Return to Transcripts main page

Wolf

Jeff Sessions Congressional Hearing; Sessions Fixes Statements; Sessions Recalls Meeting. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired November 14, 2017 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

JEFF SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr. Jeffries, nobody -- nobody, not you or anyone else, should be prosecuted. Not me -- or accused of perjury for answering the question the way I did in this hearing. I've always tried to answer the questions fairly and accurately.

But to ask did you ever do something? Do you ever meet with Russians and deal with the campaign? You're saying Mr. Carter Page, who left that meeting -- according to the press reports and all -- and -- and, I guess, his deposition or interview -- is being reported as saying, I'm going to Russia. I made no response to him, didn't acknowledge it. And you're accusing me of lying about that? I say that's not fair, Mr. Jeffries. I would say that's not fair, colleagues. That's not on any indication that I, in any way, participated in anything wrong.

And the same with Mr. Papadopoulos, he talked about -- it's reported in the paper that he said something about going to Russia and dealing with the Russians. And I pushed back and said you shouldn't do it. So I don't think I'm -- it is right to accuse me of doing something wrong. I had no participation in any wrongdoing, with regard to influencing in this campaign improperly.

GOODLATTE: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mr. DeSantis, for five minutes.

DESANTIS: Well, thank you. Mr. Attorney General, you didn't do anything wrong in that testimony. This question was garbled. That's just not giving you any benefit of the doubt at all, to do with these guys are doing to you. So I hear what you're saying and you didn't do anything wrong.

I do want to talk about your recusal from the Russian case. You sent -- cited a 28 CFR 45.2, saying you were involved with the campaign, that triggered recusal. However, that regulation only applies to criminal prosecutions or investigations. When you recused yourself under James Comey's admission, that was a counterintelligence investigation not a criminal investigation. So why did you cite that regulation to recuse from a counterintelligence investigation when it's only applicability is for a criminal investigation?

SESSIONS: I'm not sure that that was expressed to me when I was given advice about it in those terms, number one. Number two, it could likely be interpreted as both and so I -- I felt --

DESANTIS: Comey that he -- after you recused, he testified March 20. He said I'm authorized to say there's a counterintelligence investigation. And he was telling the President, you're not under investigation. So that's what -- that's what he said. So I think that that may have been misapplied, but I -- I -- I understand what you're saying --

SESSIONS: I did follow the advice I was given.

DESANTIS: No, I know you did. I know you did. You've talked about -- you can't confirm or deny investigations. I think that's a good policy. Why was Comey allowed to confirm that investigation in March 20, which invited all kinds of irresponsible speculation? You were recused. Somebody in the department authorized him to do that. Why did they break with the policy?

SESSIONS: This was on -- this March 20 you talking about?

DESANTIS: Yes.

SESSIONS: I'm not -- I don't recall how that exactly occurred. But I do agree with you, Congressman, that Mr. Comey talk more than he should. And he had no power, right, or justification in announcing the conclusion of a criminal investigation. He was the investigator not the --

DESANTIS: I agree. I don't want to -- sorry to interrupt. I've got a limited time. I agree with you. Let me move on. Uranium One case, I know you've been asked about it. Can you say forget about whether it's under investigation? In the past, did the FBI or DOJ informed either President Obama, Secretary Clinton, or any cabinet secretary that it had uncovered evidence that Rosatom's main U.S. executive, Vadim Mikerin, was engaged in bribery, kickbacks, and money laundering before the Obama Administration approved the Uranium One sale in 2010?

SESSIONS: Is that Mikerin matter -- matter was prosecuted in Maryland in...

DESANTIS: 2014 but there was an informant in 2009-2010, the FBI had evidence of bribery, kickbacks, and money laundering. Was that information conveyed to any of the relative people on the CFIUS board: Clinton, other cabinet secretaries, or was it given to the president?

SESSIONS: The way I understand that matter is that the case in which Mr. Mikerin was convicted was not connected to the CFIUS problem that occurred 2-3 years before. When the case came to the United States Attorney's office, Mr. Rosenstein's office in Maryland, CFIUS had already been approved by two years or more.

DESANTIS: There was an FBI informant starting in 2009.

SESSIONS: Well, you're going -- I have not talked with him, but the Department of Justice, I understand, has approved him providing information to the Congress and he's, I understand, will be set up in a few days and you'll be able to hear from him direct.

DESANTIS: You should too because from everything I've been proffered, he has evidence of illegal conduct 2009 and 2010 before this deal was agreed to involving Uranium One. It was all connected, and so I think that's something that we need to -- we need to do. Let me move on. The leaking you mentioned. You can't confirm or deny the existence of the leak against Michael Flynn, some of these other leaks used politically against the administration.

So let me ask you this. Since the president was elected, has anybody been held accountable, criminally or administratively for leaking information against the administration in a political -- with a political motive?

SESSIONS: Well, I think the individual in Georgia had a motive that's been charged, and -- but a number -- we have 27 ongoing investigations. Some of those involve leaks before President Trump took office and some after.

DESANTIS: Final question, just yesterday...

SESSIONS: But before that, there was only three per year -- only nine. There's three times as many this year as in the entire three years before being investigated.

DESANTIS: Final question. Why can't you just tell us whether or not the FBI expended resources to give money to Christopher Steele? It's not about going into the investigation. We have oversight over your department. Did -- were tax payer dollars used to give to Christopher Steele? Yes or no?

SESSIONS: I'm not able to do that. I think that for several reasons. There's an ongoing matter and also it may well involve classified information.

DESANTIS: Thank you Mr. Attorney General.

GOODLATTE: The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline for five minutes.

CICILLINE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I apologize in advance, Mr. Attorney General, I'm going to try and go through some questions quickly. Multiple trustworthy reports revealed last week that the Justice Department may require AT&T to sell CNN, among other assets, as a requirement for the approval of its proposed acquisition of Time Warner. Subsequently, more reports have surfaced that Rupert Murdoch, the Chairman of 20th Century Fox and a confidante of President Trump, has twice contacted AT&T in an effort to buy CNN.

This is, of course, very disturbing to those of us that are responsible for oversight of these issues. And my first question is has any White House employee or official including the president, contacted the Justice Department regarding the AT&T -- Time Warner transaction or any other transaction?

SESSIONS: I'm not able to comment on conversations or communications the Department of Justice top people have with top people at the White House. CICILLINE: Well you -- Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that the witness be directed to answer the question. You -- either you're invoking the Fifth Amendment or you're invoking executive privilege. You just can't decline to answer because it's uncomfortable. So I'd ask, Mr. Chairman, that the witness be directed answer my question.

GOODLATTE: The witness can answer the question in the fashion that he has determined.

CICILLINE: Reserving my right, Mr. Chairman, I'll move on. Mr. Sessions, are you not going to answer the question? Whether any White House or -- any White House officials have attempted to interfere or speak to the Justice Department about this transaction?

SESSIONS: According to (ph) long-standing Department of Justice policy, the Department of Justice does not reveal privileged conversations --

CICILLINE: OK, I'm we're claiming my time then, Mr. Sessions --

SESSIONS: Or conversations between the White House and the Department of Justice. --

CICILLINE: I'm going to move on to a new area. The -- the Foreign Agents Registration Act, you're familiar with it?

SESSIONS: Right.

CICILLINE: You think it's good policy?

SESSIONS: I think it's a good law.

CICILLINE: You enforce it, correct?

SESSIONS: It has value, yes.

CICILLINE: In addition to Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, have any other Trump campaign advisors or senior administration officials lobbied for foreign governments without disclosing under the Foreign Agent Registrations Act?

SESSIONS: I'm not able to comment on that.

CICILLINE: Why not?

SESSIONS: Repeat the question. Perhaps I misunderstood it.

CICILLINE: In addition to Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, have any Trump campaign advisors or senior administration officials lobbied for foreign governments without disclosing under the Foreign Agent Registration Act?

SESSIONS: That would be a matter should be directed to Mr. Mueller, I believe.

CICILLINE: Moving to a new question. On October 6, the Department of Justice -- actually, you on the behalf Department of Justice, issued 25 page memo to all Federal Agencies purporting to provide guidance on religious-liberty protections under federal law. In the guidance you direct -- or you indicate that an exemption or accommodation for religious organizations from antidiscrimination law might be required, even where Congress has not expressly exempted religious organizations. You remember that, right?

SESSIONS: Yes.

CICILLINE: OK. Would that mean, under your interpretation, that an employee of FEMA could refuse to provide disaster assistance to an unmarried couple who lived together, based on the employee's religious belief that men and women should not cohabitate before marriage? Yes or no?

SESSIONS: I don't believe that it could be interpreted that way. It's just a policy document. We didn't try to write it --

CICILLINE: Would -- thank you --

(CROSSTALK)

SESSIONS: No, just -- you have to answer.

CICILLINE: Would -- this is a yes or no. Would the guidance you provide permit a HUD-funded shelter to refuse to house in unmarried pregnant woman based on the grant recipient's belief that sex outside of marriage is a sin? Yes or no.

SESSIONS: Every matter -- first, I don't think so, number one, under the guidance. But also, the guidance does not repeal establish laws that are in place. And it was written -- that guidance was, to clarify the establishments of both a religious freedom --

CICILLINE: Thank you, Mr. Sessions. I have very limited time. I appreciate your answer.

SESSIONS: Well, thank you (ph).

CICILLINE: Now returning to the Papadopoulos issue, in your October 18 testimony you purport to have forgotten this conversation about -- by Mr. Papadopoulos about Russia that you put an end to. You said you weren't being dishonest, you weren't being -- making a false statement, you simply forgot it. Do you remember that testimony?

SESSIONS: Something like that, yes.

CICILLINE: OK. When did you remember the remarks of Mr. Papadopoulos? When did that memory come back to you?

SESSIONS: I think it was when it -- the press came up with it. Or some -- it -- it was revealed in the press.

CICILLINE: That was the first time you remembered it?

SESSIONS: I would recall that my October statements was a -- a broad question --

CICILLINE: No, I understand. Mr. Sessions, I have a limited time --

SESSIONS: And that it -- this event occurred over --

CICILLINE: You are senior -- Mr. Sessions, you were a senior campaign official --

SESSIONS: It was over 18 months before.

CICILLINE: And a member of the national security team. Did you ever exchange any e-mail, text message or any other communication to or from Mr. Papadopoulos about Russia or any other subject?

SESSIONS: Repeat the category, list of things?

CICILLINE: Exchange any e-mail, text message, or any communication to or from Mr. Papadopoulos about any subjects?

SESSIONS: I do not believe so. I'm confident I did not.

CICILLINE: Did any -- did anybody ever forward to you a communication from Mr. Papadopoulos?

SESSIONS: I don't recall it.

CICILLINE: Did anybody from the campaign ever communicate with you about Mr. Papadopoulos?

SESSIONS: I can't say that there were no conversations about him before or after this event.

CICILLINE: Were you told about the contact...

SESSIONS: I did push back at him.

GOODLATTE: Time for the gentleman has expired. The witness can answer the question.

SESSIONS: Chair, I don't have a specific recollection, Mr. Chairman.

CICILLINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask to make a unanimous consent request. I would ask unanimous to insert the following materials into the record, a letter from me and Ranking Member Conyers requesting a hearing on the president's interference with antitrust enforcement matters before the Justice Department, a letter Amy Klobuchar, Diane Feinstein and several others to the Justice Department urging it to oppose any attempt by the White House to interfere with antitrust laws, enforcement decisions particularly for political reasons.

A July article in the New York Times reporting that senior White House advisors have discussed using the AT&T/Time-Warner merger as a potential point of leverage over CNN and nine letters from as far back as February of this year from various members of the Judiciary committee seeking information on a wide range of subjects addressed to the Attorney General of the United States that have been ignored, that we have received no response from. And I ask...

GOODLATTE: It is without objection the document be made part of the record. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe for five minutes.

RATCLIFFE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, good to see you. If FBI Director Chris Wray held a press conference tomorrow without your knowledge to announce a charging decision in a major federal investigation, would you consider that an inappropriate departure from longstanding Department of Justice and FBI policy?

SESSIONS: Under the situation today, under the -- the letter that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein wrote with regard to Mr. Comey, I think it would be a terminatable offense. It's not discipline. We need to be disciplined in this department. We don't need to be leaking and we don't need to have people taking actions outside their realm. Maybe sometimes people make an honest mistake but that would be a very dramatic thing which he would never do.

RATCLIFFE: So I'll take that as an emphatic "yes." Now, to your knowledge, are there currently federal prosecutors in your office that are predetermining cases prior to the interviewing of key witnesses to include the subjects or targets of those investigations?

SESSIONS: I don't believe so.

RATCLIFFE: Is it a practice in your Department of Justice to allow immunized witnesses to sit in the interviews of the subject or target of federal investigations?

[13:15:00] SESSIONS: That would not be a normal process, for sure.

RATCLIFFE: Mr. Attorney General, these are just a few of the irregularities or anomalies that have taken place in how the Department of Justice and the FBI have handled these investigations and prosecutions prior to 2016 and now, apparently, a departure from how you're handling them. It's also these irregularities that have shaken the faith and trust of people in our Department of Justice.

Look, I'm of the opinion that for the last eight years we have survived the worst presidency of my lifetime. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent their time today trying to convince you that we have to survive a bad president right now. That's okay. For 240 years our Republic has withstood that. Elected officials come and go but right now where we are and what our history won't tell us is what happens to our Republic if people lose all faith and trust in the Department of Justice and the FBI to fairly investigate and to prosecute violations of the rule of law? Now, at one point and time you and I held the same position in the Department of Justice.

I was U.S. Attorney as were you. You've obviously been promoted. If public opinion polls tell us anything, the Chair that I hold right now signals that I've been demoted, but my time as U.S. Attorney taught me something that you said in your opening which is that the Department of Justice must always transcend politics to uphold the rule of law. I think more than anything else what the American people want to hear from you today is that is in fact the case.

As Mr. Gowdy said in his line of questioning, Lady Justice is supposed to be holding a set of scales wearing a blindfold. She's not supposed to have her finger on the scales. And I think the American people have every reason to question whether or not that's where we are right now.

So more than anything else what I'm asking from you is to hear from you that you are prepared -- no, that you are committed to go wherever the facts and evidence leads you regardless of the political consequences for any political party or any person to include Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or yourself.

SESSIONS: Yes, I am and the Department of Justice is. You'll soon have Director Wray, I believe, coming before your committee. I hope you'll ask him these questions and I think you'll be impressed with his commitment in that regard. As United States attorneys it was -- we were raised in that idea. I -- I've never forgotten. I'm glad I did my 15 years in the Department of Justice before I came to Congress.

I'm -- you get your values shaped at maybe a younger age, but I think I understand the role I have, the responsibility we have to do justice, and I would say this that in the long run if I want the respect of this body, both sides of the aisle, I've got to follow the rules in the department. And it may frustrate you that I can't answer questions or confirm you or other members on this side. It may frustrate people on this side, but if I'm not prepared to do that, then I don't think I'll ever restore the Department of Justice.

And that's what our goal would be to hopefully -- hopefully it's not as bad as you say, but I think there's danger out there and we want to fix it.

RATCLIFFE: Mr. Attorney General, thank you for your continued service. I yield back.

GOODLATTE: The Chair would advise members of the committee that there are about eight and a half minutes remaining in this vote. The gentleman from California has persuaded me that we'll permit him to proceed but other members are advised, we will reconvene immediately following this vote series. And the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell's recognized for five minutes.

SWALWELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for appearing, Mr. Attorney General, and please express my gratitude to the men and women who serve the Department of Justice. You stated in your opening statement that my story has never changed, but Mr. Attorney General, it's changed three times. And today we heard the third edition when you told us that you do now recall Mr. Papadopoulos mentioning that he had contacts in Russia.

And so I have a slide for you that I'd like to display. It's a January 10th, 2017 exchange with Senator Franken where he asks about campaign communications with Russia, and you stated, "Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of these activities." Mr. Attorney General, if you were asked that question today, recalling that you are now aware of what Mr. Papadopoulos said on March 31, would you answer that question differently?

SESSIONS: All I would say to you, Congressman, is if you fairly treat the exchange I had with Senator Franken, I think you can understand where, when I answered the question, I felt like I was answering it properly.

SWALWELL: But you would agree, today, it should be answered differently if it was asked in the same form today, considering your recollection that you just gave us?

SESSIONS: I believe that when I was -- you're asking me today explicitly, did you meet with any other Russians --

SWALWELL: Today --

SESSIONS: I am prepared to say, I did. I met with the Ambassador in my office, with at least two of my staff -- senior, respected patriots, Colonels retired in the Army. --

SWALWELL: And Mr. Attorney General, --

SESSIONS: And where nothing improper occurred at all. So --

SWALWELL: Once and for all, can we answer the question? --

SESSIONS: I am once and for all answering the question, Congressman. I don't understand why you won't take my answer.

SWALWELL: Well, we -- we -- we're on the third edition, Mr. Attorney General. So during that -- your time on the campaign, did any person on earth state that they were communicating with Russians, traveling to Russia, or asked the campaign to meet with Russians -- to your recollection?

SESSIONS: Did you get -- was I asked that question?

SWALWELL: No, I'm asking you today, to your knowledge, did any person on the campaign tell you they were going to Russia? --

SESSIONS: I'm prepared to answer the question. But I just will not answer it in a way that suggests that I, in any way, intentionally misled anyone when I answered the question. And --

SWALWELL: What's the answer to the question, Mr. Attorney General?

SESSIONS: The answer is, I met with the Ambassador in my office for less than an hour, I believe. And I met -- he came up to me after a speech at the convention, when it was raised to me that this -- months later. Nobody said immediately, it was an error by press. I immediately revealed and acknowledged -- or told them the meetings that I had.

SWALWELL: With respect to Carter Page, he told you, as you just acknowledged, that he was going to Russia. He was also on the national security team. And this is the second person within about three months now that is bringing up Russian contacts. And you did not tell him to not go to Russia, is that correct?

SESSIONS: No, I didn't tell them not to go to Russia. --

SWALWELL: And you didn't tell anyone else on the campaign that he had told you that. Is that right?

SESSIONS: And I -- I don't recall him saying that. But -- so -- am I supposed to stop him from taking a trip?

SWALWELL: Well at that point, did you think that -- now that two people have talked about either going to Russia or having contacts with Russia, that the campaign, where you were the Chairman of the national security team, might have a Russia problem?

SESSIONS: Well, if I read what's been said about the Papadopoulos meeting -- the one that was a little, somewhat earlier than that --I did say don't -- you -- you don't represent --something to that. I pushed back at his trip and I was concerned that he not go off somewhere, pretending to represent the Trump campaign. He had no authority for that. This young man didn't have any ability and ought not to be going off -- representing the campaign. Then --

SWALWELL: Mr. Attorney General, --

SESSIONS: Then -- the next one -- the next one is Carter Page. And he says, from what I see in his testimony -- interviews, he said after the meeting was over, he goes out and he --

SWALWELL: Moving on, Mr. Attorney General, --

SESSIONS: He goes out and he says he's going to Russia. I made no response.

SWALWELL: CIA Director Pompeo has called WikiLeaks --

SESSIONS: So that -- what does that mean?

SWALWELL: Well, Mr. -- the American people will judge that --

SESSIONS: I don't think it means that I've done anything dishonest and certainly doesn't --

SWALWELL: Mr. Attorney General, the CIA Director has judged that WikiLeaks is a hostile non-state intelligence service. Do you agree?

SESSIONS: I'm not able to disagree with that.

SWALWELL: But candidate Trump who you were working for...

SESSIONS: He's more aware of its activities perhaps than I.

SWALWELL: But candidate Trump said throughout the campaign, "I love Wikileaks." Do you love Wikileaks, Mr. Attorney General?

SESSIONS: I'm not a fan of Wikileaks.

SWALWELL: Do you think it was appropriate that Donald Trump, Jr. communicated with Wikileaks during the course of the campaign?

SESSIONS: I'm not able to make a judgment about that.

SWALWELL: Thank you again.

GOODLATTE: Time, gentleman, has expired. Committee will stand in recess until immediately after this vote.

[13:24:26]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: This hearing is going to continue. They're taking a quick recess. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world.

A very contentious hearing going on with the attorney general of the United States, Jeff Sessions, on several important issues. He flatly, repeatedly denied that the -- he intentionally lied before earlier congressional investigations. He also says no decision, no final decision, has yet been made, whether to name a new special counsel to investigate Hillary Clinton, the Democrat, as far as earlier controversies are concerned. He also says he has no reason to doubt the women who have come forward and made allegations of sexual abuse by the Republican Senate candidate in Alabama, Roy Moore.

[13:25:15] Let's bring in Jeffrey Toobin, our senior legal analyst.

Jeffrey, you saw the exchanges going on and there were references to earlier statements he made. He is now fixing some of those statements, but he's insisting he did not deliberately lie.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Right. The -- you know, the core of the Democrats' accusation against Sessions has been that he was untruthful about his knowledge of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. He has acknowledged in this hearing that he neglected to say earlier about his contacts with George Papadopoulos and his interactions with Papadopoulos about relations -- you know, contacts with Russia.

BLITZER: Papadopoulos has pleaded guilty.

TOOBIN: Correct, has pleaded guilty as part of Director Mueller's investigation. He said simply I forgot. I was -- this was a passing conversation. I didn't -- I didn't remember it.

What's a little odd about his testimony is that he says, I didn't remember it until I heard about it in news reports. But now I remember that I was categorically informing him, Papadopoulos that is, not to go to Russia, not to make contacts on behalf of the campaign.

So it's -- it's a rather dramatic change in his testimony from, I don't remember to, I now remember that I gave emphatic direction on this. BLITZER: And let me play the clip because a lot of the members of the

House in this House Judiciary Committee, they're referring to an exchange that the attorney general had in the Senate with Senator Al Franken earlier in the year. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. AL FRANKEN (D), MINNESOTA: If there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?

JEFF SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERA: Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities.

FRANKEN: You don't believe that surrogates from the Trump campaign had communications with the Russians? Is that what you are saying?

SESSIONS: I did not and I'm not aware of anyone else that did. And I don't believe it happened.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, so, Jeffrey, you heard what he said then. He's giving a very different story today.

TOOBIN: Very different regarding George Papadopoulos. There was also the issue of Carter Page, what he knew of what Carter Page was doing with the Russians. On that one he seems to be saying, well, to this day I am unaware of anything that Carter Page was doing with the Russians. But certainly it's the Papadopoulos exchange that is the most contradictory to what he told Senator Al Franken.

BLITZER: Carrie Cordero is with us. She served as counsel to the assistant attorney general for national security. What's your reaction when you hear what he said then, what he's saying today, and he's being very forceful today saying, I didn't deliberately mislead. I didn't lie. I side what I thought was the truth. I've gotten more information since then.

CARRIE CORDERO, FORMER COUNSEL TO U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, I mean this is the -- another hearing where Attorney General Sessions really comes out very forceful, very defiant in terms of defending his own honor before members of Congress. And he had some explaining to do in terms of explaining the differences between his prior testimony and today. He does it by basically saying, I didn't remember before and now I remember. But at the same time by -- by sort of getting himself out of that -- any concern about whether he lied to Congress, he paints a very unflattering picture about his leadership of the National Security Advisory Team, which he presents it as sort of him not really being in charge, not really knowing what others on the team were up to.

BLITZER: He said basically, you know -- Margaret Talev is with us, CNN political analyst, senior White House correspondent for "Bloomberg News." He basically said that whole advisory -- National Security Advisory Panel that he chaired was a joke. It wasn't really serious. He put together some guys, he had a meeting and that was about it.

MARGARET TALEV, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. So at the beginning of the administration, the emphasis and priority was on legitimizing, you know, the chops that the administration had. Now that we're this far into the Mueller probe and the congressional probes, that's really been set aside in favor of trying to make sure that legal liability is at a minimum in any of these issues. The challenge for Jeff Sessions -- and we've seen him today during this really interesting hearing, at some points distance himself, give himself a little bit of running room or separation from the president's comments, the president's rhetoric or positions.

But he's in a precarious position in which the president has essentially taken getting rid of Jeff Sessions off the table for now. If he does anything in any of these hearings or testimony that undercuts or undermines his credibility as the top legal official, that could change that. So he may get pressure from both Democrats and Republicans in this setting.

[13:30:13] BLITZER: David Drucker is with us, our CNN political --