Center hairs.

Thank you.

Mr Chairman.

Attorney General Bar.

Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?

Um, I wouldn't I wouldn't, uh, yes or no contract.

Could you repeat?

I will repeat it.

Has the president or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?

Yes or no?

Please, sir, Um, the president or anybody else.

Seems you would remember something like that and be able to tell us.

Yeah, but I'm tryingto grapple with words suggest.

I mean, there have been discussions of matters out there that, uh, they have not asked me to open investigation.

Perhaps they've suggested.

I don't know.

I wouldn't say suggest.

Hinted, I don't know, inferred.

You don't know.

Okay.

In your March 24th summer, you wrote that quote after reviewing the special counsel's final report will show that knows.

I'm asking a question in your March 24th summary.

You wrote that quote after reviewing the special counsel's final report, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to establish that the president commited an obstruction of justice offense.

Now the special counsel's investigation produced a great deal of evidence I bled to believe it included witnesses, notes and e mails, witnesses, congressional testimony, witnesses, interviews, which were summarized in the FBI.

302 forms.

Former FBI director Comey's memos and the president's public statements.

My question is, in reaching your conclusion, did you personally review all of the underlying evidence?

No.

We took an extended.

Did we accepted?

Mr.

Rosenstein?

We accepted the statements in the report as the factual record.

We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate.

We accepted.

It is accurate that made you are accepted the report as the evidence.

Yes.

You did not question or look at the underlying evidence that supports the conclusions in the report?

No.

Did, uh, Mr Rosenstein redo the evidence that underlines and supports the conclusions and the report knowledge?

Not to my knowledge.

We accepted the statements in the report.

It anywhere in consideration of the evidence is true.

Did anyone in your executive office review the evidence supporting the report?

No.

No.

Yet you represented to the American public that the evidence was not quote sufficient to support an obstruction of justice wth e evidence presented in the report.

This is not This is not mysterious process.

In the Department of Justice, we have pross memos and definite nation memos every day coming up.

And we don't go and look at the underlying evidence with which you support the characterization of the evidence as true as the attorney general of the United States.

You run the United States Department of Justice.

If in any U.

S.

Attorney's office around the country, the head of that office, when being asked to make a critical decision about in this case the person who holds the highest office in the land and whether or not that person committed a crime, would you accept them recommending a charging decision to you if they'd had not reviewed the evidence?

Well, that's a question for Bob Mueller.

He's the U.

S.

Attorney.

He's the one who presents the report.

But it was you who made the charging decision.

Sir, you made the decision not to charge the president in the process memo And in the declination memo, you said it was your baby.

What did you mean by that?

It was my baby toe let to decide whether or not to disclose it to the public.

And whose decision was it?

Who's who had the power to make the decision about whether or not the evidence was sufficient to make a determination of whether there had been an obstruction of justice.

Prosecution memos go up to the supervisor.

In this case.

It was the, you know, the attorney general in the deputy attorney general who decide on the final decision.

And that is based on the memo as presented by the U.

S.

Attorney's office.

I think you've made it clear that you have not looked at that as we move on.

I think a lot of made it clear, sir, that you have not looked at the evidence and we can move on.

Will you agree to consult career DOJ ethics officials about whether your recusal from the 14 investigations that have been discussed by my colleagues is necessary?

I don't see any basis for it.

I already consulted with them, and you have consulted with them about the 14 other investigations that about the Miller case.

Have you consulted with the career DOJ ethics officials about the appropriateness of you being involved or recusing yourself.

One of the 14 other investigations that have been recovered.

Conflict of interest.

Clear Conference Morning.

What's my conflict event?

I think the American public has seen quite well that you're biased in this situation and you've not been objective.

And that would arguably be the conflict.

You know, I haven't been the only decision maker here.

Now let's take the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, who was approved by the Senate 94 to 6, with specific discussion on the floor, that he would be responsible for supervising the Russian investing.

I'm glad you brought up that that's a great start years experience, and we had a number of senior prosecutors in the department involved in this process, both career and nine career.

Yes, I have another question, and I'm glad you brought that subject up because I have a question about that.

Earlier today, in response to Senator Graham, you said, quote that you consulted with Rosenstein constantly, unquote with respect to the special counsel's investigation report.

But Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is also a key witness in the firing of FBI Director Comey.

Did you consult with me?

I'm not finished.

Did you consult with DOJ ethics officials before you enlisted Rod Rosenstein to participate in a charging decision for an investigation, the subject of which he is also a witness.

My understanding was that he had been cleared already to participate in it.

But no, you had consulted with them and they cleared it.

No, I think they cleared it when he when he took over the investigation, did you could understand that I You don't know whether he's been cleared of a conflict of interest.

You wouldn't be participating if there was a conflict event.

So you're saying that it did not need to be reviewed by the career ethics officials in your off?

I believe I believe Well, I believe it was reviewed.

And And what?

We're also point out this seems to be a bit of a flip flop, because when the president's supporters were thinking, this ice is that you're not answering the question directly.

Did the ethics officials in your office in the Department of Justice review the appropriateness of Rod Rosenstein being a part of making a charging decision on an investigation, which he is also a witness in?

Yeah.

So as I said My understanding was he had been cleared and he had been cleared before I arrived in making a decision on the Mahler report.

Yes.

And the findings of whether or not the case would be charged on obstruction of justice.

He had been cleared on that.

He was He was the acting attorney general on the Mueller investigation.

Had he been cleared, he had been made.

I am by your side.

I am in the form.

I am informed that before I arrived, he had been cleared by the ethics officials Of what?

Serving his acting attorney general on the Miller case.

How about making a charging decision on obstruction of justice underlying offenses, which include him as a witness?

Hey, that's what the acting attorney general's job is to be a witness and to make the decision about being a prosecutor.

No, but the big charging decisions I have nothing else.

My time is right now.

Thank you, sir.