tv Americas Newsroom With Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith FOX News April 9, 2019 6:00am-9:00am PDT
bunny of the united states of america. >> a day in the nation's capital, the life of marlon bundo. >> bill: thanks, good morning, everybody. fox's alert, he is the man democrats have wanted to get in the hot seat for weeks, and 30-minutes from now, bill barr makes his first public appearance since releasing his principle conclusions on the mueller report. he is we can do correct us and say it was not a "summary." i'm bill hemmer live in new york city. how are you feeling? >> sandra: good. feels like spring in the air. i'm sandra smith. the mueller report saga could certainly take center stage. >> i think the committee is going to press him hard on what
is he redacting and under what authority he is keeping that secret from the congress of the united states. >> i fear this meeting may turn into a circus. our democrat colleagues you've seen over the last several weeks are really on a tear, they really want to dig into attorney general barr. >> we do want to see the whole thing, every single word. it is clear from press reporting there are members of the mueller team felt what barr did was completely inappropriate they didn't share summaries they prepared for public release. >> chief intelligence correspondent katherine har invest on capitol hill. what can we expect today? >> thank you, sandra and good morning. under normal circumstances, this would be a very routine, low profile budget hearing but this morning it is the first chance
to question barr about the mueller report. you can see the scrum of reporters, waiting for the attorney general to come down the hallway. this is highly unusual to have so many media for a routine process on capitol hill. democrats want questions and answers on the issue of the report and how much will be public. here is democrat jose serano. >> we will be voting to see the report there are people in the committee and in congress and the public that want to see the report. and so he needs to remember that. we voteduthan vote unanimouslyr that. >> people are expecting tough
lines of questions and a room packed with reporters. the attorney general really is going by the book here. he has a responsibility to protect classified information and the name of individuals who are not being prosecuted for any allegations related to the russia probe. here is congressman robert adams. >> i understand that the democrats may want to try to bring this to muler, even though barr is going to release the report in a week or so, we'll go with it but i hope keep the focus on what this hearing is about, an appropriate haring and that is about the budget for the department of just test. >> and the issue with chuck grassley, recently the head of the judiciary committee that was looking at the russia and clinton e-mail investigations and the senator went to the
floor yesterday to make the point while democrats want all the evidence in the russia case, they should be asking for all the underlying every in the clinton e-mail. here is senator grassley. >> if the democrats want to be consistent, they will have to treat clinton, uranium one and russia-related investigations the same. anything less than that reeks of political gamesmanship and sets a clear double standard. >> so the attorney general has just entered the hearing room behind me, we're set to begin in 20, 25-minutes time. back to you. >> catherine herridge, back to you. >> how are you doing, tom. welcome back. it is good to have you back on my program. >> thank you, good morning. >> what do you expect from bill
barr, tom? >> i expect the attorney general will' renew his commitment to get the report out as soon as he can. that is consistent with his obligation you would the lag, he is not bringing third parties who are not charged into the public sphere. >> we will see how hard democrats go at it. here is jerry nadler talking about a bias on behalf of bill barr. >> remember, he is a biased person. he is an agent of the administration, a political appointee of the president whose interest he may very well be protecting here. >> we will see if that is part of the opening statement. clearly, it will be part of the questions. what do you expect from the democrats? >> i think the criticism is unfair. right now they're hammering on the attorney general for, number one, reichelling a conclusion on
obstruction too quick rein the view of the democrats. at the same time they're saying why haven't you moved quickly enough to get us the report. they're also trying to set the stage for attacking him on the basis of any redactions he might make. it wouldn't surprise me to provide a fully unredacted report to congress and the democrats are trying to set the stage he is engagessed in a cover up to protect the president from the leakage of embarrassing behavior. >> how do you think barr has been handling this in the last couple weeks? >> i think he's been responsible. i think he takes his job seriously. i think he is a straight shooter. i think he took the time to review the mueller report be for the summary at a time people were beating the drum on information on what the conclusions were. he worked with the deputy attorney general over the weekend to provide the public with the preview of what the
ultimate report would say. >> so back in march, we had the 3.5 page principle conclusions and then spelling out what they were doing at the moment working with bob mueller's special council people team on what to redact. and then the muleer report, as many as 400 pages, there is highly confidential and highly secret information under the grand jury which cannot be made public. that is where barr finds himself pigeon holed at the moment, i guess when it becomes public, you can pick a page you support and i can pick a page i can support and ultimately republicans and democrats will choose that side of the field. go ahead. >> i think that is a fair assessment. we know it is a long report, close to 400 pages,
apparently tomorrow some extent, there is something for everyone for this. from the attorney general's perspective it is the height of irresponsibles if you had taken what mueller had given him and put it in the public domain. he is doing a thoughtful, careful, page by page review of this document to ensure whatever he releases is consistent with the law. >> one more point, remember the big hearing, he was the guy that appeared to be the adult in the room. he felt he was coming pack to the job to straighten things out of the department of justice i felt had gone out of his lane. what do you think of that? >> i think that is a fair assessment, he's conservative in temperament and politics. he takes his constitutional responsibilities to the law and justice department seriously and he's not going to listen to the political womens and per vor on the hill to get this out of the door. he is taking this soberly, carefully, thoughtful an make
sure what he does is justified under the law. >> bill: thank you for that break down. we will talk to carly fiorina, ken starr, so a big show is coming up and we will see how much relearn from bill barr. >> sandra: it will begin in a few moments from now. continue to this, three children in an ied blast in afghanistan. the exemployeesive detonating near an air base there, killing three service februaries. the taliban is taking responsibility. lucas has more on this. >> the deadliest attack this year. a suicide car bomber rammed his vehicle against a u.s. armored car vehicle, killing three u.s. troops. three others were evacuated and they are stable according to officials. some good news, a contractor previously thought killed has been found alive.
the afghan contractor was working as an american interpreter. it happened outside bagram air base. the suicide attack comes as the trump administration sen gauged in high-level talked with the taliban with the former ambassador to the country. one of the americans killed in the attack has been identified. christopher slutman was a firefighter, married father of three and also served as a u.s. marine, according to the post. 7 have been killed this year, 13 ayear ago and 1400 in 2010. mike pompeo issued issued this, quote my:
>> sandra: thank you. >> bill: tough story there. a suspect now behind bars with the feds say he was planning near washington, d.c. and how they tracked him down, coming up. >> sandra: plus, the president's policy that requires asylum seekers wait in mexico hit as snag in federal court. apprehensions approach an all-time high. where does this go next. >> bill: and, then there were 18. eric swalwell is getting in the ring for 2020's nomination. where does the race stand now? we'll talk to byron york fresh on deck, coming up next. >> to honor you announcing on our show, i'm giving you the coveted announced on the late show with steven cobert. very limited addition.
>> sandra: police stopping an isis-inspired attack outside of washington, d.c. police say 28-year-old man is in custody, accused of stealing a u-haul van with plans to slam it into pedestrians in maryland. he admitted to getting the idea from the 2016 truck attack in the south of france wanted to, quote, keep driving and driving and driving nonstop. he will was charged but more charges could follow. >> more than a million people already apprehended. that's not including the people we do not catch that illegally come across. we've not seen these numbers in
more than a decade. the only people who believe there is not a crisis are the democrat socialests in congress. congress needs to act now. >> bill: kevin mccarthy pushing for more skirt on the border. and, homeland security second cake. we have fox's contributor, byron york. good morning to you. a court ruling in california late yesterday in response to that ruling. here is what the president said on twitter: >> bill: you believe this is the most important development in the last 24-hours. how come? >> it puts a stop to one of president trump's main policies in this area. the thing is as you just heard,
illegal crossings are surging at the border. more than 100,000 apprehensioned last month. most of them are family units or groups setting themselves as families who come across the border. say they are from guatemala, they come across the border and say they have a fear of being in guatemala lam under u.s. law, they cannot be separated or detained for a few days and they cannot be returned so the lay gives american officials no control over who is allowed to stay in the united states. >> bill: and they're getting paid and they're winning, they're taking the families up through mexico. go ahead. >> the trump administration came up with something calls migration protection protocols, to have these families stay in mexico as they waited for their claims to be ajude indicated. now this cort decision said, if the groups say well, we're afraid of being in mexico, too, the united states has to give
them full due process on that claim and that has to happen in the united states. so basically the court ruling stopped the maygration protection protocols. >> it looks like the facilities are over loaded, as we've pointed out in the past. perhaps dallas will open their doors soon. er rick swalwell, number 18, went to the colbert primaries we can call it last night. >> i talk to kid who sit in their classroom afraid they will be the next victim of gun violence. none of that is going to change until we get a leader who is willing to go beg on the issues we take on, be bold in the solutions we offer and do good in the way that we govern. i'm ready to solve these problems. i'm ready to run for president of the united states. >> so, as you say, why not run. what does his inclusion mean for the rest of the field? >> really, swalwell is one of
these candidates who wants to push a particular issue, gun violence, gun control like governor jay inslee of washington state. a lot of them are building a campaign on a sick he single iy want to emphasize. why not enter. there is no prohibit hiv frontrunner. swalwell one of three under the age of 40 and that is a real contrast to the two leading candidates, joe biden and bernie sanders approaching 80-years fold they were elected president. >> bill: good to see you again, buyion york on the road today. >> sandra: people will hear from william barr inside the hearing room. he will make his first public comments since receiving the
muler report. it is expected to get heated and we will take you live when it begins shortly. >> bill: also, social media executives are expected to answer to stopping hate speech online. did you see this? check it out, have a listen. >> we are taking on not just donald trump and the republican party, we are taking on the incredible power of the billionaire class in corporate america. >> sandra: it is one of the rally cries for the 2020 democrats. higher taxes on the rich. so will this message resonate with voters? former gop presidential candidate carly fiorina will join us next with her take.
moving is hard. no kidding. but moving your internet and tv? that's easy. easy?! easy? easy. because now xfinity lets you transfer your service online in just about a minute with a few simple steps. really? really. that was easy. yup. plus, with two-hour appointment windows, it's all on your schedule. awesome. now all you have to do is move...that thing. [ sigh ] introducing an easier way to move with xfinity. it's just another way we're working to make your life simple, easy, awesome. go to xfinity.com/moving to get started.
>> all these politicians have are crying about capitalism, have they ever made pail row? have they ever worked a business? what else have they done other than criticize the system. and these are life-long democrats in power. what have they been doing about health care? what have there been doing about the $22 trillion debt. where have they been? >> shultz made criticizing capitalism a cornerstone of their campaigns, his comments coming as many candidates call for higher taxes on the rich. carly fiorina, the former ceo of hewlett-packard and ran for the. no nation in 2016. your book is out today, find your way, unleash your power, your highest potential is out.
you were a female ceo in a top for tune company. people want -- fortune company. we want to hear what you have to say especially in this anti-capitalism mess frag democrats out there do you think that is a message that can resonate with voters. >> i don't. i think if if that's the message for democrats in 2020, they're going to lose the election. i agree with what charles shultz said this let's tax the rich scheme, it does not work. the government has been getting more money every year for 50-years, it is one of the reasons people are so frustrated with politics, problems seem to fester, whether it is immigration, but it is for people who feel helpless and powerless and frustratessed, problems fester around them, for
young people who think they have it all figured out and they don't, for each of us to learn they have more potential than they realize, i learned this over and over. people closest to the problems can solve them. we distribute and decentralize power and economic power in particular. >> it is interesting, howard shultz was on and he talked abt the crisis of capital ism. >> what i mean by that is the rules of engagement for the company today, given the government cannot solve all these problems, businesses and business leaders must do more for the employees and communities they serve. i agree with that. >> sandra: do you agree with that message? >> i do. a ceos responsibility, a company's responsibility is for con stock split wednesdayys and
not just shareholders. absolutely, i agree with that message. and i also believe as a conservative is power concentrated is power abused and we have too much powell we are concentrated in some companies. i would also say when government gets in and trys to fix it, that is not always capital ism. technology is the least regular lated industry in the world, the most competitive industry in the world and it delivers incredible innovation year after year in lower prices. >> can you deliver your unique perspective, having been a presidential candidate yourself in a field of democrats, it is now 18, eric swallow, the democrat from california has thrown his hat into the ring, as well. where does this race stand from your view? >> it stands in a place of total flux. i also think, honestly, that we have become way too obsessed with politics and what goes on in washington.
again, it is one of the reasons you wrote this book. we've become observers, bystanders, we sort of like at all this political toxicity and the political campaign back and forth and think it is going to fix things for us. george washington said in 1789, the trouble with political parties is they will come down to being about winning. but they have the potential to solve problems that impact them. >> you feel women are going to play a big role there. the time to fix the lack of female leadership problem. what we are about to see on capitol hill, carly fiorina, we are about to see william barr, the attorney general, speak publicly for the first time since his principle conclusions were released from the muler report. this is still a big debate in washington.
democrats are demanding to see this entire report. they believe there is more to it. where do you think this goes? >> i think transparency is key to trust and accountability, so i would say google and facebook and amazon haven't been transparent enough. another set of hearings going on today. i would say barr hasn't been france parent enough. here is what i would say in any company in any circumstance, when people don't know what is going op, they assume the worst, never the best. so barr has said and i would encourage him to follow through, i want to be at transparent as possible. i hope he will be, because if he he's not, people will continue to think the worst, sadly. >> carly fiorina, "find your way." good to see you. >> bill: we will see attorney general we will yak barr enter the room. this is the first time we will
see him publicly speak since he released the conclusions he delivered based on what he read in the mueller report. that was 3.5 pages long. then there was a letter on the 29th of march where he explained he was working on the special council counsel to assm about what information should get out. he will release the report by mid april, if not sooner, he said. there are no plans to sub met to the white house for a privileged review. after repeated questioning with members of the trump administration that policy does not seem to have changed is yet. the president and his team, based on the law, they are entitled to it but president
trump has said put it all out. he wanted to make clear, his notification to congress was a summary of what is called principle conclusions, meaning the bottom line, it was not a summary that summary we believe is what is included when bill barr turns his report in to congress in a matter of days. that's what we're waiting on, sandra. we're about to hear from bill barr. we will see how the democrat handle this and how the republicans handle this. this is a sub committee on appropriations. this is designed and set um to talk about the deposit -- set up to talk about the department of justice. >> there are budgetary matters to be discussed but the reason that room is filled right now is for everybody to watch and see the first words from william barr since the release of his principle findings. >> the c will come to order. >> the congressman joins us now,
andy, are you there? >> yes. what will happen is there will be a few per funk tree questions for the department of justice department and it will turn my colleagues on the ore side of the aisle want to attack mr. barr for not being transimportant enough, bias and the republicans will come in and intercede to try to depend him. you will see that back and forth today. >> it sunday way. congressman andy biggs we appreciate your time as we await william barr's testimony on capitol hill. >> bill: here we go. >> i appreciate the willingness
of the department to come and testify before our sub committee, even though we may have different opinions on different issues. let me take a motion to describe some concerns prompted by those hearings. we have heard what appears to be a lack of commitment to the department's traditional in addition to defend civil rights, disability rights and prevent discrimination. be we have discussed what appears to be a clear animus towards policies that protect individual's health care, voting rights, access to education and much, much more. we have discussed the need for additional resources to address gun violence in this country while at the same time hearing atf say a budget were q would result in staffing reductions. we've talked to the head of the office for immigration review about the need to protect due process and fairness in our immigration courts and the many
policy changes that make such goals more difficult to achieve. we have heard the f.b.i. describe the threats to our nation faces but also their budget request will notst now fully fund their efforts to address those threats. as we discussed today, we're faced with a budget request that fails to address many of these concerns and raises new problems. and, of course, mr. attorney general, we cannot hold this hearing without mentioning the elephant in the room and i'm not referring to my colleagues on the other side. 2 1/2 weeks ago, the mueller report was completed in extremely quick fashion. you turned a 300-plus page report into a 4-page letter that supposedly summarized the findings. last week, "the new york times" reporter that the special council's office already reit'sed summaries that were ignored in your letter and some
investigators in the special count's office felt within the special counsel's office the summary under states the level of malfeasance by the president and several of his campaign advisors. the american people have been left with many unanswered questions. serious concerns about the process by which you form lated your letter, an uncertainty about when we can expect to see the full report. i believe the american people deserve to see the full report and to be trusted to make our own determinations on the merits based on what the special count has presented. mr. attorney general, something i would like to leave you with today, we voted unanimously to see that report, that the
congress and the committees want to see the report and that the american people want to see the report. i think it would strike a serious blow to our system and, yes, to our democracy, if that report is not fully seen. when it comes to redactions, we would hope that you could tell us when something is redacted, if you feel it has to be, what area it covered, not just blackout, doesn't tell us where it came from and why it might have been redacted. we're not here today to be in a confrontational situation with you. we want to help you do your job and you need to help us do ours. but what cannot happen is that somebody higher than you tells you that you don't have to answer our questions or you don't have to deal with us at all that. 's not who we are as a country, that's not who we are as a democracy, that's not who we are as an appropriations committee.
so let me just say this. since 2017, our nation's justice department has too often failed to meet the needs of the american people. i hope that with your ascension to attorney general, we can work together to change that with that said, i would turn to my colleague and friend, mr. aderholt. >> thank you for yielding, mr. chairman, and i, too, would like to welcome attorney general barr and assistant attorney general to the commerce sub committee to testify regarding the fy2020 budget request. your steward ship as department of justice is important to all our communities and the budget imposes key investments and what we can all agree on are critical, criminal justice priorities, such as strengthening national security, reducing violent crime,
enforcing our nation's immigration laws, combating the opioid crisis and reducing recidivism. attorney general barr, we recognize you have an incredible demanding job. your presence here reveals how seriously you take the fy2020 budget request, as well as the role of congress and this committee in making funding decisions, so thank you for being here this morning. we want to work with you, as the chairman said, ensure the programs you administer to help keep this country safe or as effective and efficient as possible. i hope your testimony today will address the many issues addressing our local communities. i'm technically interested in the justice department efforts to curb the deadly opioid epidemic. i'm hoping to hear about the security you're using to disrupt this scourge and how we can best support these efforts and i'm
interested in hearing about your perspective on the humanitarianage.and border crisis we hear so much about. i look forwarded to working with chairman serrano on these and many other issues with the appropriations process as we move forward for the fy-20 appropriations processment with that, we look forward to your testimony this morning and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. aderholt. now the chairman from the full committee, my colleague from new york lowey. >> i want to address a serious
issue, your unacceptable handling of the mueller report. it is reported it is 300 to 400 pages and i use the temple reported because we have no idea how long it actually is. the report draws the most favorable come collusion possible for the president than many ways your letter raises more questions than answers. i must say, it is extraordinary to evaluate hundreds of pages of evidence, legal documents and finding based on a 22-month-long inquiry and make deal definitive legal conclusions in less than 48-hours.
even for someone who has done this job before, i would argue it is more suspicious than impressive. your conclusion is something we've seen before. in fact, we've seen it in your own legal writing. in june, 2018, you wrote a memo as a private citizen and a former attorney general to the department of justice laying out the president's case against obstruction of justice. your edition clearly went well. i look forward to reviewing the mueller report myself. i know my constituents do, as well. i understand that portions of it must be redacted as a matter of law, but my hope is that you will stop there and bring transparency to this process as soon as possible.
the american people deserve the facts. now, to your five fy-20 budget requests. the requests provides a significant increase for immigration judges and a modest increase for federal law enforcement, however it eliminates or specifically cuts respected grant programs at the department of justice that really make a difference in our constituents daily lives. for example. your request significantly decreases central programs including the cops program, which advances community policing on a state and local level would be cut by $205 million. the dna initiative program, which provides grants to reduce the rape kit backlog by ensuring evidence that could lead to
meaningful convictions does not set on forgotten shelves and that would be cut by $25 million. and, the juvenile just test program, which helps prevent youth crime, violence and reduce recidivism, which would be cut by $48.5 million. these are simply unacceptable reductions. i look forward to a productive discussion today, hope you can shed some light on how this budget request can adequately respond to the grave task the department of just test and its grant programs under take daily. thank you, again, for appearing before us, i look forward to an open discussion, an honest discussion and address the many challenges before us today. thank you very much. >> thank you. now attorney general barr, you are recognized to give your opening statement.
we ask you please try to keep it to five-minutes and your whole statement will be included in the record. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam chair and ranking member aderholt. i'm pleased to be here today to present to you the president's fiscal year 2020 budget for the department of justice. and i'm joined here today by the department's chief financial officer, assistant attorney general forked a ibmtration, lee loftis. we protect the safety and rights of our constituents and your constituents. for two fiscal years in a row, thing department has broken records for pros kiting private crime, increased the prosecution of firearm offenses than fiscal year 2018 prosecuted more
firearm defendants than ever before. as prosecutions have gone up, crime has gone down, and in 2017, after two-years of increases, violent crime and homicide rates went down nationwide. the f.b.i.'s preliminary data for the first six-months of 2018 show a 4.3% decline in violent crime over all, and a 6.7% decline in murders and a 12% decline in robbery and burglary, compared to the first six-months of 2017. in order to continue this momentum, president trump has requested an additional $137 million for violent crime and transnational organized crime prosecutions, as well as an additional 100 million for the project safe neighborhood grants to state and local law enforcement. the department also requests $5.8 million to enhance violent crime and firearms prosecutions.
over the first two-years of the trump administration, we have a also gained ground against the opioid epidemic, which is by far the deadliest drug crisis this country has ever faced. the department increased the number of defendants charges with federal opioid-related crimes by 28% in fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2018. prescriptions of the seven most frequently abused prescription opioids are down more than 23% since 2016 to the lowest level in at least a decade. over the same period, the dea has lowered the legal limits on production of the active ingredients in these opioids by 47%. more importantly, drug overdose deaths may have finally stopped rising. according to preliminary data from the cdc, over dose deaths decrease slightly from september, 2017, to august 2018.
but, there is a lot more work to be done. that is why the president's budget provides for $295 million to combat the opioid epidemic, including 18.2 million for the dark net enforcement, or j-code, a team that works to disrim and dismantle the sale of opioids on the dark net. the president questions 1.5 million for five new heroin enforcement groups that have identified heroin as the first or second greatest threated in their area. the president president's budgs 254 million for the white house national drug control policy ea
for the high intensity drug programs. this change will eliminate redundancy by placing it under the agency that leads drug enforcement efforts. >> bill: we're waiting for him to get to the heart of the issue. weu expect that when the democt get to start questioning. aer quick one-minute break. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. how sexy are these elbows? ask your dermatologist about cosentyx. ask your dermatologist so let's promote our spring ftravel deals, on choicehotels.com like this: (sneezes) earn one free night when you stay just twice this spring.
allergies. or.. badda book. badda boom. book now at choicehotels.com. i that's the retirement plan.e, with my annuity, i know there is a guarantee. it's for my family, its for my self, its for my future. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retire your risk dot org. we're not going to leave it for long. wait are for the heart of the matter. the first time he has severe hn publicly. >> sandra: on capitol hill this morning, most important because this is the first we're hearing from william barr since the release of those principle
findings from the mueller report. you heard the chairman off the top, the democrat from new york of the sub committee on commerce saying on questions about the mueller report, stay tuned, something l come. we are waiting waiting that mo. >> bill: clearly, there is a lot of ground to cover. the immigration issue he's talking about right now. we are keenly interested in where the content of this conversation goes, the question and answer. and we're interested, too, to see how much bill barr answers with regard to the mueller matter. he said his only findings will be delivered to congress by the 15th of anticipate if not soon sore we're on watch for that all week, starting now. >> the fireworks in the room will be when question% this begin with democrats wanting full transparent see when you look back at william barr's
statements, he promised full transparency when it came for the release of the mueller report. he has been given five-minutes for the opening statements. he should be nearing the end of that and they will start taking questions. >> bill: he has delivered three key pieces of information in the past couple weeks with regard to the mueller matter. he has given as you few clues but now we have the guts of it. let's drop in for the questioning. >> the result of the special count mueller's investigation be shared with and the public, we agree on that. he told us last week we had note read the report with regard to march 24th and 29thth letters to the judiciary committees, did special count mueller or anyone on his team have a role in drafting them or reviewing them and events and to use any of the summary documents
prepared by the special counsel in drafting these documents. >> 24th and 29th. the letter of the 24th, mr. mueller's team did not play a role in drafting that document, although we offered him the opportunity to review it before we sent it out and he declined that. the letter on the 29th, i don't believe that was reviewed by mr. mueller or that they peated in drafting that letter. but, to go back to something you said in your opening statement about the availability of the report, as i said, as you pointed out, since my confirmation, i think it is important the public have an opportunity to learn the results of the special counsel's work and i said then i would work diligent three makes a much
information -- diligently to makes a much information available. the information put together in the clinton administration does not provide for the publication of the report, but i am relying on my own discretion to makes a much public as i can. now in my letter of the march 29, i identified 4 areas i feel should be redacted and earning most people would agree. the first is grand jury information. the second is information that the ice, the intelligence community would reveal intelligence sources and methods. the third are information in the report that could interfere with on going prosecutions. you will recall that the special counsel did spin-off a number of cases that are still being pursued and we want to make sure that none of the information in the report would impinge upon
either the ability of the prosecutors to prosecute the cases or the fairness to the defendants. and, finally, we intend to redact information that implicates the privacy or interests of peripheral players where there is a decision not to charge them. right now the special counsel is working with us on identifying information in the reports that fall under those four categories. we will color code the exsitions from the report and we will provide explanatory notes describing the basis for each redaction. so, for example, if a redaction is made because of a court order in a pending prosecution, we'll state that and we will distinguish between the various categories. this process is going along very
well, and my original timetable of being able to release this by mid april stands. so i think that, from my standpoint, by, within a week, i'll be in a position to release the report to the public and then i will engage with the chairman of both judiciary committees about that report and about any further requests that they have. >> so let me just get one thing clear for the record. my concern during my opening statements that when you redact something we should know what area it falls under, that you say will happen. >> yes, sir. >> your march 24 letter indicated that some actions the special counsel investigatepotentially razeeing obstruction of justice concerns
have not been publicly reported. will these actions be be identified in the report sent to congress? >> as things stand now, i don't think they will be redacted so they will be identifiable, yes. >> all right, thank you. mr. aderholt. >> thank you, mr. cheerman. mr. attorney general, you know there is a dangerous humanitarian crisis at the southern border. transorganizeed crime in mexico makes the u.s. border more vulnerable because it maintains elicit border crossings that can be employeed by secondary criminal actors or organizations. of course your fy2020 budget proposes an additional 18 million in resources to help advance the feet against transnational organized crime. can you talk a bit about
department of justice and how it is addressing the smuggling networks that are in danger and so many of the lives are being smuggled and trafficked across the southern border, and particularly the children. >> yes, sir. the problem we face on our southern border is really unprecedented. not just the volume and the make up of the people coming across from an immigration policy standpoint, but by the strength of the criminal organizations in mexico. one of the things that has changed a lot in the 30-years prier when i was attorney general, has been the strengthening of these criminal organizations in mexico, these cartels that are not only getting involved in multiple kinds of drugs and the
transportation of those drugs and doctors distribution in thd states but also into human trafficking. it is a prior. the fy2020 requests, a total of 3.2 billion is targeted at dealing with these france national organizations and we're seeing an increase of 10th $10n this year. we're also seeking 29 million in programatic improvements to monitor and target the transnational organizations, and 10 million to strengthen dea's ability to operate its judicial wire intercept program in
central america. and another 1.7 million for dea's sensitive intelligence unit which is targeting these groups and their illicit trafficking in narcotics. i personally believe that an important part of securing the southern border is to have a barrier system on the border, and i think that that will help not only in narcotics introduction bys will in is up prettying human trafficking and it is an important part of our enforcement. >> one of the greatest rights is prior see, and there is to believe a target of surveillance
is the agent of a foreign power. nunez has referred eight persons to the f.b.i. concerning alleged misconduct during the russian investigation, including the leak of highly-classified material and alleged conspiracies toly to lie to congress and the fiza court to spy on president trump and persons i hope the department of justice will give that attention. now we have the russia conclusion is the justice department investigating how it came to be that your agency used a salacious and unverified dossier as a predicate for a fisa investigation.
>> i expect that that will be complete in probably may or june, i'm told. hope elf hopefully, we will havn answer on the fisa process. i'm reviewing the investigation trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation conducted in the summer of 2016. >> are you investigating who leaked existence of the fisa order against 1/4er page. >> who, what? >> are you investigating who leaked the existence of a fisa order against carter page? >> i haven't seen it from nunez but if there is a predicate for an investigation, it will be conducted. >> thank you.
mr. chairman. >> attorney general barr, reports suggest that special counsel muler's report is any -- mueller's report is anywhere between 300 and 400 pages long. i would be interested in knowing how much discussions interyou have with the deputy attorney general and staff between receiving the report and releasing the memo, was there discussion and debate about the evidence and conclusions. how many staffers assists you in digesting so many pages of complex information in such a short period of time. let me tell you what i'm getting at that i find quite extraordinary. you received a very serious, detailed report, hundreds of pages of high-level information, weighed the factors and conclusions at length, outlined, prepared, edited and released your memo in less than 48-hours.
to me, to do this, it seems your mind must have been already meade up. how did you do it? >> the thinking of the special counsel was no a mystery to the people at the department of justice prior to his sub mission of the report. he had been interacting, he and his people had been interacting with the deputy attorney general and lawyers supporting the deputy attorney general in his supervision of the special counsel, and in that context there had been discussion so there was some inkling of the thinks of the special counsel. furthermore, on march 5, public, the deputy and i met with special counsel mueller and his team and had a preliminary
discussion about the report so we had an inkling as to what was coming our direction. and so even more thinking within the department was done over that time. that was a matter of weeks. and, then, when report came, and it came approximately midday on friday, the deputy attorney general and i and our staffs works closely for the balance of that day, saturday and sunday. >> i didn't want to interrupt you. did the white house see the report before you released your summarizing letter? has the white house seen it since then? have they been briefed on the contents beyond what was in your summarizing letter to the
judiciary committee? >> i've said what i'm going to say about the report today. i've issued three letters about it and i was willing to discuss the historic information of how the report came to me and my decision on sunday, but i've already laid out the process that is going forward to release these reports, hopefully within a week, and i'm not going to say anything more about it until the report is out and everyone has a chance to look at it. >> i think there is some relevant questions that i do hope you could answer today, sir. on the question of obstruction of justice, your memo stated, quote, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him. yet, president trump has publicly stated that this report is a complete and total exon
ration. can you tell us who is factually accurate and will the released report include details on the obstruction issue and why, as you noted, the president is not exonerated or will that information be redacted. >> i've already explained the information that will be redacted from the report, the four categories that will govern the redactions. in fact, the special counsel and his staff are helping us select the information in the report that falls into those four categories. again, the report, he'll be in a position in a tweak release the -- a week to release the report. people can then read the report. i've already promised the judiciary committees i would appear as soon as they're able
to schedule a hearing after the report is released. so i'm not going to discuss it any further until after the report is out. >> can you just explain for us, i understand you're going to appear before the judiciary committee, but in that short period of time, it is very puzzling to me that the 4 up pages could have been -- 400 pages could have been reviewed and the president states this report is a complete and total exoneration. who is factually accurate? >> as i say, it is hard to have that discussion without the contends are the report, isn't it, so that's why i'm suggesting we wait until the report is out and i'm glad to talk to people about it after that and i'm already scheduled to testify about that. >> i appreciate that and i hope that we as members of congress will have the complete report and have discussions with you as to the accuracy of some of the
statements. thank you for appearing before us today and will we in closing, will we have the complete report or are you going to be selective as to what you give members of congress? >> you mean the unredacted report? >> um-hum. >> no. the first pass at this is going to produce a report that makes these redactions based on these four categories, and that something i'm hoping will be available to the public. as i said, i'm glad that tuck to -- to talk to cheerman adler. >> i hope you can accommodate members of congress who feel it is our responsibility to see the complete report and i look forward to continuing the discussion. thank you again for appearing. >> thank you. >> thank you.
>> thank you so much for appearing before this committee today to discuss the president's fy-20 budget request. i would like to focus on the department's efforts as it relates to sex and human trafficking in the fiscal year 2018 the justice department initiated 230 trafficking prosecutions and convicting a record 526 defendants. the department continued the and try trafficking, working with partners in the department of homeland security and the department of labor in 2018, these actions action saw signit prosecution results, including increases of 10%, 75% and 106% in cases filed, defendants charged and defendants convicte convicted.
i wear another hat own the judiciary committee -- >> bill: all this is important but we want to summarize what the ag barr has said, he will hand over the mueller report in a week. the redaction will be color codedful it is going well. with regard to redaction, he is going to protect grand jury testimony, sources and methods and the privacy of others, some of the headlines we've learned already. >> sandra: the original timetable of a mid april release still stands. in a week, we could see the report with redactions made. >> bill: we're going to bounce than out of this hearing, we won't miss the headlines. matt bennett, he former clinton white house deputy assistant. david, what do you think you have heard so far from the ag william barr. >> a movie sequel as good as the original and that's what you see here. this is a constant focus on an
investigation, than hearing was about the budget of the justice department to feet important things like terrorism, immigration, our just test system, and the democrats complete focus is on an investigation that is over, the summary has been submitted and the laws are being followed. they ultimately get the full report that can be release ed to congress. the next step, the democrats will continue to try to get the tax returns of the president. if they are somehow successful, some democrat is going to go to jalen over it because they won'table able to keep their mouths should about what -- going to go to jail takeover because they won't be able to keep their mouths should about what they say. somebody will go to jail. >> in a week we can expect the release of this report. it was originally discussed how rob earth muler himself was not -- robert mueller himself was
not involved in the findings of the report and that mueller did not see that priored to the release, but robert mueller is involved with barr on making these redactions. he's said that multiple times in this hearing. >> i appreciated the fact that ag barr says it wasn't as much of a mystery to me as to you guys. he is drawing that line in the sand, you've heard what i testified before and in that statement and i'm not going to say more. the sub committee is responsibility, in addition to the doj it overlooks the department of congress,s in a, a the national science foundation and the doj's budget, that is almost $40 million in discretionary and mandatory spending so ag barr is right to focus on the nexus of what his budget and what the agency is accomplishing in the realm of violent crime prosecutions, southern border issues and the drug war,est. as a con instinet went, i'm
looking forward to hear more of those details, and especially what they focused on with director ray's hearing last wee week. >> the most important thing is what those four reactions will look like. when ken starr released his report when i was working in the clinton white house, every single bit of it came out so much so it was basically x-rated. what are they going to redact, are they going to tell us the full story or is this midden. if this is hidden, it is a fight that will continue for years in the. >> sandra: they've already talk about the four areas that they will redact. we do know now about the color coding system. robert mueller, william barr,
they're working together to color coded so it is falling under which of the four categories the redaction falls. >> it is clear they're following the law on what can be released but they have to focus on today, the budget department. we have a major crisis at the border, even democrats now say is a crisis, the populations of wyoming, vermont, north dakota and alaska would all double if the number of emgrants that come across the border now happened for an entire year. we have major issues right now at our border. we should be talking about this in today's funds battle about what money the department department is going to get to protect u.s. citizens, not this mueller report on and on and on.
>> bill: and talking about all those being paid to show up at the border and the facilities are over loaded. there is an internal probe at the department department he confessed -- department of justice that is under way, in 2016 in specific, about the fisa release. so we go back to bill barr. >> the patient care act breathtaking. it is unbelievable, it stands out, your decision does for the bedth, the scope, recklessness and its lack of legal justification to invalidate the affordable care act. if you're successful, millions
would see their costs skyrocket. senator collins put it best when she wrote to you dated last week. the letter was dated april 1st 1st. you did get her letter? >> yes. >> you saw she wrote your decision to pursue this course of action in the federal courts puts at risk not only critical consumer protections such as those protecting individuals suffering from preexisting conditions and other important provisions of that such, such as medicaid expansion, protection for young adults to age 26, regulatory pathway for fda approval for bio similar drugs. the department of justice's refusal to defend our law, the patient protection and affordable care act is
distressing because of the harm to the physical well-being of americans and doj's renical appears to be driven by political considerations rather than health care discussions or sound legal environments. attorney general barr, you're not a health care expert but your department is taking the lead on attempting a massive overhaul of our american health care system so i want to agree on a few of the hop dine facts and go through a couple of quick yes or no questions at the outset. number one, have you conducted or views an analysis to evail wait the effects of the doj litigation position to overturn the aca, effects on consumer cost and coverage have you done that analysis or have you reviewed one. >> when we're faced with a legal question, we base our answer on the law. >> so the answer is no.
i can't imagine you would take that kind of a dramatic, drastic action without even trying to evaluate the consequences for the american consumers, the people using the health care, the people for whom these premiums are paid. >> you mean in the event the law is struck down? >> if you're successful in this lawsuit you're supporting, the entire aca is struck down, millions of americans who currently receive health insurance coverage under the law are at risk of losing that coverage, am i correct? that? >> i think the president has made clear that he favors not only preexisting conditions but would like action on a broad health plan. so he is proposing a substitute for obama care. >> the one that will come after the next election, you mean. >> the one that will come down if and well obama care is struck down. >> should the law be struck down, millions of people who get
their coverage through the aca marketplace would lose their coverage and tens of millions more would see the premiums skyrocket. in addition, if you are asuccessful, 12 million people nationally and 750,000 people in my home stated of pennsylvania who have coverage under the medicate would likely lose that coverage. am i correct in that. >> if you prevail, you're devoting scarce resources of your department towards that effort, are you not, attorney general? >> we're in litigation, we have to take possession in litigation. >> the answer is question, and if you succeed that many people will least their coverage nationally for medicaid and 750,000 from pennsylvania alone, right. >> if you think it is such an outrageous position, you have nothing worry about.
let the courts do their job. >> my time is out, we will come back to this. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. attorney general, thank you for being here today. be for a couple of years at the end of the obama administration, violent crime in america started to tick up that means more robberies, more murders and more assaults. i'm encourages to see the preliminary crime statistic showing this alarms trend is being reversed. what are you doing that is working and the resources for fighting violent crime. >> thank you, sir. the violent crime as i said in my statement is one that we make sure we don't see a resurgence of violent crime. the base is 1.3 billion and
we're seeking a $138 million enhancement to that. 120 would go to reducing violent crime in communities and 18 would be to step up our efforts against these transnational criminal organizations. the flagship, one of the flagships of our feet against violent crime is our project safe neighborhoods. this is a really concept that's been around for a while under various guises, but fundamentally what it is, it is a strategy to focus on high crime areas that brings together the local community, the law enforcement, including federal and state and also the various social programs and social agencies that run and fund programs that are meant to prevent creams from occurring. and, they've had a tremendous record, there have been studies showing how it has suppressed
crime where it has been deployed. we are seeking $120 million to extend the project safe neighborhoods program. we also are seeking $10.7 million to expand atf's program which has proved to be a tremendous tool in the fight against violent crime this helps us identify firearms when they're used in crime and trace it back to particular individuals. so those are some of the main initiatives we have under way to grapple with violent crime and so far it looks fast they're successful. >> i definitely agree, our local police chiefs and sheriffs really support the project, safe
neighborhoods, and it is a great program with a high return on investment for helping reduce gun and violent crime in our communities. also important to the state of mississippi is addressing human trafficking. i know the state legislature has been working really hard on it and i know my colleague, miss roby -- >> bill: we're doing a delicate dance and trying to pick the mosts we can. he's doing a good job with the answers on the mueller report. within a week, we will see it. >> with the redactions and he is working with robert mueller on those redactions, they will be color coded so you know under which category they fall for areas he laid out specifically. we know now the details which he is going to release that report. >> just so you know, we have to get commercials, too. quick 60-second time out, kent starr is in the wings, too.
>> sandra: the hearing on capitol hill continues. the mueller report is again being discussed. let's step back in. >> consider enforcement of the voting rights act a priority. chief roberts himself stated that voting discrimination still exists. no one doubts that. >> yes, we do, we consider voting right as priority. >> has the doj, the civil rights division, brought any cases under the trump administration to enforce section 2 of the vra. >> no, but i would point out that in the areas of the obama administration, up with kansas was brought. >> according to the your web, the department of jess tus, both obama and clinton have brought
at least over 30 cases in enforcement of section 2 of the voting rights act. secretary ross credits the department of justice's immediate to enforce section 2 of the voting rights act for the reason why a citizenship question is needed on the census. the doj has been enforce, the voting rights act for over 50-years without the need for a citizenship question. is there -- what are your thoughts on that? >> my thoughts are that it is being litigated right now and i think oral argument is on april 23 so i'm not going to discuss it. >> okay. i wanted to also ask about zero tolerance policy. do you agree with your predecessor's zero tolerance policy memorandum issued last year, april 2018? >> well, there is a lot of misunderstanding about the zero tolerance policy. the zero tolerance policy is
that the department with a prosecute cases that are referred to the department. and the thing that caused family separation was the referral of cases to the department that involved families with children. the administration, the president has put out an executive order, i believe, saying that we're not going -- that dhs is not going to follow that policy. and as far as i know, we are not getting referrals of that type. but the general proposition that the department will prosecute kansas cases that are referred to it stands. >> according to the "the new york times" ," president trump wants to restart the practice of surprising parents and children, the term binary is getting traction. is that something you support.
>> i haven't heard that. >> you haven't heard that? >> no. >> we can submit articles to your office. are you aware of research showing that separation from initial stages to on going and long-term is devastating and detrimental to children's health and development. >> i'm sorry, can you repeat that? >> are you aware of any research that shows separation of families and children are detrimental to their health. >> i haven't reviewed that research but, as i said, the president has already put out an order stopping the separation of families. >> so would you enforce and put forth policies of new discussions that have been happening about president trump wanting to restart the separation practice. >> all i can say -- i personally sitting here am not familiar with those discussions. >> would you support continuation of separation of
families? >> i support the president's policy, which is we're not going to separate families. >> so you support that we will not separate families any more. >> yes. >> thank you, i yield back. >> mr. graves. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general, thank you for being with us. i will just remind the committee, we heard a lot about the mueller report today. 22-months of investigation, 2800 subpoenas, $25 million from taxpayers, 500 witness interviews, 19 lawyers, 40 f.b.i. agents and who knows how many warrants and the conclusions were simple no collusion, no obstruction. i remember when the first letter was released and there were a lot of complaints then, attorney general that you weren't releasing the summary soon enough and here today i hear it was too hasty too quick so now you've had time to review, you've indicated maybe within the next week, we'll get the report released so for the committee, is there anything new
you've seen since the review of the entirety of the report that would change your conclusions? >> no, congressman. as i explained, my march 24 letter was meant to state the bottom line conclusions of the report, not summarize the report. i tried to use as much of the special counsel's own language as i could but they were just stating the bottom line conclusions and there is nothing to suggest to me that those, you know, those weren't -- >> no collusion, no obstruction. >> the letter speaks for itself. >> i thought it did, too. members of congress said they intend to ignore the public redactions and leak the full report. would that give you pause in that were to occur. >> is in is going to leak the full report? >> that's what we -- what
members of congress have been saying. >> that would be unfortunate because there's grand jury information in there that, under the law, has to be redacted. >> we've heard members of this committee today say the american people the deserve to sees the full report. and so even members of this committee have indicated that, the chairman of the judiciary said this weekend, this is chairman adler, certainly some of it would not leak publicly, he has discretion, and the committee has a very good record of protecting information which it decides to protect so general barr, under it federal law, does a member of congress have the power to ash temperaturely decide what portions of the special counsel report they might release recollection tacted or not. >> not if it violates the law and we believe 6-e doesize applo members of congress. it is interesting because this
whole mechanism for the special counsel was established in the clinton administration in the wake of ken starr's report this' why the current rule says that the report should be kept confidential because there bass a lot of reaction because there to ken starr's report and right now people calling for the release of this report are basically castigating ken starr and others for releasing the starr report. i have already said that i think the situation here requires me tobers to gets a much -- to exercise as much discorrosion get out as much as i can and i think they would agree they have to be redacted. >> thinking about the chairman of the judiciary, if he were to release or any member of
congress were to release the full report or redacted portions of the report are they in compliance with the law or in -- >> i don't want to speck late about all the circumstances that are involved. i don't intend that the same to send the pull unredacted report to the committee so i'm not sure he would get it. if he got it directly from the count, that would be unfortunate and i doubt that would be happen. >> they've issued a subpoena to you to release the full report. would that put you in violation of federal law. >> i don't think i have the latitude to release 6-e material. as to the other categories, as i said, i'm willing to discussion those with the judiciary committees. i want to try to acome date and satisfy their -- accommodate their interests, but at the same time uphold the law. right now there is a recent
kansas decided in the district of columbia, i think in the last week on this, the 6-e material is not releasable. >> thank you for your fashion in which you've handled this. i think you've been up right, bank of japan an example of integrity and -- been an example of integrity and i know you will abide by the law and my hope is that all members of congress will follow in like kind. thank you for your good work. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> bill: speaking of ken starr, he's been listening to this. we want to drop in, former independent council, also the book contempt in the clinton administration. what are you heard so far today that is relevant? >> i'm very proud of bill barr. he's a great lawyer, a great attorney general already in the early weeks under enormous pressure. he is doing what the law requires. but, at the same time, bill has also made -- excuse me, attorney
general barr has also made clear he wants to accommodate and to be as transparent's possibly can be. he's also cited a recent decision by the court of appeals that reinforces a basic fact, which is grand jury secrecy is very important, so i think he's cool, he's collected, and the american people can see how enormously expand such the justice department donate is -- expansive the justice department's domain system i'm happy to hear him defend the march 24 letter wish i believe was the letter that was the sunday letter, he notified on friday that i have the report
and am going to be back to you with the principle conclusions of the report. the letter, when we go back to it even though it has been the subject of kit sniffle some quarters that letter -- of criticism in some quarters, that letter quotes from the report itself, setting forth the principle conclusions. that is precisely what he is required to do under the governing regulations. he's going by the books and that's what he's telling them today. i am a by the books law guy. not a politician, but the nation's leading lawyer right now. let's let him follow the law. >> he has said that many times throughout that process, ken, and what we learnvery specifically how he intends to make those redactions and release the report with him. here he is in full detail. >> i've already explained the
information that will be redacted from the report, the four categories, that is what is going to govern the redactions. in fact, the special counsel and his staff are helping us select the information in the report that falls into those four categories. >> sandra: ken, as you and he put it, he is going to do it in the constraints of the law but i heard you say he is going to try to be accommodating. do you think comake any further accommodation to skeptics out there who don't believe they will see the full findings of the mueller report? >> well, when i say accommodating, i think he wants to do everything he can in favor of transparency within the confines of the law. and, of course, unless we have these materials page by page, and we don't, we can't make an intelligent assessment of the specifics. but, here is, i think, a source
of assurance. he has said, and you just played it that he'sing to this collaboratively with bob muler and bob mueller's team, so he's not setting in some isolation ward in making his own judgments by himself or with a few advisors. the special counsel, bob mueller was in communication with the department was justice for a long time so it was not from the top of mount sinai and here it is for you to see. this is a collaborative process consistent consistent with the count. one thing that is being lost in the conversation, one of the members of congress referred to it, the very elaborate nature of
mueller's investigation, there was no interference with the mueller investigation. the special counsel was able to conduct his work over two-years without any decision of his, any judgment call being over ruled by the justice department. so we've had this full, comprehensive having a, lavishly furnished, and wait this is going, this goes to the whole issue of, quote, obstruction of the investigation. fully funded, fully supported, so obstruction doesn't add up. he is doing a splendid job and this should be incuraging to the american people he is an honest
guy. >> we have the congressman from florida doing the questions. i believe he concluded now. >> talk to you about your 2020 budget but what is farr more critical and much more far reaches and consequences to the federal government is the disclosure of the mueller report. this really started very early on in the investigation with excessive secrecy about exactly what we were taking a look at. here is the supplemental memo from the deputy acting attorney general this drives the public crazy when we see something like this. this is what we have to avoid when we get into this. in your march 24, 3.5 page summary of the report, you stated you are mindful of the public interest in this matter and intend to release as much of the report as you can consistent
with the applicable law and department policies. you know on march 14, the house resolved unanimously that the full report be released publicly, except where prohibited by law and released to congress unconditionally document appreciate the importance of a full disclosures of this report, both personally on and behalf of your department. >> i appreciate the importance of releasing as. of the report i can consistent with the law. >> let's get into that, then. what laws and department policies you created in your letter do you claim require or just you to withhold thing portions of the report. you talks about 6h-e. what else. >> there are four categories of information being redacted.
>> i understand that. >> you asked what else. we've asked the intelligence committee to identify agency in could reveal intelligence sources and methods. >> what authority do you have to state you have discorrosion withhold -- i get the grand jury side, that is 6-e, you know as well as i do that 6-e encompasses an intelligence committee exception so i assume you will say that falls under that category that will can be some releast or withholding of specific information under your 6-e category. what about the other categories. what justifies you in claiming to withhold that information that are you talking about the intelligence? >> no, i'm talking about the other two category ies. on going prosecutions and privacy and interests. that seems to be something you
can drive a truck through. you're saying you have the discretion, where does that discretion lie? >> the regulation that sets up the special coins and also provides for his reported to the attorney general and also what the attorney general can release specifies that it has to be consist tempt with the department's long-standing policies and the department's long standing policy and practice is we're not going to charge someone, we don't go out and discuss derogatory information about them. that's who got everyone outrages at what f.b.i. director comey ask in the case of hillary clinton. >> the regulation to lon standing policy scuffs that in your view. >> the regulation that says any release has to be consistent with that. >> okay, good. let's go to 6-e here for a
second. before i get to 6-e, will you maintain nil right to withhold any of the information in that report based on a so-called claim of executive privilege? >> am i what? >> are you going to claim that you have a right to withhold any of that report based on a so-called claim of executive privilege. >> any claim of executive privilege would have to be asserted by the president. as i said in my letter, which sort of speaks for itself, he has said that he's leaving the decisions up to me. >> okay. are you going to claim executive privilege to keep any of that report back? >> as i said, there is no plan, i have for plan to do that. >> okay. do you believe that executive privilege applies to any broader range of communications and specific direct communications from the president? >> you know, i would have to review the latest opinions from
olc about the precise scope of it, but it is not relevant to me right now. >> as far as you know, does it apply to any communications by the president before he was president. >> as i say, i'm not sure what the learning is in the department of just test on that -- just test on that. >> you're aware there are some exceptions under 6he, you can disclose grand jury material be, it is under your discretion but some is suggest to the riling of the court, correct? >> what are they? >> 6-e, there is five exceptions in 6-e that allow you to go to court to ask the court for permission to release those it is up to the court to release. are you intending to go to court to ask for guidance or direction and/or an order whether you
should release materials? >> the cheerman of the judiciary committee is free to go to cort if he feels win of those exceptions is applicable. >> the rate is yours to ask. >> well, why do you say the right is mine? >> because you are the exercising authority under 6-e. >> i think if the chairman believe he is entitled to receive it, he can move the court for it. >> he'll come back to this. it is your right to ask, i'ming what is your intention. >> my intention is not to ask for it, at this stage. if the chairman has a good explanation why 6-e does not apply and his need to the information, i'm willing to listen to that. as i say, my first agenda item here is to get the public report out, what can be gotten out publicly, that's going to be within a week.
>> he'll come back. >> i'll discuss these issues in greater detail after that occurs occurs. >> during the president obamaed a ibmstration and 50% -- administration and 50% fewer than under the george bush administration. can you please provide me why that is happening and what are you planning to do to address
that? >> i would have to see those figures and how they're broken down. the areas of hate crimes, that is not true. we have an enviable record of prosecuting hate crimes in a same or higher rate than previous administrations that i'm ware. i would have to see what else you're talking about. >> are you familiar with the data of the percentage have they increased you would the trump administration? there are indications they have. >> have they increased? >> yes. >> weather hate crimes verses the prosecution of hate crimes? >> hate crimes, have they increased under this administration. >> i haven't seen any data from 2007. >> is it a priority you haven't looked at the data -- >> as i said in my could be firmation hearings, i'm very concerned about hate crimes and
tend to vigorous leprosies cute them. i agree they have bob increase bug i have seen no data to say it is different under the trump administration. >> attorney general we use the term stay woke where you're in tune to what is happening on the ground. i appreciate your teen your or youring -- tenure or your length of time you've been attorney general but i can tell this is something that is very important and i expect you to be informed and aware of what is happening in this area. i wanted to follow-up on a question that my colleague cartwright asked because i really need to ask this question. i watched with deliberate intent of your answers with who do you report, to the president of the united states or to the people of america.
you, during your confirmation, without duress said you report to the people but you just said, when it came to the aca ruling that you gave, that the president was very clear that he opposed it and so let it work out in legislation. i want to -- >> didn't say that. >> let me finish my question because that's what i heard. maybe you need to clarify it. i want you to explain to me, do you understand your role when you issue a statement abolishing affordable care act that you will, as the attorney general of the people of the united states have a responsibility to understand and support that decision not based on the policy of a president of the united states. it was clearly laid out the impact it will have and i want
you to respond to that because that's what i heard, sir. >> well, if you did listen to my confirmation. >> i did, sir. >> i distinguished between three different roles the attorney general plays. one is enforcement, another is in a policy role and the third is in providing league advice. what i said then is that the attorney general has the responsibility responsibility to provide straight from the shoulder legalries of the right view of the law. >> in this case of the aca, you felt it was the right decision under the law to issue that you support abolishing the affordable care act. >> you didn't let me finish, which is that the first obligation is to provide your best view of the law. if the president or your executive branch, agencies that
you're representing and have a, are stakeholders in the issue disagree with that advice and want to pursue a different position than the attorney general let gaiting op behalf of the -- litigating on laugh of the united states should take that position if it is a reasonable and defensible legal position, even if it is not the position the attorney general would take if the attorney general was a judge. that is the position i made. >> what you're saying is that if you disagree with the president, if your legal experience and your expertise doesn't agree and your president says something different, you're obligated to agree and enforce force what the president says, is that what you're telling me as the attorney general as the united states of america is that your statement, sir. >> it is the same when we
represent and defend the law of congress. sometimes we don't think the law is an original matter -- >> sir, we pass laws. the president of the united states do not pass laws. >> right, but i feel that if there is a reasonable and defensible argument that can be made to defend a statute, we frequently do that. >> sir, i'm very concerned at this point. i'm over my time and i will come back but i'm very concerned with your statement. thank you. >> attorney general, in your testimony, you said violent crime has declined since 2016. but, as we learn from the f.b.i., home grown violent extremism has grown over the same time. what priority and resources have you included in the 2020 budget to fight such violent
extremenism i don't think we break out. maybe you can help me, lee, i don't think we break out of budget targeting that particular category of offense. >> we do not have a separate category for violent extremism, but we have $138 million and 135 new positions for the violent crime positions. in the f.b.i., wear adding 467 new agents to the f.b.i. for a variety of new initiatives, and among them is the f.b.i.'s work on violent extremism. >> okay. it is important for this committee. >> it is important to know how many dollars will be assigned to this because it is an issue that concerns all americans and we need to deal with it in a proper
way. >> yes, mr. chairman, but the people who are on the watch for this kind of thing, whether they be f.b.i. afghanistans or u.s. attorneyings -- f.b.i. agents or u.s. attorneys, it is other sorts of terrorism, potentially, so it is hard to allocate exactly the dollars by that category. but, you know, obviously it is a serious issue and it is one that the f.b.i. devotes a lot of effort to. >> as long as we know the department, the agency is looking at it is dealing with it, is taking it seriously, we can then work together on it. that's the easier part. >> mr. chairman, if i can add a bit more. we do have an f.b.i. budget this year, the $16 million for the f.b.i.'s participation in the national vetting center with other federal entities, and that helps the f.b.i. look closely at
individuals who may be coming to the united states. so we have that vetting money in the f.b.i. we also have $4 million in the office of just test programs on grants to go towards looking at extremism and domestic terrorism. >> a few weeks ago, the atf director said the department's fiscal year 2020 budget request would result in atf being forced to let go of more than 300 staff duing to increasing cause. as we speak address rising gun violence in this nation, how can the department justify a proposal will result in fewer resources dedicated to that goal. >> let me just say first that i am a huge fan of atf, they are an outstanding agency and any money spent on the aff is well
worth -- atf is well worth. it one thing i hear is how valuable the atf acts are air than technology is outstanding in helping deal with gun violence and violent crime. >> sandra: fox news alert, top of the hour, you're watching capitol hill, attorney general william barr testify before congress. this is a house appropriation sub committee. he is there to talk about the budget for the upcoming 2020-year for the justice department but he has been facing a grilling from democrats over the four-page key summary of the mueller report. the big news, he says it stands we will see, with redactions, the release of the mueller report within a week. >> bill: a lot of headlines. i'm bill hem we are er hemmer wa
smith. catherine herridge, what is the latest. >> he expects the public release in his words, quote, within a week. we learned about the redactions with color coding. four categories, grand jury information, intelligence that might reveal sources and methods, on going investigations as well as withholding the names of individuals who are not prosecutes and the attorney general explained there will be a color that matches those redactions or exceptions and details notes explaining more about why that information has been withheld. here is the attorney general. >> right now the special counsel is working with us on
identifying information in the reports that fall under those four categories. we will color code the excisions from the report and we will provide explanatory notes describing the basis for each redaction. >> he also took a number of questions about the findings of the mueller report. the attorney general testified repeatedly what he released in that four-page report was not a summary but the bottom line conclusions of robert mueller. the attorney general was specific to note he used the exact language or verbage of the special counsel. he was asked repeatedly by statements by the president that it exonerated him on collusion when robert mueller did not reach a conclusion about obstruction. the attorney general says that is an issue he can address once the report is public. also the other major headline is
the attorney general confirmed he is personally reviewing the genesis of the f.b.i. counter intelligence investigation of 2016 and will review referrals from nunez about misconduct during that investigation. listen. >> i am reviewing the conduct of the investigation. i'm reviewing the investigation trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligenceinvestigatio. >> he has give more detail on
what the report will look like. >> thank you, catherine. catherine herridge has been watching along with us today. a question about that. one of the democrats was wonder how long you're able to get a 400 page report and a summary or principle conclusions i should say with a 4.5 page report in 4. he saidworking with the deputy ag, which is rod rosenstein, there is an inkling to the thinking of the special counsel. why would that be significant? >> well, it shows there are really no surprises. under the regime that bob mueller has been on rating under, he reported -- operating under, he reported to rod rosenstein. people think he is out there doing whatever he wanted to do. untrue. under the regulations he was to be in communication with rod
rosenstein, the acting attorney general. we know under the investigation, he had to go to rod him beforee took any major action. there is no sealing of the bob mueller investigation and there has been an enormous amount of communication, from what we learned today, it is no surprise to me with respect to what the report is going to look like. as i said a few minutes ago, this was not just plunked down, 400 pages out of the clear blue, look whatted with today, we had -- what we had today, we had no idea what this was going to say. that is not the way the department works under these regulations. this is a professional process of back and forth and keeping the senior office fully informed. >> ken starr, thank you. get our panel quickly, david, what have you heard for the past
95 minutes. >> that we're going to get the report next week, redacted version. it was interesting hearing that earlier, talk about how the entire starr report was unredacted and left out. and talking about two types of investigations. the clinton investigation was about his sexual relationship with monica lewinsky, and this was about did the trump campaign collude with the russians, which he has not. this has information about how we deal with foreign governments, a. higher level than with the clinton presidency. >> i think it is important that people understand the color coding is crucial in the inevitable fight over them. now, contrary to what a lot of people have heard there isn't court precedence, especially in the grand jury arena in terms of redactions and it is really the only clear precedence is both
sides have to somehow give back and forth to each other, meaning congress and the doj. what avenue dot congressmen have when they -- avenues do congressmen have against the ag. we've seen going to court for the civil request, unredact this and make the doj comply. again, all the precedence that has arisen out of that is having two groups of people that have to a little bit give and the fact arising from fast and furious, the civil route, republicans at that time it is still tied up in the courts six-years later. look for it to continuing to be a murky situation. >> and interesting when we learned the attorney jell general, william barr, speaking now, offered robert mueller the opportunity review his principle findings of the mueller report, but mueller declined.
>> right. it is difficult to know what went back and forth. i don't think anyone is questioning how that relationship has been, so we won't probably know that until mueller testifies. but i will say this, it is true that the starr president clinton was about misconduct but also obvious tis. recall the congress impeached him and the senate almost convicted hem. it was taken very seriously. congress did what it was supposed to do. what you're hearing hearing frm democrats is we have a job to do, that is why they're so eager to get the full report. >> you heard what ken starr said, there is no surprise and they'reworking with rod
rosenstein the same time so they're able to go through with the conclusions. now bell barr is doubling back to give him an answer on that. let's listen in. >> they were not asked to make any changes to the letters but we notified them before we issues them. >> he asked you, did he get to see the letter. >> i think it may have been read to them. they did not get to see the letter. >> thank you. miss lowy. >> mr. attorney general, i want to get to some other eats in the budget today. -- items in the budget today. you believed law, a background check, there are three-days to do a background check to receive a gun. it is vitally important that background checks be done
thoroughly as we know the result of mistakes can be featal. for example, the charleston shooter passed a background check despite information that should have disqualified him. the house passed enhanced background checks act substantially increases the amount of time allowed for a background check to ensure that we close these loopholes. i'm concerned that until this bill moves through the senate and on to the president's desk, that three-days is not often enough time to evaluate a background check with questionable information. in your just a minute, would fewer prohibited individuals be able to purchase firearms if this time period was extended? >> the data that i have heard is that there are about 6,000 of
these delayed responses. where these default sales occur. after the expiration of the three-days. and that whether you go back and look at those 6,000, approximately 2,000 of those, about a third, are people that would have flunked the background check and their atf goes out and gets the weapon, retrieved the weapon. i think it is fairly rare that -- well, i think the aurora shooter may have been someone who got that default, that default sale that, you know, that it was sold to them after the three-day period so it does occasionally happen. >> wait a minute, you said occasionally. didn't you mention 2,000, 6,000. >> they're not all shooters it does sometimes happen that somebody does -- >> you support extending the
time period, i've had interaction with so many people in law enforcement and in many cases three-days is not enough. do you support extending the time period? >> no, i think that puts a burden on a lot of people. >> maybe buying a gun that shouldn't have a gun. is that what you're saying. >> i think it was -- >> i would rather put the burden on those doing the investigation. >> i would put the emphasis on getting accurate records put into the system and make sure wear getting all the record into the system. >> bill: all these issues are important but we're trying to get in and out of this on brett of guessing, too -- on a little bit of guessing. >> sandra: 9 questions are surrounding the budget for the new year and the justice department is there to respond do the questions.
but since this is his first public appearance sense releasing the mueller report and his principle findings, he has been grilled by mostly the democrats in the room based on his conclusions. we will take a quick break and we have jason chaffetz on the other side the break. >> the office of the inspector general has a spending investigation in the fisa process in the russian investigation and i expect that will be complete probably in may or june.
>> can you elaborate on what is meant but does not exonerate the president. >> that is a statement made by the special counsel, i reported as one of his bottom line conclusions. i'm not in a position to discuss that further until the full report is out. >> that was william barr throughout the morning answering questions based on his findings
of the mueller report. released in a week, he said where he recollects dakses. he said he wants -- he said, about redactions. he wants the public to see as much of a as possible. jason chaffetz, you followed along with us. what struck you as you listened to william barr this morning on capitol hill. >> i think the most explosive and consequential thing the attorney general said he will look at the jen says of how this -- genesis of how this started, in the may/june time frame. that has serious implications. i think the democrats will try to muddy the waters. they tried to under cut the legs of the attorney general. dismissed that and put that to bed adeptly. they tried to create it scene that the attorney general went rogue on his own but there was
obviously collaboration with the deputy attorney general and attorney general in the discussions in the summary issued by the attorney general so that talking point from the democrat is dead and off the charts now, as well. >> bill: you also found this comment about the inkling as to what the special count was up to. why is that, we talked to ken starr about that 10-minutes ago why is that so important, jason? >> they think he took it and 48-hours later and report a summary. that's not the case. he used the word "inkling" several times to indicate they had opinion in communication. they asked him to stay on so there was the continuity of that communication used to generate this summary report and that
totally under cuts what the democrats have been trying to say which is the summary is bogus. they want some is salacious del but i don't think they aring a going to get it. >> he said march 24, the sunday letter, believes that was shared with the mueller team. the report five-days later was not shared with the mueller team. does that tie into any sort of significance. >> yeah, the idea he was going to share the first one with mueller, he refuses, i don't need to see it, i think it shows they have a good working relationship and confidence. and the attorney general is not going to go out on a limb saying i will release as much of it as it can. democrats can try to beat their heads against the wall and say there is something in there, but there is nothing to the notion they've been just barking on for two-years that there is some
sort of collusion with the trump cam paper pain. it just was -- campaign. it just was never there. >> sandra: what do you think is the big take away, having this play out this morning, jay some, for the american -- jason, for the american people to see this report scrutinized in such a public way and now the redactions, william barr is working with robert mueller to do that, will the american people accept the findings of this report? >> no, i don't think they will, but the united states of america is unique, we are different, we are self critical. we go through gyrations in the country, unlike any other country in the planet, it makes our process better but at some point the american people are going to take a deep breath and say the democrats have been trying to sell thus collusion for two-years and there is nothing to it.
even if they want to say they have something, no one has. there is nothing to it. the most controversial and explosive thing will come in may or june when we hear from the inspector general when it happens to the genesis of the spying on a political campaign. that is by far a bigger story. >> jason chaffetz, thank you for your analysis there. >> thank you. >> we don't know how long the testimony will continue, but be patient with us. he's back with a senate committee so has a long week. >> sandra: we will hear from him twice publicly in a week. on the other side of the break, we have reaction. we'll be right back.
azar who is the lead for held health from our federal government support the repeal of the patient care act and reports indicate that you and secretary azar were over ruled by acting chief of staff nick mull rain isy and the -- mulvaney and the president himself. duh you did convey the expects of this lawsuit prevails if it does, or the effects on other many health care system. >> i'm not going to get into the internal deliberations on this point. i had the opportunity present my views and i believe the time decision reaches is a reasonably defensible legal position.
it prevailed in the district court and it is a position taken bethe four dissenting justices in an fib case, which is once you do away with the mandate, the rest of the statute cannot stand. >> are you citing offensive privilege but declining to tell but the discussions between you, mr. azar and mr. mulvaney. >> call it what you wish, i'm not discussing it. >> you're refusing to discuss it. it is a decision that make morse extreme and contradicts. the decision to go forward with this possession, it contradicts the doj's june 2018 position the case that was so controversy then that three of the four attorneys representing the government refused to sign on to the briefs and removed themselves from the case. the american people deserve to understand if you insectaria zar support this lawsuit based on sound rational or just bald
politics talking. i incest you aseth this executive privilege -- if you assert -- i insist you assert this executive privilege in writing if that's what you're doing. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and attorney general barr. in your testimony, you mentioned cybersecurity. being the f.b.i. is the lead federal agency for investigating cyber attacks by criminals, over seas adversaries, terrorists -- >> sandra: the hearing continues on capitol hill. we have take a quick break and bring in chris, he's been listening in on this last exchange. your thoughts, chris. >> any opportunity a member of the democratic party has to turn the conversation to health care and health insurance they're going to do it, take it to the
bank. what cartwright is trying to pull apart is the administration has not mattered the 3459er smoothly, so the white house, the president snapped bunch of heads. even the popular parts like preexisting conditions and no caps. the republicans say we can't run on this, we can't deal with this so them the president says, don't worry about it, we will have a health care plan. >> then the senate says, we will not. plan c is we will deal with this after the election. unfortunately for republicans, you have the lawsuit full sail ahead, that is after the 2020 election that is a difficult spot for the republicans to be.
in you have the democrats trying to tease that out with bar. >> you're very good he, my friend. can you remember the last time with carried a sub committee hearing live on tv. all of this goes to the mueller matter. what are you hearing op that. >> i like our system the government, my favorite thing about all of the mueller stuff is how disappointed everybody has gotten to be at different turns ins process. all of the thriller novel, hyped up, both sides have engaged in and the speculation, stop at naught even with this information, the thing i take away from this, barr is confident he wants this to stand, he wants this to be the final draft and he wants this to be out there so people are satisfied and he's including the mueller team on this because he knows if they take things out
that team mueller ought to be in there, there will be a hangover so they're trying to work together so they can produce a document that everybody there it is the members of the mueller team getting ready to go back into private life, most of them, mueller himself going back to private life, and the folks at the justice department can say this is what it is, this is the jam and hear us out. >> bill: he said the process is going very well, the timeline stains in a week, and if you have redactions, you have color-coded explanations analyst will they be happy with that? >> there are crazy people out there, but for normal people, yes, they can have confident. >> sandra: chris stirewalt.
>> fox news alert to another hearing we're monitoring on capitol hill. tomorrow executives on facebook, google and other tech executives appearing before the house judiciary committee, lawmakers want to know what social media sites are doing stop the spread of hate speech on their platforms. hillary valparaiso is live on capitol hill with more for us. what have we learned so far? >> members of the house judiciary committee telling representatives from facebook and google their platforms are being used as a worldwide messenger of hate speech and they're expecting them to do something about it. it is not just the companies on the hot seat but both sides of the ail blaming the others for rhetoric about white nationalists an ty semitic speech online.
>> i worry the try motivation for this hearing is to suggest that republicans ever hateful and dishonest and are somehow related to the areas who truly ever hateful and act on it in the public square. >> neil pots saying they don't always get it right. >> white supremacists are not allowed on the platform in any circumstances. in fact, we've banned over 200 white supremacist organizations under our policy and we extended a policy on all praise and white nationalism and white accept atism. we don't -- separatism, we don't always get it right. >> they say they're forced to
walk a fine line in protecting free speech and protecting users from hate speech. >> they can silence voices that want to make themselves heard on important issues. often we found a mistake that content is in a gray area that may be offensive but does not violate policies of hate speech. >> until now, tech companies have been at a stand still of the how to moderate but a crack down could be coming because chairman nadler to treat white nationalist hate groups as if they are as dangerous as terrorists. >> thank you, from capitol hill, hillary vaughn. >> . >> bill: a alley blow to the trumped a -- a legal blow to the trump administration on the crisis on our border. we're live from l.a.
william, good morning from there. >> bill, good morning. this is another major set back for the administration that trys to handle the flood in. three teams that judge has opposed the president. they've stopped the administration from stopping people waiting for asylum in mexico. it is to stop families from disappearing in the u.s. and reduce catch and release because they have 3,000 beds for 60,000 families. the ruling takes effect on friday. however, the 11 my grants must brought to the u.s. and no more aside sum seekers -- asylum seekers can be forced to stay south of the border. doesn't say if it is a wide other humane policy but rather violates existing laws to endure
that immigrants are not returned to undeally dangerous circumstances. president trump tweeting, quote, a 9th circuit judge said mexico is too dangerous for my grants? so unfair to u.s., out of control. this is the third strike for the president. a judge rules against the family policy and in november they ruled against assume almost seekers. homeland security ordered a major expansion across the entire border that now must stop. >> thank you. reporting on that from l.a. we want to get back to this hearing we've been tap dancing throughout the morning. the bill barr hearing. the first time he has publicly spoken since receiving the mueller report. carl, nice to see you. review the headlines, he will hand over the report in a week,
there will be redactions, they will be color coded and says the process is going well. they had some linkeling on to the thinking of the special counsel what have you heard, carl? >> i heard no mad where he doeses, it will be unsemiable to the committee. some were pointed in their comments they wanted everything and law be darned. they wanted an unredacted report and they would make up their minds to what would be released and not released. barr made it clear he has to uphold the law and there are grand jury testimonies, sources and methods and some sense we shouldn't be trashing the reputation of people who were not charged or indicted. >> and reviewing the matter the
around the election of the campaign in 2016, which could be very interested when the inspector general horowitz concludes his report, which could happen in may or june of this year. you make of that what? >> well, i think, i know there is. so doubt about this -- some doubt about this but i think michael horowitz, but i think he will have a blockbuster report -- he go about in this the appropriate manner, what are the strengths and weaknesses of what he did. reknow from the report on hillary clinton's e-mail server, he is very direct and candid and force 23468 saying what he they wills was done right and what he thinks was done wrong. that is going to be a powerful report and it ought to give us
all pause. >> bill: one more point, on this executive privilege, i think the law states the president or the white house can review this and they can, i believe, object to any part of the reports release. barr made it clear that has not yet happened. i imagine that continues as of today, correct? >> we've had some suggestion from the white house they're not going to intervene in this, they will leave it in the attorney general's hands and they would be wise to do so. i think he's gone about this they oddcally, has works closely -- methodically, has worked with bob mueller and others, wants to criticism from bob mueller or bob mueller's team about what's in the report and they're intimately involved in this and the white house: smart to leave it at this.
>> bill: his headline was no surpriseses. >> i think that's right. ken and i are now being mistaken for each other in public, i've had people come up to say nice to meet you, judge starr, and he's been mistaken for me, maybe weal we need the twin starr-rove report here. i will have the, because it lacks surprises, we can expect some democrats to be highly critical of the report. >> bill: guys with glasses, something about that. >> balding guys, gray hair. >> bill: i wasn't going there, you look handsome. thank you, carl, live in austin, texas. >> thank you, bill. >> bill: you bet. >> sandra: we should know all that within a week. those are the records of attorney general william barr, when he will be able to release the redacted mueller report. i think his words, in a week i will be in the position to
release the reported to the public. he intends to release as much as he can under the law. william barr's hearing continues on capitol hill. we will continue to monitor this for you. we'll be right back after a quick break. with no down payment and without paying one dollar out of pocket for closing costs. no down payment and not one dollar out of pocket for closing costs. why rent when you can buy? newday's operation home is real. spread the word. ensure max protein... to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't. (straining) i'll take that. (cheers) 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. ensure max protein. in two great flavors. a cfp professional is trained, knowledgeable,
>> let's get back to the hearing on capitol hill. >> have you discretions on how you apply the department policies? >> i have discretions. >> we're setting here, from my perspective, with virtually unlimited discession for you to redact from -- discretion for you to redact from that document, and maybe if i trusted my government more, i would be comfortable with that, businesses i don't, i'm not -- but sense i don't, i'm not comfortable with that and i'm look forgive some way your judgment, which is going to be
the arbiter, as i understand it, of what the public sees, the arbiter, it is you ultimately, can be over seen. i've significanted to you that under 6-e there are procedures which you can go to cort to ask the court to give you guidance, direction or an order. i'm not sure whether dowel that or not. >> court is limited to the grounds stated in 6-e. >> you yes, but you have discretion to go to cort if you review it. so that is one gore for. >> i think i sort of addressed
that. i identified the four categories, and the team that includes the special counsel office lawyers are implementing that. so, you know, they are the ones redacting what is 6-e. they're the ones who conducted the investigation. they know what is 6-e and what is not 6-e, that is why i'm dependent on the special downs identify 6-e and the intelligence communeity will identifies the intelligence stuff and the lawyers who are prosecuting the cases and the special counsel's offices can identify if there is a conflict in releasing the information in a court order or a prosecution. the special counsel knows who the peripheral players ever and who sunday be charges so those are the categories.
>> does congress have a role in overseeing your decision in what should or should be should be taken out of the report? is there any instance where congress has any control over what is redacts, is there any circumstance you can envision, sir, where congress with whatever protective procedures may be in place would have access to the full report to review it. >> yes, i did say here that wince that report is ready for release, i would not only give it to the chairman of the judiciary committees, but i would talk to them and engage with them about what additional information they feel they require and whether this is 3 a way of accommodate ing that. >> they have to give a reason? what if they just want to see
the report to over see your discretion. we have an intelligence committee for that. >> full let me finish, i can envision a situation where information would be shared -- >> sandra: and attorney general barr estimate estimates he will have that retacted report available to the public in a we. they've been reviewing the demand to see the president's taxes and has made fresh comments on that. we will have that for you on the other side of the break. we'll be right back. annuities can provide protected income for life. learn more at retire your risk dot org.
president's tax returns. here is how he answered that. >> let me just comment that, first of all, i want to acknowledge that we did receive the request and as i've said in the past and i said it would be reviewed by the legal department, and it is our intent to follow the law and that is in the process of being reviewed. >> i'm going to interject, i apologize. what part of a review, whether or not or whether your office should be the one that makes the ultimate decision? are they reviewing whether or not you should make that decision, as well, sir? >> it will be premature for me to comment specifically what they are reviewing on or what they're not reviewing on. but i would highlight, okay, i think as you know the law calls for a request to me, as you've
said, there is a traditional delegating certain responsibilities, i would just comment it is my responsibility to supervise the commissioner. again, i think it would be premature at this fine make any specific comments other than, as i've been consist tempt before in saying -- consistent before in saying, it is being reviewed by the legal departments and we look forward to respondinged to the letter. >> have you spoken to the white house chief of staff or the president about this decision? >> i have not spoken to the white house chief of staff or the president about this decision. >> hayes has anyone from the without talked to you about this decision. >> to me personally or anyone in my department? >> to you personally first and then the department. >> i've had personally had any communication with anybody in the without, although i -- the white house, although i want to
be specific that relates to me and not everybody as treasury. >> that was steve mnuchin. some sail they will never see the president's tax returnings. all of that is going on on the hill. let's get a break here. >> sandra: we may have live pictures at the white house we've been expecting the president to receive the president of the arab republic in the west wing, a dollar meeting with the egyptian -- a bilateral meeting with the egyptian president. a working lunch. awaiting the egyptian president to greet the president at the entrance of the white house there. we will keep watching this live shot for you and we will be right back, other side of the break.
opportunity to do this again tomorrow! before a senate committee, to take some of the same questions. >> sandra: that means we get the opportunity to cover it again tomorrow! thank you for coming along the road for us this morning. that's it for us. we will see you tomorrow morning. "outnumbered" starts now. >> melissa: fox news alert, we are awaiting the arrival of the president of egypt at the white house where he will be meeting with president trump in the oval office. and the president is expected to face questions about the testimony of his new attorney general, who went before congress today for the first time since the end of the special counsel's russian investigation. attorney general barr telling lawmakers he will release a redacted version of the mueller report within a week. this is "outnumbered," and i'm melissa francis. here today, harris faulkner. town hall editor and fox news contributor, katie pavlich. syndicated radio host and fox news contributor, leslie marshall. joining us on the