tv William Barr Testifies on Mueller Report Before Senate Judiciary Committee... CSPAN May 4, 2019 12:28pm-2:51pm EDT
my time is up. >> commonly used by me. >> thank you very much. we'll come back at ten till 1:00. thank you. >> their questioning of the attorney general after the break. questions.ok at the end of the hearing, lindsey graham said he would be contacting mr. mueller to discuss reports the special counsel disagreed with mr. barr's handling of the
you mean during the course of the investigation? >> today. it is clear that at one point unhappy.er came was first, has the mueller came changed its mind as to its conclusions? >> as to what? >> conclusions as to conspiracy and collusion. >> not as far as i know. >> the conclusion not to bring an indictment to conspiracy with russia has not changed. >> it has not. i take it from your testimony
that the mueller came was unhappy when you receive the .oader or mr. mueller >> i cannot speak as to the team. when i talked about mueller, he was concerned about the press coverage and he felt that was to be remedied by putting out more information. thatunderstood you decide the first concern mr. mueller had was he felt like your letter was not nuanced enough. >> correct. it was sort of salt by putting out the whole report. it made clear from the beginning that i was pu putting out the report as much as i could. it was going to take three weeks or four to do that.
the question is what is the placeholder? the placeholder in my judgment statement of what the bottom line conclusions were. >> the second reason mr. mueller was concerned was about press coverage. wase indicated that what inaccurate was the press coverage and what they were interpreting the march 24 letter to say. >> what would you supposed to do about that? >> he wanted to put out the full executive summaries that are
incorporated in the report. i said to him i was not interest -- the summaries when he sent more they required redaction because of the intelligence community could the fact is we did not have readily available summaries that had been fully vetted. was nott clear to him i in the business of putting out periodic summaries because a summary would start a public debate. i thought we should focus on getting the full report out as quickly as possible, which we did. >> that is your call as attorney general. >> of course. >> the news coverage issue, none of us can control with the news publishes except the media. to the extent that an argument was made, they did not have the fuller work, that is a moot issue. >> yes.
>> can you briefly go over with , i find it curious that the mueller came spent all this time -- team spent all this time investigating obstruction of justice and reached no conclusion. tell me why he could not make up his mind. i really could not recapitulate it. it was unclear to us. we first discussed it on march 5. the deputy was with me. we did not get a clear understanding of the reasoning. the report, i'm not sure exactly what the full line of reasoning is. that is one of the reasons i did not want to try to put words in his mouth. >> he did not choose to bring an
indictment. we know that much. >> right. >> regardless of a reason. i'm going to repeat quickly the thing we talked about last time you were here. this is one person's opinion. as i told you before, i think the fbi is the premier law enforcement agency in all of human history. i think there are a handful of people, maybe some still there, who decided in 2016 to act on their political beliefs. there were two investigations. one was an investigation of donald trump. there was another investigation of hillary clinton. i would like to know how that one started. it would seem to me that we all have a duty, if not to the , toican people, to the fbi find out why these investigations were started, who started them, and the evidence on which they were started.
i hope you will do that and get back to us. there is another short way home as well. all you have to do is release all the documents that the fbi and justice department pertaining to the 2016 election. you can redact national security information, but just release them instead of us going through all this innuendo and leaks and rumors. let's let the american people see them. the final point i will make from it you are investigating leaks at the department of justice and fbi, i hope you will include the mueller team as well. >> thank you. i am going to take us out of the weeds because i think the american people deserve to know what happened in the election for the highest office of the land. i will give you my views quickly. page letterre for was clearly a summary, and that is why director mueller called
it a summary. crist askedntative you if the special counsel disagreed with you under of, you have to go out of your way to not at least mention the fact that he had sent you this letter, but you did not mention it. we must hear from director mueller because in response to some of my colleagues questions you have said you did not know what he meant or why he said it. i believe we need to hear from him. i want to start with russia. special counsel molars report found that the russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a sweeping and systematic fashion. wray informedor rat us 2016 was the dress reversal for 2020. us ther coates has told russians are getting bolder. years, senatoro
langford and i have been trying to get the secure elections act passed. this will wire back up paper ballots. if anyone gets federal funding in the election, it would require on it and better cooperation. the white house, just as we were on the verge of getting an markup the rules committee and getting it to the floor, the white house made calls to stop this. real aware of that? >> no. >> what i would like to know from you if you will work with senator langford and i to get this bill done because otherwise we are not going to have any clout to get back up paper ballots anything goes wrong in this election. >> i will work with you to enhance the security of our election. i will take a look at what you are proposing. i am not familiar with the. >> it is the bipartisan bill. it has senator byrd and senator
warner, senator graham, senator harris. significant support in the house as well. gru targeted u.s. state and local agencies responsible for electronic polling and voter registration. they accessed voter information a motoralled malware on technology companies network. efforts to gain access to florida election data. will you commit to have the fbi provide a briefing to all senators on this? >> on the florida situation? >> on the entire russia situation. >> sure. >> that will be helpful. senator langford and i are trying to get our bill passed.
irarding to the report, the purchased over 3500 and on ads on facebook to undermine our democracy. i am pleased that chairman graham as agreed to be the lead republican on the honest advertisements act i introduced last year with senator mccain. will you help us to change our election laws so we can show where the money is coming from and who is paying for these ads? >> the concept, yes. >> thank you. we need that support. in theng i noted opening, he talked about how the major concerns at your nomination hearing were about the report and making the report public. there was a third concern that i raised, and that was your views
on obstruction. i ask you if a president or any person convincing a witness to change testimony would be obstruction of justice. you said yes. the report found that michael cummins testimony to the house before it that the president repeatedly implied that collins family members had committed crimes. you consider that evidence to be an attempt to convince a witness ?o change testimony >> no. i don't think those above statements could pass muster as subordination. the president of the united states is getting out there that your family members have committed a crime. you don't consider that any
.ttempt to change testimony >> you have the question of whether it is obstructive or whether it is correct intent. i don't think general public statements like that, we could show they have sufficiently .robable effect >> told paul manafort that he would be taken care of. you don't consider that obstruction of justice. >> not standing alone. on the same reasons. >> that is my point. you look at the totality of the evidence. that is what i learned when i was in law school. you look at the totality of the evidence in the pattern. the report found that the
president's personal counsel cohen that if he stayed on message, the president had his back. >> the special counsel acknowledged it was unclear whether he was reflecting the president's statements on that. >> the report found that the president himself called him a brave man for refusing to break. not obstruction because the president's statement, the evidence of what the president's lawyers would about the statements flipping are quite clear and express. uniformly the same, which is that by flipping he meant's toing -- payment succumbing pressure on other cases. that discouraging flipping
in that sense is not obstruction. >> look at the pattern. told him to hang in there and stay strong. the report found that after national security advisor michael flynn resigned, the president made public positive comments about him and when he could walk changed his tune. during your confirmation hearing, i ask you whether a -- would deliberately be obstruction. you said yes. mcgann to create a false record when the president -- when he to have told him to deny reports, he says deny reports that the president ordered him to have the counsel fired.
if you don't see that as obstruction and directing him to change testimony, do you think that would create a false record to impair the integrity of evidence? the evidence would not be sufficient to establish any of the three elements. first, it is not sufficient to act becausetive it is unclear whether the president knew that to be false. the focus on the fact that i never told you to fire mcgann, did i ever say fire? i never told you to fire mcgann. i am getting into impairing the integrity of the evidence. i see it as different. >> it is hard to establish the nexus to the proceeding because he had already testified to the special counsel.
he had given his evidence. the report said there is evidence the report actually thought and the president believed the report was wrong. he actually thought it was wrong and was asking for its correction. it is possible that the directed's intent was at the publicity in the press. the government has to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. there isport shows, ample evidence on the other side of the ledger that would prevent the government from establishing that. >> i look at the totality of the evidence. when you look at it, it is a pattern. that is different from having one incident. >> thank you. i would like to go back to russia and your opening statement laid out some of what done, whathad
russian military intelligence had done in terms of hacking. i would like to look at some of the oligarchs. one, are largely about their pocket. can you tell us who he is and what his objectives are. >> i would rather not get into that in this open setting. quote theat least department of treasury. he is a designated individual. he possesses a russian diplomatic passport. he claims to represent the russian government. he is an aluminum and metals billionaire. he has been investigated by the u.s. government and allies for money laundering. he has been accused of threatening the lives of his is this rivals. -- business rivals. he has bribed government officials.
he has links to russian organized crimes. we can at least agree he is a bad dude. this is a bottom feeding scum sucker. absolutely no alignment with the interests of the u.s. people and are public. the section of volume one that deals with paul manafort but is him, i would like you to help us understand what is and is not allowed. for manafort is hired things related to ukraine. they have a bunch of failed business ventures together. he is on the payroll of a russian oligarch that has interests completely misaligned with the american government. he is on his payroll. is it permissible for someone to be paid by somebody who is basically an enemy of the united states from and could that
individual volunteer and start to donate their time and talent and expertise to a campaign in the u.s.? one of the things i think is painfully tragic about a hearing like this, the vast majority of the american people are going to tune out. they will think the only takeaways are that a bunch of people are pro-trump before they came, and a bunch of people are anti-trump, and we did not dig into what the report said. i think these pages site a lot of important things about intelligence operations against the united states. i think it is not just about 2016. there are important questions about 2016. discussed howm much money and time was available to the special counsel. there are facts about 2016 that matter. if one of the facts we take away from this needs to be we are
going to be under attack in 2020, and it is not just what to be russia, but it is likely going to be china, who is much more sophisticated about this. can you help us understand what is legal and illegal about foreign intelligence services being involved in u.s. elections. what should the american people know about what is appropriate and not appropriate to take from help from foreign intelligence agencies? >> that is a very broad topic. could you refine it a little bit? are you talking about what kind of propaganda coming into the country. money, foreign money into a campaign. china decide to come into the u.s. government look at all the political count,
which theabase, chinese government is creating a database they can leverage against american people. could they come in and build a database of all campaign operatives in the u.s. and some foreign entity higher than? -- hire them? could we have u.s. citizens paid for by foreign entities just choosing to volunteer on campaigns going forward? is that legal? >> if their time is paid for for the purpose of participating in the campaign, i would not think it is legal. >> given how sleazy so much of this city is coming is it always obvious what you are paid for versus what you do? some russian oligarch decides to start putting american campaign
operatives on retainer, and we in need to have the lobby the future, and by the way feel free to go and do whatever you want whenever you want. is that allowed under u.s. law? >> it depends on the specific circumstances, the nature of the agreement, who the person is representing. are they a foreign agent? are they register? registered? it is a slippery area. we could sit here all day. >> i only have seven minutes. i don't have all day. i think it would be helpful for us to have a shared understanding of what campaign operatives should understand is beyond the pale.
if the chinese government decides sister hacking into the 2020 campaign, i would hope there is clarity from the department of justice about whether or not democratic presidential campaigns are allowed to say we are interested in this hacke materiald going forward. i think there are a bunch of counterintelligence investigations happening right now in the u.s. where campaigns don't really understand what the laws are. under the presidential once you have a republican and democratic nominee, you start to brief them on in the event that you would become the president-elect, you would need to know where we are on different national security issues. should we be adding to the presidential transition act counter intelligence briefings for campaigns if they become the
nominee in a much more detailed way than the response you had about the bureaus efforts? should we be thinking about authorizing the ability of the bureau, should nominees for the highest office in the land heading into 2020 be receiving regular counterintelligence briefings on the fact that foreign intelligence agencies are going to be surrounding people of interest? >> absolutely. i think the danger from countries like china, russia and so forth is far more insidious because of nontraditional collectors they have operating in the united states. i think most people are unaware of how pervasive it is and the risk level. i think it should go far beyond
campaigns. >> thank you. i am a time. i would love to work with you on that more. i think there are a number of members of the senate intelligence committee who know what you are saying about the chinese government and their attempt to encircle lots of people who are going to have influence in the future. as a full of society african we have to become much more sophisticated about what foreign intelligence services are plotting for the future. >> the pattern is, whenever there is an election, foreign governments frequently to send on the people they think could have a shot at winning. it is common. the most typical scenario is they try to make contacts. era, youigital, cyber anymore.ed a bar
you can surround people digitally. we need to up our game. thanks. >> will have hearings about all that minus the bar and hooker. >> i want to follow-up on some .f that last questioning the special counsel was appointed to investigate russia's attack on our 2016 election and potential coordination with the trump campaign. i'm glad the chairman started this. by recognizing we need to contact our elections going forward. i look forward to working with my colleagues whether it is on we needs bills, but leadership from you and the white house and our president to make sure we're doing everything we can to protect our next election. we also cannot ignore volume two
of this report, which i think details unacceptable conduct by the president and his campaign. that includes trying to fire the special counsel without cause. a bill to try to protect the special counsel, something i think is still worth doing for future special counsel's. we were told there was nothing to worry about because the president was not going to fire the special counsel. i was struck by reports that the president attempted to do exactly that. i have concerns that your march 24 letter of security that conduct and work to protect the president for several weeks rather than give the full truth to the american people as special counsel mueller was urging you to do reflected in the letter we just received today. the bottom line is i think we need to hear more about the special counsel's work from the special counsel. in juneg to the report,
2017, president trump called white house counsel mcgann and directed to have him removed the special counsel. he called him at home twice and on both occasions directed him said mueller had conflicts and could no longer serve as special counsel. there were no credible conflicts. mcgann testified that he had shared these conflicts were silly, not real, that there was no substantive basis to fire the special counsel. muellerident said tell has to go. i presume he does not mean go to cleveland or seattle. i think the president's demands to fire mueller without cause are alarming and unacceptable. not one bit of what i just described was in your march 24 letter to this committee, was
it? >> no. >> but it was in the summary's offer to you by special counsel mueller and his team, which you chose not to release. is that correct? >> they were in complete form in the final report, which i made public. >> which i respect and appreciate. >> three weeks passed between when you deliver the letter and the focus on the principal conclusions and when we ultimately got the redacted report. what i take from the mueller report. >> why were they critical? >>i think the volume to summary would reveal to the general public a whole range. i will go to a second episode that i think is important.
he wanted a fraudulent letter for white house records. there is nothing about the president request to create a false record. >> that is your characterization of it. would be difficult for the government to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. what i was trying to get out was the final report and had one issue with the complete report. clear that bob mueller did not make the decision, but that he felt he could not , andrate the president
that he was presenting both sides of the issue, all of the evidence, but he felt he could not exonerate the president. then i briefly describe the process we went through to make a judgment. there should only be one thing issue, a complete report is complete as can be. >> my concern is that gave president trump and his folks more than three weeks to say i was completely exonerated. we would have been more motivated than ever to work cooperatively to protect our next election and more concerned and by some of his
court tame. you had a number of exchanges with colleagues who said i can't tell you why mueller chose not to charge. i want to hear that from bob mueller. i think we should hear from special counsel bob mueller. let me ask about four and intelligence in the role in our election. george papadopoulos was told russia had a direct contacted donald trump junior and offered to give dirt about his father's opponent. >> who did you say offered it? >> in the second instance russians made offers to donald trump.
going forward, what if an adversary offers a presidential candidate dirt on 2020. do you agree they should , aediately contact representative of foreign governments as we have dirt on your opponent, should they say i love it, let's meet? here is my core concern. the president ordered the white house counsel to have mueller fired and fabricated evidence to cover it up. could make at it criminal charge at this, it is unacceptable. the russians offered the trump campaign dirt on hillary clinton and the trump campaign never reported that to the fbi. they tried to conceal the meeting and mislead the american people. i think we have to work on a
bipartisan basis going for to protect our elections from a repeat of this. had announced you had cleared the president 25 days before the public could read the more report for themselves. specialit's no wonder counsel bob mueller thought your letter created confusion about the results of the investigation and that threatened to undermine the central purpose for which you were appointed. i think we need to hear from special counsel mueller, i think we need to hear from john -- from don began and review how 12 ongoingervising cases that came out of the .ueller investigation this body has a central role in oversight that i believe we need to exercise, given your recent record. >> general bar, i commend your
in calling what it is in 2016, which is spying on the trump campaign and spying on the united states. to intelligence investigations, which we know the fbi launched against candidate and president trump, were designed to enforce spying and sabotage, is that correct? >> that is correct. them at your knowledge did the fbi ever launch another counterintelligence that the addition of another president? >> not to my knowledge. a lot to your knowledge this move was completely unprecedented. would it be unusual for fbi agents to hide the existence and results of an investigation from their superiors? and in fact that's in the let press reports happened here.
when fbi officials hide investigations from superiors, what happens to that? accountability. >> have you launched -- have a look in to the decision about why the fbi launched a counterintelligence investigation? and will you commit telling us what you find as the result of your own investigation. >> at the end of the day when i form conclusions i tend to share it. >> let me ask you about the 25th amendment. we know former acting director of the fbi, and mccabe contemplating using the 25th amendment. had fbi officials ever contemplated forcing a president out of office against his will? them and not to my knowledge. when the president is unable
to act -- would you agree that contemplates physical ailments such as a coma, mental incapacitation, not just political difference of opinion. >> yes. pam have you ever doubted whether this president is physically able to discharge his duties. no. give theyou believe -- public at best reason to question what the guys doing and if you're there may be abuses of power? >> i think it gives reason to be concerned about those particular individuals who were involved. individuals who were involved, i have listened to this testimony all day today. maybe the most shocking thing i've heard is this. 2016 -- august 26,
2016. says, "just went to a southern virginia walmart. i could smell the trump support you want to know what's really going on here, want to know why the counterintelligence investigation happened? that's why. it's because an unelected bureaucrat, and unelected who has open disdain, if not outright hatred for trump voters -- "i could smell the trump support," then try to overturn the results of a democratic election. that's why we're here today. i cannot believe a top official
with this government, with the kind of power these people had, would try to exercise their own prejudice. and that is what this is. it is open, blatant prejudice. to my mind that is the real crisis. it is a crisis. if there is not accountability. if this can go on in the united states america, goodness gracious, we do not have a democracy anymore. i appreciate your leadership. i look forward to hearing the results of your investigation and to this committee continuing its constitutional responsibility to find out what is going on here. >> chairman blumenthal? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, attorney general barr, for being here today. you have been very adroit and agile in answering questions, but i think history will judge you harshly and a bit unfairly because you seem to have been the designated fall guy for this report.
and i think that conclusion is inescapable. in light of the four page summary, and then the press conference you did on the day it was released, knowing that you had in hand a letter from the special counsel saying that he felt that you mischaracterized his report. you were asked by one of my colleagues, senator van hollen, what you know, whether you knew that bob mueller supported your conclusions.
and you said, i don't know whether bob mueller supported my conclusion. >> excuse me, senator. atty. gen. barr: that conclusion. it was not related to my description of the findings in the march 24 letter. that conclusion refers to my conclusion on the obstruction cases. it's a different conclusion. >> the same words in the conclusions used by special counsel mueller. and on the obstruction issue, page 8 and 182 of the report. i do not know whether you have it in front of you, the special counsel specifically said -- "if we had confidence after a thorough investigation the president clearly did not commit instruction of justice we would
so state." he said again in page 192. yet in your summary and in the press conference that you did, you in effect cleared the president on both so-called collusion and obstruction of justice. atty. gen. barr: the differences he said again in page 192. i use the proper standard. that statement you read is a very strange statement -- >> for a prosecutor. on four of the specific obstruction episodes, mueller concluded that there was substantial evidence on four, on the three necessary elements of obstruction. on -- atty. gen. barr: you are a prosecutor. >> i have to finish my question. atty. gen. barr: you have not let me finish my answer. >> we can do both. you ignored in that press conference and in the summary that robert mueller found substantial evidence, and it's
in the report, and we have a chart that shows the elements of that crime, intent, interference with an ongoing investigation, and the obstruct of that. so, i think that your credibility is undermined within the department. in this committee. and with the american people. and i want to ask you whether on those remaining 12-14 investigations whether you have had any communication with anyone in the white house? atty. gen. barr: no. >> and will you give us an ironclad commitment -- atty. gen. barr: a laundry list of investigation but i certainly have not talked the substance and been directed to do anything on any cases.
>> let me give you an opportunity to clarify. have you had any conversations with anyone in the white house about those ongoing investigations that were spawned or spun off by -- atty. gen. barr: i do not recall having any substantive discussions on the investigation. >> have you had any non-substitute. atty. gen. barr: is possible the name of the case was mentioned. >> have you provided any information about, any any information whatsoever? atty. gen. barr: i don't recall. >> wouldn't you recall whether you gave information to somebody in the white house about an ongoing criminal investigation in the southern district of new york or the eastern district of new york or the eastern district of virginia or the department of justice? atty. gen. barr: yeah i mean, i just don't recall providing any substantive information about a case.
>> is there anything that will refresh your recollection? atty. gen. barr: if i probably looked over list of cases and thought about it. but i don't recall. >> you know what those investigations are. we discussed them at your confirmation hearing, correct? atty. gen. barr: i think there are 12 or 18 cases, right? >> you don't know what those investigations are? atty. gen. barr: i do generally. >> let me ask you one last time. you can't recall whether you have discussed those cases with anyone in the white house, including the president of the united states? atty. gen. barr: my recollection is i have not discussed then, don't recall for sure. i -- >> let me move on. atty. gen. barr: i can say very sure i did not discuss the substance. >> will you recuse yourself from those investigations? atty. gen. barr: no.
>> let me ask you about a couple of quotes from the president since a number of my colleagues have raised the russian investigation and these are from the report, untruths from the president. in december 2016 when president trump was asked about the intelligence community's conclusion that russia interfered in our election he said he had "no idea if it is russia, china, or somebody. it could be somebody sitting in a bed someplace." atty. gen. barr: 400 pound person. >> i'm sorry, mr. chairman? >> 400 pound person. >> that is not what the president said. he referred to it as somebody. he also at helsinki denied russian attacks in 2016 on our election. another lie. two days after president trump
was elected, russian officials told the press the russian government had maintained contacts with trump's "immediate was elected, russian officials entourage" during the campaign when president trump was asked about it, he said " there was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entity during the campaign. page 21 of volume 2. the first quote i gave you was from page 21 of volume 2. the president denied playing any role in shaping his son's statement to the press about the now infamous june 9 meeting. the mueller report established the president dictated a misleading statement about that meeting through his communications director, page 101 and 102 of volume 2. after news organizations reported that the president ordered mr. mcgahn to have the special counsel removed, the president publicly disputed these accounts.
the mueller report establishes that " substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the president in fact directed mcgahn to call rosenstein to have the special counsel removed." volume 2, page 88. in your view did the president on those occasions and others recited in the report lied to the american people? atty. gen. barr: i'm not in the business of determining when lies are told to the american people. i'm in the business of determining whether a crime has been committed. >> so, he may have lied. you started by citing -- atty. gen. barr: by citing this thing in volume 2 about how the report says that they could not be sure they could clearly say that he did not violate the law. you know that is not the standard we use in the criminal justice system. it's presumed that someone is innocent, and the government has
to prove that they clearly violated the law. we're not in the business of exoneration, not in the business of proving they didn't violate -- >> you exonerated him in your press conference and in your four page summary. atty. gen. barr: how did that start? i didn't hear the beginning of the question. >> you exonerated or cleared the president. atty. gen. barr: no, i didn't exonerated. i said we did not believe there was sufficient evidence to establish obstruction. which is -- the job of the justice department. and the job is now over. that determines whether or not there is a crime. the report is in the hands of the american people. everyone can decide for themselves. there is an election in 18 months. a very democratic process. we have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon. >> my time has expired, i apologized, mr. chairman but i would say that four page letter
and the press coverage that you do left it clear impression and it has been repeated again and again that you cleared the president. >> thank you. senator? >> thank you, attorney general barr for being here today investing with all of us. the special counsel's investigation and, all the ripples that came from the 2016 presidential election have really permeated the country. there is great interest in this. as i'm touring the 99 counties of iowa, i am asked about this at townhalls and other interactions with my constituents just as much as any other issue at hand. i'm sure many of the other senators here have had the same experience. and i'd like to start today by -- about the actions of russia
during the 2016 presidential election. i think that's where a lot of us would like to see the focus go. we need to focus on what happened in the 2016 election and then look ahead and make sure we are safeguarding our processes. so, i think it's natural to think of acts of aggression by a foreign state in terms of bullets, in terms of bombs. that is what we typically thought of as acts of aggression up until recent days, acts of aggression or warfare has been a symmetrical operation by a foreign adversary. in the past it was practiced by boots on the ground or various bombing campaigns. but that is not what we are facing today. and i do believe that we saw from russia was an act of aggression. other adversary a foreign
states, not just russia, but i think a number of colleagues have mentioned china as well, north korea, iran, we could go on and on. not only do they practice direct, hostile military action just as russia did in ukraine with its illegal annexation of crimea, but as was detailed in the special counsel's report, they seek to influence the elections of our free states through cyber means. and it is an objective fact that russia attempted to influence our elections. we know that, folks. all of us admit to that. we see the evidence that russia tried to influence our elections. the hacks, the disinformation and social media cyber attacks by russia were done with the intent to sow discord among the american people. russia will show no hesitation. they have not in the past, they will not in the future, in using these types of acts of aggression in an attempt to
undermine our elections process and our way of life. it doesn't matter if the attack is coming from the end of the barrel of a gun or a click of a mouse. we have to get to the bottom of it. and, so, general barr, the past two years we have been talking about this investigation in terms of what happened. and now we have the opportunity to decide how to do better. so, the special counsel's report is the end of the road. many have stated that, the end of the road when it comes to the question of the trump administration's intent but it is just beginning of the conversation on how we counter russian and other foreign adversaries in their attempts to undermine our republic. so, if we can talk about that 2016 presidential election. do you see vulnerabilities or weaknesses that existed at that time that left us open to foreign aggression, foreign influence in the elections? and then how do we move forward to the department of justice in
making sure we are shoring up some of those avenues -- for foreign adversaries? atty. gen. barr: yes. the fbi has a very robust program. the foreign influence task force, which is focused on this problem. and is working to counteract and prepare for the kinds of interference that we, have seen. and it's a very dynamic program. i've been briefed on it by chris wray. i'm very impressed with what they are up to. i think that, the way i view this general problem is there have always been efforts by russia and other hostile countries to influence american elections and public opinion, but it was more easily detectable and it was a cruder operation in the past.
and what we have now is the technology and democratization of information, the danger is far more insidious. and it enables not only them getting into effectively our whole communications system in the united states. just the way we communicate with each other and in to our business systems, our infrastructure. but it also allows him to do exactly what we have seen, which is, because of our robust first amendment freedoms, they can come in and pretend they are americans and affect the dialogue and the social dynamics in the united states in a way they have never been able to do before. it's a huge challenge to deal with it, but i think the intelligence community is responding to the challenge and the threat. i had this discussion with bob mueller on march 5 when he was briefing me on his work, and
discussing lessons learned, what he has seen in dismantling the threats that he was able to detect and how we can start using that approach across the board. >> so, i think we've accomplished a lot through our federal agencies and through the department of justice then. are we able to work with different social media giants, other private organizations to help counter some of this? do you see they are stepping up to the challenge, taking this on and making sure that they are pushing back as well against what they might determine as a foreign adversary? atty. gen. barr: yes. i think the private companies are stepping up their game and being more responsible in addressing it. >> i think that is important. i'm sorry, go-ahead. i just think it's important that we really focus on why we are
here today, and that is because we did see russian influence in our 2016 presidential election. we need to make sure that many of our other colleagues have noticed is that this does not happen to us again. that we are aware, and as a publicly are aware of what has been happening not just in our own elections process in the united states. but to many of our allies around the globe, in making sure that we are adequately pushing back against that. and even over matching and making sure that we keep that type of influence out of our election cycle. so, i appreciate your time today. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. barr, now the american people know that you are no different from rudy giuliani or kellyanne conway or any other the people that sacrifice their once decent reputation for the grifter and liar in the oval office. you once turned down a job offer from donald trump to represent him as his private attorney.
at your confirmation hearing you told senator feinstein that "the job of attorney general is not the same as representing the president." you know the difference for you have chosen to be the president's lawyer and side with him. to start with you should never have been involved in supervising the robert mueller investigation. you wrote a 19 page unsolicited memo, which you admit not based on any fact, attacking the premise of half the investigation. you also should have insisted that rod rosenstein recuse himself. he was not just a witness to some of the president's obstructive behavior. we now know he was infrequent personal contact with the president, the subject of the investigation. then once the report was delivered by the special counsel, you delayed its release
for more than two weeks. you let the president's personals lawyers look at it before you even deigned to let congress or the public see it. during the time he substituted your own political judgment and the special counsel's legal conclusions in a four page letter to congress and now we know that mr. mueller wrote your letter objecting to your so-called summary. when you called mueller to discuss his letter the report are that he thought that your summary was giving the public a misleading impression of his work. he asked you to release their report summary to -- fix the misinformation. when you did finally decide to release the report you call the press conference to once again try to clear donald trump before anyone had a chance to read the special counsel's report and come to their own conclusions. when we read the report we knew
that robert mueller's concerns were valid and your versions of event was false. you used every advantage of the office to create the impression that the president was cleared. you selectively quoted parts of the counsel's report predicted that report, take a statement out of context and ignoring the rest. the power and authority of the office of attorney general and the department of justice behind a public relations effort to help donald trump protect himself. finally, you lied to congress. you told charlie crist that you did not know what objections mueller's team might have. he told senator chris van hollen you did not know if bob mueller supported your conclusions but you knew, you lied. and now we know. a lot of respected nonpartisan legal experts and elected officials were surprised by our
efforts to protect the president. but i wasn't surprise. you did exactly what i thought you would do. it is why i voted against you at the confirmation. i expected he would try to protect the president and indeed you did. in 1989, this isn't something you have not done before. in 1989, when you went to showed -- when you refused to show congress your opinions that led to the arrest of manuel noriega. in 1992 when you recommended pardons for the subject of the iran contra scandal. and last year when you wrote a memo telling donald trump as president can't be guilty of obstruction of justice. and then didn't recuse yourself from the matter. from the beginning you were addressing an audience of one. that person being donald trump. that is why, before the bombshell news of yesterday evening, 11 of my senate colleagues and i called on the department of justice inspector general and office avenue
-- office of professional responsibility to investigate the way the you handle the mueller report. i wanted them to determine whether your actions complied with the department policies and practices and whether it would have demonstrated sufficient impartiality to continue to oversee the 14 other criminal matters the special counsel referred to in other parts of the department of justice. but now we know more about your deep involvement in trying to cover up for donald trump. being attorney general of the united states is a sacred trust. you have betrayed that trust. america deserves better. you should resign. i have some questions for you. is the white house exerting any influence are your decision whether to allow special counsel mueller to testify in congress and when? atty. gen. barr: no. >> now, you have been clear today that you do not think that any of the 10 episodes of possible obstruction the special counsel outlined is a crime.
i disagree. but you seem to think that, if it is not a crime, there is no problem. nothing to see here, nothing to worry about. so, with apologies to adam schiff, do d you think all of those things that president trump did are ok? are they with the president of the united states should be doing? for example, do you think it is ok for a president to fire an fbi director to stop them from investigating links between his campaign in russia? it may not be a crime but do you think it is ok? atty. gen. barr: well, i think the report is clear -- >> i'm not talking about the report. i'm asking you. this is not a crime but do you think it is ok for the president to do what he did, to fire the special counsel to keep them from investigating? atty. gen. barr: i don't think the evidence supports -- >> i guess you think it is ok. do you think it is ok for the president to ask the white house counsel to lie?
atty. gen. barr: i'm willing to talk about what is criminal. >> no, we've already knows that you think it is not a crime. i am asking if you think it is ok. do you think it is ok for the president to ask his white house counsel to lie? atty. gen. barr: which? >> if you're just going to go back -- you're telling me it is ok. let me ask you, do you think it is ok for presidentto offer pardons to people who do not testify against him to threaten the family of someone who does? is that ok? atty. gen. barr: when did he offer a pardoned or someone? >> i think you know what i'm talking about. please, mr. attorney general, give us some credit for knowing what the hell is going on. atty. gen. barr: not really. >> this line of questioning.
you slandered this man. >> how did we get to the point -- >> mr. chairman, i am done. thank you very much. >> you slander this man from top to bottom. if you want more of this, you are not going to get it. if you want to asking questions, you can. >> you certainly have your opinion and i have mine. >> thank you, general barr, for being here today. we appreciate your time. i want to talk with you just a little bit about some of your bottom line conclusions because i think theirs -- there's one we need to kind of circle back to a little bit. as i've listen to a lot of the conversation here today, one of the things we have not discussed is what seems to be the culture at doj and the fbi. i know there are a lot of good
people that work there. we're grateful for their service. but every organization has a culture. and, whether it is a corporate culture or a church or schools or whatever, and what seems to have happened at the fbi is there is seedy, cynical, political culture within a group that developed. and these individuals collectively seem to think that they could work within the power of their jobs and their roles with the federal government. there was an elitism and arrogance there. and it speaks to a very unhealthy work culture within that agency. and i will tell you this when i talked to tennesseans, they talk a lot about what they want to
see with the department of justice and the fbi post all of this, and a restoration of trust and integrity, and accountability. and really in tennessee they will talk to me about four things. they talk a lot about health care, jobs and the economy, they are going to talk about getting federal judges and about reining in government and holding accountable. there has been a lot of hysteria. this is something that grew within the ranks of the fbi. what are you doing and what is your plan for rebuilding that trust and integrity so that the american people can say, when the fbi or the doj does his job, we know that is the job done right? atty. gen. barr: i do not think there is a bad culture in the fbi. i don't think the problems that manifested themselves during the 2016 election are endemic to the
institution. i think the fbi is doing its job. just this recent case in california where the interdicted this would be bomber. they do great work around the country every day. i agree with senator kennedy who said, it's the premier law enforcement institution in the california where the interdicted world. i believe that and i say to the extent there was overreach, i do not want to jobs people's motives and come to a conclusion on that, but to the extent that there was overreach, what we have to be concerned about is, a few people at the top -- uh, getting it into their heads that they know better than the american people. >> and that is the problem. and that is what we hope that you are, um, you are addressing. let's go back to this because to repeat, to the report.
to produce it i think that mr. mueller -- would be called a dream team. a deputy solicitor general, a fluent russian lawyer, supreme court justices and former head of the enron task force, chief of the public corruption union and manhattan u.s. attorney's office, federal prosecutors who have taken down mob bosses and isis terrorists. do you consider these lawyers to be the best and the brightest in the field? atty. gen. barr: not necessarily. >> either warriors he would want on your side in the courtroom? atty. gen. barr: there are a lot of great lawyers and the department of justice. he assembled a very competent team. >> are they meticulous investigators that will hunt down every witness and every piece of evidence? atty. gen. barr: i think they are tenacious investigators.
>> are they devoted to finding the truth? atty. gen. barr: uh, yes. >> are they masters at taking down hardened criminals, foreign and domestic? atty. gen. barr: yes. >> if there were evident to warrant a recommendation for collusion charges against the president you believe that the team would have found it? atty. gen. barr: yes. >> and if there was evidence to warrant a recommendation for instruction of justice charges against the president do you think that mueller team would have found it? atty. gen. barr: uh, i think they had an exhausted -- they canvassed the evidence exhaustively. they did not reach a decision on it. but the question has just been asking raises a point i one of the say when senator who wrote a talking, how did we get to the point here where the evidence is now that the president was falsely accused of colluding with the russians and accused of being treasonous and accused of being a russian agent. and the evidence now is that
that was without a basis. two years of his administration have been dominated by the allegations that have been proven false. and, you know, to listen to some of the rhetoric you would think that the mueller report had found the opposite. >> and, you know, mr. attorney general, that is what tennesseans say? they say how did we get here? how is this -- there this accepted missive saying that that is ok? because it is not. people want to see government held accountable. they want agencies to act with accountability to the american people. they don't want to ever see this happen again. it doesn't matter if a candidate is a democrat or republican or an independent, they never want to see this happen again. because they know this was pointed at using the power that they had to try to tilt an
election or achieve a different outcome and the american people want equal justice. they want respect for the rule of law, and they want fairness from the system. i have one question dealing with social media. tennessee republican party had a, uh, 10_gop account that was set up by the russians. and, you know, either, i think as we look at social media, either there were willing to turn a blind eye and allow these accounts to go up because they knew there were being paid in rubles on some of these accounts. and, or there was just negligence. so, my hope is is that with all of the bad actor states, whether it is russia or iran or north
korea or china, that you all have a game plan for dealing with these platforms in a way that you are willing to recommend for the 2020 election. i yield back. >> thank you. senator booker. sen. booker: thank you, mr. chairman. as i take a step back at this, we are at a sobering moment in american history. that there is a considerable amount going on if you actually take time and read this whole report that shows that we are at a crossroads. and i fear that we are descending into a new normal that is dangerous for our democracy. i fear, i hope we have a chance to discuss this, that you have not only put your own credibility into question but you seem to be giving sanction to behavior through the lender to use in a press conference to health, the language you used in your summary that stimulated mueller to write such a strong rebuking letter.
i fear you are adding normalcy to a point where we should be sounding alarms as opposed to saying that there is nothing to see here. and so, one, this 448 page report that has a litany of lies and deceit and conduct of the president of the united states instructing people to lie and be deceitful, evidence of people trying to cover-up behavior that on its face was morally wrong, whatever the legal standard is, i found it number one, by saying that this kind of obstructive conduct was acceptable, not only acceptable but your sentence saying that the american people should be grateful for it, that is the beginning of normalization i want to explore. the second thing i want to explore. i want to make my two statements at the top. one, that is problematic. the second problem i have is that you seem to be excusing a
campaign literally had hundreds of contacts with the foreign adversary that i think there's a conclusion, a bipartisan conclusion, that there was a failure to even report those contacts. that we engage in behaviors that folks knew were wrong. they tried to actively hide. they seemed to capitalize, seek to capitalize on this foreign interference. in our country we know it is illegal for a campaign and wrong for a campaign to share polling data with an american super pac, but we have here documented a level of coordination with the foreign adversary sharing polling data. and we're, we seem to be, your conduct seems to be trying to normalize that behavior.
i think that is why we are in such a serious moment that could -- that's eroding the cultures of this democracy. let's get into something specifically. you said "we know that the russian operatives who perpetrated these schemes did not have the cooperation of president trump or the trump campaign. that is something that all americans can and should be grateful to have confirmed. " the things i just mentioned, a willingness to meet with russian operatives in order to capitalize that information, i do not think that is something they should be grateful. i find your choice of words alarming. willingness to meet with russian it is- it calls into question your objectivity when you look at the actual context of the report. should the american people be grateful that a candidate for president saw to benefit from material and information that was stolen by a foreign power in an effort to influence an election? atty. gen. barr: i'm not sure what you mean by seek to benefit.
there is no indication that they engaged in any action with respect to the dissemination that was criminal. >> again, sir, you are using the word conspiracy which is a legal term in the press, to use president trump's words of instruction over and over again. you pulled into his words. i'm asking you specifically, i'm sorry. collusion was the word i was looking for. you used the word no collusion over and over again and you said the american people should be grateful that a president saw to benefit from material information but you know he did seek to benefit from that information. donald trump, jr. seemed to celebrate he might have access to information from a foreign adversary. is that correct? atty. gen. barr: apparently, according to the report, he was --
apparently, uh, he was interested in seeing what this russian woman had in the way of quote. >> and did not report it which everything in politics knows it is something that we should do. should the american people be grateful in the face of an attack by a foreing power that the president made several attempts to thwart an investigation into the links between his campaign and russia? using that word grateful. is that something we should be grateful for? atty. gen. barr: i'm not sure what you are talking about. >> sir, i'm talking about the attempts this president made that mueller pointed to at least 10 attempts to thwart an investigation into the links between his campaign in russia. should we be grateful? atty. gen. barr: are you talking about the obstruction part of the report? >> let me continue. should the american people be grateful that the trump campaign had 214 contacts between russian
operatives and then lied about them and tried to hide them? is that something the american people should be grateful for for this president or any down the road? atty. gen. barr: as i mentioned earlier, during the campaign, foreign governments make, and foreign citizens frequently make a lot of attempts to contact different campaigns. >> we have a document that shows over 200 attempts, connection between a presidential campaign and foreign adversary sharing information that would be illegal if you did with the super pac. atty. gen. barr: what information was shared?
>> polling data was shared, i can cite you the page. your willingness to seem to brush over this and use words like the american people should be grateful with this report, nobody should be grateful. concerted efforts for deception for misleading, inappropriate action after inappropriate action that is clear. then, on top of that, at a time that we all recognize that we had a foreign power trying to undermine our election, you the chief law enforcement officer not only undermines your own credibility as an independent actor when there is ongoing investigation still using the word, the president's own words, having a criticized by mueller himself, the challenge we now have is that we are going into an area we seem not to be willing to be in the least bit critical in your summarization> i believe that calls into your credibility and, again, my time is up. >> senator tillis. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
in the last sentence on page one of your four page memo, it states that the special counsel issued more than 2800 subpoenas and 500 search warrant's, attained 230 orders for the mutation records, issued 50 orders authorized in the use of registers and may 13 request from foreign governments for evidence and interviewed 500 people. that seems like a pretty extensive investigation. took about 22 months. atty. gen. barr: right. >> it was summarized the little over 400 page document. volume 2 was just under 200 pages. the new normal it seems to be created here is, even after all of this investigation and you have not found any conduct worthy of an dimon you can just bounce for political reasons and
indict somebody. that's a rhetorical statement, question not a statement. i want to go back to the other part i find interesting. the new york times issued a headlight that -- a headline that says mueller pushed in letter for barr to release the report summary. the narrative, and doesn't this undermine the attorney general because mueller wanted the executive summaries issued? now i want to go back to what you said in your opening statement. you said that, i believe using your words, the body politic, was unrestful. you had to do the redacting. you knew that would take time. that would've been helpful if you had gotten that when the report was transmitted to you. and it took however long it took. you issued this summary, u sed the analogy of announcing the verdict and when he for the transcript.
did you ever at any point say, you know what i really want to do is issue this letter and let the news media play with it for three or four weeks and then we will get the redacted version out? did that ever cross your mind? to get it done as soon as possible? atty. gen. barr: no, we were pushing to get the report out as soon as possible. >> at any point in time, it when the president had their time to assert executive privilege, over the course of the we see were doing the review of the report, did you ever get advice from the president or from anybody in the white house to assert executive privilege only deck any portion of the document? atty. gen. barr: no. >> none. so, the narrative between the letter and the reduction process was we're going to get a report that' 80% redacted. would you give me the numbers again on the version that is available to the leadership of congress? you said 1/10 of 1%. we are skipping over time one -- volume one. did i hear you say that legislative leaders have access to all but 1/10 of 1% of the entire report?
atty. gen. barr: yes. >> guys, you can spin this anyway you want to but the data is there. there was no underlying crime and there was insufficient evidence to indict the president on obstruction of justice. you said something that was interesting that we found no evidence that was sufficient to indict. then they went on to say nor can we exonerate. when is a special counsel in the business of exonerating a subject on an investigation? atty. gen. barr: they are not. >> why would someone put something like that and a report? atty. gen. barr: i don't know. >> it was followed you would not have included that in the summary before the full context of the report could be produced? atty. gen. barr: that is a fair statement. i did put in the senate is about not exoneration. >> yeah. i think that that the thing that frustrates me, number one, i should've started by saying
this, the vast majority of people in the department of justice and the fbi are extraordinary people. the chairman is right. starting with -- and everybody else leading up to the investigation, i hope they are being investigated. the scope of the oig, do you understand or do you know what the scope of that report will be? will it be purely on this investigation or extend to other acts that may have influenced this investigation? atty. gen. barr: i don't want to be too specific. i talked to -- michael horowitz a few weeks ago about it. and it's focused on the fisa, the basis for the fisa, and the handling of the fisa handling of the fisa applications but by necessity or looks back a little bit earlier than that. the people i have helping me with my review will be working very closely with mr. horowitz.
>> let me go back again because we about people talking. i'm clear in this report there was no underlying crime, is that correct? atty. gen. barr: yes. that's the conclusion of the report. >> and there was insufficient evidence to assert the president obstructed justice. a lot of that evidence was in the public eye. we talked about tweets and a number of other things that was trying to be used for obstruction of justice. it seems odd to me that people on this committee that pound and pound over and over again that you are innocent until proven guilty with the extent of this report with the number of resources, $30 million, when the facts don't lead to the outcome that you wanted, the one the marketing department wanted to use this as a political tool for the next 20 months, it seems on me that we would go to the path of saying in spite of all the work we will indict him anyway.
if we cannot indict him, we will impugn your it integrity and call you a liar. i find that despicable. >> thank you, mr. chairman. has the president or anyone at the white house after suggested you open an investigation of anyone? atty. gen. barr: um, i wouldn't -- i wouldn't -- >> yes or no? atty. gen. barr: could you repeat that question? >> has the president or anyone at the white house ever suggested that you open an investigation of anyone, yes or no, please sir? atty. gen. barr: the president or anybody else? >> seems you would remember something like that and be able to tell us. atty. gen. barr: yeah, but i'm trying to grapple with the words suggest. there have been discussions of matters out there that, they have not asked me to open an
investigation -- >> have they suggested. hinted? inferred? you don't know? ok. in your march 24 summary you wrote that "after reviewing the special counsel's final reportt -- i'm asking a question. in your march 24 summary "after reviewing the report, rod rosenstein and i have concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to establish that the president committed in instruction of justice offense." i'm led to believe and included witnesses and notes and emails and congressional testimony and interviews, which were summarized in the fbi forms. former fbi director comey's memo. in reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence? atty. gen. barr: uh, no, we took
-- atty. gen. barr: we accepted the statements in the report as factual record. we did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate. we accepted it as accurate. >> you accepted the report as the evidence? you did not question or look at the underlying evidence that supports the conclusions in the report? no.. gen. barr: >> >> did mr. rosenstein review the evidence that underlies and supports the conclusions in the report? atty. gen. barr: not to my knowledge. we accepted the statements in the report as a characterization of the evidence as to as true.
>> did anyone in your executive office review the evidence supporting the report? atty. gen. barr: no. >> no? yet, you represented the american public that the evidence was not sufficient to support an obstruction of justice. atty. gen. barr: the evidence presented in the report. this is not a mysterious process. in the department of justice we have cross memos every day coming up. we don't go and look at the underlying evidence. the characterization of the evidence as true. >> as the attorney general of the united states, you run the department of justice, in any u.s. attorney's office around the country, the head of the office when asked to make a critical decision whether that person committed a crime in the highest office in the land, would you accept them recommending a charging decision to you if they had not reviewed the evidence? atty. gen. barr: that is a question for bob mueller. he is the u.s. attorney. he is the one that presented the report. >> but you made the charging decision, sir. you made the decision not to
charge the president. atty. gen. barr: in the memo, and the cost memo. >> you said it was your baby. what did you mean by that? atty. gen. barr: to decide whether or not to disclose it to the public. >> and who had the power to make the decision about whether or not the evidence is sufficient, to make a determination of whether there had been an obstruction of justice? atty. gen. barr: prosecution memos go up to the supervisor. in this case, it would be the attorney general and the deputy attorney general who decide on the final decision. and that is based on the memo as presented by the u.s. attorney's office. >> i think you've made it clear you have not looked at, i think you have made it clear you have not looked at the evidence and we can move on. will you agree to consult career doj ethics recessional's about refusalials about your for the next 14 investigations as necessary?
atty. gen. barr: i do not see any basis for it. i already consulted with them. >> you have consulted with them about the other 14 investigations? atty. gen. barr: about the mueller case. >> have you consulted with career doj ethics officials about the appropriateness of your being evolved and recusing yourself from the other 14 investigations? a clear conflict of interest. i think the american people has seen well you are biased in this situation and you have not been objective, and that will be the conflict. atty. gen. barr: i have not been the only decision-maker. let's take the deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein, who was approved by the senate 94-6 with specific discussion on the floor that he would be responsible for supervising the russian investigation. >> i'm glad you brought up that. that is a great topic. atty. gen. barr: we had a number of senior prosecutors in the department involved in this process, both career and noncareer. who all agreed. >> i have another question. i'm glad you brought that subject up because i've a
question about that. earlier today in response to senator graham you said you "consulted with rosenstein constantly" with respect to the special counsel's investigation and report. but deputy attorney general rosenstein is a key witness in the firing of fbi director comey. did you consult -- i'm not finished. did you consult with doj at this officials before you enlisted rod rosenstein to participate in a charging decision for an investigation of the subject or what she is also a witness? atty. gen. barr: my understanding was he had been cleared to produce a great. >> you had consulted and they cleared it? atty. gen. barr: no, i think they cleared it when he took over the investigation. i understand. >> you do not know whether he
has been cleared of a conflict of interest? atty. gen. barr: he would not be a participating if there was a conflict of interest. >> so, you are saying it did not need to be reviewed by the career ethics officials in your office? to see if it's appropriate. atty. gen. barr: this seems to be a bit of a flip-flop because when the president -- >> you're not answering the question directly. did the ethics officials in your office, in the department of justice, review the appropriateness of rod rosenstein being a part of making a charging decision on an investigation which he is also a witness in? atty. gen. barr: as i said, my understanding was he had been cleared and had been cleared before i arrived. >> in making a decision on the mueller report? atty. gen. barr: yes. >> and the findings of whether or not the case would be charged on obstruction of justice, he had been cleared on it? atty. gen. barr: he was the acting attorney general on the mueller investigation. >> had he been cleared? fireside -- atty. gen. barr: i am informed that before i arrived, he had been cleared by the ethics
officials. >> of what? atty. gen. barr: serving as acting attorney general on the mueller case. >> how about making a charging decision on instruction of justice, the underlying offenses that include him as a witness? atty. gen. barr: he, he that is what the acting attorneys job is. >> to be a witness and to make a decision about being prosecuted? i have nothing else. my time has run out. >> we have got senator cruz. i would like to do short second rounds. i've got to go to another hearing at 2:40. we are going to take four votes, but to my colleagues on the other side, i would like to do a short second round. and wrap it up. i'm sorry, senator. senator crapo. i apologize. senator: thank you. attorney general barr, i know you have gone through almost everything that could've been asked so far today but i will go over a few things you talked about, but i appreciate your willingness to get into it with me.
first, i want to talk about the letter of march 27 that's been talked about a lot from mr. mueller. first, could you tell me who released that letter to the public? umm, who. barr: released it to whom? >> yes, how did he get released? was that a decision you made to release that letter? atty. gen. barr: is it public? department provided it this morning. to these me, i mean washington post. how did the washington post get the letter? atty. gen. barr: i don't know. >> that is what i thought. let's talk about the letter for a moment. that --cated atty. gen. barr: i assume the washington post got it from the department of justice. >> we need to find that out, but we can get into that later. if you are not aware, let's move
onto another aspect of the issue. indicated that you do not feel you needed to release as thought youmueller needed to release and you gave a summary of the conclusions, and he apparently wanted to see summaries of the each section he put together released, correct? atty. gen. barr: yes. >> critical over the reason why you responded to him when he asked you to release portions of the report before you released it in its entirety? atty. gen. barr: yes. on the conversation on thursday, the day i got his i said that i did not want to put out -- it was already several days after we receive the report, and i put out the four page letter on sunday, and i said i don't want to put out summaries of the report. that would trigger all kinds of frenzy about what was said in
the summaries, and then when more information comes out, it would recalibrate to that, and i said i want to put it out one time, everything together. i told him that was the game plan. >> all right, and i just think it is important to point that out again because there has been a lot of spin about the letter and what it was that was being requested and what your response to that was. atty. gen. barr: right. >> i think it was important to get that clarified. the reason i ask who released the letter is because there have been a lot of releases from the documents of the fbi, that were basically leaks. i was just curious as to whether that letter was leaked. atty. gen. barr: i think what happened, i hope my people jump me if i'm wrong on this, but i think the information about mueller's concerns were leaked, and i think some news organizations were starting to
ask about that. and in that context, i think the letter was provided. >> so there were leaks about the concerns and the conversations you had had? atty. gen. barr: yes. it'back to the question of broader leaks. -- that to get backs to the question of broader leaks. i heard your responses earlier att you believe the culture the fbi is strong and solid, and i agree with that. i do believe it has been clearly shown in a number of ways that there are some individuals at the fbi at high levels who in beenast few years have not holding up the standards and that the american people expect of them. i'm sure you are familiar with the report of the doj's inspector general, where he looked biased in the fbi.
it.act, he found he indicated in a hearing in this room before us that he did in fact find there was bias at the fbi, and but he said he was not able to prove that the bias affected the employees because in questions that i asked him, he said, i found that there was clearly bias, but in order to prove whether that affected the work output of those were bias, i had to ask them whether it impacted them, and they said no. i did not have other evidence to prove otherwise. this gets back to a conversation you had earlier about whether the fbi's business or his business was to prove a negative or it was to find some actionable conduct. my reason, going through this with you, is that i want to get at what we can do or whether you agree that there is a problem of
bias in the fbi in some parts or on some individuals at the fbi, and whether you are undertaking activities to address that question mark -- address that? atty. gen. barr: you mean political bias? >> yes. theregen. barr: whether is political bias resulting in biased conduct by fbi agents. atty. gen. barr: i have not seen that since i have been there. i think the new director has changed out the people who were , not before and brought in from outside, but promoted and developed a new leadership team that i think is doing a great job, and i think he is focused on ensuring that the bureau is not biased and that any of the problems from before are addressed. >> do you believe it is inappropriate conduct for an fbi employee to leak politically sensitive information to the
public for purposes of impacting political -- atty. gen. barr: yes. >> political discussion. atty. gen. barr: i think some leaks are maybe for political purposes. i think probably more leaks are because people handling the case do not like what their superiors or supervisors are doing, and they leak it in order to control people up the chain. >> i understand you have some investigations into that type of conduct underway? atty. gen. barr: yes. >> just another couple of quick questions. when did the doj and fbi, as you know that the democratic party paid for christopher steele's dossier, which served as the foundation for the carter foundation application? atty. gen. barr: i don't know the answer to that. >> are you investigating to determine that? atty. gen. barr: yes.
>> lastly, did other federal agencies engage in investigative activities before an official investigation was launched in july 2016? atty. gen. barr: i don't know the answer to that, but that is one of the -- >> you're also investigating that? atty. gen. barr: yes. >> thank you, attorney general. >> senator cruz? >> thank you for your testimony, general barr. let me start by saying thank you. you have had an extraordinary successful legal career. you do not have to take this job, and you stepped forward and answer the call, yet again, knowing full well that you would be subject to the kind of slanderous treatment that we have seen of senators impugning your integrity. for one, am grateful that you answer that call and are leading the department of andice, both with integrity
fidelity to law. that is what the nation rightly expects of our attorney general, and i believe you are performing very evenly. i think this hearing today has been quite revealing to anyone watching, although perhaps not for the reason some of the democratic senators intended. andthing that is revealing, the discussions in question came up, a word that occurred almost not at all is the word russia. for 2.5 years, we heard democratic senators going on and on about russia collusion. going onjournalists and on about russia collusion. things someng other using extreme rhetoric, calling the president a traitor. inheard very little of that this hearing today. instead, the principal attack
but democratic senators have thisaled upon you concerns march 27 letter from robert mueller, and it is an attack that i want people to understand how revealing it is. if this is their whole argument, they have got nothing. follows andnt is as let me see if i understand it correctly, you, initially, when you received the report, released to congress a four page summary of the conclusions. muellermarch 27, mr. asked you to release an additional 19 pages, the introduction and summary he drafted. in the letter, what he says is "i am requesting you provide these materials to congress and authorize their public release at this time." and the reason he says is that it is to fully capture the
context, nature and substance of the work of conclusion. so you did not release those 19 pages at that time. instead, a couple weeks later. pages, thed 448 entire report, which includes those 19 pages. do i have that timeline correct? atty. gen. barr: that is right. >> so their entire argument is, general barr, you suppressed the 19 pages that are entirely public, that we have, that we can read, that they know every word of it, and they are complaining it was delayed a few weeks, and that was because of your decision not to release the report piecemeal but rather to release those 19 pages, along with the entire 448 pages produced by the special counsel? atty. gen. barr: yes. argument, is their have to say that is an
exceptionally weak argument. atty. gen. barr: [laughter] >> because if you are hiding something, i will tell you right now, general barr, you are doing a lousy job of it because the thing they are suggesting you hid, he released to congress on the american people, so if anyone wants to know what is in those 19 pages that are being so breathlessly, bob mueller said released in 19 pages, you did, a couple weeks later, but we can read every word of the 19 pages, along with the full report. was thejudgment, mueller report doro? atty. gen. barr: yes. expend enormous time and resources investigating? atty. gen. barr: yes. reportthe mueller concluded fly out on the question of russian collusion, the evidence did not support criminal charges? atty. gen. barr: that is right. muellerindeed, the report, if i have the stats i,
was compiled by 19 lawyers on the team, a proximally 40 fbi agents, intelligence analyst, forensic accountants and professional staff, the special counsel issued more than 2800 subpoenas, nearly 500 search warrants, more than 200 30 orders for communication records, almost 50 orders authorizing the use of pen registers, 13 requests a foreign government for evidence and interview of approximately 500 witnesses, is that correct? atty. gen. barr: that is correct. >> we have investigated over, and over, and over again, and the substance of the accusations that have been leveled at the president for 2.5 years had .agically disappeared instead, the complaint is the 19 pages that we can all read that is entirely public could have been released a few weeks earlier. oh, the calamity. let me shift to a different topic, a topic that has been addressed. already quite a bit. i believe the department of justice, under the obama
administration, was profoundly politicized. and was weaponized to go after political opponents of the president. , would youthe case agree that politicizing the department of justice and weaponizing it to go after your political opponents is an abuse of power? atty. gen. barr: i think it is an abuse of power, regardless of who does it. >> of course. knowledge, of your when did surveillance of the trump campaign begin? deposition --r: the position today appears that it began in july, but i do not know the answer to the question. >> it is an unusual thing, is it not, for the department of justice to be investigating a candidate for president, particularly a candidate from the opposing party of the party in power? atty. gen. barr: yes. if the obama
administration investigated any other candidates running for president? atty. gen. barr: i don't know. >> do we know if they wiretapped any -- atty. gen. barr: i guess they were investigating hillary clinton for the email. >> do we know if there were wiretaps? atty. gen. barr:atty. gen. barr: i don't know. >> do we know if there were efforts to send investigators and wearing a wire? atty. gen. barr: i don't know. >> general barr, i would urge you have remarkable transparency. you promised this committee you would with the regard of the mueller report. you promised the public you would release the report. you have. anyone can read it, it is right here. i would ask you bring the same transparency to this line of questioning to weather the previous administration politicized the department of justice, targeted the political rivals and used law enforcement and intelligence assets are surveilled them improperly?
, so that is the end of the first round. but what vote at 3:00, i would like to do is can you go for a few more minutes? you're ok? you all right? atty. gen. barr:. >> senator lahey, you are next with three separate rounds. >> senator feinstein noted she for the fbi was derelict in investigating australia. at the trump administration but australia. they were told the russians could assist in their campaign with the emails. the fbi was right to look into .t letter,sk you, in your
you claim the lack of evidence of the underlying crime varies on whether the president had the intent to commit obstruction of justice. there are numerous reasons. one, someone might interfere with the investigations. most critically preventing discovery of an underlying crime they mayppearing not know it is a crime, but the special counsel uncovered evidence of underlying crimes, including one that directly implicated the president. we learned due to the special counsel's investigation that donald trump won in the southern district of new york with hush payments as part of a criminal scheme to violate campaign laws, and that was discovered by the special counsel referring to the
southern district of new york, is that correct? atty. gen. barr: yes. we have the mueller report references a dozen ongoing investigation stemming from the special counsel's investigation. will you commit you will not interfere with those investigations? will you commit that you will not interfere with the dozen ongoing investigations? atty. gen. barr: i will supervise those investigations as attorney general. will you let them reach natural conclusions without interference from the white house? let me put it that way. atty. gen. barr: yes. as i said when i was up for confirmation, part of my responsibility is to make sure there is no political interference in cases. >> and you testified a number of things, and that is why i'm double checking.
the appropriations committee asked you whether mr. mueller expressed any interest in leaving the decision to congress, and you testified he did not say that to you. actually, you said, he did not say that to me. but in the end, there are numerous references in this report to congress playing a role in deciding whether the president committed obstruction of justice. i know you testified many times, but everybody was not correct. atty. gen. barr: i think it is correct. i mean, he has not said he conducted the investigation to turn it over to congress. that would be inappropriate. that is not what the justice department is. >> it was included in numerous references with congress playing , volume number two, .age eight,
atty. gen. barr: i don't think bob mueller was suggesting the next up was to turn this over to congress to act upon. that is not why we conduct grand jury investigations. >> president trump never allowed anyone to interview him directly under oath, is that correct? atty. gen. barr: i think that is correct. >> even know he said he would be delighted to testify. thank you. atty. gen. barr: can i? a point you raised about the absence of a, uh, underlying crime. the point i was trying to make earlier is the absence of an underlying crime does not necessarily mean that there would be other motives for obstruction. although, it gets a little harder to prove and more speculative as to what those motives might be. but the point i was trying to make earlier is that in the
situation with the president who has constitutional authority to supervise proceedings, if in fa ct, a proceeding was not well founded, if it was a groundless proceeding, if it was based on false allegations, the president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course. the president could terminate that proceeding and it would not be a corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused. and he would be worried about the impact on his administration. that is important, because most of the obstruction claims that are being made here or episodes do involve the exercise of the president's constitutional authority. we now know that he was being falsely accused. >>
senator leahy: i don't agree with that but that's ok. >> i have two questions if you don't mind. general barr. the mueller report describes the reasons why the fbi opened a counterintelligence investigation july 2016 into russian election interference. there have been many references as to why they would do such a thing. by that date, the democratic national committee server had been hacked and russians have been deemed responsible. some of the stolen emails had been released by wikileaks. a foreign government, the australian government had to hold our fbi that trump foreign policytrump foreign .eorge papadopoulos do you believe it was an appropriate predicate for open investigating a counterintelligence investigation to determine
whether russia had targeted people in the trump campaign to offer hacked information that might impact of presidential election? atty. gen. barr: i would have to see exactly what the report was. exactly what he quoted papadopoulos as saying. from what you read, i'm not sure what the correlation was between the russians having dirt and jumping to the conclusion that suggested foreknowledge of the hacking. senator dick durbin: according to mr. mueller and his report, this involvement of george papadopoulos had something to do with their conclusion. i would like to ask you a separate issue. it's been reported in april 16 you received a waiver to participate in the investigation and litigation of the so-called 1mdb matter. an investigation regarding money laundering. the u.s. attorneys for the eastern district of new york is investigating whether a malaysian nationally illegally
donated to the trumpet inaugural committee with money taken from 1-mdb. you saw a waiver to participate even though your former lawyer represents an entity involved in the representation, goldman sachs. how many waivers have you received to allow you to bridges -- to participate in investigations involved in trump business is the trump campaign or the trump inaugural committee? atty. gen. barr: none. senator durbin: you did seek a waiver in this case? atty. gen. barr: the impetus did not come for me. i was asked to seek a waiver in this case. senator durbin: do you see the problem if the issue is whether or not the money laundering operation in malaysia is sending money to the trump inaugural committee that is attorney general of the united states that you not want to involve may yourself in this? atty. gen. barr: well, no, i don't, because i was not involved with the inaugural. senator durbin: why would you
seek a waiver? atty. gen. barr: the conflict was not because of any relationship i had to the inaugural committee. senator durbin: no, it is to goldman sachs. atty. gen. barr: it is the law firm. senator durbin and their client : goldman sachs. i don't understand why he would touch that "hot stove. you sought the waiver. that is why am asking the question. atty. gen. barr: the criminal division actually asked me to get a waiver because of the importance of this investigation overall. i was requested by the criminal division. i didn't seek it. the impetus did not come from me. senator: who would that be that made the recommendation to you? atty. gen. barr: i'm told this was the criminal division. yeah, he was the head of the criminal division but apparently they discussed it with a career
ethics official and they made the recommendation. senator durbin: thank you. chairman: senator whitehouse. senator whitehouse a couple of : timing questions. you said that on march 5, mr. mueller came to you and said that he was going to not make a decision on obstruction, leave that to you. atty. gen. barr: he didn't say he was leaving it to me. senator whitehouse: but he was not going to make an obstruction. on march 24, you set up a letter describing your decision. somewhere between march 5 and march 24 you made that decision. when was that? atty. gen. barr: we started talking about it on march 5. and there had already been a lot of discussions prior to march 5 involving the deputy, the principal associate deputy and the office of legal counsel that had dealings with the special's counsel's office.
they had knowledge of a number of the episodes and some of the thinking of the special counsel's office. so, right after march 5, we started discussing what the implications of this were and how we would proceed. senator whitehouse: you made the decision when? atty. gen. barr: probably on sunday the 24th. senator whitehouse: that is the day the letter came out. atty. gen. barr: yes. senator whitehouse you made the : decision -- you did not make the decision until the letter came out? atty. gen. barr: when did you actually decide there was no obstruction? atty. gen. barr: the 24th. ok. when did you get the first draft of the mueller report? atty. gen. barr: it wasn't a draft.we got the final . the first version, the only version. atty. gen. barr: the 22nd.
senator whitehouse: you told senator harris that you made your decision on the obstruction charge, uou and rosenstein, based on the mueller report. do i correctly infer that you made that decision between the 22 and the 24? atty. gen. barr: well, we have had a lot of discussions on a before the 22 but the final decision was made on the 24. we had more than 2.5 days to consider this. we had already done a lot of thinking about these issues even before we got the report and even before march 5, they had been in regular contact. the department had been in regular contact with mueller's people and understood, you know -- senator whitehouse: the olc was looking into the mueller investigation while it was going on, and -- of the evidence they were gathering on obstruction. before you saw the report.
atty. gen. barr: my understanding, i was not there but my understanding was that the deputy and, what we call the pay, the principal associate deputy, where in regular contact with mueller's team and were getting briefings on evidence an d some of their thinking and some of the issues. senator whitehouse did they know : enough to know to know it might, need to be redacted before they saw the 3/22? atty. gen. barr: the problem we had as we could not identify the 6e material when the report came over. we needed the help of mueller's team. senator whitehouse: lasty, can you assure me that nothing related to obstruction or the mueller report was discussed at the office of legal counsel, brownbag lunch, on june 27? atty. gen. barr: nothing about what? senator whitehouse: nothing about the obstruction issue, and nothing about the mueller report itself was discussed when you had a brownbag lunch on june 27
with olc? atty. gen. barr: um, yeah, we didn't discuss anything having to do with the mueller report or mueller's eventual position on obstruction. senator whitehouse: did you discuss your mueller memo? atty. gen. barr: i mentioned that i had a memo and was sending it to -- senator whitehouse you have not : yet said it was mentioned at this olc. atty. gen. barr: well, it was not at the brown bag lunch, no. senator whitehouse: my time is up. chairman: the vote has started. we are going to split the time between senator klobuchar and s senator blumenthal. we will try to go -- they will not hold the vote open too long. let's start with senator senatorr caret klobuchar: on april 27, president trump stated mueller,
i assume for $35 million he checked my taxes any check my financials. is that accurate? did the special counsel reviewed the trump organization's financial statements? atty. gen. barr: i don't know. senator klobuchar: can you find out if i asked later in a written question. atty. gen. barr: yes, or you can ask bob mueller when he comes here. i will do that, too, but i will ask you. obviously we would also want to , see them as underlying information. during my earlier questions we went through a number of actions by the president that the special counsel looked into. my point was that we should be looking into the totality of the evidence and the patterns the report develops. on page 13 of volume 2, the special counsel instructs that we do something similar. the report says, and this is a quote "circumstantial evidence that aluminate's intent may
include a pattern of potentially obstructive acts." on this point the report cites three u.s. cases. usc frank hauser, usc arnlodold. do you agree that obstruction law allows for intent to be informed by a pattern of potentially instructive acts? atty. gen. barr: intent eventually has to be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. obviously, some inferences can be drawn from circumstantial evidence that can contribute to an overall determination of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. that is one of the problems with this whole approach suggested in the special counsel's report, which is it is trying to determine the subjective intent of a facially lawful act and it permits a lot of selectivity on the part of the prosecutors and, and it's been shot down in a
number of other context. so, one of the reasons that we are very skeptical of this approach is that in -- approach senator klobuchar: you mean director mueller, or the justice department? atty. gen. barr: the justice department is that in this kind of situation where you have a facially innocent act -- that's authorized by the constitution. senator klobuchar: i just. atty. gen. barr: it is hard to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it is corrupt. senator klobuchar: i just want to get a few more questions. at your confirmation hearing, you testified that in the absence of a violation of a statute the president would be accountable politically for abusing the pardon power. how do you reconcile your suggestion a political accountability is available and the administration refusing to
comply with subpoenas and exerting executive privilege to stand in the way of that accountability? atty. gen. barr: as to a pardon? senator klobuchar: no. this was about in your confirmation hearing you said in the absence of a violation of a statute the president would be " accountable politically" for abusing the pardon power. atty. gen. barr: your question is abusing any power, not just the pardon power? is that what your question is saying? senator klobuchar: it is hard to evaluate that. atty. gen. barr: the president have been held accountable before. senator klobuchar: are the president's actions consistent with his of office and the requirement in the constitution that he take care the lobby faithfully executed. atty. gen. barr: is what consistent? senator klobuchar: i said are
the president's actions detailed in the report consistent with the requirement in the constitution that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed? atty. gen. barr: well, the evidence in the report is conflicting and there is different evidence. they don't come to a determination as to how they are coming down on it. senator klobuchar: so you made the decision. atty. gen. barr: yes. and -- chairman: we got two minutes left. senator blumenthal? senator blumenthal: thank you, mr.chairman. barr, i wonderl if you could tell us about the conversation between yourself and bob mueller shortly after your summary. he called you? atty. gen. barr: no, i called him. senator blumenthal: what prompted you to call him? atty. gen. barr: the letter.
senator blumenthal: his letter. so you called him, and how long did the conversation last? atty. gen. barr: i don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes. there were multiple witnesses in the room. it was on a speakerphone. senator blumenthal: who was in the room? among others, the deputy attorney general was in the room and several other people who had been working on the project. senator blumenthal: members of your stuff in the deputy staff -- your staff and the deputy staff. as best as you can recall in the , language that was used, who said what to whom? atty. gen. barr: i said, bob, what is with the letter? why don't you just pick up the phone and call me if there is an issue? and, he said that they were concerned about the way the media was playing this. and felt that it was important
to get out the summaries, which they felt would put their work in proper context and avoid some of the confusion that was emerging. i asked him if he felt that my letter was misleading or inaccurate. he said no, he felt that the press coverage was, and a more complete picture of his thoughts in the context and so forth would deal with that. i suggested that i would rather get the whole report out than just putting out stuff, but i said i would think about it some more. the next day, i put out a letter that made it clear that no one
should read the march 24th letter as a summary of the overall report. that a full report of bob mueller's thinking was it going to be in the report and everyone would have access to that. blumenthal: but there is nothing in robert mueller's letter to you about the press. his complaint to you was about your characterization of the report. correct? atty. gen. barr: the letter speaks for itself. senator blumenthal: it does. in response to your question, why not just pick up the phone? was an extraordinary act. a career prosecutor rebuking the attorney general of the united states, memorializing in writing. i know of no other instance of that happening. do you? atty. gen. barr: i don't consider bob at this stage a career prosecutor. he has had a career as a prosecutor.
senator: he was the head of the fbi for 12 years. he is a law enforcement professional. i know of no other instance. but he was also a political appointee with me at the department of justice. atty. gen. barr: the letter is a bit snitty and it was probably written by one of his staff people. senator blumenthal: did you make a memorandum of your conversation? did anyone, either your anyone on your staff memorialize your conversation with robert mueller? atty. gen. barr: yes. senator blumenthal: who did that? atty. gen. barr: there were notes taken. sen. blumenthal:: may we have those notes? atty. gen. barr: no. blumenthal: why not? atty. gen. barr: why should you
have them? chairman: i will tell you, we have to end this but i will write a letter to mr. mueller and ask him if there is anything you said about that conversation he disagrees with. if there is, he can come and tell us. mr. mueller will have a chance to make sure the conversation relayed by attorney general's actions. i will give him a chance to correct anything that you said that defines misleading or inaccurate, and that will be it. atty. gen. barr: ok. chairman: five seconds. >> attorney general barr, i thank you for your service to our country and especially today, i thank you for your civility in your composure -- commits what has been a needlessly and unfairly hostile environment. your professionalism has been remarkable. chairman: it was pretty interesting. generally speaking, the committee did pretty good and this is what democracy is all about. thank you for being our attorney
general. atty. gen. barr: thank you, mr. chairman. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> sunday, a look at some of the hearings and events surrounding the mulder report from the house side of capitol hill. judiciarym., the decides i format for the hearing voting to extend questioning of
attorney general barr. after which mr. barr announced he would not attend the formal hearing the next day. after that, the committee meets without the attorney general and you will see member statements. brief hearing, members react to the absence of the attorney general and talk about next apps. briefings,hearings, house, and senate floor speeches and other events are available online. sunday night on cue and day, lincoln scholar harold holzer will share his perspective on c-span's new book "the pres idents" sunday night at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span's human day. q&a. today at 6:50 p.m. eastern, the latest book "big business." >> most of the money spent is
spent as voters desire. if you look at our men and the white house, what he is doing on trade, i very much disapprove and most american businesses as a brew. what he is doing in terms of project ability, most as mrs. are against. >> sunday at noon eastern, we are led with university of pennsylvania professor kathleen hall jamieson for a discussion on her latest book. join our conversation with kathleen hall jamieson. with your phone calls, tweets, and facebook questions. at 9 p.m. eastern, stanford university professor jennifer everhart offers her insight. she is interviewed by a florida democratic congresswoman. >> a lot of people talk about that as old-fashioned racism. but this implicit bias is something that you may not even
know you have. something that you don't know is defecting how you are thinking, even. even if we know what the stereotypes are about various social groups, we don't always know that those stereotypes are influencing what we are doing or how we are treating someone. >> watch this weekend on book tv on c-span2. last month, president trump vetoed a resolution that called for an end to u.s. involvement in the war in yemen. this week, the senate held a vote to override that veto. republicans voted in favor. the final tally was 53-45, not enough for the 67 required to override the president's veto. the republicans voting in favor, senators collins, danes, lee, murkowski, and young. here is some of the debate on the yemen resolution. sen. mcconne: