tv House Judiciary Meets to Discuss Barr in Contempt Resolution CSPAN May 8, 2019 2:01pm-2:41pm EDT
its entirety tonight, 8:00 eastern, over on c-span. so you can catch that. while we wait for the committee to gavel back in again, 2:30 or so, we are going to take you back to the beginning, about 9:00 eastern this morning, to hear first from the chair, jerry nadler and then the ranking republican doug collins of georgia. >> the motion for consideration is adopted. the clerk will report the committee report. >> resolution recommending that the house of representatives find william p. barr attorney general u.s. department of justice in contempt of congress for refusal to comply with the subpoena duly issued by the committee on the judiciary. >> without objection, the committee report is considered as read. and open for amendment at any point. i will begin by recognizing myself in an opening statement. today, we consider a report recommended that the house of representatives hold attorney general william barr in contempt
of congress for defying a valid subpoena issued by this committee. this is not a step we take lightly. it is the culmination of nearly three months of requests, discussions, and negotiations with the department of justice, with a complete unredacted report by special counsel mueller, into russian interference in the 2016 election, along with the underlying evidence. i appreciate the fact that the department responded to the offer we made to them last week, and met with us yesterday in a last-minute effort to reach an accommodation. we heard the department out. we responded to them in good faith. and after all was said and done, we unfortunately were still unable to reach agreement and we proceeded with our markup today. as i have said before, we remain ready and willing to consider any reasonable offer made by the department, even after today's vote. bit but if the letter i received late last night from the department is any indication, i am concerned that the department is heading in the wrong
direction. in response to our latest good faith offer, the department abruptly announced that if we move forward today, they would ask president trump to invoke what it refers to as a protective assertion of executive privilege on all of the materials subject to our subpoena. just minutes ago, it took that dramatic step. besides ms. applying the doctrine of executive privilege, since the white house waived these primvileges long ago and the department seemed open to sharing these materials with us just yesterday, this decision represents a clear escalation in the trump administration's blanket defiance of congress constitutionally mandated duties. i hope that the department will think better of this last-minute outburst and return to negotiations. as a co-equal branch of government, we must have access to the materials that we need to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities in a manner consistent with past precedent. this is information we are legally entitled to receive. and we are constitutionally
obligated to review. and i would remind the members that the mueller report is no ordinary run of the mill document. it details significant misconduct involving the president, including his campaign's willingness and eagerness to accept help from a hostile foreign government, numerous misstatements, if not outright lies concerning these acts, those acts, and 11 separate incidents of obstructive behavior by the president and more than 070 former prosecutors have told us warrant criminal indictment if congress is not entitled to the full unredacted mueller report, one must wonder what duchlt we would be entitled to. i resort to negotiations with the department of justice, have unfortunately left us back where we began. with unprecedented obstruction by the administration ha has now announced its intention to block all attempts to congressional oversight of the executive branch. it is our constitutional duty to respond. let me be clear.
information we request, we are request can, is entirely within our legal rights to receive, and it is no different from what has been provided to congress on numerous occasions, going back nearly a century. we do not need to go back that far to find the precedent. as recently as the last congress, under republican control, the department produced more than 880,000 pages of sensitive investigative materials pertaining to its investigation of hillary clinton, as well as voluminous other material relating to the russia investigation, and other ongoing investigations. that production included highly classified material, notes from fbi interviews, internal text messages, and law enforcement memoranda. with respect to grand jury information, in past cases involving allegations of presidential misconduct, or misconduct by other high-ranking public officials, the department of justice as a matter of course has sought the permission of a court through release relevant information to congress, if not
to the public. notably, this includes several cases that were not impeachment inquiries including the investigation into former agriculture secretary mike espy and the iran-contra investigations, as well as other investigations that were not governed by the independent counsel law. no matter the fact that the law and history clearly support to release to congress this kind of information, the trump administration has taken obstruction of congress to new heights. unfortunately, the attorney general has been all too willing to support the president in this endeavor. i would also like to respond to two of the concerns often raised by my good friend the ranking member. he asks, how can the committee hold the attorney general in contempt for merely complying with the laws on the books? how can we hold him in contempt when i have refused an offer to allow me to see certain redacted portions of the report? the answers are simple. first, we issued a valid subpoena for the full report, and awful underlying evidence. the department has come nowhere
close to satisfying its obligations under that subpoena. the department has never cited a legal basis to withholding the underlying evidence. including las cruces last night's threat to invoke executive privilege which was utterly without credibility, merit or legal or factual basis, as is of course the assertion, or the statement that they will assert executive privilege by the white house this morning. to the extent ta we have asked for access to grand jury information which is protected by federal law, all we have ever asked is that the department join us in petitioning the court to determine if it is proper for us to have access to this material. the department as i said, has done this on many occasions in the past, we ask for commitment to joins us that effort again last night, as is done in many previous case, and the department refused. second, with respect to the offer to limit, to lift some of the redactions for me, and a handful of my colleague, the department has placed unacceptable limitations on
access to that information. their offer would block the members of this committee from reading those sections of the report for themselves. it would require me to leave my notes behind in the department of justice. it would prevent me from speaking with my colleagues, with other members of the committee, about what i might see. what good is it? of what use can this committee make of information that i have but can't discuss with any other member of the committee? i have consistently stated that if we are to do our jobs as members of the house judiciary committee, all of the members require meaningful access to the report and the underlying documents. we need to be able to confer with each other about what we have seen. we need to be able to take official action on what we have seen if warranted. and if necessary, we need to be able to inform a court of law of what we have learned, even if perhaps under seal. if we can find an accommodation that satisfies those basic principles i would be happy to
continue negotiating with the department of justice. but now invoking executive privilege and all of the materials of the subpoena, that has come to a screeching halt. the administration has announced loud and clear that it does not recognize congress as a co equal branch of government with constitutional oversight authority and it will continue to wage its campaign of obstruction. when the administration says it will oppose all subpoenas, presumably regardless of its merits, it is saying that it does not recognize congress having a constitutional oversight authority over the executive branch. and to those who consider the matter case closed in the words of some of our leaders, and who urge us to simply move on, i would say to do so is to announce loud and clear that such a course of action has the effect of aiding and abetting in the administration's campaign of total blanket and unprecedented obstruction. the trump administration and its enablers may brazenly try to cover up the misdeeds uncovered by the special counsel but in
this committee we will represent the american people and ensure the truth is known. i urge my colleagues to think about how the department's latest position, and their insistence on ignoring our subpoena, affects our committee over time. our fight is not just about the mueller report. although we must have access to the mueller report. our fight is about defending the rights of congress as an independent branch. to hold the president, any president, accountable. every day, we learn of new efforts by this administration to stonewall congress. and through congress, to stonewall the american people. the ways and means committee has been denied the president's tax returns, when the law states clearly that they're entitled to them upon request. the chairman of the oversight and reform committee has been sued in its personal capacity to prevent him from acquiring certain financial records from the trump organization. the president has stated that his administration will oppose subpoenas and in fact virtually all document requests are going
unsatisfied. witnesses are refusing to show up at hearings. this is unprecedented. if allowed to go unchecked, this obstruction means the end of congressional oversight. as a co equal branch of government, we should not and cannot allow this to continue, or we will not be a co-equal branch of government. i urge my colleagues whether or not you care to see the full mueller report and we should all want to see the complete report, to stand up for the institution we are proud to serve. i expect that we will have a full debate today on the measure before us. i hope that at the end of it we will do what is right. no person, and certainly not the top law enforcement officer in the country, can be permitted to flout the will of congress and defy a subpoena. no person, not the attorney general, not the president, can be permitted to be above the law. that is what is at stake today. i urge all of my colleagues to support this report.
i now recognize the ranking member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this, and to the folks watching here, this slog continues. last week, i urged you and my fellow members of the judiciary committee to respect the committee and conduct business accordingly. we still have a crisis on the southern border, china is stealing our int elect ule property yet here we are wasting another valuable week of the legislating cardio against the majority's war against the administration. we are considering a resolution to hold attorney general bill barr in contempt of congress. what is the justification of holding attorney general barr in contempt of congress? perhaps that he failed to abuy bied special counsel regulations? no. he went above and beyond by transporting the full report with limited redactions. could it be that the attorney
general failed to accommodate the chairman's demands for information? no. he offered to let the chairman and five other democratic leaders review the less redacted report at the department of justice, including a 99.9% unredacted volume on obstruction. in an odd move for anyone demanding access to information, the chairman and the other elected democrats given access have declined to review that report. the attorney general also volunteered to testify before this committee. about the report's conclusions. and his role in sharing the report. and as we all witnessed, the democratic gamesmanship forced the attorney general to forgo the scheduled hearing last week. on monday, the justice department offered to meet to discuss accommodations, yesterday, they made a reasonable offer to avert this spectacle and once again, they were rebuffed and the chairman don't declined. perhaps then the democrats believe that there has been an unreasonable delay in the justice department's response to their subpoena. no. that's not true, either. in fact, the chairman is moving to this contempt resolution at lightning speed. it has been less than 20 days
since the chairman nadler subpoenaed documents from the justice department. when the oversight committee held attorney general eric holder in contempt, more than 250 days had passed between the subpoena and the commit's vote to hold him in contempt. more than 450 days passed between the committee's initial request to the justice department and the committee's contempt vote. judiciary democrats are moving more than ten times faster than oversight did withholder. they have moved from request to contempt vote in only 43 days. and yet the justice department is still at the negotiating table waiting for the democrats to arrive in good faith. why this rush? without any valid legislative or administrative reason, we can only assume the democrats that are led by the chairman have resolved to sully big barr's good name and reputation to accomplish two goals. first, democrats are angry the special counsel's report did not produce the material or collusions they expected to pave their path to impeaching the president.
i feel compelled to remind everyone the report found, despite offers to do so, no one from the trump campaign knowingly conspired with the russian government. and you can't help but notice the phrase russian collusion has banished from the democratic talking points and left a void in the narrative. since the special counsel did not make a prosecutorial determination of obstruction which was his job the attorney general and the deputy attorney general did so according to their mandates as law enforcement officials, while give nothing credence to the office of legal counsel's opinion regarding that of sitting presidents. as a result, they're angry. they're angry our nation's chief law enforcement officer and his deputy had the audacity to decide the evidence didn't support changes for obstruction and investigation into something the president didn't do. second, democrats are afraid of what the attorney general will find when he completes his ongoing review of fisa abuses at the jus department including how the russia investigation began. multiple reports say it could be explosive and end careers and lead to criminal prosecution, rather than face, that the democrats have resolved to
neutralize bill barr by attacking him and the office and his integrity and list career. this is the first step. what a cynical mean-spirited counterproductive irresponsible step it is. meanwhile, our economy is surging. unemployment, among several minority groups at a historic low. a recent "washington post" poll shows cratering support for impeachment. the democrats have no plans. no purpose. and no viable legislative agenda beyond attacking this administration. the house is more than four months into a democratic majority. how many bills passed by this committee have been signed into law? mr. chairman, i'm implore you to see reason, i ask that you recognize the in sincere politics that seem to be yielding no dividends for the american people. we talked at multiple occasion, including the pharmaceutical kult markup last week that i will work on solutions but i will not be a bystander as we asail the attorney general and this committee. our democracy deserves better. finally, mr. chairman, i would like to quote a fellow member of congress. as a member of congress, i treat
assertions of executive privilege very seriously. i believe they should be used only sparingly. in this case, it seems it is clear the administration was forced into a position by the committee's insistence on pushing forward with contempt. despite the attorney general's good faith offer, mr. chairman, it did not have to be this way. we could have postponed today's vote and accepted the attorney general's offer, and instead, by not honoring the constitution's charge to seek accommodations when possible, the prestige of this committee has been diminished. as a result, that should concern us all. i quote elijah cummings. in that case, of course, the committee did seek accommodations, in this case, this committee did not. and in just a difference of opinion between me and the chairman, there has been no escalation of this, except on the side of the majority. you have to have both sides at the table for accommodations. that's the way this process works. that is what i've just laid out. ten times faster than even eric
holder. and when we get into the other issues that have been decided here, and again, how we deal with this, it is going forward, with what will be the precedent for the future and will be the precedent for what we have. with that, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. collins. without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. and i now recognize myself for purposes of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute. the clerk will report the amendment. >> amendment in the nature of a substitute to the committee report for the resolution recommending that the house of representatives find william p. barr -- >> without objection, the amendment, and the nature of the substitute will be considered as read and shall be considered as base text for purposes of amendment. i will recognize myself to explain the amendment. the amendment in the nature of a substitute contains a technical change to page two of the committee report. simply changes the reference in that page to judiciary committee, to the committee on the judiciary. with this modest change i urge the committee to support the amendment.
i now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, mr. collins, for any comments he may have on the amendment. >> only amendment itself, thank you, mr. chairman, i don't have any as far as the amendment itself, i will make one comment that was made in your previous opening statement, the chairman of now the oversight commission was asserted in his official, he was asserted in his official capacity for the committee. just a clarification for the record that as we go forward. with that, i have no objection. >> are there any amendments to the amendment in the nature of the substitute? >> let me see q. >> mr. chairman. >> for what purposes the gentleman of ohio come. >> i move to strike the last word you are recognized. >> our democratic colleagues seem to be on a mission. they're determined to destroy attorney general barr, or at least discredit him, in the eyes of the american people. the attorney general agreed to appear before this committee last week, and was ready to answer any and all questions about the mueller report. however, mr. chairman, you and
your democratic colleagues on this committee decided that instead of just answering questions, from members of the committee, while we unprecedentedly were also going to require him to be grilled by a bunch of partisan staff lawyers. of course, the attorney general wisely said no way, and now, you're determined to find him in contempt. and in my view, as somebody who served on this committee for 23 years, i think it is disgraceful. last week when the attorney general refused to show up for this committee's kangaroo court, the majority set up an empty chair, ate chicken and pretty much made a mockery of this committee. a committee that was once led by the likes of daniel webster. it's worth noting that attorney general did appear before the senate judiciary committee the day before he was scheduled to come here. where the unreasonable demand that he be queried by staff attorneys was not made. senators did the questioning themselves. as is normal. and the same should have been the case here, instead of
chicken-gate. and let's be clear, it wasn't a day at the beach in the senate for the attorney general. the senators themselves were perfectly capable of being rude, abusive, and arrogant all by themselves. they didn't need their staff to do it for them. so why this passion to tear into william barr, an attorney general, at least up to this point in his career, considered a person of upstanding and in fact, outstanding character. well, first our democratic colleagues are apparently really ticked off about the mueller report, that it found that the whole russian collusion thing was a big fat zero. and even though the obstruction of justice allegation wasn't as clear-cut, special counsel mueller found that there was insufficient evidence to pursue a charge against president trump or against anyone else for that matter. excuse me, welcome barr did that. so democrats are mad about that. but what i think is even more important is that our democratic colleagues are afraid. they're afraid that unlike
former attorney general sessions, who had recused himself from anything related to the mueller investigation, bill barr is going to dig into the origins of the bogus russian collusion allegation itself. the clinton campaign funding of the steele dossier was the actual collusion between the russians and the political campaign. is that something that is finally going to be looked into? that was the real political collusion with the russians. the fbi's involvement in trying to tip a presidential election, in favor of one candidate, over another, the whole peter strzok, lisa page, all of that, the idea that trump may have been right, that his campaign really was spied on by elements of the obama administration, despite the fact that this accusation was met with such derision by most of the mainstream press at the time. the bottom line is many democrats on this committee and in fact, many democrats in both the house and the senate,
apparently believe that finding out the truth in these matters may not be helpful to them in the upcoming election cycle. and the best way to undermine the results of the investigation, the true investigation, which is really about to happen, might just be to destroy the credibility of a guy who is doing the investigation, the attorney general, william barr. and let's begin that process, apparently according to the folks on the other side of the aisle, and the chairman included, by finding him in contempt. that's the way we can really discredit him. at least that's the way i see it. and i yield back. >> before i proceed to the next statement, let me just point clarify a point of apparent confusion. we are not proposing to hold the attorney general in contempt for not showing up last week. he didn't show up last week, but that has nothing to do with this motion for contempt. we are proposing to hold him in contempt for ignoring, for not
satisfying the subpoena, for the production of documents, namely the unredacted mueller report, and underlying evidence. who seeks recognition? >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from, the gentle lady from texas, for what purposes, gentle lady in texas. >> i would like the last word. >> gentle lady is recognized. >> i'm pausing for a moment because i do think this is a moment in history. and i appreciate my good friends on the other side of the aisle, but having received a letter both from, a copy of the letter to the president of the united states, by general barr, a letter from the department of justice, indicating after their purposeful collapse of the negotiations, well-intentioned by the staff and house judiciary committee, i can only conclude
that the president now seeks to take a wrecking ball to the constitution of the united states of america. for the first time in the history of the united states, a president is now exerting executive privilege over every aspect of life that the american people desire to have information. whether or not their affordable care act is dissolving, the pre-existing condition, whether or not children are being separated from their parents, whether or not the environment is being destroyed, anything that the congress wants to do on behalf of the american people, is now being alleged to be under the jurisdiction of privilege. then of course, we have to surmise that this is an absolute lawless behavior by this administration. the attorney general actions are contemptuous and insulting to congress, but we are simply the tools. it is to the american people.
to broaden the executive privilege, and ignore the constant accommodations that chairman nadler has made, and our staff, in working to work out three simple points. give us all of the documents, unredacted, mueller report. for the american people to see. work with us on grand jury materials, not to undermine, if you will, any ongoing investigations. and work with us to list the documents by priority. that is very simple. to recount facts of yester year does not even speak to the fact that of the hundreds of investigations that my good friends, when president trump and the republicans house and senate existed. they never ceased. they never ceased going after secretary clinton. getting 880,000 documents, in a
benghazi hearing that went forever and ever and never found anything. i happen to believe 700 former prosecutors, who indicated that the mueller report describes several acts to satisfy all elements for an obstruction charge conduct. congresswoman jackson lee didn't say this. chairman nadler did not say this precise statement as a former federal prosecutor. it's 700 who have indicated that the actions of this president warrant an obstruction charge. in addition, we have a right to understand the underlying reasons regarding the collusion report. but the very fact that the collusion part of the mueller report recounts the constant interaction of trump operatives, with russian adversaries, the american people should be wary. and they should ask us why.
and we should write legislation, i would introduce hr-2353, that says if you interact with a russian operative, or foreign adversary, as a campaign committee, or candidate, you must report it to the fbi. and so this is part of our legislative work. and i would argue the case, that our friends on the other side of the aisle, to not be noted in history of standing at the door of justice, in this room, and putting up a stop sign that we cannot pursue the truth on behalf of the american people. we have gone over and over and over and over again that there are allegations of obstruction of justice that need to be heard in front of this committee. i say this, mr. mueller, a former marine, a man of integrity, i will say to him, in the open proceeding, we welcome you to come, and explain your position on how disturbed you were that the attorney general characterized your report as an
exoneration of this administration. secondarily, i want to say to mr. mcgahn, you are a private citizen, you have every right to present yourself to this body. and also, that the conduct of president trump described in special counsel mueller's report, or in the case of any other person, if not having the office of legal counsel policy against and indicting sitting president would result in felony charges, there are people incarcerated right now, because of lesser charges. i don't want to target the president, mr. chairman. i simply want to find the truth for the american people. and that's why we're here today. to vote on this citation. for lacking of producing of documents. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman -- >> the gentleman for wisconsin, for what purposes. >> the last word. >> recognized. >> mr. chairman, i think we ought to step back from the political rhetoric, and ask
exactly what this contempt citation deals with. i'm going to try to use my time to do that. first and foremost, and most concerning to every american, or at least it should be, is the fact that they want an unredacted report that includes information on grand jury testimony. the economy, by making this insistence, and issuing this subpoena, is telling the attorney general of the united states to commit a crime. because it is a crime for anybody to disclose grand jury material to anybody else. that includes the attorney general, and it includes the prosecutors in the justice department and it includes the witnesses who have been subpoenaed and have testified before the grand jury. it means everybody. and if the grand jury system is to work, and remember, witnesses can't even bring their attorneys
into a grand jury, then the secrecy is going to have to be maintained. now, all of us know that it's really impossible for the people who work on this capitol hill to keep a secret. if there is an unredacted version, completely unredacted version, including the grand jury testimony, which is unredacted, it will be on the front page of every newspaper in the country within 48 hours. and talked about incessantly on the cable news shows, whether you watch fox news, or whether you watch msnbc. now, i think it is absolutely shocking that the majority of this committee is going to ask the chief law enforcement officer of the united states to committee a crime. shocking. and there are no exceptions to what is to be disclosed in this unredacted version.
that includes the grand jury testimony. and by citing the attorney general of the united states for contempt of congress, we're saying i'm standing up for the law, i am not going to break the law by complying with that part of your subpoena, shows an overreach on the part of the majority. if we are to be a government of laws, and not of men, or people, then we have to obey the law on this end of pennsylvania avenue, as well as on the other end of pennsylvania avenue. and we are not doing that. now, what else has been redacted? there's been redactions relative to ongoing investigations. now, do we want to let the people at the justice department, that the justice department is investigating know all about the ongoing investigations? i don't think the public interest is served by that. whether somebody's guilty or not
should be determined by the jury. in a trial. that's what the american system is. and that's what a lot of the bill of rights protects. you also have a protection against people who are peripherally involved in that. and they were just on the edges of this, they were interviewed, and nothing came of the interview, because they didn't have any evidence on what was being investigated. but there is a character assassination squad running around this town, that even if you are on the periphery, and went and voluntarily talked to the fbi, or mr. mueller's team, you're going to end up having your good name and your reputation smeared, even though you didn't do anything. so this is definitely an overreach. those reactions, redactions, excuse me, ended up being justified redactions, and i can
understand the reluctance on the part of the attorney general, or anybody else that watches the way this institution and the people who work here operate, that anything that is supposed to not get out in the public realm, will get out in the public realm with a leak. and if this place weren't as leaky as a sieve, i would not be opposed to what the chairman is doing, because i have stood up for oversight during my entire career, in this body. but it is leaky as a sieve. and i think what we're doing here is forcing the attorney general to break the law, to place in jeopardy innocent people, you know, who are not involved in any of the things that mr. mueller ended up investigating, and shaming ourselves in the process. my time is up. >> for what purposes does the
gentleman from tennessee seek recognition. >> last word. >> recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. the attorney general has been contemptuous of this committee and of the congress. he was contemptuous last week when he didn't come, when he couldn't dictate the terms of the hearing. he's contemptuous this week, when he will not bring forth papers. the chairman has tried to reach accommodation with the justice department. all cases in the past with such issues have been raised by grand jury testimony, the attorney general has gone with the majority party, the chairman, to the direct court, and asked that that information be released to the committee for its purposes. this attorney general has not done that. if he would have done that, and tried to make a reasonable accommodation, to join with us in going to judge powell, we would not be in this situation, but there has been nothing reasonable from this attorney general.
mr. sensenbrenner talks about people on the periphery. we don't know who those people were, but we know that big barr decided who was testimony, which testimony would be redacted because people were on the periphery and to protect their reputations. this is the same person who gave a three and a half page summary of the mueller report that did not, according to special counsel mueller, who knew it better than anyone else, reflect the character and the spirit of the report. and he knew mr. mueller objected to it for not being an accurate representation of his work, and yet he did it, and when asked about it by mr. cyst in committee, he had no idea that mr. mueller or anybody in the mueller special counsel investigation would have objected. that's not true. he lied when mr. kcrist asked him that question. that is beyond contempt. that is a lie. so we're depending on mr. barr's determining who was on the periphery and what their reputations would suffer. we're talking about the opportunity for congress to do
its proper oversight as described in article one of the constitution which is being trampled upon. the trump administration refuses to respond to any subpoenas. destroying article one and congress's prerogatives. now, we had a question, i think, it was maybe the ranking member, said we should be doing legislation and how many signatures, how many bills have been signed into law by this committee. well, ask mitch mcconnell, who has declared that the senate is a grave yard for all legislation that comes from the house. we have passed outstanding legislation out of this committee, it's gone to the grave yard. where mitch mcconnell, who first kills supreme court nominees, of the last president of the united states, in his one-year before, and voids, and frustrates the constitutional prerogative of the president, to nominate members to the supreme court, but now, frustrates the other
house by not having hearings whatsoever. somebody said we're afraid. yes, we're afraid. we're afraid of the loss of the rule of law. we're fraid of the loss of the loss of the power of congress to be an independent and co-equal branch of government. and we faid face that today if we don't stand up. and somebody else said that russia, there are no connections and nothing with russian collusion. well, the mueller report says there was sweeping and systemic efforts by the russians to influence our election, and they were done so to help trump. and the mueller report showed lots of connections between the trump campaign and russia, lots of contacts, and didn't, but didn't show that he had all of the elements to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they conspired together. there is a big difference between not having connections, and haves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. then mr. trump gets on the telephone with mr. putin, and has a 90-minute conversation, or something like that, where he
can see on a phone call that he smiled at him. and gets flattered. and never broaches the subject of russian interference in our next election, or russian interference whatsoever. that was one of the prime parts of the mueller report, that the russians interfered and that our intelligence officials had confirmed and told us, and that our fbi has told us, and that we know they did it in 2018 and they are going to do it more in 2020, but our president did not even mention it to mr. putin. that is scary. we are afraid of interference in the 2020 elections. and we need to be. and we need to be because we've got a man who has been suggested might be -- >> so that was the scene this morning, when the house judiciary committee gavelled in too today's hearing, we're returning live now to the hearing room, members have returned from floor votes. we expect a final vote on this contempt resolution by the committee. the contempt resolution for attorney general william bar this afternoon. you see the chairman,