CHARLES E. SCHUMER DEMOCRATIC LEADER NEW YORK mnitcd ~tatcs ~cnotc WASHINGTON, DC 20510

May 2, 2019

The Honorable William P. Barr Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Barr:

Your testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday raised a number of very serious concerns about your understanding of your role in our government, your commitment to the rule of law and your fitness to continue leading the Department of Justice. Among the many disturbing things you said, I was particularly troubled by your statement that if the president feels an investigation "is based on false allegations, the president does not have to sit there constitutionally and allow it to run its course. The president could terminate that proceeding and not have it be corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused." If this idea is how our nation is governed, we will no longer be the democracy Americans think we are.

I understood from the memorandum you sent to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein in June of 2018 that you subscribe to a philosophy in which the executive is exalted above the other co­ equal branches of government. But this was the first time I had heard you articulate, as Attorney General, this starkly extremist view. Such a statement, in my view - and I believe most Americans would agree - shows complete disregard for the carefully-designed system of checks and balances the Framers enshrined in our Constitution. If these views are truly your views, you do not deserve to be Attorney General. I was so troubled by your statement that I am writing today to ask you the following questions:

Do you stand by this statement, or was it a mistake?

In your view, who determines whether the president is "falsely accused?" Do you believe the president has the power to make such a determination himself- unilaterally?

Is it lawful for the president to unilaterally terminate an investigation involving a member of his family? Or a business associate?

Do you believe that President Nixon, who certainly believed he was falsely accused, could simply have terminated the Watergate investigation? Who was right in the Saturday Night Massacre - President Nixon or Elliot Richardson?

What limiting principle, if any, applies to your theory of a president's power to terminate such investigations?

Document ID: 0.7.24420.21053-000004 2

I would appreciate your prompt reply to these questions.

Sincerely,

CCharles E. Schumer

Document ID: 0.7.24420.21053-000004 January27, 2019

TheHonorableLindseyGraham Chairman CommitteeontheJudiciary UnitedStatesS enate Washington,DC20510

TheHonorableDianneFeinstein RankingMember CommitteeontheJudiciary UnitedStatesS enate Washington,DC20510

DearChairmanGrahamandRankingMemberFeinstein:

EnclosedpleasefindresponsestoQuestionsfortheRecordthatIreceivedfromRanking MemberFeinstein,aswellas S enatorsGrassley, Cornyn, Tillis,Crapo, Kennedy, Leahy, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker, andHarris,followingmy appearancebeforetheSenateCommitteeontheJudiciaryonJanuary15,2019.

Sincerely, r r WilliamP. Barr

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 QUESTIONSFORTHERECORD WILLIAMP.BARR NOMINEETOBEUNITEDSTATESATTORNEYGENERAL

QUESTIONSFROMSENATORFEINSTEIN

Non-Responsive Record

25

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 Non-Responsive Record

3. In June 2018, you sent amemorandum to DeputyAttorneyGeneralRodRosensteinand Steve Engel, the head ofthe Department ofJustice Office ofLegal Counsel, and to President Trump’s personal attorneys criticizing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Memo ( from Bill Barr to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Assistant Attorney General Steve Engel re: Mueller’s “Obstruction” June 8, Theory ( 2018)) Please provide a complete list ofeveryone to whom you gave the memo, when it was provided, whether there was any communication about the memo before or after it was delivered, and why you providedit.

RESPONSE: Pleasefindattach edmyJanuary14,2019letterto SenateCommittee onthJudiciaryCh e airmanLindseyGrah am,wh ich answers th isquestion.

26

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 4. You testified that “It is very common for me and for other former senior officials to weigh in on matters that they think may be ill advised and may have ramificationsdown the road.” Please provide a list ofall othertopics underthe Justice Department’s jurisdiction where you submitted a legal memo to the Department or the White House, the dates the memos were provided, and whom they were submitted to.

RESPONSE: AsItestified atmyh earingbeforethCommittee, e over thyears,Ie haveweigh edin onmanylegalmatterswith governmentofficialsinbothe th ExecutivebranchandCongress. Forexample,followingthattacksofSeptember e 11,2001,Icontactednumerous officialswith inthadministrationofPresidente GeorgeW.Bush,includingofficialsatthWh e iteHouseandth eDepartmentof Justice,to express myviewth atforeignterrorists were enemycombatantssubject tothlawsofwarandsh e ouldbetriedbeforemilitarycommissions,andIdirected theadministrationtosupportinglegalmaterialsIpreviouslyh adpreparedduring mytimeattheDepartment. Asamorerecentexample,Iexpressedconcernsto AttorneyGeneralSessionsandDeputyAttorneyGeneralRosensteinregardingth e prosecutionofSenatorBobMenendez. Apartfromthememorandumth atIdrafted inJune2018,Idonotrecallanyothinstanceinwh er Iconveyedmyth ich oughtots theDepartmentofJusticeinmycapacityasaformerAttorneyGeneralin alegal memorandum.

5. Iwrote to you aboutthe June 2018Muellermemo in December, butI’dlike youto clarify your answers for the record.

a. You testified no one asked you to write the memo. Why did you decide todo so?

b. At the time you submitted this memo to officials at the Justice Department and President Trump’s attorneys, had you talked to anyone about a possible Attorney General nomination? Ifso, with whom, when, and what was discussed?

c. Did you consult anyone during the process ofdrafting this memo? Ifso, whom?

d. Did you discuss this memorandum or its contents with Mr. Rosenstein, Mr. Engel, or anyone at the Department ofJustice before or after you submitted it? Ifso, with whom, when, and what was discussed? Was there any follow-up communication about the memo, its contents, or the subjectmatter?

e. Did you discuss this memorandum or its contents with anyone else? Ifso, with whom and what was discussed? Was there any follow-up communication about the memo, its contents, or the subjectmatter?

RESPONSE: AsIexplainedinmyJanuary10,2019lettertoyouandmyJanuary 14,2019lettertoCh airmanGrah am,asaformerAttorneyGeneral,Iam naturally interestedinsignificantlegalissuesofpublicimport,andIfrequentlyoffermy viewson legalissuesofth eday– sometimesin discussionsdirectlywith public

27

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 officials; sometimesinpublish edop-eds; sometimesinamicusbriefs; andsometimes inCongressionaltestimony.

In2017and2018,muchofthnewsmediawas e saturatedwith commentaryand speculationaboutvariousobstructiontheoriesthatthSpecialCounselmayh e ave beenpursuingatthtime,includingth e eoriesunder18U.S.C.§1512(c).Idecided to weighinbecauseI was worriedth at,ifanoverlyexpansiveinterpretationofsection 1512(c)were adoptedinth isparticularcase,itcould, over ethlongerterm, cast a pallover thexerciseofdiscretionaryauth e ority,notjustbyfuturePresidents,but byallpublicofficialsinvolvedinadministeringthelaw,especiallyth ose inth e DepartmentofJustice.Istarteddraftinganop-ed.ButasIwrote,Iquicklyrealized thatthesubjectmatterwastoodryandwouldrequiretoo muchspace. Furth er,my purposewasnottoinfluencepublicopiniononthissue,butrathtomakesure e er thatallofthlawyersinvolvedcarefullyconsideredth e epotentialimplicationsofthe theory.Idiscussedmyviewsbroadlywithmanylawyerfriends; wrotethmemo e to seniorDepartmentofficials; areditwithsh othinterestedparties;er andlater providedcopiestofriends.

Tothbestofmyrecollection,thfirsttimeanyoneinthTrumpadministration e e e contactedmeaboutapotentialnominationtobeAttorneyGeneralwasinfall2018, monthafterIcompletedmymemorandum.s

Tothbestofmyrecollection,beforeIbeganwritingthmemorandum,Iprovided e e myviewson thissueto e DeputyAttorneyGeneralRodRosensteinatlunchinearly 2018.Later,onaseparateoccasion,IalsobrieflyprovidedmyviewstoAssistant AttorneyGeneralStevenEngel.Afterdraftingthmemorandum,Iprovidedcopies e toboth ofth em. IalsosentittoSolicitorGeneralNoelFranciscoafterI saw imat h asocialgath ering. There was no followupfromanyofth ese Departmentofficials, exceptth atSolicitorGeneralFranciscocalled me tosayth athwas e notinvolvedin thSpecialCounsel’sinvestigationandwouldnotbereadingmymemorandum.Ine additionto sh aringmyviewswithe thDepartment,Ith ough tth eyalsomigh tbeof interesttoothlawyersworkingonthmatter. er e ussenta Ith copyofth e memorandumanddiscussedth ose viewswith WhiteHouseSpecialCounselEmmet Flood.IalsosentacopytoPatCipollone,whh o adworkedfor me atthe DepartmentofJustice,anddiscussedthissuesraisedinthmemo e e withimandh a fewothlawyersforthPresident,namelyMartyandJaneRaskinandJay er e Sekulow.Thepurposeofth ose discussionswasto explainmyviews.

Forfurthinformationonth er ese issues,pleaseseemylettersofJanuary10and January14,2019,attach edandreferencedabove.

6 Non-Responsive Record

28

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 QUESTIONSFORTHERECORD WILLIAMP.BARR NOMINEETOBEUNITEDSTATESATTORNEYGENERAL

QUESTIONSFROMSENATORDURBIN

1. In your June 8, 2018 memo, you acknowledge that there are many ways in which a President could commit obstruction ofjustice forexample by altering evidence, suborningperjury, or inducing a witness to change testimony. But your memo makes an assumption that Special Counsel Mueller’s obstruction theory relies on one particularobstruction ofjustice statute, 18 U.S.C. 1512 a statute you believe should not be used to investigate actions that you feel are within a President’s lawful authority.

Based on this assumption about Special Counsel Mueller’s obstruction theory, your memo concludes that “Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction.” In other words, you urge Special Counsel Mueller’s supervisornot to allow Mueller to take a certain action in an ongoing investigation and not to allow Mueller to ask the any President questions about obstruction, even though you concede that you are “in the dark about many facts” and that you are making assumptions about the legal obstruction theory.

a. Is it appropriate for you to urge SpecialCounselMueller’s supervisorto block Mueller from taking an action in an ongoing criminal investigation when you do not know all the facts and were speculating about Mueller’s legal theory?

b. Is it appropriate for you to flatly urge Special Counsel Mueller’s supervisor that “Muellershould not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction” when there are numerous potential obstruction theories besides 18 U.S.C. 1512 that Special Counsel Mueller may want to question the President about?

c. Is it stillyourview that “Muellershould notbe permittedto demandthatthe President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction”?

d. In your January14letter to Chairman Graham, you said ofyour memo that “my purpose was not to influence public opinion on the issue, but ratherto make sure that all ofthe lawyers involved carefully considered the potential implications ofthe theory.” You noted in your January 14 letter that you shared the memo with the several ofthe President’s defense attorneys. Didyou also forwardthe memo to the Special Counsel’s Office so they could consider your views the potential implications ofthe theory? Ifnot, why not?

72

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 e. Did anyofthe President’s attorneys whom you sentyourmemo tellyou thatthey agreed with yourview that “Muellershould not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction”?

f. Did anyofthe President’s attorneys whom you sentyourmemo tellyou thatthey used your memo to argue that “Mueller should not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction”?

RESPONSE: AsIstatedinmyJune8,2018memorandumandexplainedinmy January14,2019lettertoCh airmanGrah am andmyJanuary10,2019letterto RankingMemberFeinstein,mymemorandumwasnarrowinscope. Itwaspremised onanassumptionbasedonpublicaccounts– wh ichememorandumacknowledged th maybeincorrect– th atthSpecialCounsel’sbasisforquestioningthPresident e e was thatthefiringofformerFBIDirectorComeyconstitutedobstructionunderaspecific statute–namely,18U.S.C.§1512(c). Inotherwords,thememorandumassumed,for purposesofanalysis,th atthSpecialCounsel’ssolepredicateforinterviewingth e e Presidentwas thsingleobstructionth e eoryth atit was addressing. Th ememorandum didnotaddresswh eththPresidentcouldbequestionedunderanyofthoth er e e er possibleobstructionth eoriesth ath ave beenpubliclydiscussedinconnectionwiththe SpecialCounsel’sinvestigation,or anyothth er eoriesofliabilitythSpecialCounsel e maybepursuing.

Afterdraftingthememorandum,Iprovidedcopiestoseveralofficialsatth e DepartmentofJusticewhoIth ough twouldbeinapositiontoassess whethit er was actuallyrelevanttothSpecialCounsel’swork,includingDeputyAttorneyGeneral e Rosenstein,whbylawatthtime o e chwas argedwith overseeingthSpecialCounsel. e In additionto sh aringmyviewswithe thDepartment,Ith ough tth eyalsomigh tbeof interesttootherlawyersworkingonthmatter. e AsIh stated,Isentacopytoth ave e President’slawyersandspokewithth em to explainmyviews. Idonotknowwh at impressionsth eyh adregardingmyviews or what,ifanyth ing,th eydidwith my memorandumafterreceivingit.

AsIstatedduringmyhearingbeforethe Committee,Iremaininthdarkregarding e thespecificfactsandlegalth eoriescurrentlyatissueinthSpecialCounsel’s e investigation. Ifconfirmed,Iwillapproachthinvestigationwith e anopenmindasto allissuesandwillmakeanydecisionsbasedon threlevantlawandth e efactsatthe time.

2. Because your June 8, 2018 memo expresses stark views about what you feel should and should not be permitted as part ofthe Special Counsel’s ongoing criminal investigation, and because you sent your memo to Special Counsel Mueller’s supervisor and to members of President Trump’s defense team without informing the Special Counsel’s Office ofyour memo, a reasonable person could conclude that you would not be impartial ifissues arise as part ofthe Special Counsel investigation that require the Attorney General to make decisions regarding obstruction ofjustice, including decisions about what information about obstruction ofjustice should be included in reports to the Committee and the public.

73

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 Therefore you should, at minimum, seek the advice ofcareer Department ethics officials regarding recusing yourselffrom such decisions, pursuant to a)(5 CFR 2635.502(2), given the legitimate questions that your memo and your use ofit have raised about your impartiality.

a. Willyou commit, ifconfirmed, to seekthe advice ofDOJ careerethics officials on this recusal question?

RESPONSE: Ifconfirmed,IwillconsultwitheDepartment’scareer th eth ics officials,reviewthfacts,andmake e a decisionregardingmyrecusalfromany matteringoodfaithbasedonthfactsandapplicablelawandrules. e

b. Ifso, willyou committo promptlyinform the Committee what advice the DOJ career ethics officials gave and whether you will follow it?

RESPONSE: Though IamnotfamiliarwitheDepartment’spoliciesregarding th thdisclosuretoe Congressofeth icsadvice orrecusaldecisions,mygoalis to be astransparentaspossiblewh ilefollowingthDepartment’sestablish e edpolicies andpractices,applicablerulesandregulations,andrecognizedExecutive Branchconfidentialityinterests.

3. Atyourhearingyou saidthatyou woulddecline to follow the advice ofcareerDOJ ethics officials “ifIdisagree withthem.” When you previously workedin the Justice Department, didyou everdecline to follow the advice ofcareerDOJ ethics officials? Ifso, please discuss when you did so and why.

RESPONSE: WhileIdo notrecallspecificrecusaldecisionsImadeformyselfatth at time,Ih ave no recollectionofdecliningtofolloweth icsadviceIreceivedaboutany recusals.

4 Non-Responsive Record

74

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 QUESTIONSFORTHERECORD WILLIAMP.BARR NOMINEETOBEUNITEDSTATESATTORNEYGENERAL

QUESTIONSFROMSENATORWHITEHOUSE

Non-Responsive Record 1 Non-Responsive Record

111

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 Non-Responsive Record

1

June8MemoRegardingSpecialCounselMueller’sObstructionTh eoryandMay2017Op - EdDefendingthFiringofFBIDirectorComey e

18. Did you have any communications prior to your nomination about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation with any person who holds or has held a position in the Trump White House? With whom? When? What was the substance ofthe conversation? a. What, ifanything, didthe President’s lawyers tellyou about whatSpecial Counsel Mueller and his office had conveyed to them about the Special Counsel’s view ofthe obstruction ofjustice statutes?

RESPONSE: AsIdescribedinmytestimony,insummer2017,Imet brieflywiththPresidentatthWh e e iteHouse. Priortothmeeting,and e againduringthmeeting,Iindicatedth e atI was notin a position to representh iminconnectionwithe thSpecialCounsel’sinvestigation. Duringthmeeting,thPresidentreiteratedh e e ispublicstatements denying collusionanddescribingthallegations e aspoliticallymotivated. Ididnot respondtoth ose comments. ThPresidentalsoaskedmyopinionofth e e SpecialCounsel. AsItestified,Iexplainedth atIh ad a longstanding personalandprofessionalrelationsh ipwith SpecialCounselMuellerand advisedthePresidentth ath ewasa personofsignificantexperienceand integrity.

OnNovember27,2018,Imetwithe thPresidentandth en-WhiteHouse CounselEmmetFloodto interviewforthpositionofAttorneyGeneral. e AfterthPresidentoffered e me thjob,thconversationturned e e toissues thatcouldariseduringthconfirmationprocess.Irecallmentioningth e atI hadwrittenamemorandumregardinga legalissueth atcouldariseinth e SpecialCounsel’sinvestigation,andth atthmemorandumcouldresultin e questioningduringmyconfirmationh earing. Ido notrememberexactly whatIsaid,butIrecallofferingabrief,one-sentencedescriptionofth e memorandum. ThPresidentdidnotcommente on mymemorandum. Therewasnodiscussionofthsubstanceofthinvestigation.Th e e e Presidentdidnotaskmemyviewsaboutanyaspectofthinvestigation, e

121

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 andhdidnotaskme e aboutwh atIwoulddoaboutanyth inginth e investigation.

OnDecember5,2018,followingPresidentBush ’sfuneral,President Trump askedme to stopbythWh e iteHouse. Wespokeabout a varietyof issues,andwere joinedformuch ofthdiscussionbythe en-WhiteHouse CounselEmmetFloodandVicePresidentPence. Weh ave alsospokenvia phoneseveraltimesaspartofthselectionandnominationprocessforth e e AttorneyGeneralposition. Inalloftheseconversations,th ere was no discussionofthesubstanceofthSpecialCounsel’sinvestigation.Th e e Presidenthnotasked as me myviewsaboutanyaspectofthinvestigation, e andhehnotaskedmeaboutwh as atIwoulddoaboutanyth inginth e investigation.

TheVicePresidentandIareacquainted,andsincethspringof2017, e we haveh adoccasionalconversations(sometimesjoinedbyh isch iefofstaff) ona varietyofsubjects,includingpolicy,personnel,andothissues.Our er conversationsh ave included,attimes,generaldiscussionofthSpecial e Counsel’sinvestigationinwhichIgavemyviewsonsuchmattersasBob Mueller’shighintegrityandvariousmediareports. Inth ese conversations,Ididnotprovidelegaladvice,nor,to thbestofmy e recollection,didhprovideconfidentialinformation. e

Asdiscussedinmytestimony,afterdraftingmyJune8,2018 memorandum,Isenta copyofthmemorandumanddiscussedmyviews e withWh iteHouseSpecialCounselEmmetFlood. Ialsoprovided a copyto PatCipollone,whnow o serves asWhiteHouseCounsel,anddiscussedmy viewswithh imandoth ers.

Finally,Ih ave spokenwith membersofth eWhiteHousestaffabout numerousissues,includingpaperworkandlogistics,aspartofthselection e andnominationprocessforth isposition.

Thansweris relatesth econversationsresponsivetothquestiontothbest e e ofmyrecollection. ButIam acquaintedwithnumberofpeoplewh a o serveor h ave servedatthWh e iteHouse. canAsbestI recall,Ih ave not spokenaboutthsubstanceofthSpecialCounsel’sinvestigationwith e e those people,th oughe thinvestigationis,ofcourse, a constanttopicof conversationinWash ingtonlegalcirclesanditmayh ave arisen.

19. Did you have any communications prior to your nomination about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation with any person who holds or has held a position on the President’s personal legal team? With whom? When? What was the substance of the conversation?

a. What, ifanything, didthe President’s lawyers tellyou about whatSpecial

122

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 Counsel Mueller and his office had conveyed to them about the Special Counsel’s view ofthe obstruction ofjusticestatutes?

RESPONSE: AsIstatedinmyletterofJanuary14,2019 toCh airman Graham,IsentacopyofmyJune8,2018memorandumtoPatCipollone andhavediscussedthissuesraisedinthmemo e e h withim,Martyand JaneRaskin,andJaySekulow.Thpurposeofth e discussionswasto ose explainmyviews. Tothbestofmyrecollection,thPresident’slawyers e e havenotconveyedtome anyinformationaboutthSpecialCounsel’sview e ofthobstructionofjusticestatutes. e

20. Did you have any communications prior to your nomination about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation with any person who holds or has held a position in the Department ofJustice? With whom? When? What was the substance ofthe conversation? a. What, ifanything, didthe President’s lawyers tellyou about whatSpecial Counsel Mueller and his office had conveyed to them about the Special Counsel’s view ofthe obstruction ofjusticestatutes?

RESPONSE: Tothbestofmyrecollection,Ih e adth efollowing conversationswithDepartmentofJusticeOfficialsaboutthSpecial e Counsel’sinvestigation. BeforeIbeganwritingthmemorandum,I e providedmyviewson thissuediscussedinth e ememorandumtoDeputy AttorneyGeneralRodRosensteinatlunchinearly2018. Later,ona separateoccasion,Ialsobrieflyprovidedmyviewson thissuediscussed e inthememorandumtoAssistantAttorneyGeneralStevenEngel.After draftingthmemorandum,Iprovidedcopies e to bothofthem. Ialsosentit toSolicitorGeneralNoelFranciscoafterIsawh imat a socialgath ering, buthlaterindicatedth e ath ewasnotinvolvedinthSpecialCounsel’s e investigationandwouldnotbereadingmymemorandum.Duringmy interactionswithth ese Departmentofficials,Ineithsolicitednor er receivedanyinformationaboutthSpecialCounsel’sinvestigation. e

21. On June 8, 2018, you sent a memorandum to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein andAssistantAttorneyGeneralSteve Engeltitled “Mueller’s ‘Obstruction’ Theory,”in which you wrote that Special Counsel Mueller’s “obstruction theory is fatally misconceived.” You also stated your memo was unsolicited.

Please provide a full accounting ofthe preparation ofthat memo including: a. Whydidyou submit an unsolicited memo about apendinginvestigation tothe Department ofJustice?

b. Whydidyou thinkyour opinion was relevantif, as you acknowledged, you were “in the dark about manyfacts”?

c. How did you know what Mueller’s obstruction theory was? With whom did you

123

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 discuss that before you drafted yourmemo?

d. At your confirmation hearing, you stated that you were “speculating” about Mr. Mueller’s interpretation of18U.S.C. § 1512. How didyou know Muellerwas contemplating acase underSection 1512? Did anyone tellyou this? Ifso, who?

e. Please list all persons with whom you had communications related to the memo before June 8, particularly any person at the Trump White House, on President Trump’s legal team, in the Department ofJustice, or among Republican House committee members orstaff?

f. Please list all persons with whom you had communications related to the memo on or after June 8, particularly any person at the Trump White House, on President Trump’s legal team, in the Department ofJustice, or among Republican House committee members orstaff?

g. Did you discuss the memo before June 8 with any person currently or formerly associated with the Federalist Society? Ifso, who?

h. Didyou receive assistance from anyone in writing orresearchingyourmemo?

i. Who paidyou for the time ittookyou to write and researchthismemo?

j. How was the memo transmittedto the Department ofJustice?Were there emails or other coverdocuments associated with its Ifso,pleaseattachtransmission? these to your answer.

k. Discussing your memo, Rod Rosenstein was quoted in a December 20, 2018, Politico article as saying: “I didn’t share any confidential information with Mr. Barr. He never requested that we provide any non-public information to him, and that memo had no impact on our investigation.” Did you request that DOJ provide you any information about the Muellerinvestigation? Ifso, what did you request, from whom did you request it, and what was provided?

RESPONSE: AsaformerAttorneyGeneral,Iamnaturallyinterestedin significantlegalissuesofpublicimport,andIfrequentlyoffermyviewsonlegal issuesoftheday–sometimesindiscussionsdirectlywithpublicofficials; sometimesinpublishedop-eds; sometimesinamicusbriefs; andsometimesin Congressionaltestimony.

In2017and2018,muchofthnewsmediawas e saturatedwith commentaryand speculationaboutvarious obstructionth eoriesth atthSpecialCounselmay e havebeenpursuingatthtime,includingth e eoriesunder18U.S.C.§1512(c).I decidedtoweighinbecauseI was worriedth at,ifanoverlyexpansive interpretationofsection1512(c)were adoptedinth isparticularcase,itcould, overthlongerterm,castapallover e thexerciseofdiscretionaryauthe ority, not

124

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 justbyfuturePresidents,butbyallpublicofficialsinvolvedinadministeringth e law,especiallyth ose inthDepartmentofJustice.Istarteddraftinganop-ed. e Butas Iwrote,Iquicklyrealizedth atthsubjectmatter e was too dryandwould requiretoo much space. Furth er,mypurpose wasnottoinfluencepublicopinion onthissue,butrathtomakesure e er atallofthlawyersinvolvedcarefully th e consideredthepotentialimplicationsofthth e eory.Idiscussedmyviewsbroadly withanumberoflawyerfriends; wrote th ememoto seniorDepartmentofficials andsentittothemviaemail; shareditwith othinterestedparties; er andlater providedcopiestofriends.

Iwas notrepresentinganyonewhIwroteth en ememorandum,no one requested thatIdraftit,andIwas notcompensatedformywork. Iresearchedand wrote itmyself,onmyown initiative,with outassistance,andbasedsolelyonpublic information.

Tothbestofmyrecollection,beforeIbeganwritingthmemorandum,I e e providedmyviewson thissue e toDeputyAttorneyGeneralRodRosensteinat lunchinearly2018.Later,onaseparateoccasion,Ialsobrieflyprovidedmy viewsto AssistantAttorneyGeneralStevenEngel.Afterdraftingth e memorandum,Iprovidedcopiesto both ofthem. IalsosentittoSolicitor GeneralNoelFranciscoafterIsaw h imat a socialgath ering.Duringmy interactionswithth ese Departmentofficials,Ineithsolicitednorreceivedany er informationaboutthSpecialCounsel’sinvestigation. e

Inadditionto sh aringmyviewswithe thDepartment,Ith ough tth eyalsomigh t beofinteresttoothlawyersworking er on thmatter. e Tothbestofmy e recollection,Ithsent us copyofthmemorandumanddiscussedtha e ose views withWh iteHouseSpecialCounselEmmetFlood.Ialso sentacopytoPat Cipollone,whoh adworkedfor me attheDepartmentofJustice,anddiscussed theissuesraisedinthmemo e withimandh a fewothlawyersforthPresident, er e namelyMartyandJaneRaskinandJaySekulow.Thepurposeofth ose discussionswastoexplainmyviews. MyletterofJanuary14,2019toCh airman Grahamidentifiesothindividualswith er omIcan wh recallsh aringth e memorandumand/ordiscussingitscontents.

22. On the firstpage ofyour June 8memo, while criticizingMueller’s obstruction theory, you acknowledged that “[o]bviously, the President and any other official can commit obstruction in this classic sense ofsabotaging a proceeding’s truth-finding function. Thus, forexample, ifa President knowingly destroys or alters evidence, subornsperjury, or induces a witness to change testimony, or commits any act deliberately impairing the integrity or availabilityofevidence, then he, like anyone else, commits the crime of obstruction.”

a. You’ve statedthatyou believe the OLC opinion that asittingpresident cannotbe indictedis correct. Ifthatis the case, what wouldyou do iftheMueller investigation presented you with evidence that led you to conclude President

125

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 Trump had committed obstruction ofjustice in, as you say, the “classic sense”? How about treason?

RESPONSE: Ifconfirmed,itispossibleth atIwillberesponsiblefor overseeingthSpecialCounsel’sinvestigationunderapplicable e regulations.Accordingly,itwouldnotbeappropriateformetospeculate regardingh ypoth eticalscenarios. As a generalmatter,ifpresentedwith novellegalquestionsofconstitutionalimportancewh ileserving as AttorneyGeneral,IwouldlikelyconsultwiththOfficeofLegalCounsel e andotherrelevantpersonnelwith inthDepartmentofJusticeto e determinetheappropriatepathforwardunderapplicablelaw.

23. During your nomination hearing, as in your June 8 memo, you raised a point about the meaning ofthe word “corruptly” in the federal corruption statutes. You argued that “Mueller offers no definition ofwhat ‘corruptly’ means,” and that “people do not understand what the word ‘corruptly’ means in that statutec)]. [18 It U.S.C is § 1512( an adverb, anditis not meantto mean with astate ofmind. Itis actuallymeantthe way in which the influence or obstruction is committed. . . . [I]t is meant to influence in a way that changes something that is good and fit to something that is bad and unfit, namelythe corruption ofevidence or the corruption ofa decisionmaker.” Later, you cited UnitedStatesv. Poindexter , 951 F.2d 369, D.C. 379 Cir. ( 1991) as having the “most intelligent discussion ofthe word ‘corruptly.’”

a. How didCongress’s passage ofthe False Statements AccountabilityAct of1996, as codified in 18 U.S.C § 1505, Poindexter affect ruling? the That Act provides that the term “‘corruptly” means “acting with an improperpurpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or otherinformation.”

b. While the False Statements AccountabilityActof1996, on its face, applies onlyto Section 1505, the legislative history makes clearthat the bill’s goal was to align the construction of“corruptly” in Section 1505 with interpretation ofthat term in the otherobstruction statutes, including18U.S.C. § 1512. Forexample, Senator Levin, one ofthe bill’s sponsors, said that the bill would “bring [Section 1505] back into line with other obstruction statutes protecting government inquiries.” Do you believe that the meaning ofthe term “corruptly” in Section 1512 should be different from the meaning ofthat identical term in Section1505?

c. It is now the consensus view among courts ofappeals and the position ofthe Department of Justice that the term “corruptly,” including in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), means motivated by an “improper1 Will purpose.” you abide by that

1 UnitedStatesv. Gordon ,710F.3d1124, 1151 10th ( Cir. 2013) “Acting ( ‘corruptly’ within the meaning of§ 1512(2)c)( means acting with an improper purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert, impede or internal obstruct quotation . . .” marks ( omitted)); UnitedStates v. Mintmire, 507 F.3d 1273, 11th 1289 Cir. ( 2007) ( “corruptly” as used c)( in Section 1512(2) means “with an improper purpose and to engage in conduct knowingly and dishonestly with the specific intent to subvert, impede or obstruct” an

126

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 consensus position? Given the specific definition of“corruptly” set forth in the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, what is now “very hard to discern” about the meaning of the term “corruptly” as used in the federal obstruction statutes? Ifconfirmed, will you apply the definition of“corruptly” set forth in the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 in enforcing the federal obstruction of justice statutes, including Sectionc)? 1512( If not, why not?

d. Your June 8 memo includes no reference to the False Statements Accountability Act of1996 or its definition of“corruptly.” Why?

RESPONSE: Thmemorandume that I drafted in June 2018 was narrow in scope. It addressed only a single subsection ofone federal obstruction statute – namely, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c). Nevertheless, thmemorandum e expressly discussed, and noted threlevancee of, othfederal er obstruction statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. § 1505, to thinterpretation e of section 1512(c). Specifically, on page 17, thmemorandume notes th at “wh en Congress sough t to‘clarify’ e th meaning of ‘corruptly’ in thewake of Poindexter, it settled on even more vague language – ‘acting with an improper motive’ and– th proceeded en to qualify this definition further by adding, ‘including making a false or misleading statement, or with h olding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.’ 18 U.S.C. § 1515(b).” Section 1515(b), in turn, provides e th definition of “corruptly” that is used in § 1505, which you refer to as the “codification” ofthFalse e Statements Accountability Act of 1996. See 18 U.S.C. § 1515(b) (“As used in section 1505, thterme “corruptly” means acting withan improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or with h olding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or othinformation.” er (Emph asis added)). As e th memorandum explained, the“fact th at Congress could not define ‘corruptly’” in § 1505 “except throughalaundry list ofacts of evidence impairment strongly confirms that, in thobstruction e context, th e word has no intrinsic meaning apart from its transitive sense of compromising thhe onesty ofa decision-maker or impairing evidence.” In other words, when Congress attempted to define thterm e “corruptly” in § 1505, it could only do so by providing examples that relate to thsuppression e or impairment of evidence, which supports thconclusion e th at, outside of that context, it is difficult to define exactly what “corruptly” means.

official proceeding); United States v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 374 F.3d 281, 5th 296Cir. ( 2004) ( “Under the caselaw, ‘corruptly’ requires an improper purpose ”( emphasis in original)), rev’d and remanded on other grounds, 544 U.S. 696 (2005); United States v. Thompson, 76 F.3d 442, 2d 452Cir. ( 1996) ( noting that “we have interpreted the term ‘corruptly,’ as it appears in § 1503, to mean motivated by an improper purpose,” and extending that interpretation to Section 1512); Brown v. United States, 89 A.3d 98, 104 D.C. ( 2014) ( “individuals act ‘corruptly’ when they are ‘motivated by an improper purpose’”).

127

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 Asnotedabove,mymemorandumonlyaddressedthscopeofsection1512(c). e Itdidnotaddressthmeaningorscopeofothfederalobstructionstatutes.If e er suchissuesweretoariseduringmytenureas AttorneyGeneral,Iwould consultwiththOfficeofLegalCounsel,thCriminalDivision,andoth e e er relevantDepartmentofJusticepersonneltodeterminethbestviewofthlaw e e andproceedaccordingly.

24. On May 12, 2017, you published an op-ed in the Washington Post defending President Trump’s firing ofFBI Director James Comey. a. Did anyone ask you to write that op-ed, or suggest that you write it? Ifso, who?

b. Did you have any communications related to the op-ed with any person at the Trump White House, President Trump’s legal team, the Department ofJustice, or Republican House committee members orstaff?

c. Did you discuss the op-ed before its publication with any person currently or formerly associated with the FederalistSociety?

d. Didyou share anydraft ofyourop-ed with anyperson priorto sendingitto the Department ofJustice? Ifso, withwhom?

RESPONSE: Tothbestofmyrecollection,followingthremovalofformerFBI e e DirectorComey,myformerDeputyAttorneyGeneral,GeorgeTerwilliger,asked meto joinh imindraftinganop-edonthissue. e Duringthcourseofdrafting,we e determinedthatIwouldsubmittheop-edundermynameduetoMr.Terwilliger’s busysch edule. Itismyunderstandingth atMr. Terwilligerh adbeencontactedby a publicistwhwas o workingwithe thFederalistSocietytoassistinplacingthop-ed e withpublications. Although Inormallysubmitopinionpiecestoth e Washington Post directly,inth isinstanceIprovided a draftofth eop-edtothe publicist,wh o eventuallyplaceditwith WashingtonPost . Ialsospokewithfriendsabout submittinganop-edon th istopic,butdonotrecallsendinga draftofth eop-edto anypersonattheWh iteHouse, on PresidentTrump’slegalteam,atth eDepartment ofJustice,oranyRepublicanHousecommitteemembersorstaff.

Non-Responsive Record 2 Non-Responsive Record

128

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 QUESTIONSFORTHERECORD WILLIAMP.BARR NOMINEETOBEUNITEDSTATESATTORNEYGENERAL

QUESTIONSFROMSENATORCOONS

1 Non-Responsive Record

2

154

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 c Non-Responsive Record

d Non-Responsive Record

6.

7.

8. DeputyAttorneyGeneralRosenstein has saidpubliclythatyourJune 2018memorandum on obstruction ofjustice “had no impact” on the SpecialCounselinvestigation. When I asked ifyou would order the Special Counsel’s office to accept and follow the reasoning in your memorandum, you testified that you would “try to work it out with Bob Mueller” and “unless something violates the establishedpractice ofthe department, [you] would have no ability to overrule that.”

a. Please confirm thatifSpecialCounselMueller’s theory ofobstruction does not

157

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 violate an established practice ofthe Department ofJustice, you will not overrule his interpretation ofthe law.

b. Did anyofthe attorneys to whom you transmittedyour June 2018 obstruction ofjustice memorandum respondto you? Ifso, please provide theirresponses.

RESPONSE: AsIstatedduringmyh earingbeforethCommittee,ifconfirmed, e IwillfollowthSpecialCounselregulationsscrupulouslyandingoodfaithand e , Iwillnotpermitpartisanpolitics,personalinterests,or anyothimproper er considerationsto interferewithe thSpecialCounsel’sinvestigation.

AsIexplainedindetailinmyJanuary14,2019lettertoCh airmanGrah am and myJanuary10,2019letterto RankingMemberFeinstein,IprovidedmyJune 8,2018memorandumtoa numberofdifferentpeople,includingofficialsatth e DepartmentofJusticeandthPresident’slawyers. e AtthDepartmentof e Justice,DeputyAttorneyGeneralRosensteinbrieflyacknowledgedreceiptof thmemorandumandnotedthe ath ispolicy was notto commentpublicly onthe SpecialCounsel’sinvestigation; AssistantAttorneyGeneralEngelbriefly acknowledgedreceipt; andSolicitorGeneralFranciscocalledmeto sayhwas e notinvolvedintheSpecialCounsel’sinvestigationandwouldnotbereadingth e memorandum. Tothbestofmyrecollection, e none ofthPresident’slawyers e respondeddirectlytothememorandum,butasIh ave noted,Isubsequentlyh ad followupconversationsinwh ich Iexplainedmyviews.

9. The same daythatyou sentyourJune 2018 obstruction ofjustice memorandum to Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, who was your boss when you were the Deputy Attorney General, authoredan op-edpublished in the WashingtonPost , stating in part, “Mueller is the right person to investigate Russia’s apparent assault on our democracy. . . . Mueller must put all applicable evidence before an impartial grand jury that will decide whether to bring charges. We must let him do his job.”

a. Have you discussedyour obstruction ofjustice memorandum withformer Attorney General Thornburgh? Ifso, please describe this discussion.

b. Have you discussed former Attorney General Thornburgh’s op-ed with him? Ifso, please describe this discussion.

RESPONSE: Ihave notdiscussedmyJune8,2018memorandumorthop-edwith e formerAttorneyGeneralTh ornburgh .

10. In the 26years since you servedas AttorneyGeneral, have you sent anyotherlegal memorandato Department ofJustice leadership criticizing an investigation? Ifso, please provide a list ofthe investigations that these memoranda addressed and estimates ofwhen the memoranda were transmitted.

158

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 RESPONSE: AsIexplainedindetailinmyJanuary14,2019letterto Ch airman GrahamandmyJanuary10,2019lettertoRankingMemberFeinstein,myJune8, 2018memorandumdidnotcriticizeSpecialCounselMueller’sinvestigationasa generalmatter. Rather,itdiscussed apotentialth eoryth atIth ough t,based on publiclyavailableinformation,hmaybepursuingatthtime. e e AsItestifiedatmy hearingbeforeth eCommittee,over thyears,Ih e weigh ave on edin manylegal matterswithgovernmentofficials. Forexample,Irecentlyexpressedconcernsto AttorneyGeneralSessionsandDeputyAttorneyGeneralRosensteinregardingth e prosecutionofSenatorBobMenendez. Apartfromthememorandumth atIdrafted inJune2018,Idonotrecallanyothinstanceinwh er Iconveyedmyth ich oughtots theDepartmentofJusticeinmycapacityasaformerAttorneyGeneralinalegal memorandum.

1 Non-Responsive Record

1

1

1

159

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 QUESTIONSFORTHERECORD WILLIAMP.BARR NOMINEETOBEUNITEDSTATESATTORNEYGENERAL

QUESTIONSFROMSENATORHIRONO

1 Non-Responsive Record

2. YoumentionedthatyouhadlunchwithDeputyAttorneyRodRosensteinandtriedto sell him on yourtheory that a President can never obstruct justice ifhis actions are among those properly delegated to the ChiefExecutive, even iftheyhave a corrupt intent. You described his reaction as “sphinx-like.” Did you think that reaction was improper, given the fact that you were not a Department official and had no basis to be involved in the case? Are you implying he should have reacted more positively to you?Why?

181

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 RESPONSE: Whileyourch aracterizationofmypositionis notaccurate,Deputy AttorneyGeneralRosenstein’sresponsewasentirelyproperandcommendable.

3. To explain whyyou providedunsolicitedinputto narrow the scope ofSpecialCounsel Mueller’s investigation efforts thatyou noted were resistedbyDeputyAttorneyGeneral Rosenstein you asserted that you also “weighed in repeatedly to complain about the idea ofprosecuting SenatorMenendez” when your “friend . . . was his defense counsel.”

a. Do you thinkitis proper fornon-Department DOJ) ofJustice officials, ( including formerAttorneys General, to weigh in to seek to influence law enforcement decisions, particularly when such decisions have a personal benefit?

RESPONSE: Yes. eththWh er eformerofficialispaidorunpaid—andIwasnot paidineitherofth ese instances—itcanbeappropriateandis notunusualfor formerDepartmentofficialsto provideth eirviews to currentDepartmentofficials onpendingmattersth roughvarietyofmeans,includingpersonalconversations, a legalmemoranda,editorialarticles,wh itepapers,andlawreviewarticles.

b. Should you be confirmed, how will you respond when others give you unsolicited input or seek to influence Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation?

RESPONSE: Iwillconsiderthviewsraisedandproceedinanappropriate e manner.

4. In the 19-page unsolicited memo addressed to Justice Department officials that you distributed to Donald Trump’s private and White House Attorneys, you arguedthat “Muellershould not be permitted to demand that the President submit to interrogation about alleged obstruction” and that “[i]t is inconceivable to me that the Department could acceptMueller’s interpretation c)(of§1512(2). Itis untenable as a matter oflaw and cannot provide a legitimate basis for interrogating the President.” Despite making such strong and unequivocal assertions, you claimed you did not know many facts about Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation.

You testified at your hearing that you “do not recall getting anyconfidential information about the investigation.” Please review your emails, notes, and any other relevant materials. Having reviewed those materials, did you receive any confidential information about Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation? Do you recall getting any information whatsoever about the investigation from anyone? Ifyou did, who gave it to you?

RESPONSE: Ibasedmymemooninformationavailableto thpublicatth e etime through news mediareports.Toth ebestofmyrecollection,Ididnotreceiveany non-publicor confidentialinformationregardingthSpecialCounsel’s e investigation.

182

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 QUESTIONSFORTHERECORD WILLIAMP.BARR NOMINEETOBEUNITEDSTATESATTORNEYGENERAL

QUESTIONSFROMSENATORBOOKER

1 Non-Responsive Record

Non-Responsive Record

207

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 8. It has been reported that, after President Trump offered you the Attorney General position, you "briefly" told him that your June 2018 memo about Special Counsel Mueller's investigation and obstruction ofjustice could become an issue at your confirmation hearing. 20

a. What did you tell President Trump about the June 2018 obstruction memo?

b. How did President Trump respond?

RESPONSE: On November 27, 2018, I met with the President and then-White House Counsel Emmet Flood to interview for the position of Attorney General. After the President offered me the job, the conversation turned to issues that could arise during the confirmation process. I recall mentioning that I had written a memorandum r egarding a legal issue that could arise in the Special Counsel's investigation, and that the memorandum could result in questioning during my confirmation hearing. I do not remember exactly what I said, but I recall offering a brief, one-sentence description of the memorandum. The President did not comment on my memorandum. There was no discussion of the substance of the investigation. The President did not ask me my views about any aspect of the investigation, and he did not ask me about what I would do about anything in the investigation.

20 Sadie Gumian & Aruna Viswanatha, Trwnp 's Attorney General Pick Criticized an Aspect ofMueller Probe in Memo to Justice Department, WALL ST. J. (Dec. 19, 2018), https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps attorney general pick criticized an aspect of mueller probe in memo to justice department 11545275973. 21 M.i .@::-J:f...S .t.i.t..S t♦ J::I ::-13'5'.ilf. •

212

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 APPENDIX TO THE QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD WILLIAM P. BARR NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 Letter from William P. Barr, nominee to be Attorney General ofthe United States, to Chairman Lindsey Graham, Senate Committee on the Judiciary (January 14, 2019)

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 TheHonorableLindseyGraham Chairman SenateCommitteeontheJudiciary UnitedStatesSenate 290RussellSenateO fficeBuilding Washington,D.C.20510

January14,2019

DearChairmanGraham:

Thankyoufortakingthetimetomeetwithmelastweek. Iappreciatedtheopportunity tospeakwithyouaboutmyupcominghearingbeforetheSenateJudiciaryCommitteeandmy plansfortheDepartmentofJusticeifIamconfirmed.

Duringourmeeting,youaskedmeaboutthelegalmemorandumthatIdraftedasa privatecitizeninJune2018,acopyofwhichIprovidedtotheCommitteelastmonth. Although thememorandumispubliclyavailableandhasbeenthesubjectofextensivereporting,Ibelieve theremaystillbesomeconfusionastowhatmymemorandumdid,anddidnot,address.

AsIexplainedinmyJanuary10,2019letterrespondingtoquestionsposedbyRanking MemberFeinstein,thememorandumdidnotaddress orinanywayquestion theSpecial Counsel’scoreinvestigationintoRussianeffortstointerferewiththe2016election. Indeed,I haveknownBobMuellerpersonallyandprofessionallyfor30years,andIhavetheutmost respectforhimandtheimportantworkheisdoing. WhenBobwasappointed,Ipubliclypraised hisselectionandexpressedconfidencethathewouldhandletheinvestigationproperly. AsI notedduringourdiscussion,Ipersonallyappointedandsupervisedthreespecialcounselsmyself whileservingasAttorneyGeneral. IalsoauthorizedanindependentcounselundertheEthicsin GovernmentAct. IbelievethecountryneedsacredibleandthoroughinvestigationintoRussia’s effortstomeddleinourdemocraticprocess,includingtheextentofanycollusionbyAmericans, andthusfeelstronglythatthattheSpecialCounselmustbepermittedtofinishhiswork. I assuredyouduringourmeeting andIreiteratehere that,ifconfirmed,Iwillfollowthe SpecialCounselregulationsscrupulouslyandingoodfaith,andIwillallowBobtocompletehis investigation.

Asforthememorandumitself,aswediscussedduringourmeeting,thememorandum’s analysiswasnarrowinscope. Itaddressedasingleobstruction-of-justicetheoryunderaspecific federalstatute,18U.S.C.§1512(c),thatIthought,basedonpublicinformation,SpecialCounsel Muellermighthavebeenconsideringatthetime. Thememorandumdidnotaddressanyofthe otherobstructiontheoriesthathavebeenpubliclydiscussedinconnectionwiththeSpecial Counsel’sinvestigation.

1

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 Theprincipalconclusionofmymemoisthattheactionsprohibitedbysection1512(c) are,generallyspeaking,thehiding,withholding,destroying,oralteringofevidence inother words,actsthatimpairtheavailabilityorintegrityofevidenceinaproceeding. The memorandumdidnotsuggestthataPresidentcanneverobstructjustice. Quitethecontrary,it expressedmybeliefthataPresident,justlikeanyoneelse,canobstructjusticeifheorshe engagesinwrongfulactionsthatimpairtheavailabilityofevidence. Nordidthememorandum claim,assomehaveincorrectlysuggested,thataPresidentcanneverobstructjusticewhenever heorsheisexercisingaconstitutionalfunction. IfaPresident,actingwiththerequisiteintent, engagesinthekindofevidenceimpairmentthestatuteprohibits regardlesswhetheritinvolves theexerciseofhisorherconstitutionalpowersornot thenaPresidentcommitsobstructionof justiceunderthestatute. Itisassimpleasthat.

Duringourmeeting,youaskedwhyIdraftedthememorandum. Iexplainedthat,asa formerAttorneyGeneral,Iamnaturallyinterestedinsignificantlegalissuesofpublicimport, andIfrequentlyoffermyviewsonlegalissuesoftheday sometimesindiscussionsdirectly withpublicofficials;sometimesinpublishedop-eds;sometimesinamicusbriefs;andsometimes inCongressionaltestimony. Forexample,immediatelyaftertheattacksofSeptember11,2001,I reachedouttoanumberofofficialsintheBushadministrationtoexpressmyviewthatforeign terroristswereenemycombatantssubjecttothelawsofwarandshouldbetriedbeforemilitary commissions,andIdirectedtheadministrationtosupportinglegalmaterialsIpreviouslyhad preparedduringmytimeattheDepartment. Morerecently,Ihaveofferedmyviewstoofficials attheDepartmentonanumberoflegalissues,suchasconcernsabouttheprosecutionofSenator BobMenendez.

In2017and2018,muchofthenewsmediawassaturatedwithcommentaryand speculationaboutvariousobstructiontheoriesthattheSpecialCounselmayhavebeenpursuing atthetime,includingtheoriesundersection1512(c). IdecidedtoweighinbecauseIwas worriedthat,ifanoverlyexpansiveinterpretationofsection1512(c)wereadoptedinthis particularcase,itcould,overthelongerterm,castapallovertheexerciseofdiscretionary authority,notjustbyfuturePresidents,butbyallpublicofficialsinvolvedinadministeringthe law,especiallythoseintheDepartment. Istarteddraftinganop-ed. ButasIwrote,Iquickly realizedthatthesubjectmatterwastoodryandwouldrequiretoomuchspace. Further,my purposewasnottoinfluencepublicopinionontheissue,butrathertomakesurethatallofthe lawyersinvolvedcarefullyconsideredthepotentialimplicationsofthetheory. Idiscussedmy viewsbroadlywithlawyerfriends;wrotethememotoseniorDepartmentofficials;shareditwith otherinterestedparties;andlaterprovidedcopiestofriends. Iwasnotrepresentinganyonewhen Iwrotethememorandum,andnoonerequestedthatIdraftit. Iwroteitmyself,onmyown initiative,withoutassistance,andbasedsolelyonpublicinformation.

YourequestedthatIprovideyouwithadditionalinformationconcerningthelawyerswith whomIsharedthememorandumordiscussedtheissueitaddresses. Asthemediahasreported, IprovidedthememorandumtoofficialsattheDepartmentofJusticeandlawyersforthe President. Tothebestofmyrecollection,beforeIbeganwritingthememorandum,Iprovided

2

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 myviewsontheissuetoDeputyAttorneyGeneralRodRosensteinatlunchinearly2018. Later, onaseparateoccasion,IalsobrieflyprovidedmyviewstoAssistantAttorneyGeneralSteven Engel. Afterdraftingthememorandum,Iprovidedcopiestobothofthem. Ialsosentitto SolicitorGeneralNoelFranciscoafterIsawhimatasocialgathering. Duringmyinteractions withtheseDepartmentofficials,Ineithersolicitednorreceivedanyinformationaboutthe SpecialCounsel’sinvestigation. InadditiontosharingmyviewswiththeDepartment,Ithought theyalsomightbeofinteresttootherlawyersworkingonthematter. Ithussentacopyofthe memorandumanddiscussedthoseviewswithWhiteHouseSpecialCounselEmmetFlood. I alsosentacopytoPatCipollone,whohadworkedformeattheDepartmentofJustice,and discussedtheissuesraisedinthememowithhimandafewotherlawyersforthePresident, namelyMartyandJaneRaskinandJaySekulow. Thepurposeofthosediscussionswasto explainmyviews.

AsIexplainedduringourmeeting,Ifrequentlydiscusslegalissuesinformallywith lawyers,anditispossiblethatIsharedthememorandumordiscussedmythinkingreflectedin thememorandumwithotherpeopleinadditiontothosementionedabove,includingsomewho haverepresentedclientsinconnectionwiththeSpecialCounsel’swork. Atthistime,Ialso recallprovidingthememorandumto,and/orhavingconversationsaboutitscontentswith,the following:

• ProfessorBradfordClark • RichardCullen • EricHerschmann • AbbeLowell • AndrewMcBride • PatrickRowan • GeorgeTerwilliger • ProfessorJonathanTurley • ThomasYannucci Theforegoingrepresentsmybestrecollectionontheseissuesatthistime. Ilookforward todiscussingtheseissuesfurtherwithyouandyourcolleaguesatmyupcominghearing.

Sincerely,

WilliamP.Barr

3

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 Letter from lli Wiam P. Barr, nee nomi to be AttorneyGeneral ofthe United States, to Ranking Member ane Di Fei nstein, Senate Committee on the ci Judiary (January 10, 2019)

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 Senator Dianne Feinstein United States Senate 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510

January 10, 2019

Dear Senator Feinstein:

Thank you for your letter of December 21, 2018 regarding a memorandum that I drafted earlier last year, a copy of which I provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.

As you note, my memorandum was narrow in scope, addressing only a single obstruction theory that I thought, based on public information, the Special Counsel might have been considering. The memorandum did not address - or in any way question - the Special Counsel's core investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Indeed, I have known Bob Mueller personally and professionally for 30 years, and I have the utmost respect for him and the important work he is doing. Having appointed and supervised three special counsels myself while Attorney General, I understand that the country needs a credible and thorough investigation into Russia's efforts to meddle in our democratic process, including the extent to which any Americans were involved. For this reason, it is vitally important that the Special Counsel be permitted to finish his work. I will carry out the Special Counsel regulations scrupulously and in good faith, and I will allow Bob to complete his work.

Given my background, I am naturally interested in legal issues that have significant implications for our country. I have a deep commitment to the law and I enjoy researching, analyzing, and writing about legal issues. I frequently discuss my views with friends, colleagues, and public officials, and I have worked on a number of arnicus briefs, written a law review article, published op-eds, spoken publicly on legal issues, and provided testimony to Congress.

In 2017 and 2018, based on public accounts, it appeared to me that the Special Counsel might be considering subpoenaing the President to explore his motives for terminating the FBI director on the theory that the removal may have constituted obstruction under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c ). I was concerned that predicating obstruction under this statute based solely on the removal of an FBI director would stretch the provision beyond its text and intent, and doing so could have implications well beyond the Special Counsel's investigation. As my thoughts took shape during informal discussions with other lawyers, I eventually decided to reduce my thinking on this issue to writing in a memorandum. I wrote as a private citizen. I was not representing anyone. No one requested that I write the memorandum. I drafted it myself without assistance and based on public information.

As the media has reported, and as I have explained to a number of your colleagues, I provided the memorandum to and had discussions about the issue with lawyers on all sides of the

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 Special Counsel's investigation, including officials at the Department of Justice and the White House, as well as lawyers for the President. Over time, I also provided the memorandum to several lawyer friends and had discussions about the issue with them and many others.

Thank you for the oppo1tunity to address these issues. I look forward to discussing them further with you and your colleagues at my upcoming hearing.

Sincerely, &:~

2

Document ID: 0.7.22218.280861-000001 Douglas, Danielle E. (OLA)

From: Douglas, Danielle E. (OLA) Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 4:38 PM To: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA}; Escalona, Prim F. (OLA); Lasseter, David F. (OLA); Rabbitt, Brian {OAG); Moran, John (OAG}; Burnham, James M. {CIV); O'Callaghan, Edward C. (ODAG); Engel, Steven A. (Ole); Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC); Kupec, Kerri {OPA) Cc: Vance, Alexa {OLA) Subject: 05/01 AG Barr's SJC Transcript Attachments: 2019.S.1_SJC Transcript.pdf

Danielle Douglas Office of Legislative Affairs U.S. De artment of Justice

Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270 CQ Page 1 of205

CQCongressionalTranscripts May. 1, 2019

May. 01, 2019Final Senate JudiciaryCommittee Holds Hearingon Justice Department's InvestigationofRussian Interference in2016PresidentialElection

LISTOFPA NELMEMBERSA NDWITNESSES

GRAHA M: Thankyou. The hearingwillcometo order, andthe firstorderofbusiness is to try to cooltheroomdown. So we'llsee ifwe cando that. Butthe attorneygeneral willbe testifyinghere inabitaboutthe Muellerreport. AndI wantto thankhim forcomingto the committee andgivingus anexplanationas to theactions he tookandwhyhe tookthemregardingthe Muellerreport. Andhere's thegood news; here's the Muellerreport. Youcanreaditforyourself. It's about400 and somethingpages. Ican'tsayI've readitall, butI'vereadmostofit. There is an unredactedversionoverinthe classifiedsectionofthe Senate, aroomwhere you cango lookatthe unredactedversion, andIdidthat, andIfounditnotto change anythinginterms ofanoutcome.

Butabitaboutthe Muellerreport. Who is Mueller?Forthose who maynot know--Idon'tknowwhere you'vebeen, butyoumaynotknow--thatBobMueller has areputationinthis townandthroughoutthe countryas beinganoutstanding lawyerandamanofthe law. He was the FBIdirector. He was thedeputyattorney general. Hewasincharge ofthe criminaldivisionatthe DepartmentofJustice. Hewas aUnitedStates marine, andhe has servedhis countryinavarietyof circumstances longandwell.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 2of205

Forthosewho tooktime to readthereport, Ithinkitwas wellwritten, very thorough. Andletme tellyouwhatwentinto this report. There were 19lawyers employed, approximately40FBIagents, intelanalysts, forensic--forensic accountants andotherstaff, 2800 subpoenas issued, 500 witnesses interviewed, 500 searchwarrants executed, more than230 orders forcommunicationrecords sothey--records couldbeobtained, 13 requests toforeigngovernments for evidence, over$25 millionspentovertwo years. We maynotagree onmuch, but Ihope wecanagree thathehadample resources, tookalotoftime andtalkedto a lotofpeople. Andyoucanreadforyourselfwhathe found. The attorneygeneral willtellus abitaboutwhathis opinionofthe reportis.

Interms ofinteractingwiththe White House, the White House turnedoverto Mr. Mueller$1.4 milliondocuments andrecords, neverassertedexecutiveprivilege one time. Over20White House staffers, includingeightfromtheWhite House Counsel's office, wereinterviewedvoluntarily. DonMcGahn, chiefcounselfor the WhiteHouse, was interviewedforover30hours. Everybodythattheywanted to talkto fromtheTrump campaignonthe ground, theywere able to talkto. The presidentsubmittedhimselfto writteninterrogatories.

So to the Americanpeople, Mr. Muellerwas therightguyto do this job. Ialways believedthatAttorneyGeneralSessions was conflictedoutbecausehe was part ofthe campaign. He was the rightguywithample resources. Andthe cooperation he neededto findoutwhathappenedwas given, inmyview. Buttherewere two campaigns in2016andwe'lltalkaboutthe, second one inaminute.

So whathave we learnedfromthis report?Afterallthis timeandallthis money, Mr. Muellerandhis teamconcludedthere was no collusion. Ididn'tknow, like manyofyouhere ontheRepublicanside, weallagreedthatMr. Muellershould be allowedto do his job withoutinterference. Ijoinedwithsome colleagues on the otherside to introduce legislationto protectthe specialcounselthathecould

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 3of205

onlybe removedforcause. He was neverremoved. He was allowedto do his job. So no collusion, no coordination, no conspiracybetweenthe Trump campaign andthe Russiangovernmentregardingthe 2016election.

As to obstructionofjustice, Mr. Muellerleftitto Mr. Barrto decide. Aftertwo years andallthis time, hesaidMr. Barr, youdecide. Mr. Barrdid. There are a bunchoflawyers onthis committee, andIwilltellyouthe following. Youhave to have specific intentto obstructjustice. Ifthereis no underlyingcrime, prettyhard to figure outwhatintentmightbe ifthere was neveracrimeto beginwith. The presidentneverdidanythingto stopMuellerfromdoinghis job, so Iguess the theorygoes now, we don't--okay, he didn'tcollude withthe Russians andhe didn't specificallydoanythingto stopMueller, butattemptedobstructionjustice ofa crime thatneveroccurredIguess is sortofthe--the newstandardaroundhere. We'llseeifthatmakes anysense. To meitdoesn't.

Nowtherewasanothercampaign. Itwasthe Clintoncampaign. Whathave we learnedfromthis report?The Russians interferedinourelection. So cansome bipartisanship comeoutofthis?Ihope so. Iintendto workwithmycolleagues on the otherside to introduce the DETERActandto introduce legislationto defend the integrityofthe votingsystem. SenatorDurbinandIhave legislationthat woulddenyanyone admittanceinto the UnitedStates avisathroughthe immigrationsystemiftheywere involvedininterferinginanAmericanelection. WorkingwithSenatorWhitehouseandBlumenthalto make sure thatifyouhack intoastateelectionsystem, eventhoughit's nottiedto theirinternet, that's a crime. Iwouldlike to do moreto hardenourinfrastructure because theRussians didit. Itwasn'tsome 400-poundguysittingonabedsomewhere. Itwas the Russians. Andthey're stilldoingit. Anditcouldbe the Chinese, itcouldbe somebodynext, so mytakeawayfromthis reportis thatwe've gotalotofworkto

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 4of205

do to defenddemocracyagainstthe Russians andotherbadactors. AndIpromise the committee we willgetonwiththatwork, hopefullyinabipartisanfashion.

The othercampaign. The othercampaignwas investigated, notbyMr. Mueller, bypeoplewithintheDepartmentofJustice. The accusationagainsttheClinton-- SecretaryClintonwas thatshesetaprivate serverup somewhere inherhouse, andclassifiedinformationwas onit, to avoidthe disclosure requirements andthe transparencyrequirements requiredofbeingsecretaryofState. So thatwas investigated. Whatdo we know?We knowthatthe personincharge of investigatinghatedTrump's guts. Idon'tknowhowMr. Muellerfeltabout Trump, butIdon'tthinkanybodyonourside believes thathehadapersonal animositytowardthepresidentto the pointhe couldn'tdo his job.

This is whatStrzoksaidon February12, 2016Nowhe's. incharge ofthe Clinton emailinvestigation. "Ohhe's Trump's abysmal. Ikeephopingthe charadewill endandpeople willjustdumphim." February12, . 2016Page is the Department ofJustice lawyerassignedto this March3, case. 2016 ."God, Trumpis a loathsome humanbeing." Strzok, "OhmyGod, Trump's anidiot." Page, "He's awful." Strzok, "God, Hillaryshouldwin100 millionto nothing." Compare those two people to Mueller. March162016 , ."Icannotbelieve Trumpis likelyto bean actualserious candidateforpresident." July21, . 2016"Trumpis a disaster. Ihave no ideahowdestabilizinghis presidencywouldbe." August8, , 2016three days beforeStrzokwas made deputyacting--inchargeofthe counterintelligence divisionofthe FBI, "He's nevergoingto become president, right?" Page to Strzok, "No, no hewon't. We'llstophim." These arethe people investigatingthe Clintonemailsituationandstartthe counterintelligenceinvestigationofthe Trump campaign. Compare themto Mueller.

August15, 2016. Strzok, "Iwantto believethe pathyouthrewoutfor considerationinAndy's (PH) officethatthere's no wayhegets elected, butI'm

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 5of205

afraidwe can'ttakethatrisk. It's likeaninsurance policyinthe unlikelyeventyou die before you're40." August26,2016"Justwentto . the SouthernVirginiaWal- Mart. Icouldsmellthe Trump support." October19, , 2016"Trumpis a fucking idiot. He's unabletoprovide acoherentanswer." Sorryto the kids outthere.

These are thepeople thatmade adecisionthatClintondidn'tdo anythingwrong andthatcounterintelligence investigationofthe Trump campaignwas warranted. We're goingto, inabipartisanway, IhopedealwithRussia, butwhenthe Muellerreportis putto bed, anditsoonwillbe, this committee is goingto look longandhardathowthis allstarted. We'regoingto lookatthe FISAwarrant process. DidRussiaprovide ChristopherSteele the informationaboutTrumpthat turnedoutto be garbagethatwas usedto getawarrantonAmericansystem- - citizen, andifso, howdidthe systemfail?Was there arealeffortbetween Papadopoulos andanybodyinRussiato usethe Clintonemails stolenby--stole by the Russians, orwas thatthoughtplantedinhis mind?Idon'tknow, butwe're goingto look. AndIcantellyouthis. Ifyouchange thenames, youallwould wantto look, too. EverythingIjustsaid, justsubstitute ClintonforTrump andsee whatallthese people withcameras wouldbe sayingouthere aboutthis.

As to cooperationinthe Clintoninvestigation, ItoldyouwhattheTrumppeople did. I'lltellyoualittle bitaboutwhatthe Clintonpeopledid. There was a protective orderforthe serverissuedbythe House, andthere was arequestbythe State Departmentto preserve allthe informationonthe server. PaulCombetta, afterhavingtheprotectiveorder, usedasoftware programcalledBleachBitto wipe the emailserverclean. Has anybodyeverheardofPaulCombetta?No. Underprotective orderfromthe House to preserve the informationunderrequest fromthe State Departmentto preserve the informationonthe server, heuseda BleachBitprogramto wipe itclean. Whathappenedto him?Nothing. 18devices possessedbySecretaryClintonsheusedto do business as secretary, howmanyof

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 6of205

themwereturnedoverto the FBI?None. Two ofthemcouldn'tbe turnedover because JudithCaspar(PH) tookahammeranddestroyedtwo ofthem. What happenedto her?Nothing.

So the bottomline is we'reaboutto hearfromMr. Barrthe results ofatwo-year investigationinto theTrump campaign, allthings Russia, theactions thepresident tookbeforeandafterthecampaign, $25 million, 40FBIagents. Iappreciate very muchwhatMr. Muellerdidforthecountry. Ihave readmostofthe report. For me, itis over.

GRAHA M: SenatorFeinstein?

FEINSTEIN: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman, andwelcome, AttorneyGeneral. OnMarch24th, you sentaletterto ChairmanGrahamandthe rankingmemberofthis committee providingyoursummaryofthe principalconclusions setoutinSpecialCounsel Mueller's report. This letterwas widelyreportedas awinforthe presidentand was characterizedas confirmingthere was no conclusion.

Followingthis letter, the White House putoutastatementdeclaringthe special counsel--andIquote, "The SpecialCounseldidnotfindanycollusionanddidnot findanyobstruction," andthatthe report"was atotalandcompleteexoneration" ofthe president. However, lastnightthe WashingtonPostreportedthatSpecial CounselMuellersentyoualetterinlateMarchwhere hesaidyourletterto Congress failedto "fullycapture the context, nature, andsubstance ofhis offices workandconclusions," andthathe spoke withyouaboutthe concernthatthe letterthreatenedto undermine the public confidence intheoutcome ofthe investigation. That's inquotes as well.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 7of205

ThenonApril18th, youheldapress conference where youannouncedrepeatedly thatthe Muellerreportfoundno collusionandno evidence ofacrime. Anhour later, aredactedcopyoftheMuellerreportwas providedto thepublic andthe Congress, andwe sawwhyMuellerwas concerned. Contraryto the declarations ofthe totalandcomplete exoneration, the specialcounsel's reportcontained substantialevidence ofmisconduct.

First, SpecialCounselMueller's reportconfirms thatthe Russiangovernment implementedasocialmediacampaignto misleadmillions ofAmericans, andthat Russianintelligence services hackedinto the DNC andtheDCCC computers, stole emails andmemos, andsystematicallyreleasedthemto impactthe presidentialelection. YourMarchletterstatedthattherewasno evidence thatthe Trump campaign"conspiredorcoordinatedwithRussia." However, the report outlinedsubstantialevidence thatthe Trump campaignwelcomed, encouraged, andexpectedtobenefitelectorallyfromRussia's interference intheelection.

TheMuellerreportalso details howtime andtime againthe Trump campaign tooksteps to gainadvantage fromRussia's unlawfulinterference. Forexample, PresidentTrump's campaignmanager, PaulManafort, pastinternalcampaign pollingdata, messaging, andstrategyupdates to KonstantinKilimnik, aRussian nationalwithties to Russianintelligence. The Muellerreportexplains howPaul ManafortbriefedKilimnikinearlyAugust2016on"thestate oftheTrump campaignandManafort's planto wintheelection," includingthecampaigns focus onthe battlegroundstatesofMichigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, andMinnesota.

Next, the Muellerreportdocuments the Trump campaign's communications regardingSecretaryClinton's andthe DNC's stolenemails. Specifically, the report states, "withinapproximatelyfivehours" ofPresidentTrump callingonRussiato findSecretaryClinton's emails, Russianintelligence agencyGRUofficers "targetedforthe firsttime Clinton's personaloffice." The Muellerreportalso

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 8of205

reveals thatPresidentTrump repeatedlyaskedindividuals affiliatedwithhis campaign, includingMichaelFlynn"to findthe deletedClintonemails."

These efforts includedsuggestions to contactforeignintelligenceservices, Russianhackers, andindividuals onthe darkWeb. The reportconfirms that TrumpknewofWikiLeaks releases ofthe stolenemails andreceivedstatus about--status updates aboutupcomingreleases. While his campaignpromoted coverage oftheleaks, DonaldTrumpJuniorcommunicateddirectlywith WikiLeaks and, atits request, publiclytweetedalinkto emails stolenfrom Clinton's campaignmanager.

Second, inyourMarchletterto Congress, youconcluded"thatthe evidence is not sufficientto establishthatthe presidentcommittedanobstructionofjustice offense." However, SpecialCounselMuellermethodicallyoutlines 10 episodes, some continuingmultiple actions, bythepresidentto misleadtheAmerican people andinterfere withtheinvestigations into Russianinterference in obstruction. Inone example, the presidentrepeatedlycalledWhite House Counsel DonMcGahnathomeanddirectedhimto fireMueller, saying"Muellerhas to go. Callmebackwhenyoudo it." Thenlater, the presidentrepeatedlyordered McGahnto release apress statementandwritealettersayingthepresidentdid notorderMuellerfired.

The Muellerreportalso outlines effortsbyPresidentTrump to influence witness testimonyanddetercooperationwithlawenforcement. Forexample, the president's teamcommunicatedto witnesses thatpardons wouldbe available if they"stayedonmessage" andremained"onthe team." Inone case, the president sentmessages throughhis personallawyers to PaulManafortthathe wouldbe takencare ofandjust"sittight." The presidentthenpubliclyaffirmedthis communicationbystaying--statingthatManafortwas "abrave man" forrefusing to break.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 9of205

Similarly, the Muellerreportstatedthe presidentusedinducements inthe formof positive messages inaneffortto getMichaelCohennotto cooperate andthen turnedto attacks andintimidationto deterthe provisionofinformationor undermine Cohen's credibility.

Finally, whilethe Marchletterto Congress andthe Aprilpress conference leftthe impressionthere were no remainingquestions to examine, this reportnotes severallimitations Muellerface while gatheringthe facts thatCongress neededto examine. More thanonce, the reportdocuments thatlegalconditions--excuse me, conclusions were notdrawnbecause witnesses refuse to answerquestions or failedto recallthe events.

Inaddition, numerous witnesses, includingbutnotlimitedto JaredKushner, SarahSanders, RudolphGiuliani, MichaelFlynn, Steve Bannon, andJohnKelly, allstatedtheycouldnotrecallevents. Thepresidenthimselfsaidmore than30 times thathecouldnotrecallorrememberenoughto be ableto answerwritten questions fromthe specialcounsel. The specialcounselalso recountedthat"some associatedwiththe Trump campaigndeletedrelevantcommunications or communicatedduringthe relevantperiodusingapplications thatfeatured encryptionordo notprovide forlong-termretentionofdata."

Basedonthese gaps, theMuellerreportconcluded"the officecannotrule outthe possibilitythatthe unavailable informationwouldhaveshedadditionallightonor castanewlightonevents describedinthereport." Andcontraryto theconclusion thatthe specialcounsel's reportdidnotfindevidence ofcommunicationor coordinationbetweentheTrump campaignandRussia, the Muellerreport explicitlystates "Astatementthatthe investigationdidnotestablishparticular facts does notmeanthere was no evidence ofthose facts," volume two, page two.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 10 of205

Letme conclude withthis. Congress has boththe Constitutionaldutyandthe authorityto investigate the serious findings containedinthe Muellerreport. I stronglybelieve thatthis committee needs to heardirectlyfromSpecialCounsel Muellerabouthis views onthe reportinhis Marchletter. Ialso believe Senators shouldhave the opportunityto askhimaboutthese subjects inquestions directly.

Ihave requestedthis to ourchairman, to authorize ahearingwithSpecialCounsel Mueller, andIhope thatwillhappensoon. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.

GRAHA M: Thankyou. Before we receiveyourtestimony, Mr. Barr, we have theletterthat Mr. Muellersentto youonMarch27th, 2019. I'llputthatintherecordnow. The flooris yours.

GRAHA M: I'vegotto swearyouin; sorry. Solemnly--do yousolemnlyswearthe testimony you're aboutto give this committee is the truth, the whole truthandnothingbut the truth, so helpyouGod?

BARR: Yes.

GRAHA M: Sorryaboutthat.

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 11 of205

Thankyou, Mr. ChairmanandRankingMemberFeinstein, members ofthe committee. Duringmyconfirmationprocess there were two concerns that dominated, as Ithinkyouwillallagree. The firstwas whetherIwouldinanyway impede orcurtailSpecialCounselMueller'sinvestigation, andthe second, whetherIwouldmake public his finalreport. As yousee, BobMuellerwas allowedto--to completehis workas he sawfit, andas to the report, eventhough the applicableregulations require thatthe reportis to bemade to the AGandis to remainconfidentialandnotbe made public, Itoldthis committee thatIintended to exercise whateverdiscretionIhadto make as muchofthe reportavailable to the public andto congressionalleaders as Icould, consistentwiththe law. This has beendone.

IarrivedatthedepartmentonFebruary14, andshortlythereafterIaskeditto be communicatedto BobMueller's teamthatinpreparingthe reportwe requested thattheymake itso we couldreadilyidentify6 (e) material so we couldquickly process thereportfor- -

GRAHA M: Couldyoutellthe public what6(e)is?

BARR: 6(e)is GrandJurymaterialthatcannotbe made public. It's prohibitedbystatute. AndI wantedthatidentifiedso wecouldredactthatmaterialandprepare the reportforpublic releaseas quicklyas we could. WhenIarrivedatthe department Ifound--andwas eventuallybriefedinonthe investigation--Ifoundthatthe deputyattorneygeneralandhis principalassociate deputy, EdO'Callaghan, were inregulardiscussions withthecounsel's office, hadbeen, andtheycommunicated

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 12 of205

this requestandhaddiscussions aboutboththe timingofthe reportandthenature ofthe report.

OnMarch5 ImetwithBob atthe suggestionofthe deputyandthe principal associate deputy--BobMueller, ImetwithBobMueller--to getareadoutonwhat his conclusions wouldbe. OnMarch25--andatthatmeetingIasked--I reiterated to SpecialCounselMuellerthatinorderto have the shortestpossible timebefore Iwas ina positionto release thereport, Iaskedthattheyidentify6 (e) material. WhenIreceivedthe reportonMarch22--andwe were hopingto have thateasily identified, the6(e) material, unfortunatelyitdidnotcome inthatform, andit quicklybecame apparentthatitwouldtake aboutthree orfourweeks to identify thatmaterialandothermaterialthatwouldhaveto be redacted. So therewas necessarilygoingto be agapbetweenthe receiptofthe reportandgettingthe full reportoutpublicly.

ThedeputyandIidentifiedfourcategories ofinformationthatwe believe requiredredaction, andIthinkyouallknowofthem, buttheywere theGrand Jurymaterial, the (e) material,6 informationthatthe intelligence community advisedwouldrevealsensitive sources andmethods, informationthatifrevealed atthis stagewouldimpinge onthe investigationorprosecutionofrelatedcases, andinformationthatwouldunfairlyaffectthe privacyandreputationalinterests ofperipheralthirdparties. Wewentaboutredactingthis materialinconcertwith the specialcounsel's office. Weneededtheirassistanceto identifythe (e) 6 material, inparticular. Theredactions were allcarriedoutbyDOJlawyers with specialcounsellawyers inconsultationwithintelligence community.

Thereportcontainedasubstantialamountofmaterialoverwhichthepresident couldhaveassertedexecutive privilege, butthepresidentmade the decisionnotto assertexecutive privilege andto make public as muchofthereportas wecould subjectto the redactions thatwethoughtrequired. As yousee, thereporthas been

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 13 of205

lightlyredacted. The public versionhas beenestimatedto have only10percent redactions. Almost--the vastbulkofthose reductions relate to--are inVolume 1, whichis thevolume thatdeals withcollusionandthatrelates to existingongoing cases. Volume2has onlyabout2percentredactions forthe public version. So 98 percentofVolume 2dealingwithobstructionis available to the public.

We havemade aversionofthe reportavailable to congressionalleaders thatonly contains redactions ofGrandJurymaterial. Forthis version, overallredactions are less than2percentforthe whole report, andforVolume 2dealingwith obstruction, theyareless thanonetenthof1 percent. So giventhe limitednature ofredactions, Ibelievethatthe public--publicly-releasedreportwillallowevery Americanto understandthe results ofthe specialcounsel's work.

Bynoweveryone is familiarwiththe specialcounsel's bottomlineconclusions aboutthe Russianattempts to interfere inthe election. InVolume 1 the special counselfoundthattheRussians engaged--engagedintwo distinctschemes. First, the InternetResearchAgency, aRussianentitywithcloseties to theRussian government, conductedadisinformationandsocialmediaoperationto sow discordamongAmericans. Second, the GRU, Russianmilitaryintelligence, hackedinto computers andstoleemails fromindividuals affiliatedwiththe Democratic PartyandHillaryClinton's campaign. The specialcounsel investigatedwhetheranyone affiliatedwithPresidentTrump's campaign conspiredorcoordinatedwiththesecriminalschemes. Theyconcludedthatthere was notsufficientevidenceto establishthatthere hadbeenanyconspiracyor coordinationwiththe Russiangovernmentorthe IRA.

As youknow, Volume 2ofhis reportdealtwithobstruction, andthe special counselconsideredwhethercertainactions ofthe presidentcouldamountto obstruction. He decidednotto reachaconclusion. Instead, the reportrecounts 10 episodes anddiscusses potentiallegaltheories forconnectingthepresident's

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 14 of205

actions to elements ofobstructionoffenses. Nowwe firstheardthatthe special counsel's decisionnotto decide theobstructionissue atmeet--atthe March5 meetingwhenhe came overto thedepartment, andwe were, frankly, surprised that--thattheywere notgoingto reachadecisiononobstruction. Andwe asked themalotaboutthereasoningbehindthis andthe basis forthis. SpecialCounsel Muellerstatedthree times to us inthatmeeting, inresponse to ourquestioning, thathe emphaticallywas notsayingthatbutforthe OLC opinionhe wouldhave foundobstruction. Hesaidthatinthe futurethe facts ofthe case againstthe presidentmightbe suchthataspecialcounselwouldrecommendabandoningthe OLC opinion, butthis is notsuchacase. We didnotunderstandexactlywhythe specialcounselwas notreachingadecision. Andwhenwepressedhimonit, he saidthathis teamwas stillformulatingtheexplanation.

Once weheardthatthe specialcounselwas notreachingaconclusionon obstruction, the deputyandIdiscussedandagreedthatthe departmenthadto reachadecision. We hadtheresponsibilityto assess theevidence as setforthin the reportandto make the judgment. Isaythis because specialcounselwas appointedto carryouttheinvestigative andprosecutorialfunctions ofthe departmentandto do itas partofthe DepartmentofJustice. The powers he was using, includingthepowerofusingthe GrandJuryandusingcompulsory process, exists forthatpurpose, thefunctionofthe DepartmentofJustice inthis arena, whichis to determine whetherornottherehas beencriminalconduct. It's a binarydecision. Is thereenoughevidence to showacrime, anddo we believe a crime has beencommitted?

We don'tconductcriminalinvestigations justto collectinformationandputitout to thepublic. We do so to make adecision. Andhere we thoughttherewas an additionalreason, whichis this was averypublic investigation, andwe hadmade clearthattheresults ofthe investigationwere goingto bemade public, andthe

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 15 of205

deputyandIfeltthattheevidencedevelopedbythe specialcounselwas not sufficientto establishthatthe presidentcommittedacrime, andtherefore itwould be irresponsible andunfairforthe departmentto release areportwithoutstating the department's conclusions andthus leave ithangingas to whetherthe departmentconsideredthatthere hadbeencriminalconduct.

So the deputyattorneygeneralandIconductedacarefulreviewofthe reportwith ourstaffs andlegaladvisors, andwhile we disagreedwithsomeofthe legal theories andfeltthatmanyofthe episodes discussedinthe reportwouldnot constituteobstructionas amatteroflaw, wedidn'trestourdecisiononthat. We tookeachofthe10 episodes, andwe assessedthemagainstthe analytical frameworkthathadbeensetforthbythe specialcounsel. Andwe concludedthat the evidencedevelopedduringthe specialcounsel's investigationwas not sufficientto establishthatthe presidentcommittedanobstructionofjustice offense.

BARR: Letme justtalkalittlebitaboutthis March24thletterand--andBobMueller's letterIthinkonthe 20, whichIreceivedonthe28th.

Whenthe reportcame inonthe 22ndandwesawitwas goingto takeagreatdeal oftime to getitoutto the public Imade thedeterminationthatwe hadto putout some informationaboutthe bottomline. The bodypolitic was inahighstate of agitation. There was massive interestinlearningwhatthe bottomlineresults of BobMueller's investigationwas particularlyas to collusion. Formergovernment officials were confident--confidentlypredictingthatthepresidentandmembers of his familywere goingto be indicted. Therewerepeople suggestingthatifittook anytime to turnaroundthe reportandgetitoutitwouldmeanthatthe president

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 16of205

was inlegaljeopardy. So, Ididn'tfeelthatitwas inthe public interesttoallow this to go onforseveralweeks withoutsayinganything. Andso Idecidedto simplystate whatthebottomline conclusions were, whichis whatthedepartment normallydoes--make abi--binarydetermination. Is there acrimeorisn'tthere a crime?We--wepreparedtheletterfor

thatpurpose to statethe bottomline conclusions. We usethe language fromthe reportto state those bottomlineconclusions. Ianalogize itto announcingafteran extendedtrialwhattheverdictofthetrialis. Pendingrelease ofthe fulltranscript. That's whatwe weretryingto do--notifythe peopleas to thebottomline conclusion. We were nottryingto summarizethe 410pagereport.

So, we releasedthatI--IofferedBobMuellertheopportunityto reviewthatletter before itwentoutandhedeclined. OnThursdaymorningIreceived--Ireceived- - itwas probablyreceivedatthe departmentWednesdaynightorevening, buton ThursdaymorningIreceivedaletterfromBob the letterthat's justbeenputinto the record. AndIcalledBob andsaidyouknow, what's the issue here?Are you su--andIaskedhimifhe was suggestingthatthe March24thletterwas inaccurate andhe saidno, butthatthe press reportinghadbeeninaccurate. Andthatthe press was readingtoo muchinto itandI askedhimyouknow, specificallywhathis concernwas. Andhe said, thathis concernfocusedonhis explanationofwhyhe didnotreachaconclusiononobstruction. Andhe wantedmore putoutonthat issue. He wanted--he arguedforputtingoutsummaries ofeachvolume--the executive summaries thathadbeenwrittenbyhis office. And, ifnotthatthen othermaterialthatfocusedontheissue ofwhyhe didn'tr

eachthe obstructionquestion. Buthe was veryclearwithme thathe was not suggestingthatwe hadmisrepresentedhis report.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 17 of205

ItoldBobthatI was notinterestedinputtingoutsummaries andIwasn'tgoingto putoutthe reportpiecemeal. Iwantedto getthe wholereportout. And, Ithought summaries byverydefinitionregardless ofwho preparedthemwouldbe under inclusive andwe'dhave sortofaseries ofdifferentdebates andpublic discord overeachtranche ofinformationthatwentoutandIwantedtogeteverythingout atonce andweshouldstartworkingonthat. Andso the followingdayIputouta letterexplainingthe process we were followingandstressingthatthe March24th letterwas notasummaryofthereportbutastatementofthe principalconclusions andthatpeople wouldbe able to seeBobMueller's entire thinkingwhenthe reportwas made public. So, I'llendmystatementthere, Mr. Chairmanandgladto take anyquestions.

GRAHA M: Thankyouverymuch. As to the actualreportitself, was there everanoccasion where youwantedto--somethingwas redactedfromthe reportthatMr. Mueller objectedto?

BARR: I--Iwouldn'tsayobjectedto. Myunderstandingis the categories were definedby me and--andthe deputy. Idon'tthinkthat--Ihave no--youknow, Idon'tbelieve- -

GRAHA M: --Didyouworkwithhimto redactthe report?

BARR: Right. Thosecategories were executedbyDOJlawyers workingwithhis lawyers. Ithinktherewere maybeafewjudgmentcalls, veryfew, as to whetherornot

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 18 of205

somethingas aprudentialmattershouldbetreatedas areputationalinterestor something. So there mayhave beensomeoccasions ofthat. Butas--as faras I'm aware--

GRAHA M: --As Iunderstandit, youdidnotwantto hurtsomebody's reputationunless it reallyaffectedthe outcome. Is thatcorrect?

BARR: Right.

GRAHA M: So was thereanydisagreementabout6(e) material?

BARR: NotthatI'maware of.

GRAHA M: Anydisagreementaboutclassifiedinformation?

BARR: NotthatI'maware of.

GRAHA M: Okay. So the conclusioninyourpage--fourpage summaryyouthinkaccurately reflecthis bottomline oncollusion. Is thatcorrect?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 19 of205

BARR: Yes.

GRAHA M: Andyoucanreaditforyourselfifyougotanydoubt. As to obstructionofjustice, were yousurprisedhe was goingto letyoudecide?

BARR: Yes, Iwas surprised. I--Ithinktheverypurpose--the functionhe was carrying out, the prosecutive andinvestigative andprosecutive functionis performedfor the purposeof(INAUDIBLE)

GRAHA M: --Howmanypeople thatheactuallyindict?Do youknow?

BARR: Ican'trememberoffthe top ofmyhead.

GRAHA M: Itwas alot.

BARR: Yeah.

GRAHA M:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 20 of205

So he actuallyhas theabilityto indictifhewants to. He's usedthatpowerduring the investigation. Is thatcorrect?

BARR: That's correct. Andthe otherthingthatwas confusingto me is thatthe investigationcarriedonforawhileas additionalepisodes were--werelookedinto, episodes involvingthepresident, andso myquestionis orwas whywere those investigative investigatedifatthe endofthe dayyouaren'tgoingto reacha decisiononthem?

GRAHA M: So didyouconsultDeputyAttorneyGeneralRosensteinabouttheobstruction matter?

BARR: Constantly, yeah.

GRAHA M: So was he inagreementwithyourdecisionnotto proceedforward?

BARR: Yes. I'msorry, theagreementwhat?Not- -

GRAHA M: --Notto proceedforwardwithobstruction.

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 21 of205

Right. Right, right.

GRAHA M: Okay. So veryquickly, give us yourreasoningwhyyouthinkitwouldbe inappropriate to proceedforwardonobstructionofjustice inthis case.

BARR: Well, generallyspeaking, anobstructioncasetypicallyhas two aspects to it. One, there's usuallyanunderlyingcriminalitythat- -

GRAHA M: --Let's stop rightthere.

BARR: Yeah.

GRAHA M: Was there anunderlyingcrime here?

BARR: No.

GRAHA M: So usuallythere is?

BARR: Usually. Butit's not--it's notnecessary, butthe- typical-

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 22 of205

GRAHA M: --Right--

BARR: --sortoftheparadigmatic case is there's anunderlyingcrime andthenthe person implicatedorpeopleimplicatedwere concernedaboutthatcriminalitybeing discoveredtakeaninherentlymalignantactas--as the SupremeCourthas saidto - -to obstructthatinvestigation- -

GRAHA M: --Soone ofthe examples- -

BARR: --suchas destroyingdocuments--what- -

GRAHA M: --Thatpeople were worriedaboutthathe firedComeyto stopthe Russian investigation. That's one oftheconcerns people had. Well, letme tellyoualittle bitaboutcoming. "Ido nothave confidence inhim, Comey, anylonger." That was ChuckSchumerNovember2, .2016"Ithinkhe, Comey, shouldtake ahard lookatwhathe has done andIthinkitwouldnotbe abadthingforthe American people ifhedidstepdown." Bernie Sanders, January15, 2017.

"The presidentoughtto fire Comeyimmediatelyandheoughtto initiate an investigation." Thatis CongressmanNadler, November14, 2016. Didyouhave a problemwiththe wayComeyhandledthe Clintonemailinvestigation?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 23 of205

BARR: Yes. Isaidso atthe time.

GRAHA M: Okay. So giventhe factthatalotofpeople--Comeyshouldbefired, didyoufind thatto be apersuasiveactofobstructingjustice?

BARR: No. I--Ithinkeventhe reportatthe endofthedaycame to theconclusionifyou- - ifyoureadtheanalysis that--thatareasonthatloomedlarge there forhis terminationwas his refusalto tellthe public whathewas privatelytellingthe president, whichwas thatthepresidentwas notunderinvestigation.

GRAHA M: As to wherewego forward, as--as to howwe go forward, wouldyourecommend thatthis committee andeveryothercommittee ofCongress do ourbestto harden ourinfrastructure againstfuture Russianattacks?

BARR: Absolutely. Yes.

GRAHA M: Do youthinkRussiais stillupto it?

BARR: Yes.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 24 of205

GRAHA M: Do youthinkothercountries maygetinvolvedinourelections in2020?

BARR: Yes.

GRAHA M: So youwouldsupportaneffortbyCongress workingwithadministrationto hardenourelectoralinfrastructure?

BARR: Yes.

GRAHA M: Is thatoneofthe takeaways oftheMuellerreport?

BARR: Yes.

GRAHA M: Do yousharemyconcerns aboutthe FISAwarrantprocess?

BARR: Yes.

GRAHA M:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 25 of205

Do yousharemyconcerns aboutthe counterintelligenceinvestigation, howitwas openedandwhyitwas opened?

BARR: Yes.

GRAHA M: Do yousharemyconcerns thatthe professional--lackofprofessionalisminthe Clintonemailinvestigationis somethingwe shouldalllookat?

BARR: Yes.

GRAHA M: Okay. Do youexpectto changeyourmindaboutthe bottomline conclusions of the Muellerreport?

BARR: No.

GRAHA M: Do youknowBobMueller?

BARR: Yes.

GRAHA M:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 26of205

Do youtrusthim?

BARR: Yes.

GRAHA M: Howlonghaveyouknownhim?

BARR: 30years, roughly

GRAHA M: Do youthinkhe hadthe time heneeded?

BARR: Yes.

GRAHA M: Do youthinkhe hadthe moneyheneeded?

BARR: Yes.

GRAHA M: Do youthinkhe hadthe resources he needed?

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 27 of205

Yes.

GRAHA M: Do youthinkhe didathoroughjob?

BARR: Yes, andI--Ithinkhefeels he didathoroughjob and--andhadadequate evidence to make thecalls.

GRAHA M: Do youthinkthe president's campaignin2016was thoroughlylookedatinterms ofwhetherornottheycolludedwiththe Russians?

BARR: Yes.

GRAHA M: Andthe answeris no, accordingto BobMueller?

BARR: That's right.

GRAHA M: He couldn'tdecideaboutobstruction. Youdid, is thatcorrect?

BARR: That's right.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 28 of205

GRAHA M: Do youfeelgoodaboutyourdecision?

BARR: Absolutely.

GRAHA M: Thankyouverymuch. (OFF-MIC)

FEINSTEIN: (OFF-MIC) chairman--Mr. AttorneyGeneral, thespecialcounsel's report describes howthe presidentdirectedWhite House counsel, DonMcGahn, to fire SpecialCounselMuellerandlatertoldMcGahnto writealetter, quote, forour records, endquote, statingthatthe presidenthadnotorderedhimto fire Mueller. The reportalso recounts howthepresidentmaderepeatedefforts to getMcGahn to change his story. KnowingthatMcGahnbelievedthepresident's versionof events was false, the specialcounselfound, andIquote, substantialevidence, end quote, thatthepresidenttriedto change McGahn's accountinorderto prevent furtherscrutinyofthe presidenttowards theinvestigation. Specialcounselalso foundthatMcGahnis acredible witness withnomotive to lie orexaggerate given the positionhe heldinthe White House. Here's the question. Does existinglaw prohibitefforts to getawitness to lie to saysomethingthe witness believes is false?

BARR: Yes. Lie to the government, yes.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 29 of205

FEINSTEIN: Andwhatlawis that?

BARR: Obstructionstatutes.

FEINSTEIN: The obstructionstatute. Andyoudon'thave it, Iguess, beforeyou?

BARR: I'mnotsure which--whichone theywere referringto here. probably15.12 Itwas (c)2(PH).

FEINSTEIN: So thesethings, ineffect, constituteobstruction?

BARR: Well, you're talkingingeneralterms. You're nottalking- -

FEINSTEIN: What--I'mtalkingaboutspecifically--yes, you're correctinasense that substantial--the specialcounselinhis reportfoundsubstantialevidence thatthe presidenttriedto changeMcGahn's accountinorderto prevent--andthis is a quote--furtherscrutinyofthepresidenttowards the investigation, endquote. Specialcounselalso foundMcGahnis acredible witness withno motive to lie or

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 30 of205

exaggerate. So whatI'maskingyouthen, is thatacredible charge underthe obstructionstatute?

BARR: We--wefeltthat--we feltthatthatepisode thegovernmentwouldnotbe able to establishobstruction. The--ifyougo backandyou--ifyoulookatthe--the episode where McGahn--thepresidentgaveMcGahnanobstruction--aninstruction-- McGahn's versionofthatis quite clearineachtimehe gaveit, whichis thatthe instructionsaidgo to Rosenstein, raise the issue ofconflictofinterest, and Muellerhas to go because ofthis conflictofinterest. So there's no questionthat that--thatthe--whateverinstructionwas givenMcGahnhadto do withconflictof - -Mueller's conflictofinterest. Nowthe presidentlatersaidthatwhathe meant was thattheconflictofinterestshouldbe raisedwithRosenstein, butthe decision shouldbe leftwithRosenstein.

Onthe otherendofthespectrumitappears thatMcGahnfeltitwas more directive andthatthe presidentwas essentiallysayingpushRosensteinto invoke a--aconflictofinterestto pushMuellerout. Whereveritfellonthatspectrumof interest, the NewYorkTimes storywas verydifferent. The NewYorkTimes storysaidflatoutthatthe presidentdirectedthefiringofMueller. He told McGahn, fire Mueller. Nowthat--there's somethingverydifferentbetweenfiring aspecialcounseloutright, whichsuggests endingthe investigationandhavinga specialcounselremovedforconflict, whichsuggests thatyou're goingto have anotherspecialcounsel. So the factis thatevenunderMcGahn's--andthenas the reportsays andrecognizes, there is evidence the presidenttrulyfeltthatthe Times article was inaccurate andhe wantedMcGahnto correctit. So we believethatit wouldbe impossible forthe governmentto establishbeyondareasonabledoubt thatthepresidentunderstoodthathe was instructingMcGahn

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 31 of205

to saysomethingfalsebecauseitwasn'tnecessarilyfalse. Moreover, McGahn had, weeks before, alreadygiventestimonyto the--to thespecialcounsel, andthe presidentwas aware ofthat. Andas the reportindicates, itcouldalso have been the case thatwhathe--thathe was primarilyconcernedaboutpress reports and makingitclearthathe neveroutrightdirectedthefiringofMueller.

So interm--so interms ofthe requestto askMcGahnto memorialize thatfact, we do notthinkinthis casethatthe governmentcouldshowcorruptintentbeyonda reasonable doubt.

FEINSTEIN: Justto finishthis, butyoustillhave asituationwhere apresidentessentiallytries to change thelawyer's accountinorderto preventfurthercriticismofhimself.

BARR: Well, that's notacrime.

FEINSTEIN: So youcan, inthis situation, instructsomeone to lie?

BARR: No, ithas to be--well, to be obstructionofjustice theliehas to be tiedto impairingthe evidenceinaparticularproceeding. McGahnhadalreadygivenhis evidence, andIthink--Ithinkitwouldbe plausible thatthe purposeofMcGahn memorializingwhatthe presidentwas askingwas to make the recordthatthe presidentneverdirectedhimto fire--andthere is adistinctionbetweensayingto someone, go fire him, go fire Mueller, andsayinghavehimremovedbasedon conflict.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 32 of205

FEINSTEIN: Andwhatwould- -

BARR: Theyhavedifferentresults.

FEINSTEIN: Whatwouldthatconflictbe?

BARR: Well, the difference betweenthemis ifyouremove someone foraconflictof interest, thenthere wouldbe another--presumablyanotherpersonappointed.

FEINSTEIN: Yeah, butwouldn'tyouhave to haveitinthis kindofsituationanidentifiable conflictthatmade sense, orelse doesn'titjustbecomeafabrication?

BARR: Well, this--nowwe're goingto shiftfromthe issue ofwritingthe memo or somehowputtingoutareleaselateronandthe issueofthe actualdirectionto McGahn. So the questiononthe directionto McGahnhasanumberofdifferent levels to it. Andfirst, as amatteroflaw, Ithinkthe department's positionwould be thatthepresidentcandirectthe terminationorthe replacementofaspecial counsel. Andas amatteroflaw, the obstructionstatutedoes notreachthat conduct. Puttingthataside, the nextquestionwouldbe, evenifitreachedthe conductcouldyouhere establishcorruptintentbeyondareasonabledoubt?What makes this case veryinterestingis thatwhenyoutake awaythe factthatthere

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 33 of205

were no underlyingcriminalconduct, andyoutake awaythe factthattherewas no inherentlymalignobstructive act, thatis the presidentwas carryingouthis constitutionalduties, thequestionis whatis the impactoftakingawaythe underlyingcrime?

Andit's not--the reportsuggests thatone impactis well, wehave to findsome otherreasonwhythepresidentwouldobstructthe investigation. Butthere's anotherimpact, whichis ifthepresidentis beingfalselyaccused, whichthe evidence nowsuggests thatthe accusations againsthimwere false--ifhe--andhe knewtheywere false--andhefeltthatthis investigationwas unfair, propelledby his politicalopponents andwas hamperinghis abilityto govern, thatis nota corruptmotive forreplacinganindependentcounsel. So that's another--another reasonthat, youknow, we wouldsaythatthe governmentwouldhave difficulty provingthis beyondareasonable doubt.

FEINSTEIN: Mytime is--thanks.

GRAHA M: SenatorGrassley.

GRASSLEY: SenatorJohnsonandIwrote youabouttextmessages betweenPeterStrzokand LisaPagethatappearedto showthe FBImayhave triedto use counter intelligencebriefings forthe Trump transitionteamas intelligence gathering operations. Ihope youwillcommitto answeringthe letterinwritingbutalso providingcommittees the requestedbriefing. Thatis myquestion.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 34 of205

BARR: Yes, senator.

GRASSLEY: Have youalreadytaskanystaffto lookinto whetherspyingbythe FBIandother agencies onthe Trump campaignwas properlypredicatedandcanCongress expectaformalreportonyourfindings?

BARR: Yes, Ido have people inthedepartmenthelpingme reviewthe activities overthe summerof2016 .

GRASSLEY: Isuppose itdepends onwhichconclusions youcome to butis there anyreason whyCongress wouldn'tbe briefedonyourconclusions?

BARR: It's alittle earlyforme to commitcompletelybutI envisionsome kindofa reportingatthe endofthis.

GRASSLEY: TheClintoncampaignandthe Democratic NationalCommittee hiredFusionGPS to do oppositionresearchagainstcandidate Trump. FusionGPS thenhired ChristopherSteele formerBritishintelligence officerto compile whatwe all knowis theSteele dossier. ThatreportedlyusedRussiangovernmentsources for information. The Steele dossierwas centralto the nowdebunkedcollusion narrative.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 35 of205

Nowhere's the irony. The Muellerreportspentmillions investigatingandfound no collusionbetweenTrump campaignandRussiabutthe Democrats paidfora documentcreatedbyaforeignnationalwithreportedforeigngovernmentsources, notTrumpbutthe Democrats. That's thedefinitionofcollusion.

Despite the centralstatus ofthe steeldossierto the collusionnarrative the Mueller reportfailedto analyze whetherthe dossierwas filledwithdisinformationto misleadU.S. intelligence agencies andthe FBI. MyquestionMuellerspentover two years, $30 millioninvestigatingRussianinterference intheelection. Inorder forafullaccountingofRussianinterference attempts showthatthe special counselhaveconsideredonwhetherthe Steeledossierwas partofaRussian disinformationandinterferencecampaign?

BARR: I--Idon't--SpecialCounselorMuellerhas putouthis reportandIhave notyetthat anyone go throughthe fullscopeofhis investigationto determinewhetherhe did address orlookatallinto those issues. One ofthe things Iamdoinginmyreview is to tryto assembleallofthe existinginformationoutthere aboutit, notonly fromHillinvestigations andtheOIGbutalso to seewhatthe specialcounsel lookedinto. So Ireallycouldn'tsaywhathe actuallylookedinto.

GRASSLEY: But--butyouthinkinotherwords ifyouhadlookedatallofthatinformationright nowyouare tellingme youcouldhave saidyes orno to myquestion?

BARR: IfIhadlookedatit.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 36of205

GRASSLEY: Yeah, andyouare goingto--youare goingto attempt- -

BARR: Yes.

GRASSLEY: --to findsome ofthis informationifitis available?

BARR: Yes. Yes.

GRASSLEY: Similarlyshouldandthespecialcounselhave lookedinto the origins ofthe FBI's investigationinto allegedcollusionbetweenthe Trump campaignandRussia?

BARR: The--the origins ofthatnarrative?

GRASSLEY: Yes.

BARR: Idon'tknowifhe viewedhis charterthatbroadlyandIdon'tknowwhetherhedid ornot. Thatis somethingthatIamreviewingandagainwewilllookatwhatever this specialcounselhas developedonthat.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 37 of205

GRASSLEY: Involume 2ofthe reportthe specialcounseldeclinedto make atraditional prosecutorialdecision. Insteadthe specialcounsellaidout200 orso pages relatingto apotentialobstructionanalysis andthendumpthatonyourdesk. In yourpress conference yousaidthatyouaskmespecialcounselwhetherhe would have made achargingdecisionorrecommendedcharges onobstructionbutfor the Office ofLegalCounsel's opiniononchargingsittingpresidents andthatthe specialcounselmade clearthatwas notthe case.

So Mr. Barris thatanaccurate descriptioninyourconversationwiththe special counsel?

BARR: Yes, he--hereiteratedseveraltimes in--inagroup meetingthathe--hewas not sayingthatbutfortheOLC opinionhe wouldhave foundobstruction.

GRASSLEY: Ifthe specialcounselfoundfacts sufficientto constituteobstructionofjustice wouldhe havestatedthatfinding?

BARR: If--ifhe hadfoundthatIthinkhe wouldstateit, yes.

GRASSLEY: Was itSpecialCounselMueller's responsibilityto make acharging recommendation?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 38 of205

BARR: Ithinkthe deputyattorneygeneralandIthoughtitwas. But--but--butnotjust chargingbutto--to determine whetherornotconductwas criminal. The president would--wouldbe charged--couldnotbe chargedas longas he was inoffice.

GRASSLEY: Do youagree withthereasons thatheofferedfornotmakingadecisionin volume 2ofhis report?Andwhyorwhynot?

BARR: I'mnotreallysure ofhis reasoning. I--Ireallycouldnotrecapitulate his analysis whichis one ofthe reasons inmyMarch24letterIsimplystatedthe factthathe didnotreachaconclusion, did--didn'ttryto putwords inhis mouth. Ithinkthatif he feltthathe shouldn'tgo downthe pathofmakingatraditionalprosecutive decisionthenhe shouldn'thave investigated. Thatwas the timeto pullup.

GRASSLEY: Okay. There have beenanumberofleaks comingoutofthe Justice Department/FBIduringhighprofile investigations. Theinspectorgeneralfound thatduringthedepartment's investigationofHillaryClintonformishandling highlyclassifiedinformationtherewas aculture ofunauthorizedmediacontacts. Duringthe Russiainvestigationthe leaks continued. Leaks undermine theability ofinvestigators to investigate. Further, leaks to the papers allcongresses questions to the departmentgo unansweredis unacceptable. Why--whatare you doingto investigateunauthorizedmediacontacts bythe departmentandFBI officials duringthe Russiainvestigation?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 39 of205

BARR: We havemultiple criminalleakinvestigations underway.

GRASSLEY: Thankyou.

GRAHA M: SenatorLeahy?

LEAHY: Thankyou, attorneygeneral. I'msomewhattroubledbyyour--yourtestimony hereandinthe otherbody. He appearedbefore the House appropriations onApril 9th. Youare askedaboutmediareports andportrayedthespecialcounsel's team as frustratedatyourthatyourMarch24letterdidn'tadequatelyportraythe report's findings.

Whenthe congressman, Ibelieve this was CongressmanChris, askedifyouknew withthosemembers ofthe specialcouncil'steamwere concernedabout, you testifiedinresponse "No, Idon't." Youthensaidyoumerelysuspectedthey wouldhavepreferredmore informationwas releasedwiththe letter. Nowwe knowthat, contraryto whatyousaidApril9ththatonMarch27th, RobertMuller wrote to youexpressingveryspecific concerns thatyourMarch24thletter, rememberyouwere testifyingonApril9th, thatyourMarch24thletterfailedto capture the, to quote Mr. Mueller, "The context, nature, andsubstance" ofhis report.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 40 of205

AndI--whatreallystruckme, Mr. Muellerwrote thatyourletterthreatenedto undermine acentralpurpose forwhichthe departmentappointedthespecial counsel, ensure fullpublic confidence intheoutcome ofthe investigation. Why didyoutestifyonApril9 thatyoudidn'tknowthe concerns beingexpressedby Mueller's teamwheninfactyou'dheardthoseconcerns directlyfromMr. Mueller two weeks before?

BARR: Wellas Isaid, Italkeddirectlyto--to BobMuellerabouthis letterto me and--and specificallyaskedhimwhatexactlyare yourconcerns. Areyousayingthatthe March24thletterwas misleadingorinaccurateorwhat?He indicatedthatitwas not. He was notsayingthatandthatwhathe was concernedabout- -

LEAHY: --Thatwasn'tmyquestion.

BARR: Well, I'm--I'mgettingto thequestion, whichis the questionfromChris was reports haveemergedrecently, press reports, thatmembers ofthe special counsel's teamare--arefrustratedatsomelevelwiththelimitedinformation includedinyourMarch24thletterandthattheydon'tadequatelyoraccurately portraythe report's findings. Idon'tknowwhatmembers he's talkingabout, I don't--andI--andIcertainlyamnotaware ofanychallenge- -

LEAHY: --Butstillnotmyquestion- -

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 41 of205

BARR: --to the accuracyofthe findings.

LEAHY: Mr. Barr, youseemto have learnedthe filibusterrules evenbetterthansenators do. Myquestionwas whydidyousayyouwere notaware ofconcerns, when weeks before yourtestimonyMr. Muellerhadexpressedconcerns to you?Imean, that's afairlysimple- -

BARR: --Well, Iansweredthe questionandthe questionwas relatingto unidentified members who were expressingfrustrationoverthe accuracyrelatingto findings. I don'tknowwhatthatrefers to atall. Italkeddirectlyto BobMueller, not members ofhis team. AndeventhoughIdidn'tknowwhatwas beingreferredto andhad--and--andMuellerhadnevertoldme thatmy--thatthe expressionof--of the findings was inaccurate, butIdidthenvolunteerthatIthoughttheywere talkingaboutthe desire to have moreinformationputout. Butitwasn'tmy purpose to putoutmoreinformation.

LEAHY: Mr. Barryour--Ifeelyouranswerwas purposefullymisleadingandIthinkothers do too. Letmeaskyouanotherone. Yousaidthe presidentis fullycooperating withinvestigation, buthis attorneyhadtoldadefendanthe'dbetakingcare ofif he didn'tcooperate withtheinvestigation. Is there aconflictinthat?

BARR: I'msorry, couldyoujustrepeatthat?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 42 of205

LEAHY: BothMr. ManafortandMr. Cohenwere toldbyTrump's personalattorneythey be takencare ofiftheydidnotcooperate. Yousaidthatthe presidentwas fully cooperating. Is there aconflictthere?Yes orno?

BARR: No.

LEAHY: Youthinkitis fullycooperatingto instructaformeraide to telltheattorney generalto un-recuse himself, shutdownthe investigation, anddeclare the presidentdidnothingwrong?

BARR: Idon'tthink, wellobviously, sinceIdidn'tfinditwas obstruction, Ifeltthatthe evidence couldnotsupportanobstruction.

LEAHY: I'maskingis thatfullycooperating. I'mnotaskingifthatis obstruction. Is that fullycooperating?

BARR: Yeah, he fullycooperated.

LEAHY:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 43 of205

So byinstructingaformeraide to telltheattorneygeneralto un-recusehimself, shutdownthe investigation, anddeclare thepresidentdidnothingwrong, that's fullycooperating?

BARR: Where is thatinthe report?

LEAHY: Thatis onvolume 2page 5 onJune19, 2017. The presidentdictatedamessage forLewandowskito deliverto Sessions amessage thatsaidthatSessions should publiclyannounce the notwithstandinghis recusalfromthe Russiainvestigation. The investigationis veryunfairto the presidentandthe presidenthas done nothingwrong.

BARR: Right.

LEAHY: Is thatcooperating?

BARR: Wellfirstly, askingsessions to un-recuse himself, I--we do notthinkis obstruction.

LEAHY: Andto declarethe presidentdidnothingwrong?I'mnotaskingyouifit's obstruction. Is itcooperating?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 44 of205

BARR: Well, Idon't--Idon'tknowifthatdeclares the presidentdidnothing wrong, althoughthe presidentinterms ofcollusiondidnothingwrong. Isn'tthatcorrect?

LEAHY: Collusionis notacrime. It's the obstructing. Butis thatfullycooperatingto--to saythat?

BARR: Well, Idon'tsee anyconflictbetweenthatandfullycooperatingwiththe investigation.

LEAHY: Thepresidentofcoursedeclaredmanytimes publiclyintweets andatcampaign rallies andallthathe wouldtestify. He neverdidtestify, correct?

BARR: As faras Iknow.

LEAHY: Ithinkyouknowwhetherhe testifiedornot.

BARR: As faras Iknow, he didn'ttestify.

LEAHY:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 45 of205

AndMr. Muellerfoundthe writtenanswers to be inadequate. Is thatcorrect?

BARR: Ithinkhe wantedadditional, buthe neversoughtit.

LEAHY: Andthe presidentnevertestified.

BARR: Well, he never--he neverpushedit.

LEAHY: The presidentnevertestified. Does the factthatMr. MuellerfoundtheTrump campaignwas receptiveto someofthe offers ofassistancefromRussiaorthe fact thattheTrump campaignthatneverreportedanyofthis to the FBI, does that trouble you?

BARR: Whatwouldthereportto the FBI?

LEAHY: Thattheywerereceptive to offers ofassistance fromRussia.

BARR: Whatdo youmeanbyreceptive?Ithinkthe reportsays--youknow, obviously- -

LEAHY:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 46of205

--Wellthereport- -

BARR: --obviouslytheywere--theywere expectingto benefitfromwhateverthe Russians--

LEAHY: --page 173. The volume1 reportsays insum, the investigationhas established multiplelinks betweenTrump campaignofficials andindividuals tiedto the Russiangovernment. Those links includedRussianoffers ofassistance to the campaign, andinsome instances the campaignwas receptive to theoffers, whereas others theywerenot.

BARR: WellI00

LEAHY: --Thatdoesn'tbotheryouatall?

BARR: Well, Ihave to--understandexactlywhatthatrefers to, what--what communications Ireferredto.

LEAHY: Well, youhave the report, Ijustgave youthe page fromthereportandI--Iknow mytime is up. I'mmakingthe chairmannervous.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 47 of205

GRAHA M: No, justverywelldone. SenatorCornyn?

CORNYN: GeneralBarr, the chairmanhas pointedoutthataftertheHillaryClintonemail investigationthere were anumberofandMr. Comey's press conference, Ithinkit was July5 roughly2016there areanumberofprominentDemocratic members of the Senate who saidthatComeyshouldbe--shouldresignorbe fired.

Ibelieve yousaidthatyouhaveconcludedas amatteroflawthatthepresidentis the headofthe Executive Branchofgovernmenthas arightto fire Executive Branchemployees. Is thatcorrect?

BARR: That's right.

CORNYN: Inthis case the presidentwas relyingatleastinpartonarecommendationbythe DeputyAttorneyGeneralRodRosensteinarisingoutofRodRosenstein's critique ofMr. Comey's conductinholdingthatpress conference, releasingderogatory informationaboutSec. Clintonbutthenannouncingthatno reasonable prosecutor wouldbringcharges againsther. Is thatright?

BARR: That's right.

CORNYN:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 48 of205

YoustartedyourcareerIbelieve intheintelligence communityandthenmoved onofcourse to the DepartmentofJustice andthankyouforagreeingto serve againas attorneygeneralandhelp restorethe department's reputationas an impartialarbiterofthe lawandnotas apoliticalarmofanyadministration. I thinkthat's very, veryimportantthatyouandDirectorWraycontinue yourefforts inthatregardandIamgratefulto youforthat.

BARR: Thankyou.

CORNYN: ButIdo believe thatweneedto askthe questionwhydidn'ttheObama administrationdo more as earlyas 2014ininvestigatingRussianefforts to prepare to undermine andso dissensioninthe 2016election?Mr. Mueller's report does documentthatthe Russiangovernmentthroughtheintelligence--through theirintelligence agencies andtheirInternetresearchorIRAIthinkit's called beginas earlyas 2014begantheirefforts to do soandweknowtheymetwith some success.

Is itanysurprise to youbasedonyourexperience thatthe Russians wouldtryto do everythingtheycanto so dissensioninAmericanpoliticallifeincludinginour elections?

BARR: No, notatall. ImeanIthinkthe--the Internetcreates alotmore opportunities - to- to have--youknowto have thatkindofcoverteffectonAmericanbodypolitics. So itis gettingmore andmore dangerous. Butthe Russians havebeenatthis fora longtime invarious differentways.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 49 of205

Butthe pointyoumadeaboutBobMueller's efforts onIRAthatis one ofthe things thatstruckme aboutthe report. Ithinkit's veryimpressive workthatthey didinmovingquicklyto getinto the--to getinto theIRAandalso the GRUfolks andIwas thinkingto myselfifthathadbeendone in2000--youknowstartingin the beginningof2016we wouldhave beenalotfurtheralong.

CORNYN: Forexamplewe haveheardalotaboutthe Steele dossier. Mr. Steele ofcourse is aformerBritishintelligence officerhiredby--to do oppositionresearchbythe HillaryClintoncampaignonherpoliticaladversaries includingPresidentTrump orCandidateTrump atthattime. Howdo weknowthatthe Steeledossieris not itselfevidenceofRussiandisinformationcampaignknowingwhatwe knownow thatbasicallythe allegations madethereinwere secondhand, hearsayor unverified?Canyoustatewithconfidence thatthe Russian--thattheSteele dossierwas notpartoftheRussiandisinformationcampaign?

BARR: No, Ican'tstatethatwithconfidence andthatis oneofthe areas thatIam reviewing. Iamconcernedaboutitand--andIdon'tthinkitis entirelyspeculative.

CORNYN: Well, we knowthatfrompublishedreports thatthe headofthe CIA, Mr. Brennan wentto PresidentObamaandbroughthis concerns aboutinitialindications with Russianinvolvementinthe campaignas earlyas the late ofJuly--late July2016 andinsteadofdoingmore duringthe Obamaadministrationto lookinto thatand disruptanddeterRussianactivities thatthreatenthe validityandintegrityofour campaignin2016itappears to methatthe Obamaadministration, Justice DepartmentandFBIdecidedto placetheirbets onHillaryClintonandfocus their

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 50 of205

efforts oninvestigatingthe Trump campaign. Butas youhave pointedoutthanks to the general--thanks to theSpecialCounselwe nowhave confidence thatno Americans colludedwiththe Russians intheireffortto underminethe American people.

We nowneedto knowandI amgladto hearwhatyouaretellingus aboutyour inquiries andyourresearchandyourinvestigation. We nowneedto knowwhat steps theObamaFBIDepartmentofJustice andintelligence community, what steps theytookto undermine the politicalprocess andputathumb onthe scale in favorofone politicalcandidate overthe otherandthatwouldbe beforeandafter the 2016election.

What's adefensivebriefingthat--inacounterintelligence investigation?

BARR: Well, youcouldhave differentkinds ofdefensive briefings. If--ifyoulearnthat somebodyisbeingtargetedbyhostile intelligence service thenoneformofa defensive briefingis to go andto alertthatpersonto therisk.

CORNYN: IthinkAttorneyGeneralLynchhas saidthatitis routineincounterintelligence investigations. Wouldyouagree withher?

BARR: Yes.

CORNYN:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 51 of205

Do youknowwhetheradefensivebriefingwas evergivento the Trump campaignbythe FBIbasedontheircounterintelligence investigation?Didthey evertellthe Presidentbefore he was--January2017 whattheRussians were trying to do andadvisehimto tellpeopleaffiliatedwithhis campaignto beon--ontheir guardandbevigilantaboutRussianefforts tounderminepublic confidence inthe election?

BARR: Myunderstandingis thatdidn'thappen.

CORNYN: Thatwouldbe--thatfailure to provide adefensivebriefingto the Trump campaignthatwouldbeanextraordinaryornotable failure. Wouldyouagree?

BARR: Ithinkunderthe circumstances oneofthe thingsthatIcan'tfathomwhy--whyit didnothappen. Ifyouare concernedaboutinterference intheelectionandyou have substantialpeopleinvolvedinthe campaignwho areformerU.S. attorneys, youhadthree formerU.S. attorneys there inthecampaignI--Idon'tknowwhy the bureauwouldnothave gone and--andgivenadefensive briefing.

CORNYN: Thankyou.

GRAHA M: SenatorDurbin.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 52 of205

DURBIN: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, GeneralBarr. I've beenlisteningcarefullyto my Republicancolleagues onthe otherside. Itappearsthattheyare goingto work togetherandcoordinatethe so-calledlockherupdefense. This is reallynot supposedto beaboutthe Muellerinvestigation, theRussianinvolvementinthe election, theTrump campaignandso forth; itis reallyaboutHillaryClinton's emails. Finally, we getdownto thebottomline. HillaryClinton's emails, questions have to be askedaboutBenghazialongthe way, whataboutTravel- gate, Whitewater?There's alotofmaterialwe shouldbe goingthroughtoday accordingto theirresponse to this. Thatis totallyunresponsive to the realityof whatthe Americanpeoplewantto know. Theypaidalotofmoney, $25 million, forthis report. IrespectMr. Muellerandbelieve he cameup withasoundreport, thoughIdon'tagree withallofit. ButIfind, GeneralBarr, thatsome ofthe things thatyou've engagedinreallyleaveme wonderingwhatyoubelieve yourroleas attorneygeneralis whenitcomes to somethinglike this.

Listento what--sinceit's putinthe record, letmereadit. Listento whatyou receivedinaletteronMarch27fromBobMueller. The summaryletterthe departmentsentto Congress andreleasedto the public late inthe afternoon March24didnotfullycapture the context, nature andsubstance ofthe office's workandconclusions. We communicatedthatconcernto the departmentonthe morningofMarch25. There is no public confusionaboutcriticalaspects ofthe results ofourinvestigation. This threatens to underminethe centralpurpose for whichthedepartmentappointedthe specialcounsel, to assure fullpublic confidence inthe outcome ofthe investigations. Icannotimagine thatyou receivedthatletteronMarch24 andcouldnotanswerCongressmanCristdirectly whenheaskedyouwhetherthere were concerns aboutrepresentations being

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 53 of205

made onthese findings bythe peopleworkingforBobMueller. Yousaidno, I don'tknow, afteryoureceivedthis letter. WhatamImissing?

BARR: Well, as Iexplainedto--as Iexplainedto SenatorLeahy, Italkeddirectlyto Bob, andBobtoldme thathedidnothave objections to the accuracy- -

DURBIN: Attorneys don'tputthings inwritingunless they're prettyserious aboutthem. There's anoldrule inpolitics. Agoodpoliticiandoesn'twrite aletteranddoesn't throwoneaway.

BARR: Okay.

DURBIN: So I've gotto askyou, ifheputs itinwriting, ifhis concerns ofyour representations onMarch24, youcouldn'trecallthatwhenCongressmanCrist askedyouthatquestionafewdays later?

BARR: No, I'msayingthatthis was--the--the--the March24letterstatedthatBobMueller didnotreachaconclusiononobstruction, andithadthelanguageinthere about notexoneratingthe president. Myviewofevents was thatthere was alotof criticismofthe specialcounselforthe ensuingfewdays, andonThursdayIgot this letter. AndwhenItalkedto the specialcounselaboutthe letter, my understandingwas his concernwas nottheaccuracyofthe statementofthe

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 54 of205

findings inmyletter, butthathewantedmore outthereto provide additional contextto explainhis reasoningonwhyhedidn'treachadecisiononobstruction.

DURBIN: I'lljustsaythis, Mr. Barr. IfyoureceivedaletterfromBobMuellerafewdays afteryourMarch24letter, itwas clearhe hadsome genuine concerns aboutwhat youhadsaidanddone tothatpoint. Canwemove to anothertopic?

BARR: Yeah, his concernwas he wantedmoreout. AndI wouldanalogize - itto this. My- youknow, aftera, youknow, months longtrialifIwantedto go outandgetoutto the public whatthe verdictwas pendingpreparationofthe fulltranscript--andI'm outtheresayinghere's theverdict, andthe prosecutorcomes up andtaps meon the shoulderandsays well, the verdictdoesn'treallyfullycapture allmywork. Howaboutthatgreat, youknow, cross-examinationIdid, orhowaboutthatthird dayoftrialwhere Ididthat?This doesn'tcaptureeverything. Myanswerto thatis I'mnottryingto capture everything. I'mjusttryingto statethe verdict.

DURBIN: No, youjustabsolutelyusedthewordsummarize, though, inyourletter.

BARR: Summarize the principalconclusions.

DURBIN: Principalconclusions, whichmostpeople wouldviewas asummary, butletme move to anothertopic ifI canforaminute. The Office ofLegalCounsel's

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 55 of205

decisionas to whetherornotyoucanprosecute asittingpresident, youhadsome prettystrongfeelings ofthat, andtheywere reflectedinyourvolunteeredmemo to theTrumpdefense team, your19-page memo.

BARR: DidI--didIdiscuss that?

DURBIN: Youcertainlydiscussedwhetherornotapresidentshouldcooperatewithan investigation. Yousaidatone pointin--insummarizingthe findings ofMueller thatthe White House fullycooperated. We knowforafact, andyou've stated already, thepresidentneversubmittedhimselfto whatwas characterizedas avital interview, anactualsit-downinterviewunderoath, notonce, andthathis questions thatwere answered, some 30times his memoryfailedhim. So to say the WhiteHouse fullycooperatedthatIthinkis ageneral--generous conclusion.

Onthis OfficeofLegalCounsel, Iwouldreferyouto this volume 2ofthe Muellerreport. Andonpage 1 he talks aboutthe wholeissue ofwhetherornothe was inanywayrestrictedandwhathe couldconclude becauseofthe opin--orthe outstandingOffice ofLegalCounselopiniononthe liabilityofasittingpresident. Youdismissedthatinyouropeningstatementandsaidwe askedhimtwo orthree times, hesaidthathadnothingto dowithit. Wellhowdo youexplainonthe first page ofvolume 2thathe says ithadalotto do withit?It's thereasonhe couldn't reachabinaryconclusiononobstructionofjustice.

BARR: Well, no, itwas aprudentialreason. One ofthe backdropfactorsthathe citedas influencinghis prudentialjudgmentthathe shouldnotreachadecision, whichis

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 56of205

differentthancitingthe OLC--sayingthatbutforthe OLC opinion, Iwould indict.

DURBIN: I'mjustgoingto standbywhathehas written. AndI askothers to readitas well.

ThelastpointIwantto make is aboutDonMcGahn. Ifyoureadthesectionhere hundredand--pages 113 to 120, onDonMcGahn's experience, the president wantedhimto state publiclythatthe NewYorkTimes article was untrue, thathe hadnotaskedMcGahnto fire thespecialcounsel. McGahnrefused, andthere is some speculationas to whetherhe riskedbeingdismissedorevenresigningover this issue. Andforyouto suggestthatthis was somesortofakabukidancewith RobRosenstein, Ithinkthe president's intentherewas veryclear. He wantedthis to end. He toldLesterHolt, goingbackto the issue thatwas raisedbythe chairmanearlierhere, the reasonto getridofComeyis because theRussian investigation. Imean, overandoveragainthis presidentwas veryexplicit, and certainlyis veryexpositoryinhis style. So Idon'tunders--letmeaskyouthis in conclusion. Mytime is up. Do youhaveanyobjections?Canyouthinkofan objectionofwhyDonMcGahnshouldn'tcomeandtestifybefore this

committeeabouthis experience?

BARR: Yes, ImeanIthinkthathe's--he's aclose advisorto thepresident.

DURBIN: Never.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 57 of205

BARR: Andthe president- -

DURBIN: Neverexertedexecutiveprivilege?

BARR: Excuse me?

DURBIN: Youmayhavealreadywaivedhis- -

BARR: No, we haven'twaivedthe executive privilege.

DURBIN: Well, atthis pointdo youbelieve--you'resayingDon--whataboutBobMueller? Shouldhebe allowedto testifybefore this sub--?

BARR: I'vealreadysaidpubliclyIhaveno objectionto himtestifying.

DURBIN: AndDonMcGahn, shouldhe be allowedto testify?

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 58 of205

Well, that's acallforthe presidentto make.

DURBIN: Well, he's aprivatecitizenatthis pointas Iunderstandit.

BARR: Well, Iassume he'dbe testifyingaboutprivilegedmatters.

DURBIN: Well, I--Iwouldhopethatwe couldgetto the bottomofthis withactual testimonyofwitnesses afterwe've takenanothercloselookto HillaryClinton's emails. Thankyou.

GRAHA M: SenatorLee?

LEE: Inhis classic dissentinMorrisonv. Olson, Justice Scaliaremarkedthatnothingis so politicallyeffective as the abilityto chargethatone's opponentandhis associates are notreallywrongheaded, naive andineffectivebutinallprobability crooks andnothingso effectivelygives anappearance ofvalidityto suchcharges as aJusticeDepartmentinvestigation.

Thatobservationhas Ithinkbeenborneouttime andtimeagainoverthe pasttwo years. Timeandtimeagainthe president's politicaladversaries have exploitedthe Muellerprobe, it's mere existence to spreadbaseless innuendo inaneffortto undermine the legitimacyofthe 2016electionandthe effectiveness ofthis administration.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 59 of205

ForexampleonJanuary25, 2019, SpeakerNancyPelosiaskedwhatdoes Putin have onthepresidentpolitically, personallyorfinancially?Mr. AttorneyGeneral is there anyevidence to suggestthatVladimirPutinquote unquote has something onPresidentTrump?

BARR: None thatIamawareof.

LEE: onFebruary20, 2019formerFBIDeputyDirectorAndrewMcCabe saidon nationaltelevisionto the entire nationthathethinks it's possible thatDonald Trumpis aRussianagent. Mr. AttorneyGeneral, is there anyevidence thatyou are aware ofthatsuggestevenremotelythatPresidentTrumpis aRussianagent?

BARR: None thatIamawareof.

LEE: Representative Eric Swalwellhas repeatedlyclaimedthatDonaldTrumpquote "acts onRussia's behalf." AttorneyGeneralBarris there anythingyouare aware ofto backthatupbywayofevidence?The Presidentacts onRussia's behalf?

BARR: None thatIamawareof.

LEE:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 0of205 6

So basically, we have heardoverandoveragainonnationalTV, incommittee hearings, onthe HouseandSenatefloorandinthe mediawe have heardaboutthe president's allegedcollusionwithRussia. Butwhatwehave heardis baseless as anyconspiracytheorythatwe haveseeninpolitics, anythatIcanthinkof. The onlydifference here is thatthe purveyors ofthis conspiracywere inmanycases prominentmembers ofthe oppositionparty. That's concerning.

Nowfromthe beginningthere weresome indications thatthe Russiainvestigation was perhaps notalways conductedwiththe absolute impartialitythatthe Americanpeople shouldexpectandhave come tohope--to findinexistence withinthedepartmentofjusticeespeciallygiventhatthetrackrecordof excellence thatthe U.S. DepartmentofJustice has shown. Accordingtothe Muellerreportitselfthe investigationinto the Trump campaignbeganonJuly31, 2016afteraforeigngovernmentcontactedthe FBIofaboutcomments made by George (INAUDIBLE). Is thataccurate or--orwerethere otherprecipitating events thathelpedleadto this?

BARR: Thatis--thatis the accountthathas beengiveninthe pastas to howitgotgoing.

LEE: Youhave previouslysaidthatyouthinkit's possible thattheFederalBureauof Investigationimproperlyspiedonthe Trump campaign. Iassume that's a reference to the (INAUDIBLE) warrantforCarterPage. Is thatwhatyouhave in mindorarethere othercircumstances thatyou've gotinmindthere?

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 1 6 of205

One ofthethings Iwantto look--there arepeople--manypeople seemto assume thatthe onlyintelligence collectionthatoccurredwas asingle confidential informantanda(INAUDIBLE) warrant. Iwouldlike to findoutwhetherthatis in facttrue. Itstrikes me as afairlyanemic effortifthatwas the counterintelligence effortdesignedto stopthe threatas it's beingrepresented.

LEE: Was CarterPage undersurveillance duringhis time workingforthe Trump campaignwhichwas roughlyJanuary2016 to September2016 ?

BARR: Idon'tknow.

LEE: Was anyotherTrump campaignofficialundersurveillanceduringthattime. To yourknowledge?

BARR: Well, theseare the thingsthatI--Ineedto lookatandIhave to saythatas Isaid beforethe extentthattherewas anyoverreach, Ibelieve itwas some--afew people intheupperechelons of--ofthe bureauandperhaps the department. But those peopleareno longerthere andI amworkingcloselywithChris Wraywho I thinkhas done asuperbjob atthebureauandweare workingtogetherontrying to reconstructexactlywhatwentdown.

One peopleshouldknowis thatthebureauitselfhas beenalittle bithandicapped inlookingbackbecause ofthe pendingMuellerinvestigationandthe OIG investigation.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 2of205 6

LEE: As we knowthe (INAUDIBLE) warrantforCarterPagewas basedlargelyonthe so-calledSteele dossierandinparticularontwospecific facts aboutpages tripto Moscowto delivera speechinJuly2016First, . accordingto thewarrantpagehad asecretmeetingwithIgorSession(SP) the Presidentof(INAUDIBLE). Does the Muellerreportconfirmedthatpage metwithSession(SP)?

BARR: Metwithwho?

LEE: With--withMr. Session(SP), withIgor- -

BARR: Ican't--Ican'trecall. Idon'trememberthat. Letme justsaythatIwantto stay awayfromgettingtoo deeplyinto the (INAUDIBLE)issue because thatis currentlyunderinvestigationbytheOIG.

LEE: Understood. Secondandmore importantlythewarrantalso says thatpage met withIgor(SP)inorderto discuss whatis referredto as (INAUDIBLE)involving HillaryClinton, againstHillaryClinton. Does the Muellerreportconfirmedthat page metwith(INAUDIBLE)?

BARR: Idon'tthinkso.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 3 6 of205

LEE: Does itconfirmthatpage discussed(INAUDIBLE) onHillaryClintonwith anyone?

BARR: NotthatIrecall.

LEE: Since the mainevidentiaryareasupportforthe warranthas beendiscussedbythe Muellerreportwhichis sortofthe goldstandardofwhatwe are discussinghere I amgladthatyouare lookinginto it. Iwouldencourage youto lookinto whythe FBIreliedonthis falseinformationand--andIhope youwillsharethe results. The public obviouslyhas arighttoknowwhathappenedhere. The U.S. DepartmentofJustice, theFederalBureauofInvestigationhave alonghistory andalonghistoryofsuccess thathas beenbasedonrespect. Theydeserve to understandthatthere is notso muchpowerthathas beenconcentratedinthatone agency, thatthe outcomeofaninvestigationcandependonthe whims ofwho mightbeassignedto it. Theyhave arightnotto believethataparticular investigationmightbe (INAUDIBLE), mightnotbetarmac, mightnotbe influencedbyanimproperconsideration, politicallyorotherwise. Thankyou, Mr. AttorneyGeneral.

GRAHA M: SenatorWhitehouse, Iamtoldweare goingto have two votes beginningat11:45. We willdo SenatorWhitehouse andwhydon'twe justcomebackanhourlater. We willbreak--breakforanhouranddo the votes.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 4of205 6

GRAHA M: SenatorWhitehouse.

WHITEHOUSE: Thankyou, chairman. Attorneygeneral, youhadaconversationwithChairman Grahamearlierthis morning, whichyoudescribedthe importance of, to use ChairmanGraham's words, hardeningourelectoralinfrastructureagainstforeign electioninterference. Iaskyou, is anonymous electionfundinginavenuefor possible foreignelectioninfluence andininterference?

BARR: Yes.

WHITEHOUSE: Let's turnto theMarch27thletter, whichyoureceivedandread, March28, the Muellerletter. Correct?

BARR: Yes.

WHITEHOUSE: Whendidyouhave theconversationwithBobMuelleraboutthatletterthatyou referenced?

BARR: Ithinkitwas onthe 28th.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 5 6 of205

WHITEHOUSE: The same daythatyoureadit. Whendidyoufirstlearnofthe NewYorkTimes andWashingtonPoststories thatwouldmake the existenceofthisletterpublic, the ones thatcame outlastnight?

BARR: Ithinkitcould've beenyesterday, butI'mnotsure.

WHITEHOUSE: Whentheycontactedyoutoaskforanycomment?

BARR: Theydidn'tcontactme.

WHITEHOUSE: ContactedDOJto askforanycomment?

BARR: Ican'tactuallyrememberhowitcame up, butsomeonementionedit.

WHITEHOUSE: So you--atsome point, youknewthatthe Muellerletterwas goingto become public andthatwas probablyyesterday?

BARR: Ithinkso.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 6 6of205

WHITEHOUSE: Okay. When did you decide to make that letter available to us and Congress?

BARR: This morning.

WHITEHOUSE: Would you concede that you had an opportunity to make this letter public on April 4th when representative Chris asked you a very related question?

BARR: I don't know what you mean by a related question. It seems to me to be a very different question.

WHITEHOUSE: I can't even follow that down the road. That, I mean--boy. That's some masterful hairsplitting. The letter references enclosed documents and enclosed materials, right? Are those the same things as what you called the executive summaries that Mueller provided you?

BARR: With this letter?

WHITEHOUSE: Yes.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 7of205 6

BARR: Yes.

WHITEHOUSE: It's allthe same document.

BARR: I'msorry, what's allthesame?

WHITEHOUSE: Whenyoutalkabouttheexecutive summaries thatMuellerprovidedyou, theyare the documents thatweretheencloseddocuments withthatletter, whichwe have notbeenprovided.

BARR: Ithinktheywere.

WHITEHOUSE: The--

BARR: --Youhave beenprovidedthem. Theyare inthereport. Thesummaryis inthe report.

WHITEHOUSE:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 8of205 6

Is the language ofthereportinthe report?There is nothingelse thathe provided you, then?

BARR: Ithinkthat's whathe provided.

WHITEHOUSE: Okay. Ifthere is anythingelse, willyouprovide itto us ifit's differentinany form?It's oddto begivenaletterwithoutthe attachments to itwhenthe attachments arereferencedinthe letter.

BARR: Ithinkthey--Ithinktheywere redactedversions ofthe- -

WHITEHOUSE: --Canwe getthat- -

BARR: --executive summaries thatare embeddedinthe report.

WHITEHOUSE: Canwe getthat, justto be sure?

BARR: Sure.

WHITEHOUSE:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 9of205 6

Great. Thankyou. Youagreedthatnone ofthatmaterialwas eithergrandjury6 (e) orpresentedariskto intelligencesources andmethods orwouldinterfere compromise ongoinginvestigation- -

BARR: --Ithinkthe- -

WHITEHOUSE: --Oraffected--wereaffectedbyexecutive privilege?

BARR: There were reductions made intheexecutive summaries.

WHITEHOUSE: The--

BARR: --Butas Isaid, I'mnot--Iwasn'tinterestedinputtingoutsummaries.

WHITEHOUSE: Well, youknow- -

BARR: --andfrankly- -

WHITEHOUSE:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 70 of205

--this is anotherhairsplittingexercisebecause BobMueller, who Ithinkwe all agree is fairlycredible, actuallydescribedyourletteras asummary. So youcan sayitwasn'tasummary, butMuellersaiditwas asummaryandIdon'tthink- -

BARR: --I wasn't--Iwasn'tinterestedinsummarizingthewhole report. As Isay, Iwas statingthebottom-line conclusions ofthe report.

WHITEHOUSE: Yourletteritselfsays- -

BARR: --AndI--andI- -

WHITEHOUSE: --thatit's intendedto describe, Iquote yourwords, describe thereport.

BARR: Yeah, describe the reportmeaningvolume 1 (INAUDIBLE)- -

WHITEHOUSE: --Whenyoudescribe thereportin4pages andit's a400page report, Idon'tknow whyyouare cavilingaboutwhetherit's asummaryornot.

BARR: Because Istateinthe letterthatI'mstatingthe--the principalconclusions. Letme also saythat, youknow, BobMuelleris theequivalentofaU.S. attorney. Hewas

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 71 of205

exercisingthe powers ofthe attorneygeneralsubjectto the supervisionofthe attorneygeneral. He's partofthe DepartmentofJustice. His workconcluded whenhe senthis reportto the attorneygeneralAtthatpoint, itwas mybabyandI was makingadecisionas towhetherornotto make itpublic andIeffectively overrode theregulations, useddiscretionto leanas farforwardas Icouldto make thatpublic anditwas mydecisionhowandwhento makeitpublic, notBob Mueller's.

WHITEHOUSE: Withrespecttothe OLC opinionthatinformedBobMueller's decisionas he describes inthe report, do youagreethatthatis merelyanexecutiveopinionand thatunderourConstitutionthedecisionas to whatthelawis is made bythe JudicialBranchofthe UnitedStates government?

BARR: I'msorrycouldyou- -

WHITEHOUSE: --Withrespectto the OLC opinionthatinformedMueller's decisionnotto make a recommendationonobstructionas he saidinhis report, doyouconcede thatthat is anexecutive opinionandthatunderourconstitutionalsystemwhatthe lawis gets decidedbythe JudicialBranchofgovernment?

BARR: Yes.

WHITEHOUSE:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 72 of205

Is there anywayfortheOLC's opinionto be testedbythe JudicialBranchof governmentto see ifit's correctornot?

BARR: None thatcomes to mind.

WHITEHOUSE: Anditcouldbe wrong, coulditnot?

BARR: Iguess Ihypotheticallyitcouldbewrong.

WHITEHOUSE: Andcertainlythere are- -

BARR: --OLC usuallygets itright- -

WHITEHOUSE: --Respectedlegalminds thatdisagree withthat, correct?

BARR: Excuse me?

WHITEHOUSE: There are manyrespectedlegalcommentators andprofessors andlawyers who disagree withthat, correct?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 73 of205

BARR: It's veryhardto findlawyers thatagreeto any--on--onanything.

WHITEHOUSE: So the interestingthingto me is thatitgoes onto saythatbecause oftheOLC opinion, we have to givethe presidentanextrabenefitofthe doubtbecause he has deniedhis date incourtwherehecouldexonerate himself. Thatseems like a fallacyto me because ifyouare the presidentofthe UnitedStates, youcaneither waive orreadilyoverride the OLC opinionandsayI'mreadyto go to trial. Iwant to exoneratemyself, let's go, couldyounot?

BARR: Howis this relevantto mydecisions?

WHITEHOUSE: It's relevant- -

BARR: --because I--I assume thatthere was noOLC opinion.

WHITEHOUSE: Well, we haveareportinfrontofus thatsays thatthis influencedtheoutcome. Andinparticular, itsays thatitinfluencedthe outcomebecause itdeprivedthe presidentofhis abilityto have his dayincourt. Andmypointto youis thatthe presidentcouldeasilyhave his dayincourtbysimplywavingoroverwritingthis OLC opinionthathas no judicialbasis. Correct?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 74 of205

BARR: Well, Idon't--Idon'tthinkthattherewasanythingto haveadayincourton. I don't--Ithinkthatthe governmentdidnothave aprosecutablecase.

WHITEHOUSE: Butpart--well, Muellerobviouslydidn'tagree because he- -

BARR: --No that's- -

WHITEHOUSE: --leftthatupto you- -

BARR: --Wellthat--well- -

WHITEHOUSE: --He saidthathe couldneitherconfirmnordenythatthere was aprosecutable casehere. Heleftthatto you. Andwhenhedid, he said, andyouapparentlyhave agreedthatthis OLC opinionbears onitandthatitwouldbe unfairto the presidentto putinto the burdenofbeingindictedandnothavingthe abilityto be chargedandto- -

BARR: --Idon'twantto characterizehow- -

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 75 of205

WHITEHOUSE: --exonerate himself- -

BARR: --howBob's thoughtprocess onthis.

WHITEHOUSE: I'mnotaskingyouto characterize it. It's inthe--it's inhis report. He's putitin writing.

BARR: I'mnotsure whathe means Ithatinthereport.

WHITEHOUSE: Withrespecttothe word--canIhaveaminute?Ijustwantto naildown, youused the wordspyingaboutauthorizedDOJinvestigativeactivities.

BARR: You're--are youtalkingaboutmytestimony- -

WHITEHOUSE: --Yes--

BARR: --before the House appropriations?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 76of205

WHITEHOUSE: Yes.

BARR: Okay.

WHITEHOUSE: Inthe entiretyofyourprevious careerinthe DepartmentofJustice, includingas attorneygeneral, have youeverreferredto authorizeddepartmentinvestigative activities officiallyorpubliclyas spying?I'mnotaskingforprivate conversation yourcomments.

BARR: I'mnotgoingto abjure the use ofthe wordspying. Ithink, youknow, myfirstjob was inCIAandIdon'tthinkthe wordspyinghas anypejorative convert connotationatall. To me thequestion- -

WHITEHOUSE: --butyourecognize that- -

BARR: --to me the questionis always whetherornotit's authorizedandadequately predicated, spying. Ithinkspyingis agoodEnglishwordthatinfactdoesn'thave synonyms because itis the broadestwordincorporatingreallyallforms ofcovert intelligencecollections. So I'mnotgoingto backoffthe wordspyingto--exceptI willsay- -

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 77 of205

WHITEHOUSE: --whendidyoudecide- -

BARR: --I'mnotsuggestinganypejorative andIuse itfrequently, as do media- -

WHITEHOUSE: --whendidyou- -

BARR: --as do media.

WHITEHOUSE: Whendidyoudecide to use it?Was itoff-the-cuffinthe hearingthatdayordid yougo into thathearingintendingto use awordspying?

BARR: Itwas actuallyoff-the-cuff, to tellyouthe truth. Andwhen--when--whenSenator, the--the senator--Imean, the--the- -

WHITEHOUSE: --congressman, probably.

BARR: FromSchatz, fromHawaii.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 78 of205

UNKNOWN: Shaheen?

WHITEHOUSE: Shaheen?

BARR: No, no.

WHITEHOUSE: Whoeveritwas, go ahead.

BARR: Yeah, whenshe--when--whenhe challengedme andsaiddo youwantto change yourlanguage Iwas actuallythinking, like, what's the issue?Idon'tconsiderita pejorative. Butfrankly- -

WHITEHOUSE: --andyourather

BARR: --franklywe wentbackandlookedatpresentusage andup untilallthe--the full outrage acouple ofweeks ago, it's commonlyusedinthe press to referto authorizedactivity, suchas referto theFISAcourt- -

WHITEHOUSE:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 79 of205

--Butitis notcommonlyusedbythe department.

BARR: What?

WHITEHOUSE: Itis notcommonlyusedbythe department. Mytime is up.

BARR: It's commonlyusedbyme.

GRAHA M: Thankyouverymuch. We'llcomebackat10 till1:00. Thankyou.

GRAHA M: SenatorFeinsteinIhavebeentoldis ontheway. AndIwilljust--we willgo aheadandstart. Ithinkthe nextquestioneris RepublicanSenatorKennedy.

KENNEDY: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.

GRAHA M: Yeah, was theresomethingyouwantedto sayMr. AttorneyGeneralaboutoneof yourstatements?

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 80 of205

JustbrieflyMr. ChairmanSen. Cornynaskedme aboutdefensive briefings before andasIsaidthere were differentkinds ofthemandIwas referringto the kind where youare toldofaspecific tar--youare aspecific targetandIhave beentold atthe breakthatalesserkindofbriefing, asecuritybriefingthatgenerally discusses youknowgeneralthreats apparentlywas givento the campaignin August.

GRAHA M: Thankyou. Sen. Kennedy?

KENNEDY: Thankyou, Mr. Chairmanandthanks to mycolleagues were lettingme go outof order. Ipromiseto beas briefas possible.

Mr--Mr. Chairmanthanked--thankyouorgeneral, thanks were comingtoday. Humans have auniversalneedIthinkto be--to be listenedto, to be understood andto be validated. Ithinkwe allsharethat. Ihave listenedtothe Muellerteam. I validate thembutIwantto be sure Iunderstandit. Has Mr. Muellerorhis team change theirconclusions?

BARR: Humane during--duringthe courseofthe investigation?

KENNEDY: Know, today. It's clearatleastaccordingto press reports--excuse - me, general- thatatonepointthe Muellerteamwas unhappy. Ithinkithadto do withyour letter. Whatmatters to meis andIwillgetto this inamoment. Iwantto know firsthas the Muellerteamchangedits mindonits conclusions.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 81 of205

BARR: Its conclusionsas to what?

KENNEDY: As to collusion, conspiracyandconspiracy?

BARR: NotthatIamawareof.

KENNEDY: So the decisionnotto bringanindictmentagainstthe presidentforcollusion conspiracywithRussiahas notchanged?

BARR: No, ithasn't.

KENNEDY: Andthe conclusionnotto bringanindictmentagainstthe presidentfor obstructionofjusticehas notchanged?

BARR: No.

KENNEDY: Okay. I--Itake itfromyourtestimonythatthe Muellerteamwas unhappywhen youreceive the letterfromMr. Mueller.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 82 of205

BARR: Ican'tspeakto the teamas awhole- -

KENNEDY: Allright. Mr. Muellerthen?

BARR: WhenItalkedto BobMueller, he--he--he indicatedhe was concernedaboutthe press coverage thathadgone ontheprevious fewdays andhe feltthatwasto be remediedbyputtingoutmore information.

KENNEDY: Okay. Iunderstoodyouto sayandthese are mywords, notyours. The first concernthatMr. Muellerhadhe feltlike yourletterwasn'tnuancedenough.

BARR: Correct.

KENNEDY: Thatproblemhas beensolved, has itnot?

BARR: Well, itwas sortofsolvedbyputtingoutthewholereport- -

KENNEDY: Exactly.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 83 of205

BARR: --whichwas the--thatis whyIthinkthis whole thingis--is sortofmind-bending labels are because Imade clearfromthebeginningthatIwas puttingoutthe report, as muchofthe reportas Icouldanditwas clearitwas goingto take three weeks orso, maybe fourto do thatandthe questionis whatis the placeholderand the placeholderinmyjudgmentwas asimple statementofwhatthe bottomline conclusions work. AndIwasn'tgoingto be inthebusiness offeedingoutmore andmore informationas time wentonto adjustto whatthe press was saying.

KENNEDY: Andthatis yourcallas attorneygeneral.

BARR: Absolutely.

KENNEDY: Okay. Thatwouldn'tbe the callofaU.S. attorneyoraspecialcounsel?

BARR: No, notatall.

KENNEDY: Okay. Nowthe secondreasonI--Imentionedthenuance concern. Thesecond reasonthatMr. Muellerwas concerned, Idon'twantto sayunhappybecause I'm nottryingto be pejorative, Isayconcerned, he was concernedaboutpress coverage.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 84 of205

BARR: Heindicated--yeah--he--hefeltthatwhatwas anaccurate was the press coverage andwhattheywere interpretingthe March24letterto say.

KENNEDY: Andwhatwereyousupposedto do aboutthat?

BARR: Hewantedto putoutthefullexecutive summaries thatare incorporatedinthe reportandIsaidto himIwasn'tinterest--andbytheway, thosesummaries even whenhe sentthemapparently, theyactuallyrequiredlatermore readaction because oftheintelligence community. So thefactis wedidn'thave readily available summaries thathave beenfullyvetted. ButImade itclearto himI--I was notinthebusiness ofputtingoutperiodic summaries because asummary wouldstartawhole public debate. It's bydefinitionunderinclusive andIthought whatweshoulddo is focus ongettingthe fullreportoutas quicklyas possible whichwe did.

KENNEDY: Andthat's yourcallas attorneygeneral?

BARR: Ofcourse, ofcourse.

KENNEDY:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 85 of205

Andthe news coverage issue well, none ofus cancontrolwhatthenews publishes orprints exceptthe media. But--butto the extentthatanargumentwas made theydidn'thave the fullreportthat's amootissueto nowisn'tit?

BARR: Yes.

KENNEDY: Okay. Canyou--canyoubrieflygo overwithmeone more time--Ifinditcurious thatthe Muellerteamspentallofthis timeinvestigatingobstructionofjusticeand thenreachno conclusion. TellmeagainbrieflywhyMr. Muellertoldyouhe reachno conclusionorhecouldn'tmake uphis mindorwhateverI'mnottryingto putwords inyourmouth?

BARR: Ireallycouldn'trecapitulated. I--itwas unclearto us. Wefirstdiscussediton March5, the deputywas withme, EdO'Callaghanthe principalassociate deputy andwe didn'treallygetaclearunderstandingofthe reasoningandthe reportI'm notsure exactlywhatthefulllineofreasoningis andthat's oneofthe reasons I didn'twantto tryto putwords inBobMueller's mouth.

KENNEDY: Buthe--he didnotchoose to bringanindictment. We knowthatmuch.

BARR: Right.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 86of205

KENNEDY: Regardless ofthe reason.

BARR: Right.

KENNEDY: Iamgoingto repeatquicklyinless thanone minute whatwe talkedaboutthelast time youwerehere. This is oneperson's opinion. As Itoldyoubefore Ithinkthe FBIis thepremierlawenforcementagencyinallofhumanhistoryandIbelieve that. Ido thinkthere were ahandfulofpeople, maybe some arestilltherewho decidedin2016to actontheirpoliticalbeliefs. There were--there weretwo investigations here. One was aninvestigationofDonaldTrump. There was anotherinvestigationofHillaryClinton. I'dlike to knowhowthatonestarted, too.

Anditwouldseemto me thatwe allhave adutyif--if--ifnotto theAmerican people to theFBIto findoutwhythese investigations were started, who started themandtheevidence onwhichtheywere startedandIhope youwilldothatand youwillgetbackto us. Andthere's anothershortwayhome. As well. Allyou've gotto do is release--the presidentcan't--release allofthe documents thatthe FBI andthe Justice Departmentpertainingto the2016election. Nowyoucanreadtax nationalsecurityinformationbutjustreleasetheminsteadofus goingthroughall ofthis spinandinnuendo andleaks andrumors let's justletthe Americanpeople see them. Andthe finalpointIwillmake whenyouare investigatingleaks atthe DepartmentofJustice andthe FBI, Ihope youwillinclude the Muellerteamas well. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 87 of205

GRAHA M: SenatorKlobuchar?

KLOBUCHAR: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. Mr. AttorneyGeneral, I'mgonnatake us outofthe weeds herebecause Ithinkthe Americanpeopledeserve to knowwhathappened intheelectionforthe highestofficeofthe land. AndI'lljustgive myviews very quicklyandnotaskyouaboutthese topics. Ithinkyourfour-pageletterwas clearlyasummaryandthat's whyDirectorMuellercalleditasummary.

IthinkwhenSenatorVanHollenandRepresentative Cristaskedyouifthe specialcounseldisagreedwithyouunderoathyouhadto gooutofyourwaynot to atleastmentionthefactthathehadsentyouthis letter, thatyoudidn'tmention it. Andthen, finally, Iwouldsaythatwe musthearfromDirectorMueller because inresponseto some ofmycolleagues' questions youhave saidthatyou didn'tknowwhathe meantorwhyhesaidit. AndIbelieve we needto hearfrom him.

So, Iwantto firststartwithRussia. SpecialCounselMueller's reportfoundthat the Russiangovernmentinterferedinthe 2016presidentialelectioninasweeping andsystematic fashion. LaterDirectorWrayhas informedus that2018 was a dress rehearsalforthe bigshowin2020. DirectorCoats, the president's intelligence advisor, has toldus thatthe Russians aregettingbolder. Yet, forthe lasttwo years SenatorLankfordandI, onabipartisanbillofsupportfromthe rankingandthe headofthe IntelligenceCommitteehave beentryingto getthe Secure Elections Actpassed. This wouldrequire backuppaperballots. Ifanyone gets federalfundingforanelection, itwouldrequire audits anditwouldrequire

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 88 of205

bettercooperation. Yet, theWhiteHouse justas we were onthe verge ofgettinga markupintheRules Committee, gettingitto the floorwhere Ithinkwe wouldget the vastmajorityofsenators, theWhite House made calls to stopthis. Wereyou aware ofthat?

BARR: No.

KLOBUCHAR: Okay, wellthathappened. So, Iwouldliketo knowfromyouas ournation's chief lawenforcementofficer, ifyouwillworkwithSenatorLangfordandIto getthis billdonebecause otherwise wearenotgoingto have anycloutto getbackup paperballots ifsomethinggoes wronginthis election.

BARR: Well, Iwill--Iwillworkwithyoutoenhance the securityofourelection. AndI'll take alookat--atwhatyou'reproposing. I'mnotfamiliarwithit.

KLOBUCHAR: Okay. Well, itis thebipartisanbill. Ithas SenatorBurrandSenatorWarnerand supportfromSenatorGrahamwas onthe bill. SenatorHarris is onthe bill. And the leads are SenatorLankfordandmyself. Andithadsignificantsupportinthe House as well.

TheGRU, the Russianmilitaryintelligenceagency, targetthe U.S. state andlocal agencies alongwithprivate firms thatare responsible forelectronic pollingand voterregistration. TheGRUaccessedvoterinformationandinstalledmalware on avotingtechnologycompany's network. Iunderstandthe FBIwillbriefU.S.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 89 of205

SenatorRickScottandFloridaGovernorDeSantis onefforts byRussianhackers to gainaccess to Floridaelectiondata. Willyoucommitto havethe FBIprovide a briefingto allsenators onthis?

BARR: I--justontheFloridasituation?

KLOBUCHAR: Onthe entire Russiasituation.

BARR: Sure.

KLOBUCHAR: IncludingtheFloridasituation.

BARR: Sure.

KLOBUCHAR: Okay, thatwouldbe helpful. Again, SenatorLankfordandI are tryingto getour billpassed. AndIthinkifeveryone hears aboutthis itmayhelp.

Also, accordingto the report, the IRApurchasedover3,500 ads onFacebookto undermine ourdemocracyas the chairmanhas pointedout, contraryto whatwe heardfromahighrankingofficialatthe WhiteHouse, this was notjustafew Facebookads. I'mpleasedthatChairmanGrahamhas agreedto be the lead republicanonthe HonestAds ActthatIintroducedlastyearwithSenator

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 90 of205

McCain. Andwillyouhelp us totryatleastto changeourelectionlaws so that wecanshowwhere themoneyis comingfromandwho's payingforthese ads so thatpeople have access to these ads?

BARR: Inconcept, yes.

KLOBUCHAR: Okay, verygood. Thankyou. We needthatsupport. Now, let's go to somethingI notedinyour--inthe openingyoutalkedabouthowthetwo majorconcerns at yournominationhearingwere aboutthe reportandaboutmakingthe report public. Therewas athirdconcern. Anditwas somethingIraised. Andthatwas yourviews onobstruction. Iaskedyouifapresidentoranypersonconvincinga witness to change testimonywouldbe obstructionofjustice andyousaidyes.

The reportfoundthatMichaelCohen's testimonytothe Housebefore it, thatthe presidentrepeatedlyimpliedthatCohen's familymembers hadcommittedcrimes. Do youconsiderthatevidence to be anattemptto convince awitness to change testimony?

BARR: No. Idon'tthinkthatthatcould--couldpass muster, those public statements he was making, couldpass musteras subornationofperjury.

KLOBUCHAR: Butthis is amaninthe highestoffice inthe mostpowerfuljobinourcountry. Andhe is basically, I'mtryingto thinkhowsomeone wouldreact, anyofmy colleagues here, ifthe presidentoftheUnitedStates is implyinggettingoutthere

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 91 of205

thatyourfamilymembers have committedacrime. So, youdon'tconsiderthat anyattemptto change testimony?

BARR: Well, youhave--youhave two differentthings. Youhave the questionofwhether there's--it's anobstructiveactandthenalso whetherornotitis acorruptintent. I don'tthinkgeneralpublic statements like thathave- -

KLOBUCHAR: --Okay.

BARR: --well, our--we couldshowthattheywouldhavesufficientlyprobableeffectto- - to constitute- -

KLOBUCHAR: --Okay, wellthenlet's go to some private statements. Thereportfoundthatthe president's personalcounseltoldPaulManafortthathe wouldbe, quote, "taken care of". This is involume two, page 123 to 24. Thatyoudon'tconsider obstructionofjustice?

BARR: No, notstandingalone. Bothofthis comment--onboththe same reasons.

KLOBUCHAR: AndIthinkthatis mypointhere.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 92 of205

BARR: What?

KLOBUCHAR: Youlookatthe totalityofthe evidence, that's whatIlearnedwhenIwas inlaw school. Youlookatthe totalityofthe evidence andthe patternhere. Lookatthis, the reportfoundthatthe president's personalcounseltoldMichaelCohenthatif he stayedonmessage aboutthe TrumpTowerMoscowProjectthe presidenthad his back, that's volume 2, page 140.

BARR: Right, butIthinkthatthe counselacknowledgedthatit's unclearwhetherhe was reflectingthepresident's statements onthat.

KLOBUCHAR: Okay. ThereportfoundthatafterManafortwas convicted, thepresidenthimself calledhimabrave manforrefusingto break.

BARR: Yeah. Andthatis notin--andthatis notobstructionbecause the president's statement--theevidence Ithinkwhatthe president's lawyers wouldsayifthis were everactuallyjoined, is thatthe president's statements aboutflippingare quite clearandexpressed. And--anduniformlythe same, whichis byflippinghe meantsuccumbingto pressure onunrelatedcases to lie andcomposeinorderto getlenienttreatmentonothercases.

KLOBUCHAR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 93 of205

Again--

BARR: --Thatis not--it's adiscouragingflippinginthatsense is notobstruction.

KLOBUCHAR: Okay, well, lookatthe patternhere. The reportfoundthatafterCohen's residence andoffice were searchedbythe FBIthe presidenttoldCohento hanginthere and staystrong. The reportfoundthatafterNationSecurityAdvisorMichaelFlynn resigned, thepresidentmade public positive comments abouthimandthenwhen he cooperated, he changedhis tune. DuringyourconfirmationhearingIasked youwhetherapresidentdeliberatelyimpairingthe integrityoravailabilityof evidence wouldbe obstructionandyourespondedyes. Andthis is adifferenttake onSenatorFeinstein's question. WouldcausingMcGahn, theWhite House Counsel, to create afalserecordwhenthe presidentaskedorderedhimtohave the--whenMcGahntoldhimto denyreports, right, he tells McGahndenyreports, thatthepresidentorderedhimto have the counselfired.

Ifyoudon'tseethatas--as obstructionanddirectinghimto change testimony, do youthinkthatwouldcreateafalse recordto impairthe integrityofevidence?

BARR: Well, Isaidthere--there--itfails on--the evidence wouldnotbesufficientto establishanyofthe threeelements there. First, it's--it's notsufficientto showa obstructiveactbecause itis unclearwhetherthepresidentknewthatto be false. In fact, the president's focus onthe factthatInevertoldyouto fire McGahn. DidI eversayfire?Inevertoldyouto fireMcGahn. McGahn's--McGahn--

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 94 of205

KLOBUCHAR: --Yeah, I'mgettingatsomethingit's aboutimpairingthe integrityofthe evidence. Ijustsee itasdifferent. This is--Iwanted- -

BARR: --Well, thesecondthingis note it's hardto establishthe nexus to the proceeding because he alreadyhadtestifiedto the--to the specialcounsel. He'dgivenhis evidence. As the reportitselfsays, there is evidence thatthe presidentactually thoughtandbelievedthatthe Times article was wrong, that's evidence onthe president's sideofthe ledger, thathe actuallythoughtitwas wrongandwas askingforits correction.

Itis also possible, the reportsays, thatthepresident's intentwas directedat--atthe publicityandthe press. The governmenthas to prove things beyondareasonable doubt. And, as the reportshows, there's--there's ample evidence onthe otherside ofthe ledgerthatwouldpresent--preventthegovernmentfromestablishingthat.

KLOBUCHAR: Okay, again, Ilookatthetotalityoftheevidence andwhenyoulookatititis a pattern. Andthatis differentthanhavingone incident. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.

GRAHA M: SenatorSasse.

SASSE: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. GeneralBarr, I'dlike to go backto--to RussiaAnd youropeningstatementlaidoutsome ofwhatthe GRUhaddone, whatmilitary--

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 95 of205

German--Russianmilitaryintelligence haddone interms ofhacking. I'dalso like to lookatsome oftheoligarchs andsome ofthe corruptionso closelyaligned withPutin. Volume 1 pages 129 to 144 ourlargelyaboutDeripaska. Canyoutell us who he is andwhathis objectives are?

BARR: I'drathernotget--getinto thatinthis opensetting.

SASSE: Well, I'll atleastquote theDepartmentofTreasury, becausethis is apublic document, so OlegDeripaskais adesignatedindividual. He's--he possesses a Russiandiplomatic passport, heregularlyclaims to representthe Russian government, he's inaluminumandothermetals billionaireandhe's been investigatedbythe US governmentandbyotherofourallies formoney laundering, he's beenaccusedofthreateningthe lives ofhis business rivals, he's beenchargedwithillegalwiretapping, takingpartinextortionandracketeering schemes, he's bribedgovernmentofficials, he's orderedthe murderofa businessman, andhe has manylinks to Russianorganizedcrime. So Ithinkwe caninanopensettingatleastagree thathe's abaddude, right?

This is a--this is abottomfeedingscumsuckerandhehas absolutelyno, I'lltake yourlaughas agreement, hehas absolutelyno alignmentwiththe interests ofthe U.S. people andourpublic. So the--the sectionofvolume1 deals withnominally PaulManafort, butit's reallyaboutDeripaska. Iwouldlike youto help us have an Americanpublic 101 understandingofwhatis andisn'tallowed. So Paul Manafortis hiredbyDeripaskaostensiblyforthings withrelatedto the Ukraine. Theyhaveabunchoffailedbusiness ventures togetheritlooks likeovertime, but he's onthe payrollofaRussianoligarchthathas interestcompletelymisaligned

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 96of205

withtheAmericangovernmentandtheAmericanpeople andwiththeinterests of NATO, andhe's onhis payroll. Is itpermissibleforsomeone to be paidby somebodywho's basicallyanenemyofthe UnitedStates andthencouldthat individualjustvolunteerandstartto donatetheirtime andtalentandexpertiseto acampaigninthe U.S.?

AndI meanthis--letmeinterruptforasecondandsayoneofthe things thatI thinkis painfullytragic aboutahearinglikethis, Ithinkthe vastmajorityofthe Americanpeople are goingto tuneitoutandthose thatpayattentionare goingto thinktheonlytwo takeaways youneedto knowis abunchofpeople were pro Trumpbefore theycameandtheystayedpro Trump andabunchofpeoplewere anti-Trumpbefore theycame andtheystayedanti-Trump, andwe didn'tdiginto anyofwhatthe reportactuallysays. Ithinkthese 448 pages sayawhole bunchof reallyimportantthings aboutintelligence operations againstthe UnitedStates people andourpublic andourgovernmentandourpublic trust.

AndIthinkitisn'tjustabout2016. There are importantquestions about2016. Lindsay--ChairmanGrahamsummarizedatthe beginninghowmuchmoneyand time was available to the spentspecialcounselandhis teamto do theirwork, so thereare abunchoffactualmatters about2016thatmatter. Butifoneofthe most importantthings wetake awayfromthis isn'tthatwe are goingto be--itneeds to be thatwe are goingto be underattackagainin2020 anditisn'tjustgoingto be Russiawho's prettydangclunkyatthis stuff, butit's also overtime likelygoingto be Chinawhois goingto be muchmore sophisticatedaboutthis stuff.

Canyouhelp us understandwhatis legalandillegalaboutforeignintelligence services beinginvolvedinU.S. elections?AndwhatshouldAmericanpeopleand the Americanpublic andespeciallyAmericancampaignoperatives knowabout what's appropriateandnotappropriate to take inthe formofhelpfromforeign intelligence agencies?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 97 of205

BARR: Imeanthat's a--that's averybroadtopic ofwhatislegalandinillegal. Imean, couldyourefinethatalittle bit?Are youtalkingaboutwhatkindof--whatkindof propaganda, thatkindofthingcominginto the country?

SASSE: Could--couldyoumake- -

BARR: --Obviouslyyoucan't--youcan'tputmoneyinto aforeignmoneyobviouslyinto a campaign.

SASSE: Yeahbutcouldyou- -

BARR: --Youcan't- -

SASSE: --couldyou--takeRussia, China, I'mmakingup acountry, decide to come into the UnitedStates andlookatallthe politicaltalent, make itdatabase, bythe way, the OPMhackin2014tells us theChinesegovernmentis activelyinvolvedin creatingdatabases ofpeople theycanpotentiallyuse as leverage against Americancitizens. More than20 millionpeopleare alreadyinthe spyrecruitment database oftheChina--ofthe CommunistPartyofChina. Couldtheycome inand buildadatabase ofallcampaignoperatives inthe U.S. andsome foreignentity justdecideto hire allofthemandthensaywhydon'tyougo andvolunteerfor

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 98 of205

this campaignandyougo andvolunteerforthatcampaign?Couldwehave campaignchairmanandwomenrunningaroundtheU.S.?U.S. citizens who have U.S. campaigntalentandexperience, paidforbyforeignentities justchoosingto volunteeroncampaigns goingforward?Is thatlegal?

BARR: Iftheir--iftheirtime is paidforforthe purpose ofparticipatinginacampaign, I wouldn'tthinkit's legal.

SASSE: Butgivenhowsleazyso muchofthe cityis inawhole bunchofpeople liveon retainers of15 and20 and$30,000 amonth, is italways obvious whatyou're paid forversus whatyoudo?So someRussianoligarchjustdecides to startputting Americancampaignpersonnelonretainerpayments andsaywe mayneedyouto lobbyforsomethingsomewhere inthe future?

They've gotviews aboutoilpipelines and--andnaturalgas pipelines into Germany. Wejusttoldyouonretainerandbythe way, the factthatyouare a personwho likes to workforspecific campaigns andcertainparties andcauses, feelfree to go andavocationally(SP)do whateverthe heckyouwantwhenever youwant. Is that--is thataplace we shouldhead?Is that--is thatallowedunder U.S. lawtoday?

BARR: WellImean, itdepends on--onthe specific circumstances, the natureofthe agreement, whatthe--whatthe--who the personis representing. Are they representingtheinterests ofaforeigngovernment?Are theyaforeignagentwho -

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 99 of205

-aretheyregistered?Youknow, Imean, we could--it's aslipperyareaandwe couldsithere alldayand--andwithoutspecific- -

SASSE: --I onlyhavesevenminutes. Idon't--Idon'tgetallday, butyouare the chieflaw enforcementofficerofthe UnitedStates governmentandIthinkitwouldbe helpfulforus to have asharedunderstandingas we headtowardthe 2020 election ofwhatcampaignoperatives shouldwellunderstandis beyondthepale. So if--if the Chinese governmentdecides to starthackinginto 2020campaigns, Iwould hope there's clarityfromthe DepartmentofJustice aboutwhetherornot Democratic campaign--residentialcampaigns andwhetherornotthe Trump reelectioncampaignare allowedto sayhey, we're interestedinthis hacked materialgoingforward.

Ithinkwe needto haveclarityaboutaquestionlike thatandIthinksomebody whosits notjustonjudiciarybutonthe intelligence committee, Ithinkthereare a bunchofcounterintelligence investigations happeningrightnowinthe United States where campaigns don'treallyunderstandwhatthe laws are andIthinkwe needalotmore clarityaboutit. Because I'mnearlyattime, letmeatleastgive it to youas a--this versionas aprecise question.

Underthe presidentialtransitions act, once youhave ademocratic nominee for presidentandaRepublicannomineeforpresident, oneofthe things thatwedo is westartto briefthemoninthe eventthatyouwouldbecome thepresidentelect, youwillneedto knowwhereweareindifferentnationalsecurityissues. Should webe addingto the PresidentialTransitionActcounterintelligencebriefings for campaigns as theybecomethe nominee inamuchmore detailedwaythanthe- - the responseyouhadaboutthe bureau's efforts?WhenSenatorCornynaskedif defensive briefings were given, shouldwetheCongress be thinkingvery

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 100 of205

intentionallyaboutauthorizingtheabilityofthe Bureauandinasharedbroader IC contextbutwiththe bureauorHomelandSecurityprobablybeingthe interface entity, shouldnominees forthehighestoffice inthe landheadinginto 2020be receivingregularcounterintelligence briefings onthe factthatforeignintelligence services are goingto surroundpeoplethatare likelygoingto be people of influence andprincipalofficers to the UnitedStates government, shouldthey win?

BARR: Absolutely. Ithinkthe--the dangerfromcountries like China, Russia, andso forth is farmoreinsidious thanithas beeninthe pastbecauseofnontraditional collectors thattheyhaveoperatinginthe UnitedStates andIthinkmostpeople are unaware ofhowpervasive itis andhow--andwhatthe risklevelis. AndI thinkitactuallyshouldgetgo farbeyondevencampaigns wherepeopleinvolved ingovernmenthaveto be educatedonthis.

SASSE: Thankyou. I'mattime, butI wouldloveto workwithyouandthe broader intelligencecommunityonthatmore. Ithinkthere are anumberofmembers of the (INAUDIBLE), ofthe SenateIntelligenceCommitteewho knowwhatyou're sayingparticularlyaboutthe Chinese governmentandtheirattemptto encircle lots ofpeoplewho aregoingto have influenceinthe future. AndIthinkwe, not justawholeofgovernmenteffortbutas awhole ofsocietyefforthaveto become muchmore sophisticatedaboutwhatforeignintelligence services, andespecially the Chinese are plottingforthe future.

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 101 of205

Yeah, ifIcouldjustsaythatyouknow, thepatternis wheneverthere is an election, foreigngovernments andtheiroperatives frequentlydescendonthe people who theythinkcouldhaveashotatwinningandit's--it's commonand- - andtypical--the mosttypicalscenario is thattheydo tryto make contactandso forth. So- -

SASSE: And--andinadigitalcyberera, youdon'tneedabarandahookeranymore, you cansurroundpeople digitallymucheasierandwe knowthatwe aregoingto be havingthesekinds ofattacks inthe future andwe needto up ourgame. Thanks.

GRAHA M: Minus thebarandthehooker, we'llhave hearings aboutallthatstuff.

(LAUGHTER)

GRAHA M: SenatorCoons?

COONS: ThankyouChairmanGraham. Thankyou, AttorneyGeneralBarr. AndI wantto followup onsomeofthatline ofquestioningfromSenatorSasseandKlobuchar.

Thespecialcounselwas appointedfirstto investigate Russia's attackonour2016 electionandpotentialcoordinationwiththeTrump campaignandI'mgladthe chairmanstartedthis hearingbyrecognizingweneedto focus onthat demonstrable assaultonourdemocracyandto protectourelections goingforward andIlookforwardto workingwithmycolleagues whetherit's onsanctions bills

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 102 of205

orit's onthe Lankford-KlobucharBillbutwe genuinelyneedleadershipfromyou Mr. AttorneyGeneralandfromthe White House andourpresidentto make sure thatwe are doingeverythingwe canto protectournextelection.

Butfranklywealso can'tignorevolume2ofthis reportwhichIthinkdetails unacceptable conductbythe presidentandhis campaignandthatincludes trying to fire the specialcounselwithoutcause. Iappreciatedthe leadership ofSenators GrahamandTillis andBookerandIinabilltotryandprotectthe specialcounsel, somethingIthinkis stillworthdoingforfuture specialcounsel's. We were toldby manyofourcolleagues there was nothingto worryaboutbecausethepresident wasn'tgoingto fire the specialcounselbutIwas particularlystruckbysome reports inthesecondvolume thatthepresidentattemptedto do exactlythat.

AndIfranklyMr. AttorneyGeneralhave concerns thatyourMarch24letter obscuredthatconductandas aresultworkto protectthe presidentforseveral weeks ratherthangivethefulltruthto the Americanpeopleas Inowbelieve SpecialCounselMuellerwas urgingyouto do as reflectedintheletterwe just receivedtoday. Somegoingto askyousome questions abouttheyreportbutthey bottomlineis thatIthinkwe needto hearmore aboutthespecialcounsel's work fromthe specialcounsel.

Accordingto SpecialCounselMueller's reportinJune 2017PresidentTrump calledWhite House CounselMcGahnanddirectedhimto have thespecial counselremovedandIquote andthis is fromaboutpage85, 86McGahnrecalled the Presidentcalledhimathome twice andonbothoccasions directedhimto call RosensteinandsaythatMuellerhadconflicts andgo no longerserve as Special Counsel. Therewere no credible conflicts. McGahntestifiedthathe hadshared thatthese conflicts weresilly, werenotrealandChris Christie advisedPresident Trump aboutthe same time there were no substantive basis, no goodcause to fire the SpecialCounsel.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 103 of205

Inone callthePresidentsaidcallRod, tellRonMuellerhas conflicts, can'tbethe specialcounselquote Muellerhas to go andIassumehe didn'tmeango to Clevelandorgo to Seattle. He metgo, be fired. Callmebackwhenyoudo it. I thinkthepresidents demands to fire Muellerwithoutcause are alarmingand unacceptable. AndMr. AttorneyGeneralnotone bitofwhatIjustdescribedwas inyourMarch24letterto this committee was it?

BARR: No. BecauseIwasn't(INAUDIBLE)

COONS: Butitwas inthe summaries thatwere offeredto youbySpecialCounselMueller andhis teamwhichyouchosenotto release. Is thatcorrect?

BARR: Theywere--theywere--theywere incomplete forminthe finalreportwhichIwas strivingto make public andwhichIdidmake public.

COONS: WhichIrespectandappreciate butacriticalthree weeks passedbetweenwhen youdelivertheletterwiththe focus onthe principalconclusions andwhenwe ultimatelygotthe redirectedreportandwhatItakefromthe Muellerletterto you--

BARR: Why--whywere theycritical?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 104 of205

COONS: Well, Ithinkthatthevolume two summarywouldhave revealedto thegeneral public awhole range ofinappropriate actions bythe presidentandhis core team. I willgo to asecondepisode thatIthinkis important.

OnFebruary5 of2018, overaweekafterthe storybroke publiclythatthe presidentorderedhis White HouseCounselto fire the specialcounsel investigatingthe presidentThe presidentdemandedthatMcGahncreate afalse recordsayingthe presidentneverdirectedMcGahnto fire thespecialcounsel. Thepresidentwasn'tlookingforapress statementhere. He wasn'tlookingto correctthe record. He wantedafraudulentrecordforWhite House records, a letterthatwasn'ttrue. McGahnrefusedto do it.

Againthere's nothingaboutthe president's requestto create afalse recordinyour March24letteris there?

BARR: Well, thatyourcharacterizationofitandIhave beenthroughitacoupleoftimes andI--Ithinkitwouldbe difficultforthe governmentto prove thatbeyonda reasonable doubt. Ithink- -

COONS: Andanimportantpoint- -

BARR: Ithinkthereis averyplausible alternative explanationbutwhatIwas tryingto getthatwas thefinalreportandhaveone issuance ofthe complete report. Imade

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 105 of205

itclearintheMarch24letterthatBobMuellerdidn'tmake adecisionbutthathe felthe couldnotexonerate the President

COONS: That's right.

BARR: Iwasn'thidingtheblowon--onwhere Muellerwas an--andthathe was presenting bothsides ofthe issue, alloftheevidence buthe was notmakingacallbuthe felt he couldn'texoneratethepresidentAndthenIbrieflydescribe theprocess we wentthroughto make ajudgmentinternalinto the DepartmentofJustice. Andas Isayfromthepublic intereststandpoint, Ifeltthere shouldbe onlyone thing issued, itshouldbe thecomplete reportas complete as itcouldbe.

COONS: AndIknowwe differinourconclusions aboutwhatthatmeantbutmyconcernis thatthatgave PresidentTrump andhis folks more thanthree weeks ofanopen fieldto sayIwas completelyexonerated. Whenhadyourelease the summaries of itthe firstandsecondvolume, wewouldhave beenmore motivatedthanever basedonthe firstvolumeto workcooperativelyto protectournextelectionand more concernedthaneveraboutmisdeeds, aboutinappropriate actions bythe presidentandsome ofhis coreteamas aresultofthe summaryofthesecond volume?Andatthe endofthe dayyouhave hadanumberofexchanges with colleagues where you've saidIcan'ttellyouwhyMuellerchose notto charge. I wantto hearthatfromBobMueller. Ithinkwe shouldhearfromSpecialCounsel Mueller.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 106of205

Letme moveonto apointthatSenatorSassewas justaskingbutthatIthinkis worthrevisitingaboutforeignintelligence andthe role inourelections. The reasonwe hadthis investigationinthe firstplace was George (INAUDIBLE) was toldthe Russians haddirtonHillaryClinton. The Russians hadadirectcontactto DonaldTrumpJuniorandofferedto give dirtabouthis father's opponent. Donald TrumpJuniorsaidIlove itandinvitedthecampaignchairmanandpresidentson - in-lawto thecampaignchairmanto ameetingwiththeRussians to getit.

BARR: Who didyousayofferedit?Who didyousayofferedit?

COONS: Inthe secondinstanceitwas Russians made anofferto DonaldTrump. Ihave 30 seconds.

BARR: Okay.

COONS: Letme gettoaquestionifIcould. Goingforwardwhatifaforeignadversarylet's nowsayNorthKoreaoffers apresidentialcandidate dirtonacompetitorin2020. Do youagree withmethe campaignshouldimmediatelycontactthe FBI?Ifa foreignintelligenceservice- -

BARR: Aforeignintelligence service?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 107 of205

COONS: Arepresentative ofaforeigngovernment- -

BARR: --yes

COONS: --Says we have dirtonyouropponent- -

BARR: --yes

COONS: ShouldtheysayIlove it, let's meetorshould- -

BARR: Ifaforeignintelligence- -

COONS: --theycontactthe FBI?

BARR: intelligence service does, yes.

COONS:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 108 of205

Okay. Here's mycore concern. ThepresidentorderedtheWhite Housecounselto have SpecialCounselMuellerfired. He fabricatedevidenceto coveritup and whetherornotyoucanmakeacriminalcharge ofthis itis unacceptable and everyone who saidwedidn'thave to worryaboutPresidentTrumpfiringthe specialcounselwas flatoutwrong. The Russians offeredthe Trump campaignon HillaryClintonandthe Trump campaignneverreportedthatto theFBI. Instead theytryto concealthemeetingandmisledthe Americanpeople andIthinkwe have to workonabipartisanbasis goingforwardto protectourelections froma repeatofthis andweneedyourleadership andthepresidents.

Yousomehowconcludedthe presidentdidn'tobstructjustice andyouannounce thatyouhadclearedthepresident25 days before the public couldreadthe Muellerreportforthemselves. Ithinkit's no wonderSpecialCounselMueller thoughtyourfour-pagelettercreatedpublic confusionaboutcriticalaspects ofthe results oftheinvestigationandthatthatthreatenedto undermine thecentral purpose forwhichhewas appointed. Ithinkwe needto hearfromSpecial CounselMueller. Ithinkwe needto hearfromDonMcGahnandIthinkwe need to reviewhowwe aregoingto handle goingforwardthefactthatyouare supervising12 ongoingcases thatcame outofthe Muellerinvestigationandhave beenreferred. This bodyhas acentralrole inoversightthatIbelieve weneedto exercise givenyourrecentrecord. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.

GRAHA M: SenatorHawley?

HAWLEY:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 109 of205

Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. GeneralBarr, Icommendyourcandorincallingwhat happenedin2016whatitis, whichis spyingontheTrump campaignandspying onthe presidentofthe UnitedStates. I'dlike to talkalittlebitmore aboutspying.

Counterintelligence investigations, like the one thatwe nowknowthe FBI launchedagainstcandidate Trump andPresidentTrump, those are designedto thwartspyingandsabotage. Is thatcorrect?

BARR: That's correct.

HAWLEY: To yourknowledge, has the FBI everlaunchedacounterintelligenceinvestigation ofanotherpresidentthatyou'reaware of?

BARR: Notto myknowledge.

HAWLEY: So, it's safe to saythat, to yourknowledge, this move was completely unprecedented.

BARR: To myknowledge.

HAWLEY:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 110 of205

Woulditbe unusual, inyourexperience andto yourknowledge, forFBIagents to hidethe existence andresults ofaninvestigation--suchaninvestigationfromtheir superiors?

BARR: Would--didyousaywoulditbetypical?Didyou- -

HAWLEY: --No, woulditbe unusualforthe- -

BARR: --veryunusual.

HAWLEY: Yes. Andinfact, thatis--thatis indeedwhatpress reports shouldjusthappened here. WhenFBIofficials hide investigators--investigations fromsuperiors, is thereanybodyto holdthemaccountable?Imean, what--whathappenedinthat instance?

BARR: There is no accountability.

HAWLEY: Have youlookedinto thedecisionbythe FBIto--whyhave theylauncheda counterintelligence investigation?

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 111 of205

Iamlookinginto it, andIhave lookedinto it.

HAWLEY: Andyouwill--willyoucommitto--to tellingus whatyoufindas the resultof your--ofyourownreviewandinvestigation?

BARR: Well, atthe endoftheday, whenIformconclusions Iintendto share it.

HAWLEY: I'lltake thatas ayes. Letme askyouaboutthe25thAmendment, ifImightfor justamoment. We knowthatformerActingDirectorofthe FBIAndyMcCabe, he's publiclyconfirmedthathecontemplatedforcingthe presidentfromoffice usingthe25thAmendment. To yourknowledge, haveFBIofficials ever contemplatedforcinganyotherpresidentfromoffice againsthis willusingthat provision?

BARR: Notto myknowledge.

HAWLEY: The25thAmendmentcontemplates the vicepresidenttakingoveras president whenthepresidentis unable to act. Wouldyouagree thatthattextto contemplates physicalailments likeacoma, mentalincapacitations, notjust politicaldifferences ofopinion?

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 112 of205

Yes.

HAWLEY: Have youeverdoubted, since youhave beeninyourcurrentposition, whether this presidentis physicallyableinaconstitutionalsense to discharge theduties- - his duties as president?

BARR: No.

HAWLEY: Wouldyouagree thatdiscussions withinthe FBIofaforcingthepresidentoutof office forpoliticalreasons gives the public atbestreasonto questionwhatthe FBIis doingandto fearthattheremaybe abuses ofpowerinthatorganization?

BARR: I--Ithinkitgives reasonto be concernedaboutthose particularindividuals that were involved. I--Idon'tattributeitto theorganization.

HAWLEY: Speakingofparticularindividuals who wereinvolved, Ihave to sayI've--I've listenedto this testimonyalldaytoday. Andto me, maybe themostshocking thingI'veheardis this. Thechairmanreaditearlier. August26th, 2016this ,is a textmessagefromPeterStrzok, atop counterintelligence investigatorwho we nowknowhelpedlaunchthis counterspyinvestigationofthe presidentofthe UnitedStates. PeterStrzoksays justwenttoaSouthernVirginiaWalmart. Icould

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 113 of205

smellthe Trump support. Smellis capitalized. Justwentto aSouthernVirginia Walmart. Icouldsmellthe Trump support.

Inmyview, youwantto knowwhat's reallygoingonhere?Youwantto know whythe counterintelligence investigationreallyhappened?Youwantto know whywe're allreallysittingheretoday?That's why, rightthere.

It's because anunelectedbureaucrat, anunelectedofficialinthis governmentwho clearlyhas opendisdainifnotoutrighthatredforTrump voters, like the people of mystate, forinstance, Icouldsmellthe Trump support, thentriedto overturnthe results oftheDemocratic election. That's what's reallygoingonhere. That's the story. That's whywe'reheretoday.

Icannotbelieve thatatop officialofthis government, withthe kindofpowerthat these people had, wouldtryto exercise theirownprejudices--andthat's whatthis is, it's open, blatantprejudice--wouldtryto use thatinorderto overturna Democratic election. Andto mymind, that's the realprices here, anditis acrisis. Because ifthere's notaccountability, ifthis cango oninthe UnitedStates of America, wellthen, mygoodness gracious, we don'thave ademocracyanymore.

So, Iappreciate yourleadership, Mr. AttorneyGeneral. Ilookforwardto hearing the results ofyourinvestigation. AndIlookforwardto this committee continuing its constitutionalresponsibilitytofindoutwhatis goingonhereandmakingsure thatthewillofthe peopleis vindicatedandestablished. Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.

GRAHA M: SenatorBlumenthal?

BLUMENTHAL:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 114 of205

ThankyouMr. Chairman. Thankyou, AttorneyBarr, forbeinghere today. You have beenveryadroitandagile inyourresponses to questions herebutIthink historywilljudgeyouharshlyandmaybeabitunfairlybecause youseemto have beenthe designatedfallguyforthis report.

AndIthinkthatconclusionis inescapable inlightofthe four-page summaryand thenthe press conferenceyoudidonthe dayitwas releasedknowingthatyouhad inhandaletterfromthe specialcounselsayingthathe feltthatyou mischaracterizedhis report. Andyouwere askedbyone ofmycolleagues, SenatorVanHollenwhetheryouknow--whetheryouknewthatBobMueller supportedyourconclusionandyousaidIdon'tknowwhetherBobMueller supportedmyconclusion. Youwere askedbyRepresentative Crist- -

BARR: Excuse me, senatorthatconclusionwas notrelatedto mydescriptionofthe findings inthe March24letter. Thatconclusionrefers to myconclusiononthe obstructionbasis. So it's a--differentconclusion. It's adifferentconclusion.

BLUMENTHAL: (INAUDIBLE) conclusions thatwas usedbySpecialCounselMueller. Andon the obstructionissueatpage 8and182 ofthereportIdon'tknowwhetheryou have itinfrontofyouthe--the specialcounselspecificallysaidatthesame timeI amquotingifwe hadconfidenceafterathoroughinvestigationofthefacts that the presidentclearlydidnotcommitobstructionofjustice, wewouldso state. He saiditagainatpage182 andyetinyoursummaryandinthe press conference that youdidyouineffectclearedthe presidentonbothso-calledcollusionand- -

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 115 of205

Andthe difference--the difference is Iusedtheproperstandard. Thatstatement youjustreadis actuallyaverystrangestatementfor- -

BLUMENTHAL: --foraprosecutorofthe specific obstructionepisodes RobertMuellerconcluded thatthere was substantialevidence onfor--onthe three necessaryelements of obstruction--

BARR: Well, you--you--youareaprosecutor- -

BLUMENTHAL: Ihave to finishmyquestion.

BARR: Youhaven'tletmefinishmyanswer.

BLUMENTHAL: Well, letme justfinishthe question.

GRAHA M: We cando both.

BLUMENTHAL: Youignoredinthatpressconference andinthe summarythatRobertMueller foundsubstantialevidence andit's inthe reportandwe have achartthatshows the elements ofbackcrime intent, interference withanongoinginvestigationand

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 116of205

the obstructive act. So Ithinkthatyourcredibilityis underminedwithinthe departmentandthis committee andwiththeAmericanpeople andIwantto ask youwhetheronthoseremaininginvestigations, the 12 to 14investigations whetheryouhave hadanycommunicationwithanyone inthe White House.

BARR: Know.

BLUMENTHAL: Andwillyougive us anironcladcommitmentthatyouwillinno wayinterfere- -

BARR: I--I'mnotsurethe laundrylistofinvestigations butIcertainlyhaven't--talked these substance orbeendirectedto do anythingonanyofthe cases.

BLUMENTHAL: Well, letme give youanopportunityto clarify. Have youhadanyconversations withanyone inthe White House aboutthose ongoinginvestigations thatwere spawnedorspunoffby- -

BARR: I--Idon'trecallhavinganysubstantive discussiononthe investigation.

BLUMENTHAL: Have youhadanynon-substantivediscussion?

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 117 of205

It's possible thatthe nameofacase was mentioned.

BLUMENTHAL: Andhave youprovidedinformationaboutanyofthoseongoinginvestigation- - anyinformationwhatsoever?

BARR: Idon'trecall, no.

BLUMENTHAL: Youdon'trecall?

BARR: Idon'trecallprovidingany.

BLUMENTHAL: Wouldn'tyourecallwhetheryougave informationto somebodyinthe White HouseaboutanongoingcriminalinvestigationintheSouthernDistrictofNew Yorkorthe EasternDistrictofNewYorkortheEasternDistrictofVirginiaorthe DepartmentofJustice?

BARR: Yeah, ImeanI--Ijustdon'trecallprovidinganysubstantive informationabouta case.

BLUMENTHAL: Is there anythingthatwouldrefreshyourrecollection?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 118 of205

BARR: IfIprobablylookedoveralistofcases andthoughtaboutit. But--butIdon't recall--

BLUMENTHAL: Youknowwhatthoseinvestigations are. We have discussedthematyour confirmationhearing, correct?

BARR: (INAUDIBLE)Ithinkthere's 12 or18 cases, right?

BLUMENTHAL: Youdon'tknowwhatthoseinvestigations are, Mr.- -

BARR: IdogenerallybutI--Ican'tremembereach(INAUDIBLE).

BLUMENTHAL: Letme askyouone lasttime. Youcan'trecallwhetheryouhavediscuss those cases withanyone intheWhiteHouse includingthe presidentofthe United States?

BARR: Myrecollectionis Ihavenotdiscussedthem.

BLUMENTHAL:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 119 of205

Butyoudon'trecallforsure?

BARR: I--

BLUMENTHAL: Letme moveon.

BARR: I--I--I cansayverysurely, Ididnotdiscuss thesubstanceof(INAUDIBLE).

BLUMENTHAL: Willyourecuse yourselffromthoseinvestigations?

BARR: No.

BLUMENTHAL: Letme askyouaboutacouple ofquotes fromthe presidents ofthe numberofmy colleagues have raisedthe Russiainvestigationandtheseare fromthe report untruths recitedbythe reportfromthe presidentinDecember2016when PresidentTrump was askaboutthe intelligence communities conclusionthat Russiainterferedinourelectionto boostTrump's chances hesaidhe hadquote no ideaifit's Russia, Chinaorsomebody. Itcouldbe somebodysittinginabedsome place.

GRAHA M:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 120 of205

400-poundperson.

BLUMENTHAL: I'msorryMr. Chairman?

GRAHA M: 400-poundpersonsittingonabed.

BLUMENTHAL: Thatisn'twhatthepresidentsaid. He referredto itas somebody. He also at HelsinkideniedRussianattacks in2016onourelection, anotherlie. Two days afterPresidentTrump was electedRussianofficials toldthepress thatthe Russian governmenthadmaintainedcontacts withTrump's quote amedianinentourage endquoteduringthe campaignwhenPresidentTrump was askaboutit, he said quote therewas no communicationbetweenthe campaignandanyforeignentity duringthe campaign. That's atpage 21 ofvolume 2. The firstquote Igaveyou was frompage 21 ofvolume 2.

Thepresidentinitiallydeniedplayinginthe role inshapinghis sons statementto the press aboutthe nowinfamous June9meeting. TheMuellerreportestablish thatthe presidentdictatedamisleadingstatementaboutthatmeetingthroughHis Communications DirectorHopeHicks. That's atpage 101 and102 ofvolume 2. Afternews organizations reportedthatthe presidentorderedMcGahn, Mr. McGahnto have these specialcounselremove the presidentpubliclydisputed these accounts. The Muellerreportestablishes thatquote substantialevidence supports theconclusionthatthe presidentinfactdirectedMcGahnto call Rosensteinto have the specialcounselremoved. Thatsetvolume2, page 88.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 121 of205

InyourviewdidPresidentTrump onthose occasions andothers recitedinthe reportlie to the Americanpeople?

BARR: Well, Iamnotinthe business ofdeterminingwhenlies aretoldto the American people. Iaminthe business ofdeterminingwhetheracrime has beencommitted.

BLUMENTHAL: So hemayhave lied(INAUDIBLE).

BARR: ButIwouldlike anopportunityto answersome ofthesequestions. Okay?You started--youstartedbycitingthis thinginvolume 2abouthowthereportsays that theycouldnotbe sure thattheycouldclearlysaythathedidnotviolate the law. As youknowthat's notthestandardwe use inthecriminaljustice system. It's presumedthatsomeone is innocentandthe governmenthas to prove thatthey clearlyviolatedthe law. We are notinthe business ofexoneration. Weare notin the business ofprovingtheydidn'tviolate the (INAUDIBLE).

BLUMENTHAL: Ifoundthatwhole(INAUDIBLE) exoneratedhiminyourpress conference and inyourfour-page summary.

BARR: Howdidthatstart?Ididn'thearthe beginningofthequestion.

BLUMENTHAL:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 122 of205

Youineffectexoneratedorclearedthe president

BARR: No, Ididn'texonerate. I--Isaidthatwe didnotbelievethatthere was sufficient evidence to establishanobstructionoffense whichis thejob oftheJustice Departmentandthe job ofthe JusticeDepartmentis nowover. Thatdetermines whetherornotthere is acrime. Thereportis nowinthe hands oftheAmerican people. Everyone candecide forthemselves. There's anelectionin18 months. That's averydemocratic process. Butwe are outofit. We have to stop usingthe criminaljustice process as apoliticalweapon.

BLUMENTHAL: Mytimehas expired. Iapologize Mr. ChairmanbutIwouldjustsaythatthe four- page letterinthe press conference thatyoudidleftaclearimpressionandit's beenrepeatedagainandagainthatyouclearedthe president

GRAHA M: Thank--thankyouSenator- -

GRAHA M: --Ernest.

ERNST: Thankyou, Mr. Chair. And, thankyou, AttorneyGeneralBarr, forbeinghere todayandvisitingwithallofus. The specialcounsel's investigationand--andall ofthe ripples thatcamefromthe 2016presidentialelectionhave reallypermeated

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 123 of205

the country. Imeanthereis greatinterestinthis. And, as I'mtouringthe99 counties ofIowa, Iamaskedaboutthis attownhalls andotherinteractions with myconstituents justas muchas anyotherissue athand. AndI'msuremanyofthe othersenators here have hadthe same experience.

AndI'dlike to starttodaybyvisitingwithyouaboutthe actions ofRussiaduring the 2016presidentialelection. Ithinkthat's where alotofus wouldliketo see the focus go. We needto focus onwhathappenedinthe 2016election. Andthenlook aheadandmakesure we aresafeguardingourpractices.

So, Ithinkit's naturalto thinkofacts ofaggressionbyaforeignstateinterms of bullets, interms ofbombs, that's whatwe typicallythoughtofas acts of aggression. Afterall, up untiljustrecentdays acts ofaggressionorwarfare has beenasymmetricaloperationbyaforeignadversary. Inthe pastit's been practicedbyboots onthe groundorvarious bombingcampaigns. But, that's not whatwe are facingtoday. AndIdo believe whatwe sawfromRussiawas anact ofaggression. Otheradversarialforeignstates, notjustRussia, butIthinka numberofcolleagues have mentioned, Chinaas well, perhaps NorthKorea, Iran. We couldgo onandon. Notonlydo theypractice directhostile militaryaction, justas RussiadidinUkrainewithits illegalannexationofCrimea, butas was detailedinthe specialcounsel's report, theyseekto influencethe elections ofour freestates throughcybermeans. Anditis anobjective factthatRussiaattempted to influenceourelection. We knowthat, folks. Allofus admitto that. We see the evidence thatRussiatriedto influence ourelection. Thehacks, the disinformation andsocialmediacyber-attacks byRussiaweredone withthe intentto sow discordamongthe Americanpeople.

Russiawillshowno hesitation. Theyhave notinthepast. Theywon'tinthe future inusingthese types ofacts ofaggressioninanattemptto undermine ourelections process andourwayoflife. Anditdoesn'tmatterifthe attackis comingfromthe

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 124 of205

endofabarrelofagunorthe clickofamouse. Wehave to getto the bottomof it.

Andso, GeneralBarr, thepasttwo years we've beentalkingaboutthis investigationinterms ofwhathappenedandnowwehave the opportunityto decide howto do better. So, the specialcounsel's Reportis the endofthe road. I thinkmanyhave statedthat, theendofthe roadwhenitcomes to the questionof the Trump administration's intent, butitis justthe beginningofthe conversation onhowwe counterRussiaandotherforeignadversaries intheirattempts to undermine ourrepublic.

So, ifwe cantalkaboutthat2016presidentialelection, do yousee vulnerabilities orweaknesses thatexistedat--atthattimethatleftus opento foreignaggression, foreigninfluence intheelectionsystemandthenhowdo we move forward throughtheDepartmentofJusticeinmakingsure we're shoringup some ofthose avenues ofapproachofourforeignadversaries?

BARR: Yes. The FBI, youknow, has averyrobustprogram, theForeignInfluence Task Force, whichis focusedonthis problem. Andis workingto counteractand prepare forthekinds ofinterference thatwe have seen. Andit's averydynamic program. I've beenbriefedonitby--byChris WrayandI'mveryimpressedwith whatthey're--whatthey'reupto.

IthinkthatthewayI--thewayIviewthis generalproblemis there has always beenefforts byRussiaandotherhostile countries to influence Americanelections andpublic opinion. But, itwas more easilydetectable anditwas sortofacruder operationinthe past. Andwhatwehave nowis the technologyandthe democratizationofinformation, thedangeris farmore insidious. Anditenables

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 125 of205

notonlythemgettinginto, effectively, ourwhole communicationsystemherein the UnitedStates. AndI'mjust--I meanjustthewaywe communicatewitheach otherandintoourbusiness systems, ourinfrastructure. But, italso allows themto do exactlywhatwe've seen, whichis because ofourrobustFirstAmendment freedoms they're able to come inandpretendthey'reAmericans andeffectthe dialogue andthe socialdynamics inthe UnitedStates inawaythatthey've never beenable to do before.

Andit's ahugechallenge to dealwithit. But, Ithinkthe intelligencecommunity is respondingto the challenge andthe threat. Ithink--Ihadthis discussionwith BobMuelleronMarch5 whenhewas briefingme onhis workanddiscussing lessons learned. Whathehas seenindismantlingthethreats thathe, youknow, was able to detectandhowwe canstartusingthatapproachacross the board.

ERNST: So, Isee we've accomplishedalotthroughourfederalagencies andthroughthe DepartmentofJustice thatare weable to workwithdifferentsocialmediagiants, otherprivate organizations to help countersome ofthis?Do yousee thattheyare actuallysteppingupto this challenge, takingthis onandmakingsure thattheyare pushingbackas wellagainstwhattheymightdetermine as a--aforeign adversary?

BARR: Yes, Ithinkthe--the private companies are, youknow, steppinguptheirgameand beingmore responsibleandaddressingit.

ERNST: Ithink- -

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 126of205

BARR: --and--

ERNST: --Ithinkthat's important. I'msorry, go ahead, please--I--Ijustthinkit's important thatwe reallyfocus onwhywe're here today. Andthat's because we didsee Russianinfluence inour2016presidentialelection. Whatwe needto make sure, as manyofourothercolleagues have noted, is thatthis doesn'thappento us again. Andthatwe areaware. Andas apublic we areaware ofwhathas been happeningnotjustinourownelections process here inthe UnitedStates, butto manyofourallies aroundthe globeas wellandmakingsure thatwe adequately pushingbackagainstthatandevenovermatchinginmakingsure that--thatwe keep thattypeofinfluenceoutofourelectioncycle.

So, Iappreciateyourtime today. Thankyouverymuch, GeneralBarr.

BARR: Thankyou.

GRAHA M: SenatorHirano.

HIRONO: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barr, nowthe Americanpeople knowthatyouare no differentfromRudyGiulianiorKellyanneConawayoranyoftheotherpeople whosacrifice theironcedecentreputationforthegrifterandliarwho sits inthe

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 127 of205

OvalOffice. Youonce turneddownajob offerfromDonaldTrumpto represent himas his private attorney. Atyourconfirmationhearing, youtoldSen. Feinstein that, "The jobofattorneygeneralis notthesame as representing" thepresident. So youknowthe difference, butyouhave chosento bethe president's lawyerand sighedwithhimoverthe interestofthe Americanpeople.

To startwith, youshouldneverhave beeninvolvedinsupervisingthe Robert Muellerinvestigation. Youwrote a19-page unsolicitedmemo, whichyouadmit was notbasedonanyfacts, attackingthe premise ofhalfofthe investigation. And youalso shouldhaveinsistedthatDeputyAttorneyGeneralRodRosenstein recuse himself. He wasn'tjustawitness to some ofthe president's obstructive behavior, wenowknowhewas infrequentpersonalcontactwiththepresident, a subjectofthe investigation. Youshouldhaveleftitto acareerofficials.

Thenoncethereportwas deliveredbythe specialcounsel, youdelayedits release formore thantwo weeks. Youletthe president's personallawyers lookatit beforeyouevendeignedto letCongress orthepublic seeit. Duringthe time, you substitutedyourownpoliticaljudgmentforthe specialcouncils--counsel's legal conclusions andafour-page letterto Congress andnowweknow, thanks to afree press, thatMr. Muellerwrote youaletterobjectingto yourso-calledsummary.

WhenyoucalledMuellertodiscuss his letter, the reports arethathe thoughtyour summarywas givingthepress, Congress, andthepublic amisleadingimpression ofhiswork. He askedyouto releasethe reportsummaries to correctthe- miss impressionyoucreated, butshe refused. Whenyoufinallydiddecide to release the reportoveraCongressionalrecess andontheeve oftwo majorreligious holidays, youcalledapress conferenceto once againtryto clearDonaldTrump beforeanyone hadachanceto readthe specialcounsel's reportandcome to their ownconclusions.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 128 of205

Butwhenwe readthereport, we knewRobertMueller'sconcerns were validand thatyourversionofeventswas false. Youusedeveryadvantage ofyouroffice to create the impressionthatthe presidentwas clearedofmisconduct. You selectivelyquotedfragments fromthe specialcounsel's report, takingsome ofthe mostimportantstatements outofcontextandignoringtherest. Youputthepower andauthorityofthe officeofthe attorneygeneralandthe DepartmentofJustice behindapublic relations effortto helpDonaldTrumpprotecthimself.

Finally, youliedto Congress. YoutoldRepresentative Charlie Cristthatyou didn'tknowwhatobjections Mueller's teammighthave to yourMarch24 - so calledsummary. YoutoldSenatorChris VanHollenthatyoudidn'tknowifBob Muellersupportedyourconclusions, butyouknew. Youlied, andnowweknow.

Alotofrespectednonpartisanlegalexperts andelectedofficials were surprised byyourefforts to protectthe president. ButIwasn'tsurprised. Youdidexactly whatIthoughtyoudo. It's whyIvotedagainstyourconfirmation. Iexpectedyou wouldtrytoprotectthepresident, andindeedyoudid.

In1989--this isn'tsomethingyouhadn'tdonebefore. In1989 whenyourefusedto showCongress anOLC opinionthatledto the arrestofManuelNoriega. In1992 whenyourecommendedpardons forthe subjects ofthe Iran-ContraScandal. And lastyearwhenyouwrote the 19-page memo tellingDonaldTrump as president can'tbe guiltyof--ofobstructionofjustice andthendidn'trecuse yourselffrom the matter. Fromthebeginning, youwere addressinganaudience ofone, that personbeingDonaldTrump.

That's whybefore the bombshellnews ofyesterdayevening, 11 ofmySenate colleagues andIcalledonthe DepartmentofJustice inspectorgeneralandOffice ofInspectorProfessionalResponsibilityto investigatethe wayyouhave handled the Muellerreport. Iwantedthemto determinewhetheryouractions complied

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 129 of205

withthedepartments policies andpractices andwhetheryouhave demonstrated sufficientimpartialityto continueto oversee the14 othercriminalmatters thatthe specialcounselreferredto inotherparts--to otherparts ofthe Departmentof Justice.

Butnow, we knowmoreaboutyourdeepinvolvementintryingtocoverupfor DonaldTrump. BeingattorneygeneraloftheUnitedStates is asacredtrust. You have betrayedthattrustAmericadeserves better. Youshouldresign. Ihave some questions foryou. Is the White House exertinganyinfluence onyourdecision whetherto allowspecialcounselMuellerto testifyinCongress, andwhen?

BARR: No.

HIRONO: Now, you've beencleartodaythatyoudon'tthinkthatanyofthe 10 episodes of possible obstructionthatthe specialcounseloutlinedis acrime. Idisagree, but youseemto thinkthatifit's notacrime, thenthere's no problem. Nothingto see here, nothingto worryabout. So withapologies to AdamSchiff, do youthinkall ofthe things thatPresidentTrumpdidareokay?Are theywhatthe presidentof the UnitedStates shouldbe doing?Forexample, do youthinkit's okayfora presidentto fire anFBIdirectorto stophimfrominvestigatinglinks betweenhis campaignandRussia?Itmaynotbeacrime, butdo youthinkit's okay?

BARR: WellIthinkthe reportis clearthatthat- -

HIRONO:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 130 of205

--No, I'mnottalkingaboutthe report- -

BARR: --Well, I'mtalkingabout- -

HIRONO: --andits analysis ofwhetheracrimeoccurred. I'maskingyou- -

BARR: --Idon'tthinktheevidence- -

HIRONO: --this is notacrime, butdo youthinkit's okayforthe presidentto do whathedid to fire the specialcounsel- -

BARR: --Ido thinkit's okay- -

HIRONO: --To keephimfrominvestigating- -

BARR: --forthe presidentto do whathedidandIdon'tthinkthe evidence supports the proposition--

HIRONO: --So Iguess youthinkit's - okay-

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 131 of205

BARR: --Thathe diditto stop the investigation.

HIRONO: Do youthinkit's okayforapresidenttoaskhis White House counselto lie?

BARR: Well, I'mwillingto talkaboutwhat's criminal.

HIRONO: No, we've alreadyacknowledgedthatyouthinkitwas notacrime. I'mjustasking whetheryouthinkit's okay. Evenifit's notacrime, do youthinkit's okayforthe presidentto askhis White House counselto lie?

BARR: Whichevent- -

HIRONO: Look, ifyou're justgoingto go backto whetherornotit's acrime- -

BARR: --No, whicheventare youtalkingabout- -

HIRONO: --You'retellingmethatit's- -

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 132 of205

BARR: --Whicheventare youtalkingabout- -

HIRONO: --Okayletmeaskyouthe lastquestionthatIhave in17 seconds. Do youthink it's okayforapresidentto offerpardons topeople who don'ttestifyagainsthimto threatenthe familyofsomeone who does. Is thatokay?

BARR: What--whendidhe--offerapardonto someone inorder- -

HIRONO: IthinkyouknowwhatI'mtalkingabout. Please.

BARR: Whatdo youmean- -

HIRONO: --Please, Mr. AttorneyGeneral. Youknow, give us some creditforknowingwhat the hellis goingonaroundhere withyou.

GRAHA M: Notreallytoothis lineofquestioning.

HIRONO: So--

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 133 of205

GRAHA M: --We're goingto--we're goingto--listen, youslanderedthis maneverywayyou canslander- -

BARR: --Yeah, whatI sortofwantto knowis howdidweget--howdidwe getto this point--

GRAHA M: --yeah, so- -

HIRONO: --Ido notthinkthatI- -

BARR: --Howdidwegetto thepoint- -

HIRONO: --I amslanderinganyone- -

GRAHA M: --All--allIcansayis- -

BARR: --Howdidwe- -

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 134 of205

HIRONO: --Mr. Chairman, Iamdone- -

GRAHA M: --7 minutes- -

HIRONO: --Thankyouverymuch- -

GRAHA M: --Andyouslanderedthis manfromtopto bottom. So ifyouwantmore ofthis, you're notgoingto getit. Ifyouwantto askhimquestions, youcan.

HIRONO: Youcertainlyhave youropinionandIhave mine.

BLACKBURN: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman, thankyou, GeneralBarr, forbeinghere today. We reallyappreciate yourtime.

I--Iwantto talkwithyoujustalittle bitaboutsomeofyourbottomline conclusions, because Ithinkthereis one thatwe needto kindofcirclebackto a littlebit. Andas I've listenedto alotofthe conversationheretoday, one ofthe things we've notdiscussedis whatseems to bethe culture atDOJandthe FBI. AndIknowthere are alotofgoodpeople thatworkthere, andwe are gratefulfor theirservice.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 135 of205

Buteveryorganizationhas aculture, and--whetherit's acorporateculture ora churchorschools or--orwhatever. Andwhatseems to have happenedatthe FBI is there is aseedy, cynical, politicalculture withinagroup thatdeveloped. And these individuals collectivelyseemedto thinkthattheycouldworkwithinthe poweroftheirjobs andtheirroles withthe federalgovernment. Therewas an elitismandanarrogancethere, anditspeaks to averyunhealthyworkculture withinthatagency.

AndIwilltellyouthis. WhenItalkto Tennesseans, theytalkalotaboutwhat theywantto see withthe DepartmentofJustice andthe FBIpostallofthis anda restorationoftrustandintegrityandaccountability. Andreally, inTennessee, they'lltalkto me aboutfourthings. Theytalkalotabouthealthcare, jobs, andthe economy. Theyare goingto talkaboutgettingfederaljudges confirmedandabout reiningingovernmentandholdingitaccountable.

Andthere's beenalotofhysteria. This is somethingthatgrewwithinthe ranks of the FBI. Whatare youdoingandwhatis yourplanforrebuildingthattrustand integrityso thattheAmericanpeople cansay, whentheFBIdoes its job, when the DOJdoes its job, we knowthatit's ajobdone right?

BARR: Idon'tthinkthereis--thereis a--abadculture inthe FBI, andIdon'tthinkthe problems thatmanifestedthemselves duringthe 2016electionareendemic to the institution. Ithinkthe FBIis doingits job. Imeanjustthis recentcaseoutin Californiawhere theyinterdictedthis, youknow, wouldbebomber. They're--they do greatworkaroundthe countryeveryday. Andit's a--it--IagreewithSenator Kennedy, whosaid, youknow, it's the premierlawenforcementinstitutioninthe world.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 136of205

Ibelieve thatandIsayto the extentthere was overreach--Idon'twantto judge people's motives andcome toaconclusiononthat. Butto theextentthere was overreach, whatwe have to be concernedaboutis ata--youknow, afewpeople at the topget--gettingitinto theirheads thattheyknowbetterthantheAmerican people and--

BLACKBURN: --Andthatis theproblem, andthatis whatwe hope thatyouare- -

BARR: --Yep--

BLACKBURN: --you'readdressing. Let's go backto this because, to repeat--to the report. To produce it, IthinkthatMr. Muellerassembledwhatwouldbe calledadream team, 19 all-starlawyers, aWatergateprosecutor, adeputysolicitorgeneral, a fluentRussianspeakerwho clerkedfortwo Supreme CourtJustices, formerhead ofthe Enroninvestigative taskforce, chiefofthe Public CorruptionUnitinthe ManhattanU.S. attorneys office, federalprosecutors who have takendownmob bosses, theMafia, andISIS terrorists. Do youconsiderthese lawyers to be the bestandthebrightestinthe field?

BARR: Notnecessarily.

BLACKBURN: Are theythe warriors youwouldwantonyourside inthecourtroom?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 137 of205

BARR: Imean, it--youknow, thereare alotofgreatlawyers intheDepartmentofJustice. Youknow, he assembledaverycompetentteam.

BLACKBURN: Are theymeticulous investigators who willhuntdowneverywitness andevery piece ofevidence?

BARR: I--Ithinktheyare tenaciousinvestigators.

BLACKBURN: Are theydevotedto findingthe truth?

BARR: Yes.

BLACKBURN: Are theymasters attakingdownhardenedcriminals, foreignanddomestic?

BARR: Yes.

BLACKBURN: Ifthere were evidenceto warrantarecommendationforcollusioncharges against the president, do youbelieve thatthe specialcounselteamwouldhavefoundit?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 138 of205

BARR: Yes.

BLACKBURN: Andiftherewere evidence to warrantyourrecommendationforobstructionof justice charges againstthe president, do youbelieve theMuellerteamwouldhave foundit?

BARR: I--Ithinkthattheyhadan--theycanvassedtheevidence exhaustivelyon--they didn'treachadecisiononit.

Butthe questionyou'vejustbeenaskingraises apointIwantedto saywhen SenatorHirono was talking, whichis it's--youknow, howdidwe getto the point herewhere theevidence is nowthatthepresidentwas falselyaccusedof colludingwiththe Russians andaccusedofbeingtreasonous andaccusedof beingaRussianagent. Andtheevidence nowis thatwas withoutabasis. Andtwo years ofhis administrationhave beendominatedbytheallegations thathave now beenprovenfalse. And, youknow, to--to listento someofthe rhetoric, you wouldthinkthatthe Muellerreporthadfoundthe opposite.

BLACKBURN: And, youknow, Mr. AttorneyGeneral, Iwilltellyouthatis whatTennesseans say. Theysayhowdidwe gethere?Howis therethis allowance andacceptedness ofsayingthat's okay?Because it's not. Andpeople wantto see governmentheld accountable. Theywantagencies to actwithaccountabilityto theAmerican people, andtheydon'twantto eversee this happenagain.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 139 of205

Itdoesn'tmatterifacandidateis aDemocratorRepublicanoranindependent. Theyneverwantto seethis happenagain, becausetheyknowthatthis was pointedatusingthe powerthattheyhadto tryto tiltanelectionorto achieve a differentoutcome. Andthe Americanpeople whatequaljustice, theywantrespect forthe ruleoflaw, andtheywantfairness fromthe system.

Ihave one otherquestiondealingwithsocialmedia. Tennessee RepublicanParty hada(INAUDIBLE)GOP accountthatwas setupbythe Russians. And, you know, either--Ithinkas we lookatsocialmedia, eithertheywere willingto turna blindeye andallowthese accounts togo up, because theyknewtheywere being paidinrubles onsome oftheseaccounts, and--orthere was justnegligence.

So, myhopeis that, withallthebadactorstates, whetheritis RussiaorIranor NorthKoreaorChina, thatyouallhaveagameplanfordealingwiththese platforms inawaythatyou're goingto reintheminforthe 2020 election. Iyield back.

GRAHA M: Thankyou. SenatorBooker?

BOOKER: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Barras Itake astepbackatthis I--Ijustreally thinkwe are ataverysoberingmomentinAmericanhistorythatthere is a considerableamountgoingonwhenyouactuallytaketimeandreadthis whole reportthatshows thatwe are sortofatacrossroadandIfearthatwe are descendinginto anewnormalthatisdangerous forourdemocracyonanumber oflevels andIfearunfortunatelyandIhope we have achanceto discuss this that youhave notonlyputyourowncredibilityinto questionbutseemtobe giving

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 140 of205

sanctionedto behaviorthroughthe language youusedinthatpress conference youheld, thelanguage youusedinyoursummarythat--thatstimulatedMuellerto write suchastrongrebukingletter. I--Ifearthatyouare addingnormalcyto a pointwhere we shouldbe soundingalarms as opposedto sayingthatthere is nothingto see here.

Andso one this 448page reportthathas adeeplitanyoflies anddeceitand misconduct, apresidentofthe UnitedStates instructingpeople to lie andbe deceitful, evidence ofpeople tryingto coverupbehaviorthatonits faceis morallywrongwhateverthe legalstandardis. Ifounditnumberone bysaying thatthis kindofobstructive conductwas acceptable notonlyacceptable butyour sentence literallysayingthattheAmericanpeople shouldbe gratefulforitthatis the beginningofnormalizationthatI wantto explore. Butthe secondthingIwant to exploreandwe willexplorethis butIwantto make mytwo statements atthe top.

One, that's problematic and--andgeneralthesecondproblemIhaveis thatyou seemto be excusingacampaignthatliterallyhadhundreds ofcontacts witha foreignadversarythatIthinkthere's aconclusionamongstandabipartisan conclusionthatthere wasafailureto evenreportthose contacts, thatwe engaged inbehaviors thatthe folks knewthatwere wrongthattheytryto activelyhide theyseemto capitalize--seemto capitalize onthis foreigninterference. Imeanin ourcountrywe knowitis the legalforacampaignandwrongforacampaignto share pollingdatawithanAmericansuperpackbutwe havehere documenteda levelofcoordinationwithaforeignadversarysharingpollingdataand--and--and weseemto be andyourconductseems to betryingto normalize thatbehaviorand Ithinkthatis whyweare insuchaserious momentthatis the routingthe cultures ofthis democracyandthe securityofthis democracyandso let's justgetinto some ofthis specifically.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 141 of205

Yousaidquote we knowthattheRussianoperatives who perpetratedthese schemes didnothavethe cooperationofPresidentTrump orthe Trump campaign. Thatis somethingthatallAmericans canandshouldbe gratefulto have confirmed. The things Ijustmentionedawillingness to meetwithRussian operatives inorderto capitalizeoninformationIdon'tthinkthat's somethingthat shouldbe grateful. I--Ifindyourchoice ofwords alarming. Ithinkitcalls into questionyourobjectivitywhenyoulookattheactualcontextofthe report. And soshouldtheAmericanpeople reallybe gratefulthatacandidate forpresident soughtto benefitfrommaterialandinformationthatwas stolenbyaforeign powerinaneffortto influence anelection?

BARR: Iamnotsure whatyoumeanbyseekto benefit. There--there is no indicationthat theyengagedineitherthe conspiracyto actorthattheyengagedinanyaction withrespectto the disseminationthatwas criminal.

BOOKER: Well, again, siryouare usingthe wordconspiracywhichis alegalterm. Inthat press conferenceyouusePresidentTrump's words obstructionoverandover again--

BARR: Obstructionis alegalterm.

BOOKER: Well--well, sir, youpulledinto his words andIamaskingyouspecificallyI am sorrycoalitionwas the wordIwas lookingfor. Youusethe words no collusion

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 142 of205

overandoveragainandyousaidtheAmericanpeople shouldbe greatthatthe presidentsoughtto benefitfrommaterialinformationbutyouknowtheydidseek to benefitfromthatmaterial. DonaldTrumpJuniorinhis ownemailseemto celebrate thathemighthave access to informationfromaforeignadversary. Is thatcorrect?Is thatsomethingtheAmericanpeople shouldbe (INAUDIBLE) for?

BARR: Apparentlyaccordingto the reporthe was--apparently, he was interestedin seeingwhatthis Russianwomanhadinthe wayofquote dirt.

BOOKER: And--anddidnotreportitas Ithinkeverybodywho's inpolitics knows it's somethingyoushoulddo. Shouldthe Americanpeople begratefulinthe faceof ourattackonourdemocracybyforeignadversarythatthe presidentofthe United States made severaldocumentedattempts to thwartaninvestigationinto the links betweenhis campaigns andRussia?Youuse thatwordgratefulagainthatthe Americanpeople shouldbe grateful. Is thatsomethingwe shouldbe gratefulfor?

BARR: I'mnotsure what--whatyouaretalkingabout.

BOOKER: Well, sir, Iamtalkingaboutthe attempts thatthis presidentmade thatMueller pointedto atleast10 attempts to thwartaninvestigationinto the links betweenhis campaignandRussia. Shouldwe be gratefulforthose10 welldocumented attempts byMueller?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 143 of205

BARR: Are youtalkingaboutthe obstructionpartofthereport?(INAUDIBLE)

BOOKER: Iamtalkingaboutthe secondvolume but--butletme continue. Shouldthe Americanpeople be gratefulthatthe Trumphadmore than215 documented contacts betweenRussianlinkedoperatives andthenliedaboutthemandtriedto hidethem?Is thatsomethingthe Americanpeople shouldbe gratefulfor, any precedent, this one oranydowntheroad?

BARR: As I--as mentionedearlierduringacampaignforeigngovernments make and foreigncitizens frequentlymake alotofattempts to contactdifferentcampaigns. Ifwe were rightnowto goandlookatforexample HillaryClinton's campaign duringthe same timeframe- -

BOOKER: Sir, sir, I--

BARR: --timeframe then--thenyouwouldsee alotofforeigngovernments--the Chinese tryingto establish(INAUDIBLE).

BOOKER: Andthat's Iguess whatI'mtryingtosayto you, sir, is thatwerightnowhave a newnormalinourcountry. We haveadocumentthatshows over200 - attempt-

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 144 of205

connections betweena--apresidentialcampaignandaforeignadversarysharing informationthatwouldbe legalifyoudiditwithasuperpack, weknowthat.

BARR: Whatinformationwas shared?

BOOKER: Pollingdatawas shared, sir. It's inthereport. Icansendyouthe page.

BARR: Withwho?

BOOKER: And--andIguess mypointis is thatyourwillingness to seemto brushoverthis anduse wordslike the Americanpeople shouldbe gratefulofwhat's inthis report nobodyshouldbe grateful. Concertedefforts fordeception, formisleading, inappropriate actionafterinappropriate actionthat--thatis clear. Andthenontop ofthatatatime thatweallrecognizethatwehadaforeignpowertryingto undermine ourelectionyouthe chieflawenforcementofficernotonly undermines yourowncredibilityas anindependentactorwhenthere is ongoing investigationstillusingthe word--presidents ownwords havingitcriticizedby Muellerhimselfbut--butthe challenge wenowhave is thatwe aregoinginto an areawhereyouseemto notevenbewillingto be intheleastbitcritical--inyour summarizations. I--Ibelieve thatcalls into yourcredibilityandagainmytimeis up.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 145 of205

GRAHA M: SenatorTillis?

TILLIS: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. GeneralBarr, thankyouforbeinghere. Onthe--inthe lastsentence onpage1 ofyourfourpage memo itstates thatthe specialcounsel issuedmore than2,800 subpoenas, executednearly500 searchwarrants, obtained more than230 orders forcommunicationrecords, issuedalmost50 orders authorizingthe use ofpenregisters, made 13 requests to foreigngovernments for evidence, andinterviewedapproximately500people. Thatseems likeapretty extensiveinvestigation. Ittookabout22 months, right?

BARR: Right.

TILLIS: Anditwas summarizedinaboutalittleover400-page document, volume two was justunder200pages, as Irecall. I've readvolume two wordforwordandI've readmostofvolume one. The newnormalthatseems to be createdhereis even afterallofthis investigationandyouhaven'tfoundanyconductworthyof indictmentthatyoucanjustbouncebackforpoliticalreasons andindict somebody. That's arhetoricalstatementorquestion, notastatement.

Now, we go backto the otherpartthatIfindinterestinghere. The NewYork Times alreadyissuedaheadline thatsays MuellerpushedandletteredforBarrto release the reports summary. So, nowthe--the narrative because I've hadalotof people inthepress comingoutandthe narrativeis well, doesn'tthis undermine

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 146of205

the--the attorneygeneralbecause Muellerwantedthe executivesummaries issued?Now, I'mgonnago backto whatyousaidinyouropeningstatement. You saidthat, Ibelieve, usingyourwords, the bodypolitic was--thatitwas unrestful. You've gottenthereport. Youdidn'tgetthe (INAUDIBLE)information. Youhad to do theredacting. Youknewthatthatwas gonnatake time. Itwouldhave been helpfulifyou'dgottenthatwhenthe reportwas transmittedto you. Ittook howeverlongittook.

Youissuedthe summary. Youusedthe analogyof--ofannouncingthe verdictand waitingforthe transcript. DidyoueveratanypointsayyouknowwhatIreally wantto do is issue this letterandthenletthenews mediaplaywithitforthree or fourweeks andthenwe'llgetthe redactedversionout?Didthatevercross your mind?

BARR: No, we were pushing- -

TILLIS: --To getitdoneas soonas possible.

BARR: --to getthe reportoutas soonas possible.

TILLIS: Andatanypointintime whenthe presidenthadthe opportunityto issue their ownadvice onredactions or--orassertexecutiveprivilege overthe course ofthe weeks thatyouwere doingthe reviewofthe report, didyouevergetadvice from

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 147 of205

the presidentorfromanybodyinthe White House to assertexecutiveprivilege or to redactanyportionofthe document?

BARR: No.

TILLIS: None. Andso, the narrative betweenthe letterandtheredactionprocess was we'regonnagetareportthat's 80percentredacted. Now, wouldyougive methe- - the numbers againonthe versionthat's available to the leadership ofCongress, the numbers again, Ithinkyousaidone-tenthofoneper--the--we'reskippingover volume one andwe'respendingtimeonvolume two.

BARR: Yes.

TILLIS: DidIhearyousaythatthe legislative leaders haveaccess to allbutone-tenthof onepercentofthe entirereport?

BARR: Approximately, yes.

TILLIS: So, guys, youcango outandspinthis anywayyouwantto, butthedatais there. There was no underlyingcrime andthere was insufficientevidence to indictthe presidentonobstructionofjustice. Yousaidsomethingelse that's interestingto

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 148 of205

me. Inthereportaboutthe we foundno evidencethatwas sufficientto indict. But, thentheywentonto saynorcanwe exonerate him. Whenis the special counselinthebusiness ofexoneratingasubjectofaninvestigation?

BARR: They're not.

TILLIS: They're not. So, whywouldsomebodyputsomethinglikethatinthe report?

BARR: Idon'tknow.

TILLIS: And--andso, whatit--itwouldfollowifthat's uncommonthatyouwouldnothave actuallyincludedthatinthe summarybefore thefullcontextofthe reportcould be produced. Is thatafairstatement?

BARR: That's afairstatement. But, Ididputinthe sentence aboutnot--Ididputinthe sentence aboutnotexoneration.

TILLIS: Yeah. Ithinkthat--that--the thingthatfrustrates me, numberone, Ishouldhave startedbysayingthis, the vastmajorityofpeople inthe DepartmentofJustice and the FBIare extraordinarypeople. Thechairmanis right. StartingwithStrzokand Page andeverybodyelse leadingupbefore the investigation, Ihopethey're being

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 149 of205

investigated. Ihave--Ihave aquestionforyou. The scope oftheOIG, where does--do youunderstandordo youknowwhatthe scopeofthatreportwillbe? Willitbe purelyonthis investigationorwoulditextendalso to otheracts that mayhave insome wayinfluencedthis investigation?

BARR: Well, I--Idon'twantto betoo specific. Italkedto Mike Horowitzafewweeks ago aboutit. Andit's focusedonthe FISA, the basis fortheFISAandthe handlingofthe FISAapplications. But, bynecessityitlooks backalittlebit earlierthanthat. The peopleIhave helpingmewithmyreviewwillbe working verycloselywithMr. Horowitz.

TILLIS: Now, Iwannago backagainbecause we have otherpeopletalkingandI'msure it's gonnacomeup again. I'mclearinthis reportthere was no underlyingcrime? Is thatcorrect?That- -

BARR: --Yes--

TILLIS: --andthere was- -

BARR: --That's the conclusionofthe- -

TILLIS:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 150 of205

--andthere was insufficientevidence orinsufficientevidenceto assertthatthe presidentobstructedjustice. Andalotofthatevidencewas inthepublic eye because wetalkedabouttweets andpublic statements, anumberofotherthings thatwe're tryingto use to assertas evidence forobstructionofjustice. Itseems oddto me thatpeople onthis committee thatpoundandpoundoverandover againthatyou're innocentandproven--untilprovenguiltywiththe extentofthis report, withthe numberofresources, nearly$30 million, whenthe facts don'tlead to theoutcome thatyouwanted, the one thatthemarketingdepartmentwanted, to use this as apoliticaltoolforthe next20 months, itseems oddto me thatwe'dgo downthe--ofthe pathof--ofsayingthatwell, inspite ofallthe work, we'regonna indicthimanyway. Andifwe can'tindicthimwe're gonnaimpugnyourintegrity andcallyoualiar. Ifindthatbehavioronthis committeedespicable. Thankyou.

GRAHA M: SenatorHarris?

HARRIS: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. AttorneyGeneralBarrhas the presidentoranyone at the WhiteHouse everaskorsuggestedthatyouopenaninvestigationofanyone?

BARR: I--Iwouldn't- -

HARRIS: Yes orno?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 151 of205

BARR: Couldyourepeatthatquestion?

HARRIS: Iwillrepeatit. Has thepresidentoranyone attheWhite Houseeveraskor suggestedthatyouopenaninvestigationofanyone?Yes orno please, sir?

BARR: The presidentoranybodyelse?

HARRIS: Seems youwouldremembersomethinglikethatandbeable to tellus.

BARR: Yeah, butI--I'mtryingto grapple withthe wordsuggest. Imeanthere have been discussions of--ofmatters outtherethattheyhave notaskedme to openan investigationbut- -

HARRIS: Perhaps theyhave suggested?

BARR: No, Iwouldn'tsaysuggest- -

HARRIS: Hinted?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 152 of205

BARR: (INAUDIBLE)

HARRIS: Inferred?Youdon'tknow?Okay. InyourMarch24 summaryyouwrote that quote afterreviewingspecialcounsel's finalreport- -

BARR: Iwillsaythatno one- -

HARRIS: Sir, Iamaskingaquestion. InyourMarch24 summaryyouwrotethatquoteafter reviewingthe specialcounsel's finalreportDeputyAttorneyGeneralRosenstein andIhave concludedthatthe evidenceis notsufficientto establishthatthe presidentcommittedanobstructionofjusticedefense. Nowthe specialcounsel's investigationproducedagreatdealofevidence. Iamledto believe itincluded witnesses notes andemails, witnesses congressionaltestimony, witnesses interviews whichwere summarizedinthe FBI302(SP)forms, formerFBI DirectorComey's memos inthe presidents public statements.

Myquestionisinreachingyourconclusiondidyoupersonallyreviewallofthe underlyingevidence?

BARR: No, we tookandaccepted--we accepted- -

HARRIS:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 153 of205

Mr. Rosenstein?

BARR: No, we acceptedthe statements inthe reportas the factualrecord. Wedidnotgo underneathitto seewhetherornottheywere accuratelyacceptedas accurate. Andmade our--made our- -

HARRIS: Acceptedthereportas theevidence?

BARR: Yes.

HARRIS: Youdidnotquestionorlookattheunderlyingevidencethatsupports the conclusions inthereport?

BARR: No.

HARRIS: DidMr. Rosensteinreviewtheevidence thatunderlies andsupports the conclusions inthereportto yourknowledge?

BARR: Notto myknowledge. We acceptedthe statements inthereport--and characterizationofthe- -

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 154 of205

HARRIS: Didanyoneinyour- -

BARR: --evidenceas true.

HARRIS: Didanyoneinyourexecutive officereviewthe evidence supportingthe report?

BARR: No.

HARRIS: No. Yetyourepresentedto the Americanpublic thatthe evidence was notquote sufficientto supportanobstructionofjusticeoffense?

BARR: Theevidence--theevidence presentedinthe report. This is not--this is nota mysterious process andthe departmentofjustice we have(INAUDIBLE) memos anddeclinationmemos everydaycomingup andwe don'tgo andlookatthe underlyingevidence (INAUDIBLE).

HARRIS: Sir, wouldyousupport- -

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 155 of205

--we take thecharacterizationoftheevidence as true.

HARRIS: As the attorneygeneralofthe UnitedStates youruntheUnitedStates Department ofJustice. IftheninaU.S. attorney's office aroundthe countrythe headofthat office whenbeingaskedto make acriticaldecisionaboutinthis casethe person whoholds the highestoffice inthelandandwhetherornotthatpersoncommitted acrime wouldyouacceptthemrecommendingachargingdecisionto youifthey hadnotreviewedthe evidence?

BARR: Well, that's aquestionforBobMueller. He is the U.S. attorney; he is theone who presents thereport.

HARRIS: Butitwas youwho made the chargingdecision, sir. Youmadethe decisionnotto charge the president

BARR: No, inaprocess memo andinadeclinationmemo.

HARRIS: Yousaiditwas yourbaby. Whatdidyoumeanbythat?

BARR: Itwas mybabyto let--to decidewhetherornotto disclose itto the public.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 156of205

HARRIS: Andwhose decisionwas it--who have thepowerto makethe decisionabout whetherornotthe evidencewas sufficientto make adeterminationofwhether therehadbeenanobstructionofjustice?

BARR: Prosecutionmemos go upto thesupervisor, inthis caseitwas theattorney generalandthe deputyattorneygeneralwho--to decide onthe finaldecisionand thatis basedonthe memo as presentedbythe U.S. attorney's office.

HARRIS: Ithinkyouhave made itclearthatyouhavenotlookedatthe evidence. We can move on.

BARR: Ihave seenalotofprosecution--Ihave seenalotof(INAUDIBLE).

HARRIS: Youhave madeitclearsirthatyouhave notlookedatthe evidence andwe can move on. Willyouagree to consultcareerDOJethics officials aboutwhether yourrecusalfromthe 14investigations thathave beendiscussedbymy colleagues is necessary?

BARR: Idon'tseeanybasis forit. Ialreadyconsultedwiththemand--and- -

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 157 of205

HARRIS: Youhave consultedwiththemaboutthe14 otherinvestigations?

BARR: Aboutthe Muellercase.

HARRIS: Have youconsultedwiththe careerDOJethics officials aboutthe appropriateness ofyoubeinginvolvedworkrecusingyourselffromthe 14 otherinvestigations thathavebeenreferredout?

BARR: Onwhatbasis?

HARRIS: Conflictofinterest, clearconflictofinterest.

BARR: What's myconflict?What's myconflictofinterest?

HARRIS: Ithinkthe Americanpublic guessingquite wellthatyouare biasedinthis situationandyouhavenotbeenobjective andthatwouldarguablybeaconflictof interest.

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 158 of205

YouknowIhaven'tbeentheonlydecision-makerhere. Nowlet's take theDeputy AttorneyGeneralRonRosensteinwho was approvedbythe Senate94-6witha specific discussiononthefloorthathe wouldberesponsible forsupervisingthe Russianinvestigation.

HARRIS: I'mgladyoubroughtupthat.

BARR: Andhe has 30years' experience andwe hadanumberofseniorprosecutors inthe departmentinvolvedinthis process, bothcareerandnoncareer- -

HARRIS: Yes, I--Ihave readthe process, sir.

BARR: Who haveallagreedonthe(INAUDIBLE).

HARRIS: Sir, Ihave anotherquestionandI'mgladyoubroughtthe subjectupbecause I have aquestionaboutthat. Earliertodayinresponse to SenatorGrahamyousaid quote thatyouconsultedwithRosensteinconstantlyunquote withrespectto the specialcounsel's investigationandreportbutDeputyAttorneyGeneral Rosensteinis also akeywitness inthefiringofFBIdirectorComey. Didyou consult--

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 159 of205

Well, that's (INAUDIBLE)

HARRIS: --withthe--Iamnotfinished. DidyouconsultwithDOJethics officials before youenlistedRodRosensteinto participate inachargingdecisionforan investigationthe subjectofwhichhe is also awitness?

BARR: Myunderstandingwas thathe hadbeenclearedalreadyto participate init (INAUDIBLE)

HARRIS: So youhadconsultedwiththemandtheyclearedit?

BARR: No, Ithinktheycleareditwhenhe--whenhe tookoverthe investigation.

HARRIS: Didyouconsult- -

BARR: That's myunderstanding.

HARRIS: Youdon'tknowwhetherhe's beenclearedofaconflictofinterest?

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 160of205

Hewoulditbe participatingifthere was aconflict.

HARRIS: So youare sayingthatitdidnotneedto bereviewedbythecareerethics officials inyouroffice?

BARR: Ibelieve--Ibelieve itwas reviewedandIwouldalso pointout- -

HARRIS: Andwhatwas the finding?

BARR: --this seems tobe abitofaflip-flopbecausewhenthe presidentsupporters were challengingRosenstein- -

HARRIS: Sir, the flip-flopIthinkinthis case is thatyouare notansweringthequestion directly. Didtheethics officials inyourofficeinthe DepartmentofJustice review the appropriateness ofRodRosensteinbeingapartofmakingachargingdecision onaninvestigationwhichheis also awitness in?

BARR: Yeah, so as Isaidmyunderstandingwas, he hadbeenclearedandhe hadbeen clearedbefore Iarrivedby(INAUDIBLE)

HARRIS:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 161 of205

Inmakingadecisiononthe Muellerreport?

BARR: Yes.

HARRIS: And--andthefindings ofwhetherornotthe case wouldbechargedonobstruction ofjustice?Hehadbeenclearedonthat.

BARR: He--he was the actingattorneygeneralonthe Muellerinvestigation.

HARRIS: Hadhe beencleared- -

BARR: He hadbeen--I--I -

HARRIS: --byyourside adecision- -

BARR: Iaminformed--I aminformedthatbefore Iarrived, he hadbeenclearedbythe ethics officials.

HARRIS: Ofwhat?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 162of205

BARR: Servingas actingattorneygeneralinthe Muellercase.

HARRIS: Howaboutmakingachargingdecisiononobstructionofjustice, thatis the underlying--

BARR: Thatis whatthe acting- -

HARRIS: --offenses whichinclude himas awitness?

BARR: That's whatthe actingattorneygeneral'sjobis.

HARRIS: To be awitness andto make thedecisionaboutbeingaprosecutor?

BARR: Well, no, butto make chargingdecisions.

HARRIS: Ihave nothingelse. Mytime has runout.

GRAHA M:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 163 of205

Thankyou.

GRAHA M: Senator, let's seewehave SenatorCruz. I'dliketo do shortsecondrounds. I've gotto go to anotherhearingat2:40. We'regoingto takefourvotes, butto my colleagues onthe otherside Iwouldlike to do averyshortsecondroundand wrapitup. Oh, I'msorrySenator--SenatorCrapo. Iapologize.

CRAPO: Allright, thankyou. AttorneyGeneralBarr, Iknowyouhavegonethrough almosteverythingthatcouldhavebeenaskedso fartodayandI'mgoingto go overafewthings thatyoualreadytalkedabout. ButIappreciate yourwillingness to getinto itwithme.

Firstoff, Iwantto talkaboutthe letterofMarch27ththat's beentalkedaboutalot fromMr. Mueller. First, couldyoutellmewho releasedthatletterto the public?

BARR: Releaseditto whom?

CRAPO: Yes. Imean, howdiditgetreleased?Was thatadecisionthatyoumade to release thatletter?

BARR: Ithinkthe departmentprovideditthis morning.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 164of205

CRAPO: Excuse me, Imeanto the WashingtonPost. Howdidthe WashingtonPostgetthe letter?

BARR: Idon'tknow.

CRAPO: That's whatIthought. So, well, let' stalkaboutthe letterfor-foramoment. You indicatedthat- -

BARR: Iassumethe WashingtonPostgotitfromtheDepartmentofJustice.

CRAPO: Yeah, well, Ithinkweneedto findout. Butwecangetintothatlater. If--ifyou're notawarethenlet's move onto otheraspects ofthe--ofthe issue. Youindicated thatyoudidnotfeelyouneededto release as muchas Mr. Muellerthoughtyou neededto release attheoutset. Yougaveasummaryofthe conclusions andhe apparentlywantedto see a--the summaries ofeachsectionthathehadput togetherreleased. Correct?

BARR: Yes.

CRAPO:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 165 of205

Couldyougo overagain, the reasonwhyyou--yourespondedto himwhenhe askedyouto releaseportions ofthe reportbefore youreleaseditinits entirety?

BARR: Yes, this was onaconversationonThursday. Igothis letter. And, IsaidthatI didn'twantto putoutitwas alreadyseveraldays afterwe hadreceivedthe report andIhadputoutthe fourpage letteronSunday. AndIsaidIdon't--Idon'twant to putoutsummaries ofthe reportthatwouldtriggerallkinds offrenzyabout whatwas saidinthe summaries andthenwhenthe more informationcomes outit wouldrecalibrate to that. AndIsaidIjustwantto putitatone time everything together. AndItoldhimthatwas--thatwas the gameplan.

CRAPO: Allright, andIjustthinkit's importantto pointthatoutagainbecause there's been alotofspeakingabout--aboutthe letterandwhat--whatitwas thatwas being requestedandwhatyourresponseto thatwas.

BARR: Right.

CRAPO: Ithinkitwas importantto helpthatgetoutagainandgetclarified. The reasonI askedwho releasedthe letteris because there have beenalotofreleases of documents fromthe FBIthatwere basicallyleaks andIwas justcurious as to whetherthatletterwas aleak. I'mnotaskingyouthatto- -

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 61 6of205

I think--I don't like people jump me ifI'm wrong on this, but I think the fact of the--I mean the information about Mueller's concerns were leaked and I think some news organizations were starting to ask about that.

CRAPO: So, then the letter--

BARR: And in that context I think the letter was provided. Is that accurate?

CRAPO: So, there were leaks at least about the concerns and the conversations that you had had.

BARR: Yes.

CRAPO: That gets back to the broader question ofleaks that--that I want to get into now. And you've had a number ofpeople--senators that asked you about the perceived bias ofthe FBI. I--I heard you responses earlier that you believe the culture at the FBI is strong and solid and I agree with that. I do believe however, that it's been pretty clearly shown in a number ofdifferent ways that there are some individuals at the FBI at high levels who in the past few years have not been holding up the standards ofthe FBI that the American people expect ofthem. I'm--I'm sure you're familiar with the report ofthe DOJ's Inspector General Michael Horowitz where he looked at bias in the FBI. And, in fact, he found it. And he indicated in a

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 167of205

hearinginthisroombefore us thathe didinfact, findthatthere was bias atthe FBIandthat--but--buthe saidthathe wasn'table to prove thatthe bias affected the employees workproductbecause as inquestions thatI askedhim--he said, I--I foundthatthere was cl

earlybias, butinorderto prove whetherthataffectedthe workoutputofthose whowerebias Ihadto askthemwhetheritimpacteditandtheyofcourse saidno. AndIdidn'thaveotherevidenceto proveotherwise. This gets backto a conversationyouhadearlieraboutwhetherthe FBI's business orwhetherhis business was to prove anegative orwhetheritwas to findsomeactionable conduct. My--myreasoningoingthroughthis withyouisthatIwantto getat whatwe cando--well, firstofall, whetheryouagree thatthere is aproblemof bias inthe FBIinsome parts oronsomeindividuals atthe FBI andwhetheryou are undertakingactivities to address that?

BARR: Well, youknowI--Iyoumeanpoliticalbias?

CRAPO: Yes. Whetherthere--whetherthereis politicalbias thatis resultinginbiased conductbyFBIagents?

BARR: Ihaven'tseenthatsince I'vebeenthere. IthinkChris Wraythe newdirectorhas changedoutthe people whoweretherebefore andbroughtin--notbroughtin fromoutside butpromotedanddevelopedanewleadership teamthatIthinkis doinga--agreatjob andIthinkhe is focusedon--onensuringthatthe bureauisn't biasedandthatanyoftheproblems frombeforeare addressed.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 168of205

CRAPO: Do youbelieve itis inappropriateconductforanFBIemployee to leakpolitically sensitiveinformationto the public forpurposes ofimpactingpolitical- -

BARR: --Yes--

CRAPO: --discussion?

BARR: Yes. And--andIthinksome leaks--some leaks are--are maybe forpolitical purposes. Ithinkprobablymore leaks are because peoplehandlingacase don't like whattheirsu--superiors orsupervisors are doingandtheyleakitinorderto controlpeople up thechain.

CRAPO: And, Iunderstandyouhave some investigations into thattype ofconductunder way?

BARR: Yes.

CRAPO: Justto note, acoupleofquickquestions. Whendidthe DOJandthe FBI, ifyou know--whendidthe DOJandtheFBIknowthatthe Democratic partypaidfor

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 169of205

ChristopherSteele's dossierwhichthenservedas the foundationforthe Carter Page FISAapplication?

BARR: Idon'tknowthe answerto that.

CRAPO: Are youinvestigatingto determine that?

BARR: Yes.

CRAPO: Didthe DepartmentofJustice the FBIandotherfederalagencies engage in investigativeactivities before anofficialinvestigationwas launchedinJuly2016 ?

BARR: Idon'tknowthe answerto that, butthat's one ofthe areas- -

CRAPO: Youare alreadyinvestigatingthat. Okay. Thankyouverymuch, attorneygeneral.

LEE: SenatorCruz?

CRUZ:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 170 of205

Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. GeneralBarr, thankyouforyourtestimony. Andlet me startbyjustsayingthankyou. Youhaveanextraordinarilysuccessfullegal career. Youdidn'thave to takethis job. Andyousteppedforwardandanswered the callyetagainknowingfullwellthatyouwouldbe subjectto thekindof slanderous treatment, the Kavanaughtreatment, thatwehave seenofsenators impugningyourintegrity. AndIforone amgratefulthatyouansweredthatcall andare leadingthe DepartmentofJustice bothwithintegrityandfidelityofthe law, thatis whatthenationrightlyexpects ofourattorneygeneral. AndIbelieve youare performingthatvery. Ithinkthis hearingtodayhas beenquite revealing to anyonewatching.

To although, perhaps, notforthereasonsome ofthe democratic senators intended. One thingthat's revealinginthediscussionquestions thatcameup, a wordthatoccurredalmostnone atallis thewordRussia. Fortwo andahalfyears we hearddemocratic senators goingonandonandonaboutRussiacollusion. We heardjournalists goingonandonandonaboutRussiacollusion, alleging, among otherthings, someusingextremerhetoric callingthe presidentatraitor. Weheard verylittle ofthatinthis hearingtoday. Insteadthe principle attacktheDemocratic senators have marshalleduponyouconcerns this March27letterfromRobert Mueller. Andit's anattackthatIwantpeople to understandjusthowrevealingit is. Ifthis is theirwhole argumenttheyain'tgotnothing.

So, theirargumentis as follows, andletme see ifIunderstanditcorrectly. You initiallywhenyoureceivedthe Muellerreportreleasedto Congress andthe public afour-page summaryoftheconclusions. ThenonMarch27Mr. Muellerasked youto releaseanadditional19pages, the introductionandsummarythathe had drafted. And, indeed, inthe letterwhathe says is, quote, "Iamrequestingthatyou provide these materials to Congress andauthorize theirpublic release atthis

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 171 of205

time." Andthe reasonhesays thatit's--is thatit--is thatto fullycapturethe context, nature andsubstance ofthe office's workandconclusion.

So, youdidnotreleasethose19pages atthattime. Instead, acouple ofweeks later, youreleased448 pages, theentire report, whichincludes those 19pages. Do Ihave thattimeline correct?

BARR: That's right.

CRUZ: So, theirentire argumentis GeneralBarr, yousuppressedthe 19pages thatare entirelypublic thatwe have thatwecanreadthattheyknoweverywordofit. Andtheircomplaintis itwas delayedafewweeks. Andthatwas because ofyour decisionnotto releasethe reportpiecemealbutratherthanrelease those 19pages alongwiththeentire 448pages producedbythespecialcounsel.

BARR: Yes.

CRUZ: Ifthatis theirargumentIhave to saythatis anexceptionallyweakargument.

BARR: (LAUGHTER).

CRUZ:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 172 of205

Because ifyou're hidingsomethingI'lltellyourightnow, GeneralBarr, you're doingaverylousyjob ofhidingitbecausethethingthatthey're suggestingyou hidyoureleasedto Congress andthe Americanpeople. Andso ifanyone wants to knowwhat's inthose 19pages thatarebeingso breathlessly, oh, BobMueller saidreleasethe 19pages. Youdid. Youdiditacoupleweeks later. But, we can readeverywordofthe19pages alongwiththefullreport.

Inyourjudgementwas theMuellerreportthorough?

BARR: Yes.

CRUZ: Didtheyexpendenormous time, energyandresources investigatingand producingthatreport?

BARR: Yes.

CRUZ: Andthe MuellerreportconcludedflatoutonthequestionofRussiancollusion, the evidencedidnotsupportcriminalcharges?

BARR: That's right.

CRUZ:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 173 of205

And, indeed, the Muellerreport, ifIhave thesestats right, was compiledby19 lawyers who were ontheteam, approximately40FBIagents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants andprofessionalstaff. The specialcounselissued more than2,800subpoenas, nearly500 searchwarrants, morethan230 orders for communicationrecords, almost50 orders authorizingthe use ofpenregister, 13 requests to foreigngovernmentforevidence andinterviewedapproximately500 witnesses. Is thatcorrect?

BARR: That's right.

CRUZ: So, we haveinvestigatedoverandoverandoveragainandthesubstanceofthe accusations thathave beenleveledatthe presidentfortwo andahalfyears have magicallydisappeared. Insteadthecomplaintis the 19pages thatwecanallread, thatis entirelypublic, couldhave beenreleasedafewweeks earlier. Oh, the collateral.

Letme shiftto adifferenttopic, atopic thathas beenaddressedalreadyquite a bit. Ibelievethe DepartmentofJustice underthe ObamaAdministrationwas profoundlypoliticizedandwas weaponizedto go afterpoliticalopponents inthe press. Ifthatis the case, wouldyouagree thatpoliticizingthe Departmentof Justice andweaponizingitto go afteryourpoliticalopponents is anabuseof power?

BARR: Ithinkit's anabuse ofpowerregardless ofwho does it.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 174 of205

CRUZ: Ofcourse, yeah. To the bestofyourknowledge whendidsurveillance ofthe Trump campaignbegin?

BARR: The positiontodayappearsto be itbeganinJuly. But, Ido notknowthe answer to the question.

CRUZ: Itis anunusualthingis itnotforthe DepartmentofJustice to beinvestigatinga candidate forpresidentparticularlyacandidatefromthe opposingpartyofthe--of the partyinpower?

BARR: Yes.

CRUZ: Do we knowifthe Obamaadministrationinvestigatedanyothercandidates runningforpresident?

BARR: Idon'tknow.

CRUZ: Do we knowiftheywiretappedanyothers?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 175 of205

BARR: Well, Iguess theywere investigatingHillaryClintonforthe email, the email fraud.

CRUZ: Do we knowifthere werewiretaps?

BARR: Idon'tknow.

CRUZ: Do we knowifthere wereefforts to sendinvestigators inwearingawire?

BARR: Idon'tknow.

CRUZ: So, GeneralBarr, Iwouldurge youhave hadremarkabletransparency. You promisedthis committee youwouldwithregardto the Muellerreport. You promisedthis committee andtheAmericanpeople youwouldrelease the Mueller reportpublically. Youhave releasedthe report. Anyone canreadit. It's righthere. Iappreciate thattransparency. Iwouldaskyouto bringthe same transparencyto this lineofquestioningaboutwhether--whetherandthe extentto whichthe previous administrationpoliticizedthe DepartmentofJustice, targetedtheir politicalrivals andusedlawenforcementandintelligence assets to surveilthem improperly.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 176of205

GRAHA M: Thankyou. So, that's the endofthe firstround. Wehave votes Ithinkatthree. I thinkthereare fourvotes. But, whatI'dlike to do is justcanyougo forafew more minutes here?You'reokay?You're allright?

BARR: Yes.

GRAHA M: Okay, good. SenatorLeahy, you're next. Willdo three minutesecondrounds.

LEAHY: SenatorFeinsteinnotedthatyoufeltthe FBI(INAUDIBLE)dutyifitdidnot investigateafterlearningfromAustralia. Notthe Trump administration, but Australia. TheTrump campaignknewRussia's (INAUDIBLE) ondemocratic emails before the victims do. Andtheywere toldthe Russians couldassistina campaignwith--withthestolenemails. TheFBIwas rightto lookinto it. That resulted, ofcourse, in37indictments.

But, letmeaskyou, Mr. Barr, inyourMarch24letter, youclaimthatthe lackof evidence ofanunderlyingcrime bears onwhetherthe presidenthadtherequisite intentto commitobstructionofjustice orthere numerous reasons whysomeone mayinterfere withinvestigations. Mostcritically, aninterference maypreventthe discoveryofanunderlyingcrime. So, interfering, youmightnotknowifthere's a crime. But, the specialcounseldiduncoverevidence ofunderlyingcrimes here, includingone thatdirectlyimplicatedthepresident.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 177 of205

Anddidn'twe learndue to specialcounsel's investigationthatDonaldTrumpis knownas individualoneintheSouthernDistrictofNewYork, directinghush payments as partofacriminalscheme to violate campaignfinance laws?That matterwas discoveredbyspecialcounselreferredto the SouthernDistrictofNew York; is thatcorrect?

BARR: Yes.

LEAHY: Thankyou. Andwe have--the Muellerreportreferences adozenongoing investigationsstemmingfromthespecialcounsel's investigation. Willyou committhatyouwillnotinterferewiththose investigations?

BARR: Sorry. Canyou- -

LEAHY: --Do youcommitthatyouwillnotinterferewiththe dozenongoing investigations?

BARR: I--Iwillsupervise those investigations as attorneygeneral.

LEAHY: Willyouletthemreachnaturalconclusions withoutinterference fromthe White House?Letme putitthatwaythen.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 178 of205

BARR: Yes.

LEAHY: Thankyou.

BARR: Didyou--yeah. As IsaidwhenIwas upforconfirmation, partofmy responsibilityis to makesurethereis no politicalinterference incases.

LEAHY: Well, andyoutestifiedanumberofthings andthat's whyI'm--I'mdouble checking. You--the appropriations committee askedyouwhetherMr. Mueller expressedanyexpectationorinterests inleavingthe obstructiondecisionto Congress andyoutestifiedhe didn'tsaythatto you. Ac--actually, yousaidthathe did--didn'tsaythatto me.

BARR: Right.

LEAHY: But, then, hehas numerous references inhis reportto Congress playingarole in decidingwhetherthe presidentcommittedobstructionofjustice. So, Iknowyou testifiedmanytimes, butthat- -

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 179 of205

--Well, I--I- -

LEAHY: --Definitelywas notcorrect.

BARR: That's notcorrect. I--Ithinkitis correct. Imean, Idon't--hehas notsaidthathe conductedtheinvestigationinorderto turnitoverto Congress. Thatwouldbe veryinappropriate. That's notwhatthe Justice Departmentdoes.

LEAHY: Well, he includednumerous references reportto Congress playingaroleinit. Volumetwo, page eight, inclusionofCongress beingapartoftheobstruction (INAUDIBLE)president's corruptexercise ofthe powerofofficeinaccordance withourconstitutionalsystemofjustice.

BARR: Yeah. Idon'tthinkBob--BobMuellerwas suggestingthat--thatthe nextstephere was forhimto turnthis stuffoverfor--to Congress to actupon. That's notwhywe conductgrandjuryinvestigations.

LEAHY: AndPresidentTrump--Iamcorrectinmyearlierstatement--neverallowed anybodyto interviewhimdirectlyunderoath. Is thatcorrect?

BARR: Ithinkthat's correct.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 180 of205

LEAHY: Eventhoughhe saidhewas readyto testify. Thankyou.

BARR: Well--

GRAHA M: --SenatorDurbin- -

BARR: --couldI- -

GRAHA M: --Sure.

BARR: Apoint--apointyouraisedaboutthe absence ofaunderlyingcrime--one pointI was tryingto make earlieris the absence ofanunderlyingcrime doesn't necessarilymeanthatthere--thatthere wouldbeothermotives forobstruction, althoughitgets alittle bithardertoprove andmore speculative as to whatthose motives mightbe. But, the pointIwas tryingto makeearlieris thatinthis situationofthe president, who has constitutionalauthorityto supervise proceedings, ifinfactaproceedingwas notwell-founded, ifitwas agroundless proceeding, ifitwas basedonfalseallegations, the presidentdoes nothave to sit there, constitutionally, andallowitto runits course. The presidentcould terminatethatproceedinganditwouldnotbeacorruptintentbecause hewas beingfalselyaccusedandhe wouldbeworriedabouttheimpactonhis

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 181 of205

administration. That's importantbecause mostoftheobstructionclaims thatare beingmadehere or--orepisodes do involve the exercise ofthe president's constitutionalauthority. Andwe nowknowthathe was beingfalselyaccused.

LEAHY: Idon't--Idon'tagree withthat, butthat's okay. Thankyou.

DURBIN: GeneralMueller, Ihave two questions, ifyoudon'tmind. The Mueller--pardon me. GeneralBarr

(LAUGHTER)

Ihave two questions. The Muellerreportre--describes thereasons whythe FBI openedacounterintelligence investigationinJuly2016into Russianelection coun--interference. There havebeenmanyreferences to whytheywoulddo such athing. Bythatdate, theDemocratic NationalCommittee serverhadbeenhacked andRussians has beendeemedresponsible. Some ofthestolenemails hadbeen releasedbyWikiLeaks. Theforeigngovernment, the Australiangovernment, had toldourFBIthe Trumpforeignpolicyaid, George Papadopoulos, saidhe'dbeen contactedbyapersononRussia's behalfofferingto assisttheTrump campaignby releasinginformationdamagingto HillaryClinton. Thatwas allinthe Mueller report.

Do youbelieve thatitwas anappropriate predicate foropeninga counterintelligence investigationto determine whetherRussiahadtargetedpeople intheTrump campaignto offerhackedinformationthatmightimpacta presidentialelection?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 182 of205

BARR: I'dhaveto see exactlywhatthereportwas fromDowner--the AustralianDowner andexactlywhathe quotedPapadopoulos as saying. But, fromwhatyoujust read, I'mnotsurewhatthe correlationwas betweenthe Russians havingdirtand jumpingto the conclusionthatthatsuggestedforeknowledge ofthehacking.

DURBIN: Accordingto Mr. Muellerinhis report, this involvementofTrumpForeignPolicy AidGeorge Papadopoulos hadsomethingto do withtheirconclusion. I'dliketo askyouaseparate issue.

It's beenreportedthaton April16 th, youreceivedawaiverto participate inthe investigationandlitigationoftheso-called1MDB matter. This is aninvestigation into aMalaysiancompanyfromallegedmoneylaundering. Accordingto news reports, as partofthis investigation, U.S. Attorney's Officeforthe Eastern DistrictofNewYorkis investigatingwhetheraMalaysiannationalillegally donatedto theTrumpInauguralCommittee, withmoneytakenfrom1MDB. You soughtawaiverto participate inthis matter, eventhoughyourformerlawfirm, KirklandandEllis, represents anentityinvolvedintheinvestigation. Namely, GoldmanSachs. Howmanywaivers haveyoureceivedto allowyouto participate inmatters orinvestigations involvingTrumpbusinesses, theTrump campaign, or the TrumpInauguralCommittee?

BARR: None.

DURBIN:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 183 of205

Youdidseekawaiverinthis case?

BARR: I--actually, theimpetus, as Irecall, andpeopleshouldjump me ifI'mwrong, but didn't--didn'tcome fromme. Iwas askedto seekawaiverinthis case.

DURBIN: Do you--do youseethe problemifthe issueis whetherornotamoneylaundering operationinMalaysiais sendingmoneyto the TrumpInauguralCommitteethat as attorneygeneralofthe UnitedStates youmaynotwantto in--involve yourself inthis?

BARR: I--well, no, Idon't. Idon'tbecause Iwas notinvolvedwithinauguralcommittee.

DURBIN: Whywouldyouseekawaiverthento participate inthis?

BARR: The waiverwas--Iguess the conflictwas notbecause ofanyrelationshipIhadto the inauguralcommittee, whichIdidn't.

DURBIN: No, it's to GoldmanSachs, yourformerclient, KirklandandEllis.

BARR: No. It's--it's--it's KirklandandEllis, the lawfirm.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 184 of205

DURBIN: Right. Andtheirclient, GoldmanSachs. Ijustdon'tunderstandwhyyouwould touchthathotstove.

BARR: Well, that's agood- -

DURBIN: --Yousoughtthe waiver. That's whyI'maskingthe question.

BARR: Theattorney--thecriminaldivisionac--actuallyaskedmeto getawaiverbecause ofthe importance ofthis investigationoverall. Iwas requestedbythe criminal division. Ididn'tseekit. I--the impetus didnotcomefromme.

DURBIN: Andwho wouldthatbe thatmadethatrecommendationto you?

BARR: Iamtolditwas the criminaldivision.

DURBIN: Mr. Benczkowski?

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 185 of205

Right. Yeah, itwould--hewas theheadofthecriminaldivision. But, before- - apparently, theydiscusseditwithacareerethics officialandtheymade the recommendation.

DURBIN: Thankyou.

GRAHA M: SenatorWhitehouse?

WHITEHOUSE: Mr. Barr, acoupleoftimingquestions. YousaidthatonMarch5, Mr. Mueller came to youandsaidthathe was goingto notmake adecisiononobstruction, leave thatto you.

BARR: Hedidn't--he didn'tsayhewas leavingitto me.

WHITEHOUSE: But, he was notgonnamake anobstruction- -

BARR: --Right.

WHITEHOUSE:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 186of205

OnMarch24yousentoutthe letterdescribingyourdecision. Somewhere betweenMarch5 andMarch24youmade thatdecision. Whenwas that?

BARR: We startedtalkingaboutitonMarch5 andthere hadalreadybeenalotof discussions priorto March5 involvingthe deputy, the principalassociate deputy inthe OfficeofLegalCounselthathaddealings withthe SpecialCounsel's Office. So, theyhadknowledge of--ofanumberofthe episodes andsomeofthe thinkingofthe SpecialCounsel's Office. So, rightafterMarch5 we started discussingwhatthe implications ofthis were andhowwe - would-

WHITEHOUSE: --Andyoumade the decisionwhen?

BARR: ProbablyonSundaythe24th.

WHITEHOUSE: Thatwas thedaythe lettercame out.

BARR: Yes. We made the decision- -

WHITEHOUSE: --Youdidn'tmake the decisionuntilthelettercameout?

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 187 of205

No, no.

WHITEHOUSE: Youmusthave toldsomebodyhowto writethe letter. Whendidyouactually decide thatthere was no obstruction?

BARR: The 24th.

WHITEHOUSE: Okay. Whendidyougetthe firstdraftoftheMuellerReport?

BARR: The first--itwasn'tadraft. We gotthe final.

WHITEHOUSE: Thefirstversionofitthatyousaw?

BARR: Well, the onlyversionofitIsaw.

WHITEHOUSE: Okay, the onlyversion--whenyoufirst- -

BARR: --The 22nd.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 188 of205

WHITEHOUSE: The22nd. AndyoutoldSenatorHarris thatyoumadeyourdecisiononthe obstructioncharge, youandRosenstein, basedontheMuellerReport. Do I correctlyinferthatyoumade thatdecisionthenbetweenthe 22ndandthe 24th?

BARR: Well, we had--hadalotofdiscussions aboutitbefore the 22nd, butthatthe final decisionwas made onthe 24th.

WHITEHOUSE: Andyoudidn'treceive- -

BARR: --We hadmore--we hadmore thantwo andahalfdays.

WHITEHOUSE: --The MuellerReportuntilthe 22nd?

BARR: We hadmore thantwo andahalfdays to considerthis. OLChadalreadydonea lotof--alotofthinkingaboutsome ofthese issues evenbefore the20--we gotthe reportandevenbefore March5. Theyhadbeeninregularcontact--the department hadbeeninregularcontactwithMueller's peopleandunderstood, youknow- -

WHITEHOUSE:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 189 of205

--Buttheywere--the OLC was lookinginto theMuellerinvestigationwhile itwas goingonandwithitofthe evidencethattheywere gatheringonobstruction?

BARR: --The--

WHITEHOUSE: --Beforeyousawthe report?

BARR: Myunderstanding--no, Iwasn'tthere, okay?but, myunderstandingis thatthe deputyandthe, whatwe callthe PAD(INAUDIBLE), the principleassociate deputy, wereinregularcontactwiththe Mueller's teamandwere gettingbriefings onevidence andsomeoftheirthinkingandsome oftheissues.

WHITEHOUSE: Didtheyknowenoughto know- -

BARR: --OLC was broughtinto some ofthose discussions.

WHITEHOUSE: Didtheyknowenoughto knowitmightbe--needto beredactedbefore theysaw the 3/22 report?

BARR:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 190 of205

No. the problemwehadis we couldnotidentifythe 6(e) materialwhen--when the reportcame over. Weneededthehelp ofBobMueller'steamto do that.

WHITEHOUSE: And, lastly, canyouassure me thatnothingrelatedto obstructionorthe Mueller Reportwas discussedatyourOffice ofLegalCounsel, brownbaglunchonJune 27th?

BARR: Nothingthatwhat?

WHITEHOUSE: Nothingabouttheobstructionissue andnothingabouttheMuellerreportitself was discussedwhenyouhadabrownbaglunchonJune27thwithOLC?

BARR: Yeah, did--we didn'tdiscuss anythinghavingto do withtheMuellerreportor Mueller's eventualpositiononit.

WHITEHOUSE: (INAUDIBLE)discussedyourobstructionmemo?

BARR: I'dforgotifitwas then, butIthinkI've previouslysaidthatI mentionedthatIhad amemo andwas sendingitto- -

WHITEHOUSE:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 191 of205

--Youhave notyetsaidthatitwas mentionedatthis OLCbrownbaglunch.

BARR: I--Idon't--Idon'tthink--well, itwas notatthebrownbaglunch, no.

WHITEHOUSE: Mytime is up.

GRAHA M: Okay, we are--the votehas started. We're gonnasplitthe time betweenSenator KlobucharandSenatorBlumenthalwilltryto go--theywon'tholdthe vote open toolong, butlet's startwithSenatorKlobucharandsee ifwecando this.

KLOBUCHAR: Thankyou. Mr. AttorneyGeneral, onApril27thPresidentTrump statedMueller, Iassume, for$35 millionhe checkedmytaxes andhe checkedmyfinancials. Is thataccurate?Didthe specialcounselreviewthepresident's taxes andthe Trump Organization's financialstatements?

BARR: Idon'tknow.

KLOBUCHAR: CanyoufindoutifIasklaterinawrittenquestion?

BARR: I--yes, oryoucanaskBobMuellerwhenhe comes here.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 192 of205

KLOBUCHAR: Okay. Well, I'lldo thattoo. But, IthinkI'llalso askyou. Andthen, obviously, we wouldwantto see themas underlyinginformation. Duringmyearlierquestions wewentthroughanumberofactions bythe presidentthatthe specialcounsel lookedinto. Mypointis thatwe shouldbelookinginto the totalityofthe evidence andthe patternthatthe reportdevelops.

Onpage 13 ofvolume two, the specialcounselinstructs thatwedo something similar. Thereportsays, andthis is aquote, "circumstantialevidencethat illuminates intentmayincludeapatternofpotentiallyobstructive acts." Onthis point, thereportcites three U.S. cases. U.S. v. Frankenhauser--orFrankHouser, U.S. v. ArnoldandU.S. v. Centola. Do youagree thatobstructionlawallows for intentto be informedbyapatternofpotentiallyobstructive acts?

BARR: Well, intenteventuallyhas to be establishedbyproofbeyondareasonable doubt. Obviously, some inferences canbedrawnfromcircumstantialevidencethatcan contribute to anoveralldeterminationofproofbeyondareasonable doubt. But, that's oneofthe problems withthis wholeapproachthat's suggestedatthe--the specialcounsel's report, whichis itis tryingto determine thesubjectiveintentofa faciallylawfulactanditpermits alotofselectivityonthe partoftheprosecutors and--andit's beenshotdowninanumberofothercontext. So, one ofthereasons thatwe are veryskepticalofthis approachis thatin- -

KLOBUCHAR: --YoumeanyouandDirectorMuelleror- -

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 193 of205

BARR: --structuralcases- -

KLOBUCHAR: --you, the Justice Department?

BARR: TheJustice Department. Is thatinthis kindofsituationwe haveafacially innocentactanda--youknow, butit's authorizedbythe constitution.

KLOBUCHAR: Okay, Ijust- -

BARR: --It's hardto--it's hardto establishbeyondareasonable doubtthatit's corrupt.

KLOBUCHAR: Okay, Ijustwantto getinjustafewmore questions likeSenatorWhitehouse did. Atyourconfirmationhearingyoutestifiedthatinthe absence ofaviolationofa statute the presidentwouldbe accountable politicallyforabusingthe pardon power. Howdo youreconcile yoursuggestionthatpoliticalaccountabilityis available whenthe administrationis refusingthecomplywithsubpoenas and assertingexecutive privilege to standinthe wayofthatveryaccountability?

Howdo youreconcileyoursuggestionthatpoliticalaccountabilityis available whenthe administrationis refusingto complywithsubpoenas andasserting executive privilege to standinthewayofthatveryaccountability?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 194 of205

BARR: As to apardon?

KLOBUCHAR: No, this was aboutinyourconfirmationhearingyousaidinthe absence ofa violationofastatute, the presidentwouldbe accountablepoliticallyforabusing the pardonpowerifhedid. Basically- -

BARR: --Butyouare--butyourquestionreallyis abusinganypower, notjustthe pardon power?Is that--is thatwhatyou're saying?Well, thepresident- -

KLOBUCHAR: --I mean, it's hardto evaluate that- -

BARR: --presidents have beenheldaccountable before andit--andas have other officeholders.

KLOBUCHAR: Okay. Lastquestion. Are thepresident's actions detailedinthis reportconsistent withhis oathofofficeandthe requirementinthe Constitutionthathe take care thatthelaws be faithfullyexecuted?

BARR: Is whatconsistentwiththat?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 195 of205

KLOBUCHAR: Isaidare the president's actions detailedinthe reportconsistentwithhis oathof office andthe requirementinthe Constitutionthathe take care thatthe laws be faithfullyexecuted?

BARR: Well, the evidence inthereportis conflictingand--andthere's differentevidence andtheydon't--theydon'tcome to adeterminationas to howtheircomingdown onit.

KLOBUCHAR: Andso youmade thatdecision?

BARR: Yes. Andas a--as youknow, ifit's--we- -

GRAHA M: --Allright, we've got- -

KLOBUCHAR: --Okay--

GRAHA M: --Two minutes left. SenatorBlumenthal.

BLUMENTHAL:

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 196of205

Thankyou, Mr. Chairman. AttorneyGeneralBarr, Iwonderifyoucouldtellus aboutthe conversationbetweenyourselfandBobMuellershortlyafteryour summarywas issued. He calledyou?

BARR: No, Icalledhim.

BLUMENTHAL: Whatpromptedyouto callhim?

BARR: The letter.

BLUMENTHAL: Yourletterorhis letter?

BARR: His letter. His letter.

BLUMENTHAL: His letter. So youcalledhim?

BARR: Yeah.

BLUMENTHAL: Andhowlongdidtheconversationlast?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 197 of205

BARR: Idon'tknow, maybe 10, 15 minutes. There weremultiple witnesses intheroom. Itwas onthe speakerphone.

BLUMENTHAL: Who was inthe room?

BARR: Amongothers, the deputyattorneygeneralwas intheroom.

BLUMENTHAL: Anyone else?

BARR: Severalotherpeople who beenworkingonthe project.

BLUMENTHAL: Members ofyourstaff?

BARR: Yes. And--andthe deputy's staff.

BLUMENTHAL: Andas bestyoucanrecall, inthelanguage thatwas used, who saidwhatto whom?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 198 of205

BARR: IsaidBob, what's withthe letter, youknow?Whydon'tyoujustpickupthe phone andcallme ifthere's anissue?Andhe saidthattheywere concernedabout the waythemediawas playingthis andfeltthatitwas importantto getoutthe summaries, whichtheyfeltwouldputtheirworkandpropercontextandavoid some ofthe confusionthatwas emerging. AndI askedhimifhe feltthatmyletter was misleadingorinaccurate andhesaidno, thatthe press--he feltthatthe press coverage was anditwas--andthatacompleter--amore complete pictureofhis thoughts andthe contextandso forthwould--woulddealwiththat.

AndI--IsuggestedthatIwouldratherjustgetthe wholereportoutthenjust puttingoutstuffseriatimandpiecemeal. And--butIsaidI wouldthinkaboutit some more. Andthe nextdayIputoutaletterthatmade itclearthatnoone shouldreadtheMarch24letteras asummaryofthe overallreportandthatafull accountofBob's Mueller's thinkingwas goingto be inthe reportandeveryone could--wouldhave access to that.

BLUMENTHAL: Butthere's nothinginRobertMueller's letterto youaboutthe press. His complaintto youis aboutyourcharacterizationofthe report, correct?

BARR: Well, the letterspeaks foritself.

BLUMENTHAL: Itdoes. Andinfact, inresponseto yourquestion, whynotjustpickup thephone, this letterwas anextraordinaryact. Acareerprosecutorrebukingthe attorney

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 199 of205

generalofthe UnitedStates, memorializingitinwriting, rightquestionmarkI knowofno otherinstance ofthathappening. Do you?

BARR: Idon'tconsiderBob atthis stage acareerprosecutor. He's hadacareeras a prosecutor--

BLUMENTHAL: --Wellhe's averyeminentprosecutor.

BARR: Hewas theheadoftheFBIfor12years.

BLUMENTHAL: He's acareer- -

BARR: --He's hada--he's hada- -

BLUMENTHAL: Lawenforcementprofessional.

BARR: Right.

BLUMENTHAL: Iknowofno otherinstance - of-

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 200 of205

BARR: --Buthe was also politicalappointee andhewas apoliticalappointee withmeat the DepartmentofJustice. Idon't--I--youknow, the letters abitsnittyandIthink itwas probablywrittenbyone ofhis staffpeople.

BLUMENTHAL: Didyoumake amemorandumofyourconversation?

BARR: Huh?

BLUMENTHAL: Didyoumake amemorandumordidanyone else?

BARR: No, Ididmakeamemorandum. What?

BLUMENTHAL: Didanyone, eitheryouoranyone onyourstaffmemorialize yourconversation withRobertMueller?

BARR: Yes.

BLUMENTHAL: Who didthat?

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 201 of205

BARR: There were notes takenof--ofthe call.

BLUMENTHAL: Maywe have those notes?

BARR: No.

BLUMENTHAL: Whynot?

BARR: Whyshouldyouhave them?

GRAHA M: I'lltellyou, we've gotto endthis, butI'mgoingto write aletterto Mr. Mueller andI'mgoingto askhimis there anythingyousaidaboutthatconversationhe disagrees with. Andifthere is, he cancome andtellus.

BARR: Right.

GRAHA M: So the hearingis nowoverand- -

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 202 of205

BLUMENTHAL: --If--ifImayjust- -

GRAHA M: --SenatorBlumenthal, Ipromise youthatifthere's any--Mr. Muellerwillhavea chance to make sure thatthe conversationrelayedbyAttorneyGeneralBarris accurate, andI'mgoingto givehimachanceto correctanythingyousaidthathe finds misleadingorinaccurate andthatwillbeit. Five seconds.

LEE: AttorneyGeneralBarr, Ijustwantto thankyouforyourservice to ourcountry andIespeciallytodaywantto thankyouforyourcivilityandyourcomposure. I missedwhathas beenaneedlesslyandunfairlyhostileenvironment. Your professionalismhas beenremarkableandI'mgrateful. Thankyou.

BARR: Thankyou.

GRAHA M: Frommypointofview, it's prettyinterestinganditgotoffinaditcheverynow andthen, butgenerallyspeaking, thecommittee didprettygoodandthis is what democracyis allabout. Thankyouforbeingourattorneygeneral.

BARR: Thankyou, Mr. Chairman.

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 203 of205

ListofPanelMembersandWitnesses

PANELMEMBERS: SEN. LINDSEYGRAHAM(R-S.C.), CHAIRMAN

SEN. CHARLESE. GRASSLEY(R-IOWA)

SEN. JOHNCORNYN(R-TEXAS)

SEN. MIKELEE(R-UTAH)

SEN. TEDCRUZ(R-TEXAS)

SEN. BENSASSE(R-NEB.)

SEN. JOSHHAWLEY(R-MO.)

SEN. THOMTILLIS (R-N.C.)

SEN. JONIERNST(R-IOWA)

SEN. MICHAELD. CRAPO(R-IDAHO)

SEN. JOHNKENNEDY(R-LA.)

SEN. MARSHABLACKBURN(R-TENN.)

SEN. DIANNEFEINSTEIN(D-CALIF.), RANKINGMEMBER

SEN. PATRICKJ. LEAHY(D-VT.)

SEN. RICHARDJ. DURBIN(D-ILL.)

SEN. SHELDONWHITEHOUSE(D-R.I.)

SEN. AMYKLOBUCHAR(D-MINN.)

SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DEL.)

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 204 of205

SEN. RICHARDBLUMENTHAL(D-CONN.)

SEN. MAZIEK. HIRONO(D-HAWAII)

SEN. CORYBOOKER(D-N.J.)

SEN. KAMALAHARRIS(D-CALIF.)

WITNESSES: ATTORNEYGENERALWILLIAMP. BARR

Testimony&Transcripts

AboutSenateJudiciary

Staff

Hearing

Transcripts

Testimony

CommitteeReports

Associated Bills

Schedules

Markup

Amendments

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001 CQ Page 205 of205

©2019·CQ-ollCall,Inc·All R R ightsR eserved.

1625EyeStreet,Suite200·Washington,D.C.20006-4681 ·202-650-6500

AboutCQ Help PrivacyPolicy Masthead Terms&Conditions

https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts-5523699?2 5/1/2019 Document ID: 0.7.24420.7270-000001