tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN June 28, 2018 11:00am-12:00pm PDT
attorney general, and you certainly are. but the actions of your subordinates which are all employees of the department of justice, aren't you vouching for those? don't those people sponrespond you? >> those people ultimately report to me. yes, sir. >> and that would include when bruce orr's office was next to you and worked for you? >> he worked in the attorney general's office, a couple of doors down, yes. >> a couple of doors down. we're aware of some of the events that took place before your confirmation as the deputy attorney general. however, some of your team members certainly were involved. i want to ask was sheena t -- i'm sorry, trisha anderson involved in any stage of
draftingdraft i ing, editing, or approving the four fisa applications to spy on carter page? >> i wasn't sure if you were directing that question to me. congressman, sitting here now, i don't know who was involved in drafting what fisa application. >> so just to be clear, apparently director wray, you have to answer for the deputy attorney general about fisa applications he signed? >> no. you were asking about -- >> the four applications on carter page. i think you've been vague on whether you signed -- >> no, no, sir. let me try to clarify if i may -- >> did you sign the fourth fisa application? >> i approved the filing -- >> you say you approved that application -- >> yes. >> now, that's going -- >> before -- that's my job, sir.
>> that's your job, okay. you approved it. when you approve a fisa application, in your mind, does that mean you should read it and understand what's part of it? >> you should certainly understand what's part of it, sir, as i said -- >> you're parsing words. it doesn't mean you need to read it -- >> it depends on the circumstances. >> being a former felony state judge -- >> yes -- >> if i had somebody like you come before me and now it was -- >> i'm not the -- >> -- and find later the guy that signed and approved an application for a warrant had not even read the application that would ally spying on somebody -- >> that would be atrocious -- >> -- i would look at everything he signed from then on with a jaundiced eye. i'm telling you, i was concerned -- >> if you give me a chance to explain, sir -- >> -- you have. you've said -- >> no, i have not. >> -- you would approve it -- >> i did approve it. >> i didn't ask that question because you've said you approved it, but you took out the words
that you read. >> the gentleman will suspend -- >> it is my time -- >> the gentleman from texas will suspend. i want to make it clear to the deputy attorney general you will be afforded a full opportunity to respond once his time has expired. if he wants to yield -- >> my time continued to run while the chairman took up some of my time. >> you'll have that, too. >> and actually i was being interrupted. i did not have a question. i was taking the words that the deputy attorney general said. let me ask you about this -- you said earlier bruce orr was not working on the russia investigation. let me ask you -- >> to my knowledge. >> to your knowledge. did you not know that bruce orr was meeting with christopher steel, getting the information about the dossier, and supplying information to the fbi at the same time at the same time his
wife was working for hillary clinton -- did you not know he was doing that for the fbi? >> correct. >> you did not know that? >> correct. >> he -- his office was a couple of doors down, but you had no idea that he was the go between to get the information. when did you find out about that? >> as i said, sir, the inspector general's reviewing the files. i hope i have the opportunity to explain -- >> let me -- >> i understand -- >> you look at the deputy -- look at the summary, the -- mr. horowitz said we did not have confidence that strzok's decision to prioritize russia investigation while we're following up on the mid-year related investigations led -- discovered on the weiner laptop was free from bias. pretty clear to most of us. he his bias did -- his bias did affect that decision -- >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> and you -- >> the deputy attorney general
may respond. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize. i thought you were asking me questions, sir. i completely understand your concern. and this fisa process is being reviewed by the inspector general. if he finds some problem with that, we'll respect that. we don't talk about fisas. it's illegal for us to talk about fisas. in this particular result, the intelligence community information was declassified, so i'm uncomfortable talking about that. you have to understand in context, sir, that the department had made the decision to disclose the fisa to the house and senate before i got there. before i got there. what i signed was a renewal application, approved three different times by a federal judge. it was signed under oath by an fbi agent who attested it was true and correct. if he was wrong, we'll hold him accountable. let's allow the process to conclude before we jump to conclusions about that. i assure you, sir, i'll be just as offended as you if i find there was incorrect information in the application. >> mr. chairman, since we're
learned that hoo -- that he relies heavily on people in his team to do these applic to the truth until we question tasheena tahar and trisha anderson, and that would include why she slow walks the notices of nsc meetings to the attorney general when she's working for the dag just to make him look bad. we need to get those two people in here -- >> the gentleman's time has expired -- >> get it in the record. >> if there's any evidence of wrongdoing, sir, by anyone on my staff or anyone in the department, i would expect you to give them fair process bringing the information to my attention or the inspector general's attention. let's hear both sides and then reach the conclusion. i think what's important to understand -- i understand the fisa process is very obscure to most people. but these are essentially search warrant affidavits. a federal agent has to swear under oath that everything in the application is true.
and then there are review processes within the fbi and department, and ultimately the decision is made by a federal judge. and there can be mistakes, and we'll find out if there are mistakes in this one. it's not a matter of just slapping a document and signing it. it's a very thorough process, and in a particular case, four different federal judges found probable cause. the inspector general will review it, and i'll await those conclusions, sir. i would encourage you not to jump to conclusion that's i or anybody else did anything wrong until we have all the information. >> mr. chairman -- >> the gentleman from new york seeks recognition. >> earlier, i referenced a january 27th, 2000, letter to john lynder, then the chairman of the rules committee -- of the subcommittee on rules and organization of the house of the committee on rules from the then-deputy assistant attorney general robert rayburn. i'd like unanimous consent to consent this into the record? >> without objection, it will be made part of the record. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
mr. rosenstein and mr. wray, thank you for your service. i hope you pass along my thanks to the men and women who serve the department of justice and the bureau. this morning donald trump, our president, tweeted -- when is bob mueller going to list his conflicts of interest. mr. rosenstein, does mr. mueller have any conflicts of interest? >> mr. chairman, if there were any conflicts of interest that were brought to our attention, i would discuss it with mr. mueller, and there could be review in the department if there were credible allegation of a conflict of interest. so i'm not aware of any disqualifying conflict of interest. >> in your experience at the department, are you aware ever in your experience with the department's history of an unindicted subject of investigation being given evidence that exists in the case where that person's a subject? >> i wouldn't want to comment on what's ever happened, but generally that would not be our practice. >> and do you intend to change
that with the request that rudy giuliani, the president's counsel, has made that unindicted information would be given over to the president as it relates to the russia investigation? >> i'm not aware of any request that mr. giuliani's made to me. >> mr. wray, you agree that the fbi's responsibility is to prevent attacks on america. >> that's one of many of our responsibilities, yes. >> would you agree that in 2016 russia electronically through weaponizing social media and hacking emails attacked our democracy? >> i think that's a shorthand for what was in the intelligence community assessment which i have every reason to accept. >> this morning, mr. wray, the president tweeted, "russia continues to say they had nothing to do with meddling." do you believe that russia had something to do with the meddling that occurred in the last election? >> as i indicated, i think the intelligence community's assessment which i agree with is that russia attempted to sow discord in our country in an
effort to influence the last election. as the deputy attorney general mentioned, there's also now an indictment through the special counsel's office that speaks to much the same subject. >> and mr. wray, has president trump personally told you to use your resources at the fbi to counter future election meddling by the russians? >> we did, as i think the white house has reported and disclosed, we did have a meeting not just with the fbi but with deputy attorney general, with the homeland security secretary, i think director coates may have been there, the attorney general maybe also, where the whole focus was on making sure that we are doing what we should be doing -- >> was the president -- >> collectively. the president chaired the meeting, so yes. >> okay. did he personally, though, express if he wanted the fbi to devote resources to counter russian meddling? >> i don't remember the exact words in the meeting, but the gist was to make sure that we're doing, all of us, not just the fbi, but all parts of the government that have responsibility for protecting
our country against foreign influence that we're all doing what we should be doing. if there's more we could be doing, that we're doing that. >> has mr. trump contacted you either personally, by phone or in writing, with respect to the russia investigation? >> sir, in my capacity as deputy attorney general, i do have meetings with the president. i don't discuss my conversations with the president other than to say i have not received any improper order from the president to do something that i believe was wrong. what would you do if the president did give you an improper order? >> i wouldn't follow an improper order, sir. >> i've read the inspector general report about mr. strzok, and i've heard how he's been characterized today. and i, too, share your belief that he acted inappropriately, and we shouldn't allow opinions to get in the way of law enforcement duties. and the inspector general found that he had opinions that were distasteful, especially toward our president, candidate trump, but there was no finding that that influenced the
investigation. i want to ask, are you aware of mr. strzok setting up a june 9th meeting at trump tower where the president's son, son-in-law, and campaign chairman, met with individuals seeking to offer dirt from the russians on hillary clinton? did he set that up, or was he involved in that in any way? >> i have no personal budget that. >> and did mr. strzok ask candidate trump or write a speech for candidate trump in the summer of 2016 to invite the russians to do further hacking? was there part of any finding that you had? >> not to my knowledge. >> do you find it, director wray, unhelpful that the president would tweet in the manner that he did this morning and the public comments he's made where he doesn't acknowledge that russia interfered in our election, yet you are tasked with trying to counter russian interference in our election? >> congressman, there are a lot of opinions out there about a lot of things including on twitter. i'm not really a twitter guy.
our folks really aren't either. we're more focused on trying to make sure we get our work done. >> thank you. the country's counting you as we go into the midterms. i yield back. >> the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just a few -- i think one of the interesting things, this is amazing how this, the last few minutes, we went from making crap up. but it's an interesting process here. and one of the problems goes back, though, before you got there. and this is the problem that this committee saw in the previous attorney general, the previous fbi director, and the previous, you know, previous two attorney generals to be honest in this, in which things were done out of order, out of sequence. meeting with the former president on the tarmac, not disclosing it -- these were things that led to distrust as we go forward. i just have a few questions, specific questions. these can be without commenting on an ongoing investigation at all of any kind. is there in your opinion a constitutional standard that guides your department in investigating any president? a president or any president? >> is there a constitutional
standard? >> yeah. do you think there is or is not? >> i'm not aware of any provision in the constitution that addresses that. >> okay. is there -- an office of legal counsel opinion that informs the department in this area, and if so, are you directing special counsel mueller to follow it? >> you're referring to the issue of whether the president can be indicted? >> in the sense of how these investigations are handled. that's the center of a lot of conversations we've had. >> i know there are two historical opinions. but i have not read them. >> okay. >> i probably have seen them at some point. i'm not in position to comment on the details, and i don't recall whether it's a constitutional issue or not. >> it goes to the indictment, as well. it does go to that issue, as well. has there been discussion about that? a possibility of indictment or not indictment of that, of the president? >> i have not, congressman, commented on anything about who may or may not be indicted. all the speculation that you read has nothing to do with me.
>> that's fine and that's why you're here answering questions. i appreciate that with the both. you and i had a conversation about this a few months ago, this was mr. strzok's issue, i asked at the time did he have his security clearance. you said you would check, it appears that he had it. it appears the security clearance has been revoked. the concern i have is process inside the department of justice when you have someone of his counterintelligence level, this is not a new recruit. this is somebody who's been around, who's had sensitive information. on january 13th, 2016, an individual from the fbi's washington field office e-mailed mr. strzok and other employees that their polygraphs were out of -- i think it was out of scope. i asked you about that. and i asked if he had been polygraphed, you didn't know at the time. it said the polygraph raised flags. now, my question about this would be -- you didn't know about the polygraph at the time, we'll assume now that it is out there, you do. would the topic of the extramarital affair have come up in the polygraph, or possibility
come up in the polygraph with mr. strzok that could have put it out of scope? >> i do not know the answer -- >> either way -- >> i have no idea what wauould have been raised in any specific's polygraph at this moment. >> could he have passed the polygraph -- in the context of the text we see now, before and continuing in sensitive areas such as the investigation, the mueller investigation, again, the hillary clinton -- but knowing the things we've commented on today, if those texts taken into could were on this polygraph and it -- would he or could he have passed a polygraph if he'd, you know, of his own ability denying an affair with lisa page? >> congressman, i'm not going to -- >> and i didn't speak to him about it, but he'll be in particular happy about one of those victories, do you know which one we're talking about? i think you do. i want to thank paul ryan, i want to thank our great congressman, glen grothman --
where's glen? thank you very much. great job, glen. [ applause ] and we have so many other officials. but i have to thank a man who i gave it took. like handing the football off. he ran for 2,000 yards that game. most people couldn't have done it. terry and i have had a great relationship. terry was thinking about doing this -- >> clearly a busy news hour here in the cnn newsroom. you're watching some live comments now from the president speaking in wisconsin as he visits the new foxcom manufacturing plant that's going to be developed there. meantime before that, we were just listening in to that hearing that has been a contentious hearing on capitol hill today involving the fbi director, christopher wray, you see, as well as deputy attorney general rosenstein, grilled by republicans on all things from media leaks to the russia
investigation to the hillary clinton e-mail investigation. we're going to continue to follow both of these live events and continue our special coverage when we come back. we have a mission: to help hand everyone a better world. that's why we, at the coca-cola company, make shore breaks with actual coconuts. tea, organically. treats for celebrations. water with added minerals for taste. dear future us, that's why we're striving to do good. and help our communities get the education they deserve. we're doing this today... ...so you can do even more. the coca-cola company
just for a shot. with neulasta onpro patients get their dayr ...so you can do even more. back to be with family, or just to sleep in. strong chemo can put you at risk of serious infection. in a key study neulasta reduced the risk of infection from 17% to 1%, a 94% decrease. neulasta onpro is designed to deliver neulasta
the day after chemo and is used by most patients today. neulasta is for certain cancer patients receiving strong chemotherapy. do not take neulasta if you're allergic to it or neupogen (filgrastim). an incomplete dose could increase infection risk. ruptured spleen, sometimes fatal as well as serious lung problems allergic reactions, kidney injuries and capillary leak syndrome have occurred. report abdominal or shoulder tip pain, trouble breathing or allergic reactions to your doctor right away. in patients with sickle cell disorders, serious, sometimes fatal crises can occur. the most common side effect is bone and muscle ache. ask your doctor about neulasta onpro. pay no more than $25 per dose with copay card. wearing powerful sunscreen? yes! neutrogena® ultra sheer. no other sunscreen works better or feels so good. clinically proven helioplex® provides unbeatable uva/uvb protection to help prevent early skin aging and skin cancer all with a clean light feel.
for unbeatable protection. it's the one. the best for your skin. ultra sheer®. neutrogena®. see what's possible. but if something happened to you... you need life insurance! and chances are selectquote can get it for you for under a dollar a day! selectquote found michael, 38, a $500,000 policy for under $23 a month. selectquote found anna, 37, a $750,000 policy for under $22 a month. selectquote's secret? they comparison shop select group of great companies like these for your best rate. give your family the security they need... at a price you can afford. since 1985, selectquote has saved over a million families millions of dollars on life insurance. call the number on your screen. or go to selectquote.com.
discover what over a million families know. we shop. you save. welcome back to the cnn newsroom. we're continuing to follow the hearing on capitol hill now. a hearing involving the fbi director christopher wray and deputy attorney general rod rosenstein testifying before the house judiciary committee. let's listen in. >> doing a number of things to brief committees and members of congress on all the things we're doing. i guess the second thing i would say you referenced the attorney general's earlier testimony on the subject. i think it was a question to me when i testified in front of the committee in december -- >> i asked --
>> as i said, there are a lot of things that we're doing. and that's on me for not having at the time, he has now gotten more extensively briefed. it's on me for not having briefed the attorney general on all the great new things the fbi is doing on that subject. >> i appreciate that. i've had the chance to meet with the clerks of the two counties i represent to understand what they're doing. there's a report that there was a meeting last month in silicon valley between eight tech companies and the representatives of the doj and fbi. are you aware of the meeting? >> there have been a number of meetings with companies in silicon valley. we're working closely with them in appropriate ways to try to list in ways that are appropriate their assistance in trying to better protect the country from improper maligned influence. >> i want to correct the record, between dhs and the fbi. some of the reports that came from that meeting is that there was a sense of an unwillingness to cooperate, collaborate, with
tech companies to make sure they are aware of efforts undertaken by other entities or to otherwise interfere in elections. has your agency provided to these companies what they need to make sure they are able to put up the defenses and respond to any threats? >> i will say, congressman, this is the first time i've heard any complaints about what information we're providing again under the efforts we're providing. we've worked to make them more effective. from our perspective, we're looking to see what they come come back to us with as again in a joint, coordinated effort to protect -- they have to protect their own platform. we're providing them information to help them do that. my own experience including going to silicon valley and meeting with the companies, we're doing things that were not done before the 2016 election. >> i appreciate it. these were reports, so i don't
want to make any claims. i want to make the request that we work in partnership with the tech companies to do everything we can to ensure that every american's vote is counted fairly and every american has confidence in their vote and the ultimate election. the american people are counting on you both. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. the chairises recognizes the gentleman -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from gentleman, mr. biggs. >> thank you, thank you very much for being here today. the inspector general testified that peter strzok led the investigations both for the e-mail investigation and the initial russian investigation. would you agree with his characterization of that? >> again. i wasn't there. i think it's fair to say that mr. strzok played a lead role in both investigations. exactly how it was structured and who supervised whom, that probably subject to more context and investigation by others.
i don't think that's far off. >> fair enough. so what's been characterized today is that the finding of the inspector general is that there was none of the bias that has brought mr. strzok into such -- under a microscope so closely, affected the decisions made in the -- the hillary rodham clinton investigation. that's a mischaracterization because under questioning -- let's go there -- you probably have the book there. if you go to page 211 i think it is, let's see. no. page 149, what you'll find -- and in is one thing the inspector general testified, as well, is that the -- he did not find documentary testimony evidence that improper considerations including political bias directly affected the specific investigative decisions. when we explored it, he admitted that those biases that mr.
strzok had -- not just mr. strzok but the others listed that have been referred for discipline, probably indirectly affected not only the information the decision-makers had, but the decisions that were made. would that be accurate? i know neither of you were there, but do you think that might be accurate? >> congressman, i think i'm going to let the inspector general's report speak for itself. >> the testimony, not his -- >> i wasn't here when he testified. >> it was -- i didn't expect you to be watching. as riveting as it was. so that leads me to a series of questions related to what's going on here. and we move into the last investigation, ongoing investigation. mr. rosenstein, the scope letter, who wrote the scope letter for mr. mueller's -- the scope of his duties would be? >> i don't know exactly who wrote it, but i'm responsible for it. >> you signed off on it probably? >> correct.
>> and have you turned an unredacted copy over to any congressional committee? >> not as far as i know. >> okay. and why is that? >> congressman, i appreciate that question because i understand why there's confusion about this. and we only have two minutes and seven seconds. but i wrote in my letter dated yesterday the history and the explanation of why it is wrong for the department of justice to publicly identify people who are subjects of investigations. i certainly completely understand why you asked the question. but i hope that the letter will speak for itself and explain why it is our policy not to do that. people have deviated from that in the past. and my commitment is to follow the rules. that's the commitment i made to the attorney general, jeff sessions, when i took the job. and i recognized it's confusing because people have departed from the rules in the past. we're following -- >> talking specifically the cope letter. >> yes, sir. >> okay. >> we do not identify persons as is disclosed in the portion that's made public. we don't identify persons publicly unless they're charged. and we explain that in the
letter. >> okay. so let's go to -- i sent you a letter -- i don't know if you got it because it's just a couple of days old. june 25th, asking if you were going to provide us with the names. everyone who served past and present on mr. mueller's special counsel investigation. we're curious what vetting has gone in, the inspecter general found -- inspector general found there was one person on the investigative team that he found to have untoward bias. and so are you inclined to release that, or is this something you and i need to talk about offline? >> sir, when i took this job, i committed that i was going to read every letter personally. >> good luck. >> to avoid -- it's not practical. i haven't been able to do that. i completely understand that question. we'll review it obviously. our administration is very committed to backing the blue and protecting law enforcement officers from any kind of abuse or retaliation. i'd be reluctant to publicly name people who aren't on the front lines just because of what that might invite.
not by you, obviously, but by people who are ill motivated. but i think you raised an important question. i have talked with mr. mueller on several occasions about the importance of making sure the people on his team -- >> i don't want to cut you off. but we'll get back to that maybe off line or something like that. i have ten seconds. september, 2017, lisa page wrote a letter to mr. strzok saying that she had talking points for director comey because potus wants to know everything we'ring too. please identify potus and what you think -- >> i don't want to speck plate on -- speculate on what miss page meant. i want to say, it's important for you to understand, that i completely understand the president's frustration with what's reflected in this report. nobody would be happy that people were sending those sort of text messages and had those kind of views. i completely understand his frustration. my commitment is to make sure that everything that we do accords with the facts and law and don't allow bias that
happens on our watch. >> thank you. the chair recognizes mr. lew. >> it is stupid that we're having an investigation of hillary clinton's emails in 2016. it is now june, 2018, and thousands of kids have been ripped away from their parents by the trump administration's child separation policy. they have not yet been reunited, and the kids not know figure they're ever going to see their parents ever again is a trauma and horror we can only imagine. since the republicans control the agenda, let's at least try to have this stupid hearing based on the facts and the central fact from this i.g. investigation is that no personal views of any fbi or doj employee affected the integrity of the investigation. director wray, i am going to read some findings from the i.g. investigation and ask if you
agree. the i.g. found our review did not find evidence to connect the political views expressed in the text messages to the specific investigative decisions. do you agree with that? >> we accept the finding, yes. >> all right. it further found that investigative decisions were the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of investigation by agents and prosecutors and that these judgment calls were not unreasonable. do you accept that finding? >> we accept that finding. >> i.g. report further found that agent strzok advocated for more aggressive investigative measures against hillary clinton including the use of grand jury subpoenas and evidence, do you accept that finding? >> we accept the finding. >> the reason agent strzok did that is because in america we let people have personal views, but we expect that when they go do their job, when they enter the fbi building, they check their views at the door, that's what we expect of the agents new york stock exchange -- of the agents, and in your case, you're a republican nominated by a
republican president controlled by a republican senate. you have made thousands in donations to republican candidates, i trust is you because you check your beliefs at the door, and you're doing your job, and in fact, when you interview agents to hire, you can't ask them if they are a democrat, republican, whether you should hire them. isn't that right? >> that is correct. i will say, congressman, that i take very seriously our obligation to do our jobs apolitically, independently, and objectively no matter who likes it, either side. i the say that we don't subject our agents to political litmus tests. i will also say that we expect our agents to check their opinions, as you said, at the door, not unlike -- not unlike in this system judges all around the country who have their own political views that range across the spectrum and sometimes hold them deeply or juries that have all kind of views or doctors that hold all kind of views. all of them are entitled to have those views. but -- but we need them to check
those views at the door and honor their hoeths. that's what i -- their oaths. that's what i expect of every agent, analyst, and professional staff person in the fbi. >> thank you. i deeply appreciate that. i was at the closed hearing of peter strzok yesterday, and i have to say, my republican colleagues have mischaracterized his testimony, a number of his text messages have been misconstrued and mischaracterized. it is deeply ironic that my republican colleagues are yelling and screaming about document production when they refuse to release his unredacted transcript from yesterday's closed hearing. they need to release it to the american people. we need to see peter strzok's testimony, and he needs to be at an open hearing. i hope my republican colleagues will do that. let me move to something that the president said in an official statement on twitter. he said a number of times that we've got a deep state. so i ask in another hearing, secretary of state mike pompeo, was there a deep state at the state department? he laughed and basically said, no, there was not. director wray, i'm going to ask you, is there a deep state at
the fbi? >> congressman, i've never completely understood the term "deep state." what i can tell you is that we have 37,000 men and women working in field offices all over the country and in offices all over the world. they are people of character, of courage, of principle, of selflessness, and of patriotism. that's the fbi that i see. >> thank you, i appreciate that. and i hope the president stops attacking the fbi. let me conclude my comments to you, deputy attorney general rosenstein. you have shown immense courage in the face of unfair criticism and overreaching requests. stand your ground. you took an oath to the constitution, not to any particular administration or political party or even this judiciary committee. do not produce documents that will jeopardize people's lives. do not produce documents that are going to threaten sources and methods. do not produce documents that will affect an ongoing investigation. stand your ground, play it straight, do it by the book, as
you have been doing, and history will judge you for that. thank you. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes. >> thank you for being here. let me echo he thanks to the department and the fbi for the tremendous work -- >> we're going to pull away from the hearing. we will continue to monitor it, and we will bring you back there as soon as there is news to discuss, to listen in on, i want to discuss a little bit with our panelists now what we've been listening to. joining us, a couple of experts who have trained ears and eyes and experience who can help us decipher exactly what we're learning today. former associate white house counsel for george w. bush. and chris swecker, former fbi assistant director of the criminal investigative division. gentlemen, i want to get your takes. what stood out to you? i'll start with you, chris. >> frankly, you're talking to somebody who has almost zero
faith in investigations because they do predetermine the investigations. they are incapable of holding a nonpartisan hearing. so i -- what i see is psychiatrist wray standing up for the fbi as an institution. and -- and i think if he could go further, he'd make the point that the bad things that were done were done by jim comey's inner circle. he's not going to point that out, but i know that's running in the background. i see both of them playing it close to the vest. you're not going to get any meaningful information out of them except pledges to do things by the rules. >> jamil, the hearing has been going on since 9:30 this morning. they've had a couple of recesses and have continued. again, looking at the scope of this hearing since then, not sure how much you actually listen to, but what stands out to you? >> look, i mean, what's obviously clear here is that both wray and rosenstein are committed to changing the situation that they face at the fbi. they're concerned about the findings of the report, and they share the concerns that lawmakers have. at the same time, they recognize
that they are in a political fist fight. and that their job is to preserve the institutions of the justice department and fbi against attacks from all sides. and make sure that these institutions are able to do their job. and they're doing the right thing in that regard. >> the last few back and forths we've had have been less contentious than the issues we heard when we heard rep jordan and rep gowdy speaking with these gentlemen. did you get a sense that rod rosenstein was pushing back today? was this him kind of digging in? >> rod is defending the institution, which he should. he's the chief operating officer of the justice department. it's not just to carry out what the politicians or president wants, but what's in the best interests of the institution itself. that's to be seen to be doing the right thing. that's the way it should be in this institution. >> chris, you mentioned the
politics at play here. did you feel like republicans had a specific objective in mind today as they were questioning these two gentlemen? >> yay yeah. i think they would like to get some information about the genesis of the russia investigation. they'd like for someone to say, gee, that whole thing was tainted from the beginning, and it was based on dubious information, that sort of thing. you don't have to get that out of rosenstein or chris wray. they've left that completely up to the inspector general. frankly, i would encourage the public to read the i. government report. that's where -- i.g. report. that's where you'll get the facts. it was a credible investigation. i'm not so sure about some of the conclusions. i think the investigation was extremely thorough. that's where you can go to get some facts. >> remember that i.g. report was specifically dealing with how the fbi and doj handled the hillary clinton e-mail investigation. didn't really touch the russia investigation. in fact, the i.g. made a point to say we didn't draw
conclusions about how the particular investigation has been handled. however, the russia investigation did come up today. let's listen to congressman trey gowdy. >> we've seen the bias. we need to see the evidence. if you have evidence of wrongdoing by any member of the trump campaign, present it to the damn grand jury. if you have evidence that this president acted inappropriately, present it to the american people. there's an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. i think right now all of us are being denied. whatever you got, finish it the hell up. this country is being torn apart. >> let's remind our viewers that trey gowdy, he was the head of the house select committee looking into benghazi. that was an investigation that lasted 28 months. we know mueller's probe isn't anywhere close to that.
jamil, is this hypocrisy? >> look, trey gowdy's the former federal prosecutor. he knows how long it takes to build a case and the like. at the same time, he's expressing a reasonable frustration which is not a frustration about just that the american people or the president wants it to end, but that the overall politicization are making it easier for the russians trying to cause chaos in our political system. he's right saying this is playing into the russians' hands. at the same time, he knows investigations take a while, and it should be allowed to run its course in the time frame necessary to get the job done as quickly as possible. >> chris, your thoughts? >> same thing. he is a former prosecutor. he knows how these investigations run. 2703 orders, orders to get emails, they take a while. the types of process that they're using, get their hands on all this information, collating the information, they have to do this perfectly. and the type of case that they're going to be bringing forward, for example, manafort right now, takes a lot of
preparation. there will be another indictment in that case, i can almost guarantee you. it's -- these are the types of investigations where you have to look at absolutely everything, and you have to do everything absolutely perfectly. and that takes time. i do think, however, that the -- that robert mueller who i serve directly under is conscious of the time factor. and i do believe that he'll be bringing something forward here in the next month or two. >> let's remember what has come forward already. we have 28 indictments plus at least five guilty pleas so far. that investigation again continuing into the question of collusion between the trump campaign and the russians which deputy attorney general rosenstein was asked about today. we'll continue our conversation. thank you, we'll get back into this hearing as we continue to follow what's happening on capitol hill. we will also take you live to brownsville, texas, where protests are erupting over the trump administration's separation of families at the border. hi, i'm bob harper,
and i recently had a heart attack. it changed my life. but i'm a survivor. after my heart attack, my doctor prescribed brilinta. it's for people who have been hospitalized for a heart attack. brilinta is taken with a low-dose aspirin. no more than 100 milligrams as it affects how well brilinta works. brilinta helps keep platelets from sticking together and forming a clot. in a clinical study, brilinta worked better than plavix. brilinta reduced the chance of having another heart attack... ...or dying from one. don't stop taking brilinta without talking to your doctor, since stopping it too soon increases your risk of clots in your stent, heart attack, stroke,
and even death. brilinta may cause bruising or bleeding more easily, or serious, sometimes fatal bleeding. don't take brilinta if you have bleeding, like stomach ulcers, a history of bleeding in the brain, or severe liver problems. slow heart rhythm has been reported. tell your doctor about bleeding new or unexpected shortness of breath any planned surgery, and all medicines you take. if you recently had a heart attack, ask your doctor if brilinta is right for you. my heart is worth brilinta. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. at crowne plaza, we know business travel isn't just business. there's this. a bit of this. why not? your hotel should make it easy to do all the things you do. which is what we do. crowne plaza. we're all business, mostly. these are the specialists we're proud to call our own. experts from all over the world, working closely together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com
i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done...
dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. welcome back. many news stories, a hearing on capitol hill including christopher wray and rod rosenstein, and protests happening across the country from wisconsin to whatti is washington -- to washington to brownsville, texas. people protesting president trump's policy when it comes to immigration and family detentions and separations at the border. miguel marquez is on the ground in brownsville. tell us what's happening there. >> reporter: we're at a federal courthouse in brownsville. want to show what is happening at the moment. protesters were in the park
across the streets. and then en masse moved toward the courthouse. they are lining up, trying to get into the courthouse. i have to say, the security here has been incredibly forgiving and open to them, allowing them in in small groups now. the temperature has sort of come down in the last 10, 15 minutes or so as most of the people were here in front of the courthouse, they've moved back across the street. it looks like for the most part people are going to stay lined up here, waiting, hoping to get into immigration court which started in 15 minutes here in brownsville. they say they want to get into court, they want to sit there, not disrupt. but they want to represent, let people know in the court that they support them. the crux of this are the 2,047 children that remain detained and that a federal judge's order telling the trump administration to reverse the zero-tolerance policy and reunite those
families. everybody we speak to at the immigration policy, there is no indication that that's happening. they hope in the next 15 days, kids under 5 will be reunited, in the next 30 days all kids will be reunited with their families. they are waiting for the trump administration to indicate how it will reunite those families. for now, the protests, upset and anger in places like brownsville. as you say, across the country, not just today. we are going to see this in the days ahead. >> we talked about multiple protests. who are those people who are protesting in brownsville today? >> reporter: these are people from across texas as far as i can tell. pemfrom the rio grande valley, houston, dallas, several hours away. they've bussed in -- people who have never taken part in the rallies, today upset by what they see on their televisions and read about in the newspapers about children being taken from their families. they're coming out here, taking
this in. this is also very political. we saw tom perez, head of the democratic national committee, out here. clearly this is something that democrats see as an issue for the midterm elections, and they hope to capitalize on it. it is a broad mix of people here in brownsville. >> miguel marquez, thank you. i want to remind viewers that at last check, this administration had only reunited six children with their parents. out of the more than 2,000 children who had been separated from their parents prior to the president's executive order. i want to take you now to capitol hill where protesters are also demanding action. we have more, now, what is their message? >> reporter: i have to tell you, i'm here in the hart senate office building. this is a building within the capitol complex that houses a lot of the senators' offices, personal offices. you see this rather large crowd behind me now.
they are chanting, if you cannot hear them, "we care, we care," an obviously rolling of melania trump's jacket from when she traveled to the border to see one of these centers last week. they have unfurled banners here saying "we demand end zero-tolerance policy," and a lot of protesters have been marching for hours. they started on the other side of washington, d.c., at freedom plaza, they went by the department of justice, up constitution avenue where they ended here on capitol hill. i've talked to some, and they say simply they want to know what is going on with these children that have been separated from their families, when will they see reuniifications take place, and they want the administration to end the zero-tolerance policy. many after they have speeches and chants here will sit here in the atrium of the hart senate office building, and they say they don't intend to leave unless they are taken away by
the police. certainly a large scene in the senate office building unfolding this hour. >> if you can hear me because i realize how loud it is there, we can hear them. they're obviously trying to make their case to lawmakers on capitol hill. not necessarily the president and his administration. but we know lawmakers are not moving on immigration any time soon. we saw this bill defeated in the house yesterday. a crushing defeat really. what is the end game? why aren't the lawmakers willing to just take up the one issue of the family separations? >> reporter: that's right. i think that's why a lot of people here want to know -- this protest comes on a day where the house and senate is largely wrapping up work for the week. the house is largely done with their work for the week now. and they're unlikely to go home
for recess, for a week-long recess, during the 4th of july. that's not lost on a lot of protesters here. they say they want to go before they go home for recess, they should handle the family separation issue. and as you know, they have yet -- it did not get addressed this week because the house failed to pass the immigration plan that included to fix or address the problem of family separations. people saying it's not enough. we want to give you a sense of the crowd now. the camera is pan, and we have police officers on the scene. we spoke with them before this happened. they were anticipating a large crowd. they're anticipating people sitting in, and they say they anticipate if people continue sitting in that they will carry them away. they hope for a very civil dison, kbreensd in the words of the protest organizers. we'll see what ends up happening here. again, the very large crowd. people chanting, "we care,"
certainly trying to send a strong message to lawmakers up here on capitol hill. many of whom in the next day will go home for a week-long recess without having to address this problem. >> i see all the women behind you, they're billing this as the women's march in civil disobedience to end separation. we'll economic back with you. -- we'll check back with you. and in washington, protesters appealing to members there about the immigration situation, urging them, begging them to do something, to press the administration, to reunite these families. our special coverage of that event, plus the contentious hearing between republicans and the deputy attorney general on capitol hill continues in a moment.
the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan back with our breaking news. we'll go straight back to capitol hill where the protests are happening with congress. i see police have arrived.
>> reporter: that's right. police just arrived. they've announced to the large group that this san unwelcome protest, and they will be arrested if they do not move out. you see you have a whole fleet of capitol hill police officers waiting. on the other side here, we're going to swivel the camera here, the protesters -- >> the final warning. if you do not cease and desist, we will place you under arrest. [ chants ] if you do not wish to be arrested, move beyond the police line. this is your third and final warning. >> reporter: i want to show you the view here. as you see, many women in this crowd chanting. many wearing shirts that say "no camp," they do not want the detention camps. they are holding up their hands, certainly it is a tense scene down here. and i should note that this is the working office building within the capitol complex. this is the building where a lot
of u.s. senators have their offices. we look up in here in the building, you see a lot of capitol hill staffers overlooking this protest that's taking place in their building now. you have people lined up, and here we have now what we anticipated. these protesters are going to sit down. they say they are -- let the scene play out now. >> -- you need to leave, or you're going to be arrested. >> reporter: we hear them saying, you need to leave unless you want to be arrested. you need to leave. a lot of women -- women said they would be okay being arrested and that they anticipated that. >> are they kicking you out, as well -- >> reporter: they are kicking press out now.
protesters have unfurled sell phone blankets on the -- cellophane blankets on the floor. a reference to the kids we've seen in custody, trying to make that dynamic play out. we are being kicked out now. we will continue to report what we can here. >> sunlen, i know you're trying to get your bearings. you mentioned this is inside the hart senate building. a lot of senators' offices are there. technically is that considered public or private space? >> reporter: this is public space. you can get in without a capitol hill pass. you have to go through magnetometers to get in and certainly be watched as one by one these protesters did come in through the magnetometers. this is public space where people can go and walk in to the lobby and certainly go to the senator's office and talk -- senators' office and talk to members of the staff. i want to show a wide shot of the building.
it's an atrium. you have many protesters sitting down on the floor, and then you have members of offices, capitol hill staff, looking out of their windows, stopping work, looking at this moment that's playing out. and i can tell you from my vantage point here, i see some arrests starting to take place. you see one woman here, she is being escorted out by the capitol hill police. we see probably about 50 capitol hill police lined up. nothing seems out of the ordinary now. people seem to be -- >> what are they chanting? >> reporter: likely to be escorted out. [ chants ] trying to listen here. we do have some random chants as people are escorted out as they're being arrested. i should tell you it seems orderly, though. certainly a tense moment. but very