronger and mar brazen and quitely the kremlin has been trying to map the united states telecommunications infrastructure. what do you know about this development and how the justice department and other relevant u.s. government agencies are responding to it? >> we need to do more, senator mccain. i am worried about it. we also see that from other nations with these kind of technological skills like china and some of the other nations in a are penetrating our business interests, our national security interests. as a member of the armed services committee, i did support and advocate and i think you supported legislation that

would -- and it's ongoing now, that requires the defense department to identify weaknesses in our system and how we can fix them, but i would say to you, senator mccain, that in my short tenure here in the department of justice i've been more concerned about computer hacking and those issues than i was in the senate. it's an important issue, you're correct. >> "the washington post" reported yesterday russia's developed a cyber weapon that disrupt the united states power grid and telecommunications infrastructure. this weapon is similar tore what russia or russia allied hackers used to disrupt ukraine's electrical grid in 2015. can you discuss a little bit in open session how serious that is. >> i don't believe i can discuss the technological issues, just to say that it is very disturbing that the russians

continue to push hostile actions in their foreign policy, and it is a -- not good for the united states or the world or russia in my opinion. >> do you believe we have a strategy in order to counter these ever increasing threats to our national security and our way of life? >> not sufficiently. we do not have a sufficient strategy dealing with technological and i.t. penetrations of our system. i truly believe it's more important than i ever did before, and i appreciate your concern and leadership on that issue, and, in fact, all of congress is going to have to do better. >> senator's time has expired. the chair would recognize the vice chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and general sessions, thank you. i particularly appreciate your last comments with senator

mccain about the seriousness of this threat and it's why so many of us on this committee are concerned when the whole question of russian intervention. the president continues to refer to it as a witch-hunt and fake news, and there doesn't seem to be a recognition of the seriousness of this threat. i share, i think most members do, the consensus that the russians massively interfered and want to continue to interfere, not to favor one party or another but to favor their own interests, and it is of enormous concern that we have to hear from the administration how they are going to take that on. i also believe comments have been made here about where we head in terms of some of the trump associates who may have had contacts with russians. we've not gotten to all that have yet because of the unprecedented firing of the fbi director that was leading this very same russia investigation,

that superceded some of our activities, so those members when i hope will equally pursue the very troubling amount of smoke at least that's out there between individuals that were affiliated with the trump campaign and possible ties with russians. i've not reached any conclusion. we've got to pursue that. final comment, and i understand your point, but you have to -- there were a series of comments made by mr. comey last week. i think members on this side of the aisle have indicated, you understand executive privilege, understand classified setting. i do think we need, as senator reed indicated and senator harris and others, if there are these long-standing written procedures about this ability to have some other category to protect the conversations with the president, we'd like to get a look at them because we need to find out in light of some of the contradictions between today and last week where this all

heads. at the end of the day, this is not only -- let me restate what i stated last time. it's not about relitigating 2016. it's about finding out what happened, about some. serious allegations about potential ties, but on a going forward basis making sure that the russians who are not finished in terms of their activities didn't end on election day 2016. we know that's ongoing and we have to be better prepared going forward. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, one brief comment, if you don't mind. i do want to say that a change at the head of the fbi should have no impact on the investigation. those teams have been work, and they will continue to work, and they have not been altered in any way. >> but there were are a number of very strange comments that mr. comey testified last week that you could have i believe shed some light on but we'll continue. >> thank you. >> general sessions, thank you

again for your willingness to be here. i'm not sure that you knew it, but your replacement sat through most of this hearing, luther strange. he's made us regret that we don't have intramural basketball team. >> big luther is a good round ballplayer at tulane. >> you've been asked a wide range of questions, and -- and i think you've answered things related to claims about the meeting at the mayflower. you've answered questions that surround the reasons of your recusal and the fact that you had never been briefed since day one on the investigation. you made clear that you can't think of any other conversations that you've had with russian officials. you've covered in detail the conversation that you had, though brief, with director comb de, that he referenced to after his private meeting with the

president. just to name a few things that i think you've helped us to clear up. there were several questions that you chose not to answer because of confidentiality with the president. i would only ask you now to go back and work with the white house to see if there are any areas of questions that they feel comfortable with you answering and if they do, that you provide those answers in writing to the committee. i would also be remiss if i didn't remind you that those documents that you can provide for the committee, they would be helpful to us for the purposes of sorting timelines out. anything that substantiates your testimony today, individuals who might have been at events that you're familiar with, especially those that work for you, would be extremely helpful, and more importantly i want to thank you for your agreement to have a continuing dialogue with us as

we might need to ask some additional questions as we go a little further down the investigation. that certainly does not have to be a public hearing, but it -- it may be an exchange and a dialogue that we have. you have helped us tremendously, and we're grateful to you and to mary for the unbelievable sacrifice that you made in this institution but also now in this administration. this hearing is now adjourned. >> thank you. >> i'm wolf blitzer in "the situation room" as we continue to continue our breaking news. you just heard the chairman richard burr gavel this two and a half hour hearing to a close. it's been a dramatic day of testimony from the attorney general of the united states, jeff sessions, before the senate intelligence committee. he strongly denied that he aided or knew of any collusion with the russians during the presidential campaign, and he called suggestions to the contrary and i'm quoting him