tv Bloomberg Markets Americas Bloomberg November 14, 2017 10:00am-11:00am EST
grilled by democrats about the russian investigation. good day from new york. i am julie hyman. mark: live from london, i am mark barton. attorney general sessions it is expected to face questions from his own republican colleagues, sessionsreports that is considering a special prosecutor to deal with the dealings of bill and hillary clinton. julie: we want to speak to some folks to be an eye on it. , and wemichael whitelaw will speak to other folks about this as well p we also have steven pomerantz, now the director of home and security of the jewish institute of national security for america. thank you for chatting with us about this.
just to set the scene, this is normally an oversight hearing. it is a routine hearing. what do they normally talk about and how will this be different? >> normally, in an oversight hearing like this, you have a lot of questions about the routine business of the justice department. in this case, it would be antitrust questions, questions about civil rights, questions about criminal prosecutions. democrats are going in with a lot of questions about jeff sessions in particular. some of the events in the campaign. some things that have come up as part of robert mueller's investigation into broader russian mesylate -- medling. publicans have developed their own set of questions. some around the conduct of the now fired fbi director, james comey, as well as questions about a deal from several years
ago involving a purchase of a uranium company. sort of a tangled tale. hits it jumps around and different things, but there will be some lines of questioning i think will keep recurring through the whole thing. jeff sessions will probably do is best not to answer to many of those questions. julie: and he has experience in the hearing room on the other side in the past, of course. stephen, i want to get your perspective on the intelligence community, the justice community, the police and community. while all of this is going on in washington, these hearings, the molar investigation -- mueller investigation, what is the sentiment in the ranks from what you have been hearing from your former colleagues and other contacts? stephen: in terms of these investigations? as an fbi professional, it saddens me to see the
diminution in trust that this , that our institutions, such as the justice department, are not capable and not independent enough to conduct these kinds of investigations. for every political allegation, the knee-jerk reaction is a special -- is a special counsel. that is not good for the country and certainly not good in the law enforcement community. mark: let's bring in marty schenker. to what extent could today damage trump at all? does it have the potential to do so? marty: i do not think it does. jeff sessions has done everything he can to ingratiate himself to this president. as you know, the president has basically thrown jeff sessions under the bus numerous occasions. -- and he has done everything he can -- to get
back into his good graces. i doubt if he will say anything. he has recused himself from all aspects of the russian probe. he is not even going to be able to answer many questions. so unless he misspeaks or does something none of us expect, i think it will not, basically, affect the president much at all. mark: thanks. greg farrell is with us, blp legal reporter. it was disclosed last night that sessions has asked senior federal prosecutors to evaluate these questions raised by the committee chairman about the fbi investigation last year about clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of state. where could this lead us? greg: to a very confusing area. it seems it is a partisan attempt to offset the mueller
,robe with a different countervailing special counsel, which would dig into the history of hillary clinton and, by extension, obama, and the democrats beforehand. depending on how this goes, it could erode credibility in the justice system itself. julie: as we are talking about this, i want to ask you about the idea of independence. you talked about how all of these various special investigations and special prosecutors are not good for america. but how necessary are they, given that there are these questions about independence? is totallybody independent, mueller is not totally independent. to, eventually, the deputy attorney general, because the attorney has recused himself. he is subject to being fired at
the president. it is not as if he is a totally independent free after. again, i come out of the fbi. i recognize that. in my experience, the fbi and the justice department were independent. we look at things from an independent, objective way. gr capable of conducting these kinds of investigations. the investigators bob mueller is fbi people.are gooddo not think this is for our country, and it does eventually impact the criminal justice system, as well as having congressional investigations going on concurrently with special prosecutor investigations. the potential is very high that these things will not work out
well in the end, as far as justice is concerned. julie: meaning that we -- they will not find out anything? steven: meaning that one impacts and other fears -- interferes with the other. you can go back to the iran contra investigation. there is plenty of evidence that there may have been criminal charges coming out, but because of the congressional investigations, that precluded criminal investigations. there is a set of rules and laws and procedures that, when violated, impact on the outcome. to have independent, multiple investigations going on at the same time is not a good thing. julie: steven pomerantz, thank you. he is a former fbi assistant director. we appreciate your thoughts.
saying with us is marty schenker, greg farrell, and kevin whitelaw. while we await the attorney general, let's check markets. we have stocks sliding in the united states. abigail doolittle is here with more. abigail: we indeed have stocks sliding. the biggest pullback since september 5 for the dow and s&p 500. the major averages down about 6/10 of 1%, the worst day for each major average in the month of november. it is not clear what is behind this. we have started to see what could be called a potential repricing of risk with the recent decline in bitcoin and even more so in high-yield credit. that could be pressuring equities. higher -- oppenheimer's -- he says he does not seem too much downside ahead. if there is, he would be a buyer
. he sees this as a buying opportunity. let's look at g #btv 2851. what we are looking at in blue is the s&p 500 over the last several decades. in white, the number of days the s&p 500 has not had a 5% pullback. right now, we are at a 258. that is the third longest streak going back to the 1960's. it is amazing we are drifting higher without a correction. let's look at movers. one of the big movers -- home depot shares have reversed to you earlier, home depot had been higher on the day, but now down about 8/10 of 1%. beateat sales -- they sales by 2%, related to hurricanes. dick's sporting goods down 5.7%.
they put at a quarter where they guidance for 2019 coming in well below. they say they could be down on a year-over-year basis by 20%. that could potentially be a huge slide in growth. there is also a bearish interest. some investors not so unhappy. finally, let's rounded out with deal related stuff. look at buffalo wild wings. up 25%, the best day since february on the news that private equity firm rourke bid on the firm. they also own arby's. this stock also has a high bearish interest of 50%. -- on the news that elliott is said to have build a sizable stake. overall, we are looking at bearish action for the major
averages in the u.s. mark: 18 minutes left of the european equity session. we are down for a six-day longest losing streak in over a year, the lowest since september 26. the same theme driving stocks lower. inflation in the u.k. still near the five and a half year high in october. 3%.umer prices remaining at the estimate was 3.1%. inflation driven by food prices. rose 4.2% on the year. mark carney has been spared having to write philip hammond explaining why inflation is more than inflation point above the 2% target. investors and economists expect inflation to breach that target soon. inflation is likely to be close to that he could with the central bank saying they expect a slowdown through 2018.
sterling today unchanged against the dollar. 1.30125. that brexit heard secretary david davis is said to 50-50.t those odds at the most bullish sterling forecast is from nomura, which sees it rising 7% by the end of the year if we see a deal. as 10% in the absence of an agreement. the spread between the most optimistic and least optimistic or most irish fx forecast. -- bearish fx forecast. julie: we are waiting for attorney general jeff sessions begin his testimony before the house. you are looking at john conyers
julie: attorney general jeff sessions will be testifying in moments. let's bring back marty schenker, ,reg farrell and kevin whitelaw the former two in new york with me and the latter in washington, d.c. what are the implications of this hearing? what could come out of it? what are they hoping to get out of jeff sessions that will be actual in some way? republicans and democrats have separate agendas. on the republican side, if they can get jeff sessions to double down on his inquiry into hillary
and theand the server uranium one deal, that is a narrative that they can continue to deflect attention on the russian probe. on the democratic side, the key thing they will want to get is some embarrassing information about sessions and his contacts with the russians. he famously denied any contacts while he was in the campaign with the russians, only to be discoveryng with the of the contacts he made with papadopoulos. , as kevinis partisan said earlier in the broadcast. they each have different agendas. there could just be fueling the news networks' controversy. julie: that is largely political. i am curious if there are any legal implications from
sessions, saying he was not aware of any communications with the russians, and the facts now seeming to contradict what he said. politically, the democrats may be looking to embarrass him, but is there more on that? greg: i think the democrats will hit on that hard. sessions has testified before congress many times, going back to his confirmation hearing, and each time, his answers about contact with the russians have turned out to be not 100 percent accurate. and two weeks ago, we have information someone who is reporting in the line of command into the area headed by sessions in the campaign was photographed in a picture with him at for policy meeting admitting there was an offer made for him from russia. and it escalated up the food chain. i think there will be many questions about that in more specific questions to pain sessions down as to what he knew and when he knew it.
i suspect he will try to avoid answering those. >> one thing democrats have to be careful of -- while they are seeking to end air sessions, i do not think they want to drive him from office. the key thing is be careful what you wish for. if sessions were to leave as attorney general, you never know what you will get. they do no set -- may do no jeff sessions. they are fairly comfortable with him in a transaction way. while they may seek to get political points, i do not think they want to see him gone. mark: where are we in the mueller investigation? how long is it said to have left to run? notn: and this point, we do actually know the timeline. there has been a vague expectation they may be shooting for an end of the year wrap up, but it is not clear at all that that will happen. we have seen two indictments so far. and this is paul manafort, the former campaign chairman for
trump as well as one of his associates. those easily go into next year. we already know some of these events will continue. we know that there are interviews going on. we know mueller is interviewing white house officials this month. beyond that, we do not really know. there is a suspicion there may be other sealed indictments out there, we just have not actually seen them yet. there may be pleaded -- plea deals made with mueller. there is a lot of potential threats here, and i feel it we have only seen two or three of what could be multiple avenues in the investigation. mark: the list keeps going -- is unease growing within the white house about the mueller investigation? marty: i think it has been on heightened anxiety for quite
some time. frankly, donald trump being out of the country the past 11 days thesort of lowered narrative. you're not seeing him tweeting about the investigation. but i guarantee, when he gets back, that will be revived. and the closer it gets to the white house, the more anxiety is displayed in donald trump's tweets and in the admission asian in general. you will see that level of narrative increase shortly. julie: we have not talked about one of the development's we learned about late yesterday, which, according to the atlantic, donald trump junior communicated via a direct message on twitter with wikileaks, or at least he responded to inquiries from them several times. how does that fit into the whole investigation and the narrative, both for mueller and on the congressional side? greg: in terms of the atmospherics, it comports with
what we know already or with what people suspect. that there were three occasions between the forces trying to undermine hillary clinton -- russian backed forces. it is similar, although not as damaging, as the revelation of the meetings in june of 2016 between a russian lawyer and trump jr., jared kushner, and paul manafort. this basically undercuts any claim this was a one time meeting. it shows there was ongoing communication between those forces presumably representing russia and trump's son. julie: i wanted to bring our attention to a press conference paul ryan was holding in washington as well and talk about some of the comments he was making -- excuse me, the weekly leadership meeting that ryan was holding. he is talking about some of the details of the tax reform proposal. interestingly, he is joining mitch mcconnell in saying roy moore should step aside as the
republican candidate in alabama. he says the allegations by a growing number of women who alleged moore approached or assaulted them when they were under age -- ryan is saying the allegations are credible. on that front, that looks like it is what he had to say. he said some of the provisions in the tax bill sunset, the byrd rule, contains a some sunsets that congress will not allow to occur. not sure what that commentary entails here. the paul ryan jumping into the war and more controversy as well as commenting on the tax bill. getting back to the matter at anxiety this heightened environment in washington and in the white house specifically, how much traction do you think
this uranium one investigation could gain? this seems to be the president's againstttempted parry, this rush investigation. kevin: republicans have been talking about a handful of different threads. one, they are talking about jim comey and the hillary clinton investigation. the other is this uranium one deal. a 20 deal that went through despite russians about an investigation. this is an attempt to sully mueller and other peoples and create a push for a special counsel that would investigate a range of issues, including this one. we do not really know if that is questions.o get more we do not know if that is a
serious push to do something. that will be a question of how far they want to go down that road. in the meantime, it is something -- politicalal hey hay out of. you brought up roy moore -- that subject could come up in today's hearing. alabama is ton fill the seat vacated by jeff sessions. one of the theories is if roy moore drops out, maybe jeff sessions will be interested could run as a write-in candidate. that is one of the threads out of there. we will see of that question comes up at the hearing as well. mark: when it comes to roy moore, the democrats are taking pains to stay quiet -- there is a prospect that their candidate certainly has a shot to win the seat, which has long been considered out of reach. is that a realistic target? marty: absolutely.
the democrats are being tested by letting the republicans do all the work for them. , and others, have reported, this is a tremendous problem for republicans. they cannot have a senator accused of child motivation -- sitting as a gop senator in congress. it is untenable. to be fair, establishment republicans did not want him there anyway, right? marty: correct. but they got him whether they like it or not. the problem is he is on the ballot. unless he steps aside, he could well be elected as u.s. senator from alabama. that presents tremendous problems for the gop. julie: and it looks like sessions is set to begin imminently with his testimony. it looks like they are kind of winding up opening statements.
just a quick mention of what is going on in the corporate rural -- world. shares of general election -- shares of general electric continue to slide after announcing a corporate refresh, cutting the dividend, cutting businesses, types of businesses at the company. the company's ceo spoke earlier on cnbc. the cfo is speaking at a goldman sachs co -- jeff sessions. i must note that i note with regret your announcement of retirement, and i know that our relationship has been good in the past. i hope it will continue to be good as you serve here. first day i's attorney general, i spoke about the "critical role we at the department play in maintaining
and strengthening the rule of law, which forms the foundation of our liberty, our safety, and our prosperity. in this rule of law, we are blessed, beyond all nations." i truly believe that. at this department, we must do all we can to ensure it is preserved and advanced, such ideals. from that day to today, we at the department of justice have worked to be faithful to that mission. let me share some things we have done initially. the president sent us in order to reduce crime, not to allow crime to continue to increase. and we embraced that mission. the violent crime rate has rate, and the homicide has risen 20% over recent years. after a careful review, we have
established a reinvigorated project safe neighborhood program as a foundational policy for public safety. it has been proven to get results. in its first seven years of implementation, it reduced violent crime by 4.1%, with case study showing reductions in certain areas, where it was toentionally applied, of up 42%. we are also focusing on criminals with guns. as you mentioned, mr. chairman. we have seen a 20% increase in gun prosecutions in the second , myter of this fiscal year first year. superb mend to lead and women at the fbi, the drug enforcement administration, atf, and the united states marshals service, who work together every day with our state and local partners in this crime-fighting
mission that is the responsibility of the department . last year, we saw a staggering 61% increase in the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty because of a felony. on average, more than 150 officers were assaulted every single day. these numbers are unacceptable. fortunately, the president understands this. he has directed us, at the beginning of my administration, so back our men and women in blue. we are making it clear that we stand with our life was meant partners 100%. they are the solution to crime, not the problem. we have also protected the rule of law in our own department. we have prohibited so-called third-party settlements that were being used to bankroll special interest groups. we have settled civil cases regarding the affordable care act's birth-control mandate,
settled the case is a many groups -- taxes and on groups whose status was significantly and wrongly delayed by the internal revenue service. we have provided legal counsel in favordministration of ending several other unlawful policies. orderncludes trump's ending billions in funding for insurance companies that were not appropriated by congress under the affordable care act. , which the house filed a lawsuit to stop, put an end to one of the most dramatic erosion to congressional of provisions power in history. house members, you are correct to challenge that. we believe you are correct, and we reversed the policy and had that matter withdrawn, the policy withdrawn.
we put an end to actions by the previous administration to circumvent congress" -- congress' duly passed immigration law. we withdrew that unlawful policy, and now the issues in the hands of congress, where it belongs. we have filed briefs defending properly enacted state voter edification laws. lawful redistricting plans. religious liberty and free speech on call -- college campuses. it is our mission to restore the american people's confidence and the department of justice by defending the rule of law and enforcing the laws as you have passed them. and it is a mission we are honored to undertake. in response to letters from this committee and others, i have
directed senior federal prosecutors to make recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should the open, -- whether any matters under investigation required further sources and any matters under consideration may merit the appointment of a special counsel. and, as you are aware, the department's inspector general has an active review of allegations that fbi policies and procedures were not followed last year in a number of matters that you addressed. mr. chairman, the letter was addressed to you because it was a response to your letter, and that is how it was said. we will make such decisions without regard to politics, ideology, or bias. as many of you know, the department has a long-standing policy not to confirm or deny the existence of investigations.
this policy can be frustrating. i understand. especially when there is great public interest about a matter. but it enhances justice when we act under the law with professionalism and discipline. this policy necessarily precludes any discussion on cases i may be recused from, because to do so would confirm the existence of underlying investigations. to the extent a matter comes to the attention of my office, that may warrant consideration of recusal, i review the issue, consult with the appropriate department ethics officials, and make my decision, as i promised the senate committee when i was confirmed. lastly, i would like to address the false charges made about my previous testimony. my answers have not changed. i have always told the truth. and i have answered every question as i understood them, to the best of my recollection,
as i will continue to do today. i would like to address recent news reports regarding meetings during the campaign attended by george papadopoulos and carter page, among others. frankly, i had no recollection of this meeting until i saw these news reports. i do now recall that the march 2016 meeting at the trump hotel that mr. double-double is attended. but i have no clear regulation -- recollection of the details of what he said at that meeting. after reading his account and, to the best of my recollection, i wanted to make it to him that he was not authorized to represent the campaign with the russian government or any other foreign government, for that matter. but i did not recall this event, which occurred 18 months before my testimony of a few weeks ago. i would gladly have reported it, had i remembered it, because i
push back against his suggestion that i thought may have been improper. as for mr. page, while i do not challenge is recollection, i have no memory of his presence at a dinner at the capitol hill club or any passing conversation he may have had with me as he left the dinner. campaigns,e been in let me just adjust. must've you have not participated in a presidential campaign. none of you had a part in the trump campaign. it was a brilliant campaign, i think, in many ways, but it was a form of chaos every day, from day one. we traveled, sometimes, to several places in one day. sleep was in short supply. and i was still a full-time senator with a very full schedule. during this year, i have spent close to 20 hours testifying
before congress. before today. asked to remember details from a year ago, such as who i saw on what day in what meeting and who said what when. canll of my testimony, i only do my best to answer your questions as i understand them and to the best of my memory. rejectill not accept and accusations that i have ever allied. that is a lie. let me be clear. i have, at all times, conducted myself honorably and in a manner consistent with a high standards and responsibilities of the office of attorney general, which i revere. i spent 50 years in that department. apartment.hat and i will do my dead level best to be worthy of your attorney general.
has never changed. i have always told the truth. i have answered every question to the best of my recollection. i will continue to do so today. with that, mr. chairman, i am honored to take your questions. >> thank you. i will begin by recognizing myself. under your leadership, the prosecution of firearms offenses have increased 23% over the same period the previous year. furthermore, the number of defendants charged with using a firearm in by crimes and drug trafficking rose 10% over the previous year. we have a slide which shows increase as compared to the obama era numbers. numbersthese increased indicate about the department of justice's commitment to fighting violent crime, particularly with the use of firearms within this country? as a former federal
prosecutor, i have long believed that they have significant impact in reducing violent crime. prefers his earlier this year explained they share that you, based on scientific analysis. it will be a high priority of hours. you are correct that prosecutions fail. one incident that was raised horriblee texas shooting and sutherland, texas, was the ability of an individual to get a firearm and whether or not they filed correctly their form. before you get one, it requires questions about criminal convictions and court-martial's. those prosecutions have dropped by over 50% in the last three or four years. i think those are worthy prosecutions. when a criminal is carrying a
act ofing a criminal some other kind, that is a clear and present danger to the public. those cases are important, and the impact the reduction of crime. >> as you are aware, i and a majority of the members of his committee requested a special counsel to investigate former secretary clinton's mishandling and formerion attorney general lynch -- i received a letter stating that federal prosecutors will review our letters and make a decision as to whether any questions merit the formation of a special counsel. do i have your assurance these matters will proceed fairly and expeditiously? >> you can pay you can be sure
they will be done without political influence. they will be done correctly and properly. . >> you also reference an ongoing inspector general investigation into many of the matters we have raised. will you ensure the i.g. greece this committee - - brief this committe? e? >> i will do my best. i assume he would be able to announce the investigations. . >> we have seen numerous apparent disclosures of unmasked names in the context of intelligence reports pay which crimes are violated when these are disclosed, for example to the press. howard -- how does the department of justice investigate these disclosures? >> mr. chairman, there are a
number of legal prohibitions. it could be a release of classified information, contrary to law. it is a grave offense and goes against the core policies of this government, to protect those matters from disclosure. the second part of your question was without how the department investigates such unauthorized use? >> we have members of the about nine- we had open investigation on classified in the last three years. we have 27 investigations opened today. we intend to get to the bottom of these leaks. they averaged epidemic proportions. they cannot be allowed to continue. we will do our best effort to ensure it does not continue. >> on april 11, you issued a memorandum to all federal
prosecutors requesting they make prosecution of certain immigration offenses a higher priority. to your knowledge, have the number of federal prosecutions increased nationwide for offenses such as illegal reentry? >> i do not have the statistics, but i believe there has been some increases in those cases. one thing we have seen is a reduction of attempts to enter the country illegally. that is good news and should result in some decline in some prosecutions. >> as you know, this committee did a great deal of work to enact criminal justice reform legislation last congress. will you continue to work in good faith with me and the members of this committee on both side of the aisle to identify and craft responsible reforms? >>. >> i certainly will thank you. i now record nice the ranking member of the committee for five minutes. >> thank you.
welcome, again, mr. attorney general. i would like to begin by putting a few statements by the president of on the screen. 24, 2017.from july they committees and investigators and, of course, our beleaguered attorney general looking into crooked hillary's crimes and russia relations. -- second, from november 3 everybody is asking why the justice department and the fbi is not looking at all of the dishonesty going on with crooked hillary and the dems." third, also from november 3 stated theas
democrats, lead by the legendary crooked hillary clinton, rigged the primaries. justice to the fbi and department. i believe he is referring to senator elizabeth wharton in the last -- senator elizabeth warren in that last one. when richard nixon spoke about us that way, at least he had the courtesy to do it behind closed doors. mr. attorney general, a few questions. yes or no, please. in a functioning democracy, is it common for the leader of the country to order the criminal justice system to retaliate against his political opponents? >> is that a question? >> yes, that is a question.
>> is a proper? >> no, answer to me whether it is yes or no. your response. >> i did not quite catch the beginning of the question. democracy,ctioning is it common for the leader of the country to order the criminal justice system to retaliate against his political opponents? says the conyers, i would the department of justice can never be used to retaliate politically against opponents. that would be wrong. >> i interpret that as "no." >> the answer stands for itself, i guess. >> i would just -- that would make it a little easier, if you just responded yes or no, if you
can. here is another. should the president of the united states make public comments that might influence impending criminal investigation ? >> he should take great care in those issues. >> could you respond yes or no? >> well, i do not know exactly the facts of what you are raising and what amounts to the concern you have. i would say it is improper to a president cannot improperly influence an investigation. not been in properly not beced, and would improperly influenced. the president speaks his mind. he is bold and direct about what he says. day --ur duty every
>> reclaiming my time. i am not impugning these comments to you or what you would do. last night, the assistant attorney general said the chairman -- sent the chairman a letter stressing the attorney general has direct did senior federal prosecutors to evaluate certain issues, like the sale of uranium one in 2010. at your confirmation hearing, you said, i believe the proper thing for me to do would be to recuse myself of any questions involving those kinds of investigations that involve secretary clinton and that were raised during the campaign or to be otherwise connected to it. question,y yes or no are you recused from
investigations that involve secretary clinton? >> mr. chairman, i cannot answer that yes or no, because under the policies of the department of justice, to announce recusal in any investigation would reveal the existence of investigation, and the top ethics officials have advised me i should not do so. the time of the derailment has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin for five minutes. >> thank you. welcome, mr. attorney general. we are debating whether section 70 two should be authorized. i want to talk about that issue. at the beginning, let me show you a poster that my campaign committee put up on the university of whitewater campus in the 2014 election.
it says the government knows what you did last night. the nsa has grabbed your phone calls. facebook post. and umass. that is ans things outrageous invasion of your privacy and shows that i pass the bill and asked students to vote for me. it worked. my percentage on that campus went up 20 points from the previous election. now, we are talking about many of the same issues, in terms of section 702. the former special the foreign surveillance act was intended to get foreign intelligence, not domestic intelligence. but we know that a vast number of americans' communications are collected. when we reported about the usa
liberty act, which made significant changes, notably, those legislation specifies two ways the government can query the information. either foreign intelligence or evidence of a crime. the usa liberty act ensures the government does not abuse 702 by requiring issues to access contact -- content after querying for evidence of a crime. you have stated on social occasions that you believe a warrant requirement would hinder topu.s. to investigate terrorists. this bill already provides the government the ability to move forward without intelligence in an emergency situation. why can we not allow the intelligence community to stop terrorists while protecting the constitutional rights of americans? can.
the constitutional rights of americans should be protected. i know you worked on the patriot act when it came up, with senator hatch and senator leahy and others. i know you are a champion of civil liberties. i would just say that we can do that. the act, as written, as in law today, has been approved by the courts. it has not been found to be in violation of the law. that is first and foremost. i know the committee has decided to put some additional restrictions on the way the act is conducted. we did not think that was lawfully required. congress can make its own decisions. we will continue to be able to share our thoughts about how the legislation should be crafted. >> mr. attorney general, the day before the committee markup this bill, the justice department was actively lobbying members of the committee to oppose the measure, stating it would dismantle
section 702. this is a huge gamble. 702 expires at the end of the year. we have a very short time line. yes or no,sk you, following my friend from michigan, do you want to risk the real possibility that this program will expire by insisting upon a clean reauthorization without a sunset? >> no. we do not want to take that risk. to working commit with congress and not against us, to make sure section 702 is reauthorized, either the way you want it or the way we want it? almost saidman -- i mr. chairman. i know you held that office. congress gets to give our opinion. i believe the act, as cost, and has been we authorized with an even larger vote last time, is
constitutional. i believe it works. i am worried about additional burdens, particularly a warrant requirement, which could he exceedingly damaging to the effectiveness of the act. we are willing to talk to you about some of the concerns that exist out there. hopefully, we can work our way through it and accept the concerns and fix the concerns you have without going too far. >> with all due respect, there is emergency exemption in the usa liberty act, as reported from the committee -- committee. that should take care of the problem. yet, people in your department or saying this was no good. at face value,er and i will let you know if i hear of members of your department actively lobbying -- julie: on capitol hill during an oversight committee by the judiciary committee. questions over the
realization of the fisa warrants. what has been getting the most attention has been the ongoing rush investigation. let's bring back in bloomberg's greg farrell, an investigative reporter here at bloomberg. in hisinteresting, opening statement, that he took the opportunity to reject accusations he has ever lied, saying he is honest, and really talking about his reverence or the justice department and the criminal justice division of the united states. greg: and the rule of law. it was a powerful opening statement. i think the attorney general anticipated some of the questions that would come at him. the claim he has never lied in his testimony before congress this year and pointing out, quite credibly, that during a presidential campaign, every day is a bit of a circus. you meet also sorts of people, including junior people, and
every conversation is not something that pops to mind when you are under questioning. it was a strong opening statement and set the tone for what we are now seeing follow. julie: it was also interesting he was asked about the leak investigations. that has been an issue the president has talked a lot about and has made focus at various times. he said there are 27 investigations open into leaking . he says it has reached epidemic proportions and cannot continue. what is the illegality of a leak look like, and what would a prosecution look like? what would the charges be in a situation like that? greg: the previous administration was also aggressive about going after leaks, more so than one may have expected out of a democratic administration. however, some of the leaks we have seen the past year, or at least since january, have been better to the administration. there has been a lot of them.
there has been an unusual confluence of events including staffers the president did not necessarily sign on to have on board who have apparently been leaking. this is an aggressive response to that. they perceive a threat to the adventures in. julie: greg farrell, thank you. followingll has been the mueller investigation. you can continue to watch the hearing on the bloomberg at tv . presumably, there will be more questions about the rush investigation for the attorney general, jeff sessions. we will continue to bring any pertinent headlines from the hearing as they happen. from new york, this is bloomberg. ♪ . is this a phone?
markets. mark: the top stories, u.s. attorney general jeff sessions faces questions about his -- we will have the latest on the hearings. top central bankers gathered in frankfurt today to talk about their policy path forward, mario draghi, janet yellen, surprised investors? ge turnaround plan cannot stop the slide as the new chief executive reiterated challenges they -- at the lowest level in nearly six years. our european equities are trading, minutes away/mainly stocks