U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

32–476 WASHINGTON : 2018

OVERSIGHT HEARING WITH DEPUTY ATTORNEY 

GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 13, 2017 

Serial No. 115–49 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MATT GAETZ, Florida 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIE ́ RREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

TED LIEU, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington 

BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

DECEMBER 13, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, New York, Committee on the Judiciary ............ 3 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department 

of Justice 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 7 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD

Questions for the record submitted to The Honorable Rod Rosenstein .............. 89 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING WITH DEPUTY 

ATTORNEY GENERAL ROD ROSENSTEIN 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Goodlatte [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Smith, Chabot, Issa, King, 

Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Marino, Gowdy, Labrador, Farenthold, Collins, DeSantis, Buck, Ratcliffe, Gaetz, Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, 

Rutherford, Handel, Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson 

of Georgia, Deutch, Gutie ́rrez, Bass, Jeffries, Cicilline, Swalwell, 

Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, and Schneider. 

Staff Present: Shelley Husband, Staff Director; Branden Ritchie, 

Deputy Staff Director; Zach Somers, Parliamentarian and General 

Counsel; Bobby Parmiter, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; Perry 

Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel, Chief of Staff, Staff Director; 

Danielle Brown, Minority Parliamentarian and Chief Legislative 

Counsel; Aaron Hiller, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel; Joe 

Graupensperger, Minority Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; Monalisa 

Dugue, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime, 

Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations; Arya 

Hariharan, Minority Counsel; Matthew Morgan, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Veronica Eligan, Minority Professional 

Staff Member. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Good morning. The Judiciary Committee 

will come to order. And without objection, the chair is authorized 

to declare recesses of the committee at any time. 

We welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing on ‘‘Oversight 

Hearing with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein,’’ and I’ll 

begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. 

Thank you, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, for appearing 

for the first time in front of this committee. There is much to discuss today, and we look forward to your testimony and answers to 

our questions. 

As chairman of the committee with primary oversight of the Department of Justice and the FBI, I have always supported the Department and the FBI in performing their valuable missions to 

2 

keep our Nation safe and to hold individuals accountable for criminal conduct. Yet, I and many on this committee now find ourselves 

in the very difficult position of questioning the actions of both prior 

and current Department and FBI leadership. 

You have a unique role at the Department of Justice in that you 

appointed Special Counsel Mueller and have a supervisory role 

over his investigation. It is therefore very appropriate for you to 

appear before this committee to answer questions related to the 

scope of the special counsel’s investigation, as well as its current 

efficacy in light of various events calling into question its impartiality. 

Reports on the political predisposition and potential bias of certain career agents and Department lawyers on Special Counsel 

Mueller’s team are deeply troubling to all citizens who expect a 

system of blind and equal justice. 

The Department of Justice investigations must not be tainted by 

individuals imposing their own political prejudices. We are now beginning to better understand the magnitude of this insider bias on 

Mr. Mueller’s team. 

First, we have FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page 

exchanging communications showing extreme bias against President Trump, a fact that would be bad enough if it weren’t for the 

fact that these two individuals were employed as part of the 

Mueller ‘‘Dream Team’’ investigating the very person for whom 

they were showing disdain. 

And calling it mere disdain is generous. According to the documents produced last night to this committee, Mr. Strzok and Ms. 

Page referred to the President as an utter idiot, a loathsome 

human, and awful, while continually praising Hillary Clinton and 

the Obamas. 

These text messages prove what we all suspected: High ranking 

FBI officials involved in the Clinton investigation were personally 

invested in the outcome of the election and clearly let their strong 

political opinions cloud their professional judgment. And this was 

only an initial disclosure containing heavy reductions. 

Second, former embattled FBI general counsel and current 

Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann expressed his awe of a 

former DOJ official for shunning the President and failing to faithfully execute the law. However, we are the ones now in awe that 

someone like Mr. Weissmann remains on an investigative team 

that looks more and more partisan. 

Third, we have learned that a top Mueller prosecutor, Jeannie 

Rhee, in addition to the other actions that would normally justify 

recusal, served as an attorney for the Clinton Foundation. Aren’t 

Department of Justice attorneys advised to avoid even the appearance of impropriety? A former Clinton employee is now investigating President Trump. This seems to be the very definition of 

appearance of impropriety. 

Fourth, we have just recently learned that another top Department of Justice official, Bruce Ohr, has been reassigned because of 

his wife and his connections with the infamous dossier and the 

company from whom the opposition research document originated. 

We hope to hear your assessment of the foregoing conflicts, 

whether individuals are being held accountable, and whether you 

3 

still have confidence in the judgment of the special counsel you 

named and supervised. 

Regarding the Clinton email scandal, you, along with Attorney 

General Sessions, have to date declined to appoint a second special 

counsel to investigate the improprieties that continue to surface related to the handling of the Clinton email investigation and other 

events surrounding the 2016 election. 

These are some of the important issues on which we will focus 

our energy and questions today. We want to understand your participation and the Department’s involvement in addressing both investigations. 

Mr. Deputy Attorney General, the Department of Justice’s reputation as an impartial arbiter of justice has been called into question. This taint of politicization should concern all Americans who 

have pride in the fairness of our Nation’s justice system. 

While we continue to call on you to appoint a second special 

counsel, as you are aware, we have also opened our own joint investigation with the House Oversight and Government Reform 

Committee to review FBI and the Department of Justice’s handling 

of the Clinton email investigation. 

I want to thank you and Attorney General Sessions for recently 

committing to provide us relevant documents to enable robust congressional oversight of this matter. I implore you to continue to 

work with us on these and other important matters facing our Nation. 

One of these matters involves a critical program for our national 

security, FISA Section 702. This committee passed on an overwhelming bipartisan basis the USA Liberty Act which maintains 

the integrity of the program while protecting cherished civil liberties. This overwhelming vote occurred despite the Department’s 

lobbying efforts against our bill. 

The USA Liberty Act was characterized as bad for the program, 

highly problematic, unworkable, and a proposal that would effectively dismantle Section 702. However, the reality is that this committee’s legislation struck a balance that promotes national security and civil liberties. 

I hope to hear from you why the Department of Justice felt it 

necessary to oppose a bill that would reauthorize 702 and instill 

confidence in the American people that their privacy and civil liberties are respected by a government whose duty it is to protect 

them. 

The Department of Justice must reacquire the trust of the American people. I know there are thousands of Department of Justice 

employees and line agents in the Federal Bureau of Investigations 

that are dedicated individuals that are dedicated to upholding the 

rule of law and protecting the American people, and I hope that we 

can come to a conclusion about those people who have not met that 

standard in this hearing today. 

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Attorney General, for appearing today. 

I now yield to the gentleman from New York, the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Nadler, for his comments. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

4 

Before I begin my statement, first, let me wholly endorse the 

comments of the chairman with reference to Section 702 and to the 

legislation that we reported out of this committee. 

And second, I want to acknowledge a letter the chairman and I 

received last night from the Democratic women of this committee. 

Our colleagues have written to ask that we convene a hearing regarding the serious and credible allegations of sexual harassment 

and misconduct leveled against President Trump by at least 19 

women. 

Without objection, I ask that this letter be made part of the 

record. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Without objection, it will be made part of 

the record. 

Mr. NADLER. And let me be clear, I unequivocally endorse this 

letter. We should convene this hearing as soon as possible. This is 

an opportunity for us to lead and to show the country that this 

kind of behavior is unacceptable at any level of government. 

Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying welcome to the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Rosenstein. For the better part of a year, 

my colleagues and I have implored this committee to conduct real 

oversight of the Department of Justice. 

On January 24, 2017, we wrote to Chairman Goodlatte insisting 

that the committee hold hearings on President Trump’s conflicts of 

interest at home and abroad. Citing to experts across the political 

spectrum, we show that, quote, ‘‘The administration’s attempts to 

address its ongoing conflicts of interest are so far wholly inadequate,’’ close quote. 

Six weeks later, Attorney General Sessions was forced to recuse 

himself from the Russia investigation, but we have not held a single hearing on the question of conflicts of interest. On March 8, we 

wrote again to the chairman encouraging him to call hearings on, 

quote, ‘‘Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. election.’’ Again, no 

such hearings were ever held. 

In fact, this committee, which during the Obama administration 

held half a dozen hearings around Operation Fast and Furious, received testimony from FBI Director Comey three times in 13 

months and detailed staff and resources to a Benghazi investigation that cost the public almost $8 million. 

This committee, from inauguration day until 4 weeks ago, was 

largely silent in terms of oversight. We haven’t lifted a finger on 

election security. Attorney General Sessions told us on November 

14 that he has done nothing to secure the next election from 

threats from at home and abroad. 

We have not once discussed the President’s abuse of the pardon 

power. While the hurricane bore down on Houston, President 

Trump sidelined the Office of the Pardon Attorney to pardon a serial human rights abuser who bragged about running a concentration camp in Arizona. 

And we have not held a single hearing on allegations of obstruction of justice at the White House, not for lack of evidence, but because, in the chairman’s words, quote, ‘‘There is a special counsel 

in place examining the issue,’’ unquote, and quote, ‘‘Several other 

congressional committees are looking into the matter,’’ and the 

5 

committee, quote, ‘‘does not have the time to conduct this critical 

oversight.’’ I ask my colleagues to keep those excuses in mind. 

Now, with the year coming to a close, with the leadership of the 

Department of Justice finally before us, what do my Republican 

colleagues want to discuss? Hillary Clinton’s emails. 

Let me repeat that. With all of these unresolved issues left on 

our docket, a week before we adjourn for the calendar year the majority’s highest oversight priority is Hillary Clinton’s emails and a 

few related text messages. 

As we saw in our recent hearings with the Department of Justice 

and the FBI, my Republican colleagues seem singularly focused on 

their call for a second special counsel, and failing that, on the need 

to investigate the investigators ourselves. 

The White House has now joined the call by House Republicans 

for a new special counsel to investigate the FBI. The President’s 

private lawyers have done the same. I understand the instinct to 

want to change the subject after the Flynn and Manafort indictments, but this request is grossly misguided for a number of reasons. 

First, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the special counsel regulations work. Some criminal investigations pose a 

conflict of interest to the Department of Justice. The Russia investigation is such a case because of the Attorney General’s ongoing 

recusal and because Department leadership assisted in the removal 

of Director Comey, among other reasons. In cases like these, the 

Attorney General may use a special counsel to manage the investigation outside of the ordinary chain of command. 

But the key here is the criminal investigation. That’s what special counsel does. The Department cannot simply assign a special 

counsel to look at things that bother the White House. There has 

to be enough evidence to have predicated a criminal investigation 

in the first place. Then and only then, if the facts warrant, can a 

special counsel be assigned to the case. 

So far, there’s been no credible factual or legal claim that anybody at the Department of Justice violated any law by deciding not 

to bring charges against Hillary Clinton or by attempting to meet 

with Fusion GPS. In other words, there is no investigation to which 

the Department could even assign a new special counsel. 

Second, the list of grievances raised by the majority for review 

by a new special counsel also seems wildly off the mark. For example, there is nothing unlawful about Director Comey sitting down 

to draft an early statement about the Clinton investigation. Nor 

would it have been unethical to outline his conclusions before the 

investigation was over if the clear weight of the evidence pointed 

in one direction. Nor is there anything wrong with FBI agents expressing their private political views via private text messages, as 

Peter Strzok and Lisa Page appeared to have done in the 375 text 

messages we received last night. In fact, Department regulations 

expressly permit that sort of private communication. 

I’ve reviewed those text messages and I’m left with two thoughts. 

First, Peter Strzok did not say anything about Donald Trump 

that the majority of Americans weren’t also thinking at the same 

time. 

6 

And second, in a testament to his integrity and situational 

awareness, when the Office of the Inspector General made Mr. 

Mueller aware of these exchanges, he immediately removed Mr. 

Strzok from his team. 

To the extent that we are now engaged in oversight of political 

bias at the FBI, this committee should examine evidence of a coordinated effort by some agents involved in the Clinton investigation to change the course of the campaign in favor of President 

Trump by leaking sensitive information to the public and by 

threatening to leak additional information about new emails after 

the investigation was closed. 

On Monday, Ranking Member Cummings and I sent a letter to 

the Department asking for additional materials related to these 

leaks, as well as to the claims that these efforts may have been coordinated with former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, and other senior figures in the Trump 

campaign. 

Third, the President’s call for an investigation of the investigation is at best wildly dangerous to our democratic institutions. On 

the one hand, the President’s old ‘‘lock her up’’ cheer seems quaint 

after a couple of guilty pleas by Trump associates. 

On the other, as former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, no 

fan of Hillary Clinton, has said, the President’s continued threats 

to prosecute his political opponents is, quote, ‘‘something we don’t 

do here.’’ If the President were to carry out his threat, quote, again 

from Attorney General Mukasey, ‘‘it would be like a banana republic.’’ 

Finally, and most important, this investigation into the investigation cannot credibly be a priority for this committee at this 

time. I understand the instinct to want to give cover to the President. I am fearful that the majority’s effort to turn the tables on 

the special counsel will get louder and more frantic as the walls 

continue to close in around the President. 

But this committee has a job to do. President Trump has engaged in a persistent and dangerous effort to discredit both the free 

press and the Department of Justice. These are the agencies and 

institutions under our jurisdiction. 

Every minute that our majority wastes on covering for President 

Trump is a minute lost on finding a solution for the DREAMers, 

or curbing a vicious spike in hate crimes, or preventing dangerous 

individuals from purchasing firearms, or stopping the President 

from further damaging the constitutional order. 

I hope my colleagues will use today’s hearing as an opportunity 

to find their way back to the true work of the House Judiciary 

Committee. 

I thank the chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. We welcome our distinguished witness. If 

you would please rise, I will begin by swearing you in. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to 

give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 

so help you God? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I do. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

7 

Let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative. 

Mr. Rod Rosenstein was sworn in as the 37th Deputy Attorney 

General of the United States on April 26, 2017, by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Mr. Rosenstein has had a distinguished career 

in public service. He began his legal career in the Public Integrity 

Section of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division and later 

served as counsel to the Deputy Attorney General and Principal 

Deputy Assistant General for the Tax Division. 

Until his appointment by President Trump, Mr. Rosenstein 

served for 12 years as the United States attorney for the District 

of Maryland. He holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from the 

Wharton School and a JD from Harvard Law School. 

General Rosenstein, your written statement will be entered into 

the record in its entirety, and we ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. 

Welcome. We’re pleased to have you here. 

TESTIMONY OF HONORABLE ROD ROSENSTEIN, DEPUTY 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Nadler, 

members of the committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify as part of your oversight of the United States Department of Justice. I appreciate your support and concern for the 

Department of Justice. I know several of you are alumni of the Department. Two, in fact, served alongside me as United States attorneys. And I’m very grateful for the opportunity to be with you 

today. 

As Deputy Attorney General, my job is to help the Attorney General to manage our Department’s components, including 7 Main 

Justice litigating divisions, 94 U.S. Attorney’s Offices, the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the 

Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the United 

States Marshals Service, the Office of Justice Programs, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Office of the Inspector General, and 

many others. 

Our Department includes over 115,000 employees and tens of 

thousands of contractors stationed in every State and territory and 

in many foreign nations. 

We prevent terrorism and violent crime, illegal drug distribution, 

fraud, corruption, child abuse, civil rights violations, and countless 

other threats to the American people. 

We enforce tax laws, antitrust laws, and environmental laws. We 

represent the United States in the Supreme Court, the Courts of 

Appeal, and the District Courts, and in State and territorial courts. 

We protect Federal judges, manage Federal prisons, review parole 

applications, oversee the bankruptcy system. 

We assist Tribal governments and we adjudicate immigration 

cases. We provide legal advice to the President and to every Federal agency. We implement grant programs and support State and 

local law enforcement. We combat waste fraud and other misconduct involving employees and contractors. 

8 

We resolve foreign claims and represent our government in international law enforcement forums. We collect, analyze, and disseminate law enforcement data. 

And we perform countless other important functions for the 

American people. 

Department of Justice employees are united by a shared understanding that our mission is to pursue justice, protect public safety, 

preserve government property, defend civil rights, and promote the 

rule of law. 

The mission attracted me to law enforcement, but the people who 

carry out that mission are what I treasure most about my job. With 

very few exceptions, they are honorable, principled, and trustworthy. 

America’s Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies are 

more professional today than ever. Rigorous scrutiny by internal 

affairs offices and external oversight agencies has resulted in increased accountability and higher standards. When wrongdoing occurs, we are more likely to discover it and we remedy it. That is 

critical to building and maintaining public confidence. 

Over the past 8 months, I’ve spoken with thousands of Department employees around the country. I remind them that justice is 

not only our name, justice is our mission. Justice requires a fair 

and impartial process. That’s why we have a special responsibility 

to follow ethical and professional standards. 

In 1941, Attorney General Robert Jackson said that the citizen’s 

safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, seeks truth and not victims, serves the law and not factional 

purposes, and approaches the task with humility. 

Under the leadership of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and an 

experienced team appointed by President Trump, the Department 

of Justice is working tirelessly to protect American citizens and to 

uphold the rule of law. 

Today I look forward to discussing some of our Department’s important work. Following the U.S. Attorney’s Manual and the example set by past Department of Justice officials, we always seek to 

accommodate congressional oversight requests while protecting the 

integrity of our investigations, preserving the Department’s independence, and safeguarding sensitive information. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Rosenstein. I’ll start by 

recognizing myself for questions. 

Last week Director Wray indicated that the normal procedures 

were not followed in the investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s 

email server. It said it was not normal protocol to have witnesses 

sit in the room during an interview of the target of an investigation. 

If the inspector general determines that normal protocol was not 

followed or that the investigation was closed or otherwise tainted 

for political purposes, would that be a justification, in your mind, 

to reopen the investigation? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, we are certainly anticipating 

the outcome of that inspector general investigation. As you know, 

that’s been ongoing for some time. I’m hopeful that it will be concluded within the next couple of months. And when we get those 

9 

results we’ll take appropriate action. I don’t know exactly what the 

findings are going to be, but it’s always appropriate for us to review any findings of impropriety or misconduct and take appropriate action. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. When you announced your decision to terminate the employment of FBI Director Comey, in that decision 

you announced some practices that I took it to mean you thought 

were inappropriate actions on the part of former FBI Director. Do 

you think that those actions on his part would merit further investigation in how that whole matter was conducted? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, as you’re aware, the inspector 

general is conducting an investigation into the handling of that Hillary Clinton email investigation, and I believe that the matters 

that you’ve referred to are part of his investigation. 

The memo that you’re familiar with, that I provided, reflects my 

personal opinion. It’s not an official finding of misconduct, that’s 

the Inspector General’s job. He’ll reach his own independent investigation. But as you pointed out, my views about it are already 

known. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Are you aware of any prior efforts by the 

Judiciary Committee, this committee, to unduly restrict the ability 

of the intelligence community to do its job of protecting our national security? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I’m not personally aware of any, no, sir. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Are you aware that this committee has 

primary oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act due 

in part to the significant constitutional and legal questions that 

government surveillance raises? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I respect the Congress’ decision 

about which committee has oversight. I know that both this committee and the Intelligence Committee have an interest in that 

issue. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Well, given that you understand this committee’s jurisdiction and its history of providing the intelligence 

community with the tools it needs, why would we, in the words of 

the Department, attempt to, quote, ‘‘dismantle Section 702 of our 

Nation’s most important surveillance program’’? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, I certainly would hope that wouldn’t be 

the case. I don’t know who made the statement you’re referring to. 

I know the Department, obviously, has expressed its opinion 

about the reauthorization, which we think is critically important, 

of Section 702. I respect there are differences of opinion, but I 

think the Department has been very clear that we believe it’s essential to national security that Section 702 be reauthorized. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. We agree with you that it’s essential that 

Section 702 be reauthorized. 

We also believe that it’s essential that the civil liberties of American citizens be protected and that a standard be imposed on the 

examination of information about U.S. citizens incidentally gathered as a part of the Section 702 program with the surveillance of 

non-U.S. citizens outside the United States, but incidentally gathering information about U.S. citizens, and then being looked into 

by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation without a warrant. 

10 

I’m not aware of that being appropriate in any other type of investigation that they might be conducting. We’re not talking about 

terrorist attack, we’re not talking about national security, because 

we have clearly distinguished that. 

We’re simply talking about crimes that have already occurred 

that are being investigated, as they should be investigated by the 

Department, but under the procedures that the American people 

would expect that they would follow to protect their civil liberties 

in other circumstances. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I’ve had the advantage over the last 8 months of having a role in overseeing our 

national security operations. 

I discussed this with Director Wray yesterday, and if you like, I 

could give you a detailed explanation. It might take a couple of 

minutes, but I’d be happy to give you some details. 

But the bottom line is that it really is critical to national security 

that the FBI have the ability to query the data. That’s the issue 

here. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. And our legislation allows them to do 

that. But if the query provides a hit that they want to read an 

email, they want to see other documentation, they want to see in 

its full form, they are required to get a warrant under those circumstances. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. And I discussed this with Director Wray. And 

what happens when the FBI conducts these queries, Mr. Chairman, 

is that typically their leads that are not necessarily based on probable cause but based on a lead, a suspicion, and the ability to query 

that data and then follow up on it gives the FBI the opportunity 

to put two and two together, that connect the dots. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. There are lots of leads that any law enforcement person would like to pursue, but we have protections 

against them pursuing it without appropriate standard for doing it 

in a whole host of other ways to protect people from unreasonable 

searches. And this is a search of information about a United States 

citizen. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, it’s a query as a constitutional matter. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. We allow the initial query. Once that results in something the agent wants to look at, I don’t see how you 

distinguish the further reading of emails or other things from a 

search. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If I could take a couple of minutes, I could explain to you. I talked with Director Wray about an appropriate way 

to explain this publicly. 

Hypothetically, let’s say, for example, that a local police department receives a call that somebody has purchased a large quantity 

of hydrogen peroxide. And something made the clerk at the store 

suspicious about that, so he contacts the local police. 

There’s no probable cause, there’s nothing illegal about what the 

person did, but something that caused concern. The local police 

may—— 

Chairman GOODLATTE. General Rosenstein, let me interrupt you, 

because the very specific instance that you are citing was cited to 

us in our discussions with the FBI, and that very specific protection for the FBI was added to our legislation. 

11 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, the example I’m providing is a situation 

where there would not be probable cause, but we think it would be 

appropriate for the FBI to follow up. And what we’re trying to 

avoid is a situation where we re-erect a wall that would prevent 

the FBI from gaining access to information that might allow them 

to connect a lead to information that implicates national security. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you. My time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

On Monday, Ranking Member Cummings and I wrote you a letter, sir, about the majority’s ongoing investigation into the investigation of former Secretary Clinton. 

Without objection, I ask unanimous consent that our letter be 

placed into the record. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Without objection, it will be made a part 

of the record. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

The first part of our letter discusses the Department’s failure to 

provide the minority with access to the documents you’ve already 

provided to the majority. 

Yes or no, will you commit to ensuring that the minority, that 

we receive equal access to any materials that you may provide to 

this committee in the future? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. And I believe, my understanding is that 

that information may have been provided—— 

Mr. NADLER. I’m not interested in the past at this point. Thank 

you. That’s what I wanted. I have a lot of questions. 

The majority of this committee, the White House, and President 

Trump’s private attorneys have all called for the Department of 

Justice to appoint a new special counsel to investigate a number 

of Hillary Clinton-related matters. I think we could benefit from 

your experience in how the special counsel regulations work. 

The regulations say the Attorney General, or in your case the 

Acting Attorney General, will appoint a special counsel when you 

determine that, one, criminal investigation of a person or matter is 

warranted; and two, the investigation either presents a conflict of 

interest to the Department or some other strong public interest requires you to appoint a special counsel. 

That first part, when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted, is that part of the regulations optional? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No, that is a part of the regulations. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Thank you. 

So a criminal investigation must first be determined to be warranted before you can assign a special counsel to the matter? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. And at the Department of Justice, a 

criminal investigation requires an initial assessment and a preliminary review of the evidence? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. NADLER. Has that assessment been made with respect to 

former Director Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation? 

12 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I’m not going to comment on any investigations. 

In the normal course, before we made a determination, we would 

conduct an appropriate review. 

Mr. NADLER. And I assume your answer would be the same if I 

asked you about the FBI’s interaction with Fusion GPS. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It would be the same for anything, yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Then presuming for a moment, presuming for 

a moment that the Department has conducted an initial assessment and found no predicate for criminal investigation, so in plain 

English there is no ongoing criminal investigation, under this presumption, could you or Attorney General Sessions simply appoint 

a special counsel to look into these matters? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. 

Mr. NADLER. As I said earlier, to my knowledge there’s been no 

credible factual or legal claim that anybody at the Department violated any law by deciding not to bring charges or by attempting to 

meet with Fusion GPS. 

If that is true, if there is no underlying criminal investigation because there is insufficient evidence of a crime in this or any other 

case, do the regulations permit you to appoint a special counsel? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

According to the Department, the Office of the Inspector General 

informed Special Counsel Mueller of the existence of these text 

messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page on July 27, 2017, 

the texts you sent us last night. Mr. Mueller immediately concluded that Mr. Strzok could no longer participate in the investigation and he was removed from the team the same day. Did Mr. 

Mueller take appropriate action in this case? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes, he did. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you said 

that you would only fire Special Counsel Mueller for good cause 

and that you had not seen any yet. Several months have passed 

since then. Have you seen good cause to fire Special Counsel 

Mueller? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

If you were ordered today to fire Mr. Mueller, what would you 

do? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. As I’ve explained previously, I would follow the 

regulation. If there were good cause, I would act. If there were no 

good cause, I would not. 

Mr. NADLER. And you have seen no good cause so far? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

On May 1, the Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion arguing 

that ranking minority members do not have the authority to conduct oversight, unquote. Shortly thereafter, Politico reported that 

the White House Counsel instructed Federal agencies not to cooperate with oversight requests from Democrats. 

Since then, Democrats on this committee have written more than 

40 letters to the administration without any meaningful response 

thus far. 

13 

Can you clarify your current position on responding to letters 

from the minority? And are you concerned that the Department’s 

May 1 opinion serves to justify a policy of stonewalling by the administration? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. My position, Congressman, is that we make 

every effort to respond to any legitimate inquiry from a Member of 

Congress. Obviously, we prioritize inquiries propounded by the 

chair on behalf of the committee. But we will make an effort to respond to any inquiry. We get a lot of letters. 

Mr. NADLER. I’m sure. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. And so I apologize if there’s a delay. 

Mr. NADLER. Would you prioritize after letters from the chair letters from the minority? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Our goal is to respond to all those letters in a 

reasonable manner. In fact, when our new Assistant Attorney General, Steven Boyd, took office, there was quite a backlog. 

Mr. NADLER. And would you encourage the Office of Legal Counsel to withdraw its May 1 opinion? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I’ll take a look at it, Congressman. But as I 

said, without regard to what the law may require, our policy is to 

try to—— 

Mr. NADLER. I understand that, but you would take a look at 

whether you would encourage the Office of Legal Counsel to withdraw that May 1 opinion? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, I’m not committing to do anything. I will 

agree to look at it. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. Thank you. 

And finally, I just want to say and follow up with what the chairman was saying about Section 702. 

The bill that this committee reported specifically said—basically 

said that where you’re doing a counterintelligence or a foreign or 

a terrorism investigation, you don’t need a warrant to query Section 702 data. But where you’re conducting an investigation of domestic crimes, then, like any other expression of domestic crimes, 

you would need a warrant. So that the danger that I think you 

were referring to is taken care of by the bill. 

And I endorse the comments of the chairman to that effect, and 

I think you should take a look at that. I urge you to take a look 

at that. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rosenstein, I am concerned that the special counsel may be 

casting too wide of a net, that he is trying to catch all the fish in 

the ocean, not just the Soviet sharks. And if the special counsel 

were to obtain information not directly related to Russian interference with the election and he wanted to investigate that further, 

would he need to obtain your authority to expand the investigation? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes, he would. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Has he ever asked to expand the scope of the 

investigation? 

14 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I appreciate that question, Congressman. If I 

could explain briefly, there are a lot of media stories speculating 

about what the special counsel may or may not be doing. 

I know what he’s doing. I’m appropriately exercising my oversight responsibilities. So I can assure you that the special counsel 

is conducting himself consistently with our understanding about 

the scope of his investigation. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. That really wasn’t my question. My question 

was, has he asked you or consulted with you about a desire to expand the investigation beyond the original scope? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, the consultation actually is much more 

detailed than that. He consults with me. His office consults with 

me about their investigation, both within and without the scope. So 

I know what they’re authorized to do. 

Mr. SMITH. I know you know what they’re doing, but has he requested to expand the scope of the original jurisdiction? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. The scope of the original jurisdiction, as you 

know, is publicly set forth in that order. But the specific matters 

are not identified in the order. So I discussed that with Director 

Mueller when he started, and we’ve had ongoing discussion about 

exactly what is within the scope of his investigation. And to the extent there was any ambiguity about it, he’s received my permission 

to include those matters within his investigation. 

Mr. SMITH. So he has asked to expand the scope and you’ve given 

him permission. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. You’re characterizing it as an expansion. As I 

said, it’s a clarification in most cases. But he understands that this 

is a special counsel, it’s not an independent counsel. And I’m accountable for what they’re doing and I need to know what they’re 

doing. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Clarification may be an expansion, we may be 

caught up on the meaning of those words. But I do think, regardless, I think the American people have a right to know if the original jurisdiction has been expanded. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. The difficulty, Congressman, is that I have a 

responsibility not to talk about what’s being investigated, and 

that’s why the original order doesn’t identify any persons or 

charges. But we know what’s under investigation. 

Mr. SMITH. I’m not asking you to go into any specifics or to name 

names or to even talk about the subject, just whether or not the 

request has been made to expand it. You said you’ve clarified his 

jurisdiction. I assume that that would involve an expansion, as 

you’ve suggested. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I want to make sure I’m 100 percent accurate, 

and I’ll need to check and get back to you as to whether or not we 

considered particular issues to be a clarification or an expansion. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. But whatever it may be, I’m responsible for and 

I know what he’s investigating. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Please do get back to me on the difference between those two. 

Do you feel that the special counsel is authorized to investigate 

the personal finances of the Trump family members? 

15 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, that would implicate the concern 

that I’ve expressed that we just don’t talk about what’s under investigation. So I hope you don’t draw any inference pro or con. 

We’re simply not going to discuss it. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, do you think the personal finances comes under 

the original jurisdiction of direct involvement of Russian interference with the election? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I certainly appreciate your concern, Congressman, but I hope you appreciate my position that if I start answering what is and isn’t, I have gone down that road that I just don’t 

want to go down of discussing what’s under investigations. 

There have been four persons that have been charged. Those are 

known. And ordinarily the Department of Justice, that’s what we 

publicize. If we charge somebody with a crime, we publicize it. If 

we don’t charge anybody with a crime, we don’t talk about it. 

Mr. SMITH. But some of the people charged have been charged 

with crimes not directly connected to Russian interference with the 

election. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. The crimes with which they’re charged are publicly known. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. So in other words, you do feel that the special 

counsel can go into the personal finances not connected to Russian 

interference? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I hope I’ve been clear, Congressman. I am not 

commenting on that, on the scope of the investigation. 

Mr. SMITH. Alright. What about can the special counsel investigate the personal actions of staff unconnected to the Russian interference with the election? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Only if I determine that it’s appropriate for him 

to do so. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. So that’s your determination, not the special 

counsel’s? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. As I said, Congressman, I know what he’s 

doing. If I felt he was doing something inappropriate, I would take 

action. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. Let me just maybe summarize by saying that 

I think the American people deserve to know who is being investigated and why. 

I have one final question in my last couple of seconds here. 

As you know, and as many of us know, in the Lawyer’s Code of 

Ethics attorneys are supposed to avoid not just the actual impropriety itself, but the appearance of impropriety. The special counsel 

has hired at least eight attorneys who have direct connections to 

both the—to either the Obama or Clinton campaigns. Don’t you 

think that creates an appearance of impropriety? 

And I’m not saying whether you think they can do their jobs. 

Don’t you think it creates an appearance of impropriety? 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The witness is permitted to answer the question. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I do not believe—I’m not aware of any impropriety. 

We do have regulations. The special counsel is subject to all the 

Department’s rules and subject to oversight by the Department, inVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:20 Nov 10, 2018 Jkt 032476 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A476.XXX A476
16 

cluding the inspector general. I am not aware of any violation of 

those rules by the special counsel employees. 

Mr. SMITH. So you don’t think it creates the appearance of impropriety? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, appearance is, to some extent, in the eye 

of the beholder. We apply the Department’s rules and regulations 

in making those determinations, and we do have career ethics advisers who provide us counsel about that. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rosenstein. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Thank you. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr.Rosenstein, for being here with us today. 

You are a career attorney in the Department, isn’t that right? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I would say I was a career attorney. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Was a career attorney. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. You’ve spent your whole life working for the people of the United States as a career attorney until you were asked 

to fulfill the current function that you’re performing? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. As a U.S. attorney, I was a political appointee. 

So in the past 12 years I’ve been a political attorney, 15 years prior 

to that as a career attorney. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So let me ask you, in taking a look at the individuals who are working on the matters that we are discussing, are 

they career attorneys in the Department who are working on this? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Some of them are, Congresswoman. Under the 

regulation, the special counsel is permitted to request the detail of 

attorneys in the Department, if he believes it would be helpful. He 

also has authority to hire attorneys from outside the Department, 

and he’s used both approaches. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So wouldn’t they be subject to the principles, the 

merit system principles in the Civil Service Reform Act. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes, I believe they are. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So, you know, I was—we have been on the committee here for a long time. And I remember back in 2008 there 

were allegations that the Department of Justice had used politics 

as a basis for hiring and firing in the Department. And the Office 

of Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility 

issued a report outlining the impropriety of using politics in personnel decisions. 

One of the things they said was that the Department’s policy on 

nondiscrimination includes the Department of Justice needs to seek 

to eliminate discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, 

sexual orientation, national origin, marital status, political affiliation, age, and the like. 

So wouldn’t that policy be governing the actions of the individuals working on this, you couldn’t discriminate based on this whole 

list, including their political affiliation? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congresswoman, one of the advantages that I 

bring to the job is having been in and around the Department for 

17 

a while, I have seen mistakes that have been made in the past. 

And that is precisely one of the issues that I’ve discussed with our 

political appointees, that we are not going to do, that we are not 

going to improperly consider political affiliation with regard to career employees in the Department. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

You know, I wanted to ask about a couple of concerns, and you 

may or may not have responsibility for this. If so, just let me know. 

I am concerned that the Department has had a change in position on certain important voting rights issues. One has to do with 

the purging of rolls in Ohio. 

The Department had previously argued against purging those 

rolls because the National Voter Registration Act prohibits the 

purging of voters simply because they haven’t voted in a given period of time. And it’s my understanding that the Department is 

now arguing that Ohio can purge individuals from rolls, even without evidence that they have moved. 

Additionally, the Department had argued that the State of Texas 

ID law had discriminated against individuals, and that the Department has changed its position on that. And the law as currently 

drafted probably excludes up to 600,000 Americans from being able 

to vote because of the ID, the draconian ID laws. 

Can you give us any insight into why the Department changed 

its position on these key voting rights issues? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congresswoman, I’m generally familiar. I don’t 

know all the details of both of those matters. But as a general matter, it’s important to understand that the determination about—ultimate determination about what the law means is made by a 

judge. 

Department officials obviously need to make a decision, based 

upon a good faith analysis of the facts and the law, what position 

to take. 

It may be that new leadership of the Department takes a different position. But I can assure you that’s based on a good faith 

analysis, and there may be legitimate ambiguity in some of these 

provisions. And we are responsible for making our determination, 

just like the prior administration made theirs. But ultimately, it 

will be up to a judge to decide what that law means. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Let me just ask a final question. It’s my understanding that 

under the order appointing him, Mr. Mueller has the authority to 

investigate matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation, which would include crimes uncovered while he is investigating the main mission. 

So, for example, if he is looking at the Russia investigation and 

he finds out that the person he is looking at committed a bank robbery, he isn’t required to ignore a bank robbery. Would that be a 

fair assessment of his responsibilities? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It’s a fair assessment. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

Mr. Rosenstein may answer the question. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congresswoman, also it’s important to recognize, because it is a special counsel, not an independent counsel, 

those issues are worked out with the Department. So in the event 

18 

that he came across evidence that was not appropriate for him to 

prosecute, he could refer it to other components in the Department. 

So we wouldn’t allow something like that to slip through the 

cracks, but we would make sure to route it to the appropriate prosecutor. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Ohio, Mr. Chabot, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN, you already indicated that Mr. Strzok was removed for impropriety. It’s beyond me how the other people that 

were mentioned by the chairman and Mr. Smith were not removed 

for impropriety as well. 

Let me ask you, first of all, I assume that the team you put together you felt was going to be—that Mueller put together—was 

going to be fair and unbiased, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. I selected Mr. Mueller and he—— 

Mr. CHABOT. And he selected the team, right. 

Now, let me just review a few facts about the supposedly unbiased group of people that Mr. Mueller pulled together. Nine of the 

16 have made political contributions. To be fair, let’s just go 

through them in alphabetical order. First, Greg Andres gave $1,000 to the Democrat running to hold 

the seat, the Senate seat, previously held by Barack Obama. He 

gave $2,600 to Democrat Senator Gillibrand, who just this week led 

the charge of Democratic senators demanding that President 

Trump resign. And, oh yeah, Mr. Anders gave zero to the Trump 

campaign, or to any Republican for that matter. 

Next, again in alphabetical order, Rush Atkinson. He donated to 

the Clinton campaign last year. Again, zero to the Trump campaign. 

Third, Kyle Freeny contributed to both Obama campaigns and to 

Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Zero to the Trump campaign. Next, Andrew Goldstein. He donated $3,300 to both Obama campaigns. Again, zero to the Trump campaign. 

Fifth, Elizabeth Prelogar, who clerked for liberal Supreme Court 

Justices Ginsburg and Kagan, contributed to both the Obama and 

Clinton campaigns and zero to Trump. 

Next, James Quarles. He’s contributed to the Democratic Presidential campaigns of Dukakis, Kerry, Obama, and Hillary Clinton, 

and Gore as well. He did contribute to former Congressman 

Chaffetz and Senator Allen, but he contributed over $20,000 to 

Democratic House and Senate candidates and, again, gave zero to 

Trump. 

Seventh, Jeannie Rhee, she actually represented, as was previously mentioned, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation in 

several lawsuits. She’s donated $16,000 to Democrats, contributed 

$5,400 to the Clinton campaign, and zero to the Trump campaign. 

Eighth, Brandon Van Grack contributed to ActBlue, the fundraising outfit organized to elect Democratic congressional candidates, contributed to the Obama Presidential campaign, and, of 

course, gave nothing to Trump. 

And finally, Andrew Weissmann. He contributed $2,000 to the 

Democratic National Committee, $2,300 to the Obama campaign, 

19 

$2,300 to the Clinton campaign, and zero to Donald Trump. He’s 

also the guy who praised the holdover Acting Attorney General 

Sally Yates for defying President Trump on the travel ban. 

Now, my question to you is, how with a straight face can you say 

that this group of Democrat partisans are unbiased and will give 

President Trump a fair shake? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, Congressman, I think it’s important to 

recognize that when we talk about political affiliation, that all demonstrates political affiliation. 

The issue of bias is something different. I’ve discussed this with 

Director Mueller, and he and I collectively have a lot of experience 

managing offices in the Department of Justice. We recognize we 

have employees with political opinions, and it’s our responsibility 

to make sure those opinions do not influence their actions. 

And so I believe that Director Mueller understands that and that 

he is running that office appropriately, recognizing that people 

have political views, but ensuring that those views are not in any 

way a factor in how they conduct themselves in office. 

Mr. CHABOT. Well, when you say he is running it appropriately, 

I think putting the committee, the people, his investigators together to begin this investigation in the first place is part of the 

investigation. And how these people, the group he put together, is 

considered unbiased, I don’t know how anyone can possibly reach 

that conclusion. 

You know, when this whole Russia was involved in our elections 

flap surfaced and you picked Robert Mueller to lead the investigation, I was at first encouraged. It seemed like a serious matter and 

it deserved a serious investigation. And I assumed, as many of us 

did, that Mr. Mueller would pull together an unbiased team. 

But rather than wearing stripes as umpires and referees might 

wear, I would submit that the Mueller team overwhelmingly ought 

to be attired with Democratic donkeys on their jerseys or I’m With 

Hillary t-shirts, certainly not with Let’s Make America Great 

Again. 

And I think that’s a shame, because I think the American people 

deserve a lot better than the very biased team that they’re getting 

under Robert Mueller. And I think it’s really sad. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Deputy Attorney General, thank you, welcome, and thank you for your service to the Nation. 

Allow me just for a moment as I move on to my questions to indicate that I am shocked and baffled the way some in the right-wing 

media and some of our friends on the other side show such contempt for the Department of Justice and the FBI and so much 

skepticism for mistrust of the Russian Government. 

Let me briefly review for the record, the FBI and DOJ brought 

to justice and put away Timothy McVeigh, domestic terrorist, who 

killed 168 Americans; Klansmen who murdered civil rights workers 

Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner; the Unabomber; terrorists who 

bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; organized crime 

family kingpins; the murderer who assassinated Medgar Evans; 

Pan Am 103 bombing; Soviet diplomat that had a spy ring during 

20 

World War II; Aldrich Ames, Richard Hanssen, Alger Hiss, and 

others for espionage; World Trade Center bombing in 1993; TWA 

847 hijacking; Lindbergh kidnapping; Beltway snipers; Klansmen 

who killed four little girls in a 16th Street church in Birmingham. 

And, of course, on the other hand, the Russians are known for 

shooting down a civilian airlines, KAL 007, killing 269 passengers 

and crew; annexing Crimea and invading Ukraine; killing journalists; propping up Assad, the butcher of Damascus; building the 

Berlin Wall, imposing an iron curtain against freedom; and committing cyber theft and conspiring and doing a sabotage of the 

American Presidential election in 2016. 

Perhaps our friends on the other side of the aisle can show more 

respect for the FBI and the DOJ, as so many of us do, including 

myself. 

So let me ask these questions, and with my limited time I really 

need just a yes or no. 

Are you in the business of helping to secure the elections in 2018 

and making sure that there is an infrastructure in the DOJ to help 

States have secure elections? Yes or no? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Special Counsel Mueller, I’m reminded, some 

of us would say we read it in the history books, of the Saturday 

Night Massacre. I know you must be aware of it. 

During the meeting of May 8, 2017, with you, Sessions, and the 

President, the day before Comey was fired, what did you discuss 

regarding the FBI investigation? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congresswoman, as I explained previously, I’m 

not going to be discussing anything related to that until after the 

investigation. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Attorney 

General. 

Let me then go forward with the question of the protection of the 

special prosecutor. Do you have in place a protection scheme or system that would void a potential Saturday Night Massacre? 

Do you in fact have the authority to stand up against the President, who is putting out the right-wing media to taint the Mueller 

investigation? 

Will you protect Mr. Mueller if he deserves the protection and 

has done nothing to violate his duties and responsibilities? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. As I’ve explained, if he hasn’t violated—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Is that yes or no, Mr. Deputy Attorney General? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I won’t take any action unless he has violated 

his duties. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me show you these individuals here. It 

says that the Trump accusers want a day in court or at least want 

to be heard. 

The President is the chief executive and law enforcement officer 

of the United States; therefore, he is an officer of the United 

States. 

What does the Department of Justice, what intentions do you 

have to allow these women, who are accusing the President of sexual misconduct and have never been heard in terms of a public setting, as many of us on this committee, women on this committee, 

21 

Democratic women on this committee have asked for this committee to hold a hearing with these women, what does the Department of Justice intend to do in light of the fact that the President 

is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I don’t think I have any position on that, Congresswoman. If they file a lawsuit, they’re free to do so. It wouldn’t 

be a Department matter. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would you not believe that it’s important to 

give these women a forum to be heard? The Department of Justice, 

the FBI, investigates. I just gave a long litany of the great successes of the Department of Justice. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If there’s anything that warrants Federal investigation, Congresswoman, we’d certainly look at it. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So can I refer these women, can we refer 

these women to the Department of Justice? If they walked up to 

the Department of Justice, would there be an intake officer, an FBI 

officer, that would take their complaints? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If somebody wants to file a complaint of a potential Federal crime, yes, they can report that to the FBI or they 

can write. Anybody can do that at any time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, then let me publicly say to these women, 

you have one option at this time, is to go to the Department of Justice, as the Deputy Attorney General has just said to us, to be able 

to file a complaint. And I would encourage them to do that. I would 

also encourage this hearing as well to do—this committee to have 

hearings. 

Let me ask this last question regarding the whole question of 

commutation program and President Obama and, of course, the 

memo by Attorney General Sessions that rescinds memos regarding 

the charging and sentencing policy and also the use of private prisons. That was by Eric Holder. 

What is the position of the U.S. Department of Justice as it relates to a fair and just commutation program and also the issues 

dealing with overprosecution and the sentencing policy that was offered by Eric Holder, which was considered fair and just? And the 

use of private prisons have been known to be abusive to prisoners 

and do not allow FOIA requests to go forward. What is your position on that? 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

The Deputy Attorney General may answer the question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You’ve raised a number of issues, Congresswoman. I don’t know 

that I have time to respond to them all. 

But I do just want to clarify, anybody is free to report to the Department of Justice when they believe a crime is committed. It’s 

not a complaint in the way that you might file a complaint in some 

local police departments. You’re free to report any allegations, and 

the Department will conduct appropriate review, as we do with any 

allegations of alleged criminal conduct. We initiate investigations, 

though, only if we determine there’s proper predication under our 

policies. 

22 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I am yielding back, Mr. Chairman, but 

he did not answer my question. Thank you. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The time of the gentlewoman has already 

expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Deputy Attorney General, if someone comes in to make that complaint or to file that information, they are going to have their identification checked for who they are, right, to get into the building? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I am not certain. If they were to be admitted 

to the building, you actually can walk into most FBI offices, I 

think, without having to go through security. 

Mr. ISSA. But you wouldn’t consider it draconian if while they are 

filing this complaint or allegation, their driver’s license was looked 

at, would you? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, if we are going to conduct an investigation, we need to know who the witnesses are. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. I just wanted to note that that wasn’t draconian. 

In the case of Mr. Strzok, you know, there was an appearance 

of impropriety that people are observing, but you had said, well, 

that may not have been the reason. But if it wasn’t the appearance 

of impropriety based on his numerous rather strident tweets—or 

not tweets, but texts commenting adversely on the President, what 

was it? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If I said that, Congressman, it was inadvertent. 

The decision to remove Mr. Strzok off that case was made by Director Mueller based upon the circumstances known to him. It is 

important to understand, though, those text messages were uncovered in the course of an inspector general investigation that is not 

complete, so we won’t be able to make any determination about 

what, if any, discipline is required until—— 

Mr. ISSA. Let me go to the inspector general now. This is Michael 

Horowitz, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. ISSA. Michael Horowitz has repeatedly complained that he 

cannot, in fact—he does not have the authority to look for impropriety by lawyers as to their conduct as lawyers, because the office 

of—the OPR has that authority. That is still true, isn’t it? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It is true, but he does have authority for certain types of misconduct by lawyers. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So we have a situation in which he can look at 

some of the misconduct, not others. So one of the pieces of misconduct he cannot look at would be the question of a bias or the 

appearance of bias in their investigations in how they are conducting it and/or decisions. That is uniquely excluded to the inspector general in your cabinet position versus all other cabinet positions, if I am correct. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I am not certain about that. And if I may, I will 

check and get back to you on that, but it would either—— 

Mr. ISSA. But he is excluded? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It would either be OPR or the inspector general. And with regard to conflicts of interest, I believe certain of 

23 

those are within the jurisdiction of the inspector general, but I 

would have to verify. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Well, you can get back to me on that. 

You know, these political views that Mr. Chabot mentioned, and 

they are pretty clear that these are people who had a strong preference, but notwithstanding that, let’s be very candid. Nobody up 

here is going to claim to be without their political bias. So one of 

the reasons that when there is a conflict of interest, people recuse 

themselves, and when there is an appearance of impropriety, they 

are excused. And one of the reasons that we look to a Special Prosecutor and that you appointed a Special Prosecutor was to not only 

get past the politics on this dais, but to get past the appearance 

of any conflict by the Department of Justice. Is that fair to say? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. To minimize any appearance on either side of 

bias, correct. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. But a Special Prosecutor under the remaining 

statute, how it is done, is still a group looking for wrongdoing. That 

is their charge. They are not looking for right doing, they are looking for wrongdoing. That is fair to say? Like any prosecutor, you 

are not looking for innocence? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, to characterize it, Congressman, is they 

are looking for the truth, and then they will make a determination 

about whether or not it is appropriate to prosecute. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So my question to you is, if that is the case, if 

we accept, my assumption, that they are looking, if they can, to 

hang the President or people around him—hear me out for a moment—then there really isn’t a problem with having people that 

are dead-set on trying to find anything that would incriminate the 

administration in a Russian connection, which is somewhat their 

charge. So I will posture to you that maybe it is not that bad to 

have people who really dislike the President, would like to hang 

him. 

Having said that, when there is impropriety, such as Mr. Strzok, 

when there is, in fact, a history at the FBI of withholding information from Congress, when there is the appearance of impropriety by 

the Department of Justice, and when the inspector general is limited under the statute both because he doesn’t have full access, and 

because certain portions are out of it, wouldn’t you say that this 

is a classic example where in order to investigate the FBI and the 

Department of Justice, a special prosecutor who is equally looking 

for the truth, if it exists adversely, to the conduct of the FBI and 

the Department of Justice is within your charge and responsibility 

to see that it happens? 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. You built a number of assumptions into your 

question, Congressman, and my simple answer to it would be that, 

you know, if we believed there was a basis for an investigation or 

a special counsel, I can assure you that we would act. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would say that since we have 

already had dismissals for wrongdoing, since there are ongoing internal investigations, the elements necessary to ask for a special 

prosecutor to, in fact, see what was done wrong already exist. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

24 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

First, I want to thank you for your service to the country and for 

accepting the difficult position under the difficult circumstances 

that you have. 

Has President Trump ever communicated with you about removing Robert Mueller in his role as special counsel? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, I am not going to be discussing 

my communications with the President, but I can tell you that nobody has communicated to me a desire to remove Robert Mueller. 

Mr. COHEN. You said you are not going to relate your conversations with President Trump. How many conversations have you 

had since your appointment with President Trump? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I am the Deputy Attorney General, Congressman, and it is appropriate for me to talk with the President about 

law enforcement issues, and I don’t believe that is an appropriate 

issue for discussion. 

Mr. COHEN. When you chose Robert Mueller to be the special 

counsel, what were his characteristics, his history, and the reasons 

for you to have chosen him for this important position? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I think it would be very difficult, Congressman, 

for anybody to find somebody better qualified for this job. Director 

Mueller has, throughout his lifetime, been a dedicated and respected and heroic public servant. He, after college, volunteered to 

serve as a Marine in Vietnam, where he was wounded in combat. 

He attended law school and then devoted most of his career to 

serving as a Federal prosecutor. With the exception of brief stints 

in private practice, served as United States Attorney in two districts, in Massachusetts and in Northern California. He served in 

many other positions in the Department. 

After he lost his position as the head of the criminal division 

when President Clinton was elected in 1992, Mr. Mueller briefly 

went into private practice, and then he went back at an entry level 

position as a homicide prosecutor, trying to help with the violent 

crime problem in the District of Columbia in the early 1990s. 

He then rose, once again, through the ranks, and ultimately was 

confirmed, I believe unanimously, as FBI Director, protected this 

Nation after 9/11. And then when his 10-year term expired, he was 

so well respected, that his term was extended, I believe also almost 

unanimously for another 2 years. 

So I believe that based upon his reputation, his service, his patriotism, and his experience with the Department and with the FBI, 

I believe he was an ideal choice for this task. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, sir. I agree with you. FBI Director Wray 

agrees with you. He said similar thoughts. He said he was a smart 

lawyer, a dedicated public servant, and well respected within the 

FBI. 

I think everybody on the other side of the aisle agreed with you 

when you appointed him. And everybody in this Judiciary Committee, and probably everybody in this Congress agreed with this 

appointment as FBI Director, which was unanimous, his reappointment, which was unanimous, by Republican Bush and Democrat 

25 

Obama. Everybody respects that man in this country. He may be 

the most respected man in this—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. I didn’t. I don’t. 

Mr. COHEN. Obviously. We knew that would be an exception. 

But the fact is, they didn’t start to dislike him until he started 

to get into issues that affected the President that currently serves 

this country, and because of that, they said the FBI was in tatters, 

that the FBI, the chief law enforcement, top law enforcement folks 

in this country are questionable. Some of their allies on television 

said they are like the KGB. They have questioned you, they have 

questioned the Justice Department, they have questioned some of 

the most loyal, dedicated, fearless people in our country, who serve 

the rule of law, and I find it repugnant and awful. 

I wonder what you think about it when you hear about the FBI, 

which works under you, being suggested it is in tatters, and that 

there is something wrong with the FBI and that they are somehow 

like the KGB. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, Congressman, as I know you are aware, 

I have expressed concern with certain aspects of certain things 

done by the FBI, but in general, throughout my experience working 

with FBI agents over the decades, I have found them to be an exceptional group of public servants, very loyal, faithful, and dedicated, and I believe some of the finest people that I know are 

agents in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Mr. COHEN. I have thought about them, sir, when I watched the 

Army-Navy game, and I thought about them because I have the 

honor, as everybody up here has, of recommending some folks to 

be at West Point and Annapolis. Those are the cream of the crop. 

And the people at the FBI are in law enforcement, they are the 

cream of the crop, and Justice Department attorneys are, too. It is 

not easy to get a job at Justice no matter where you went to law 

school and what you did. You hire the best. You always have, and 

I compliment you on that. I hope and know you will continue to 

hold the Department of Justice up as a pantheon of outstanding 

lawyers and jurists, and take justice where it should go, as truth 

demands and justice dictates. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Rosenstein, for your testimony here and your service. 

A number of things I am curious about here. First of all, in the 

interview of Hillary Clinton that took place reportedly July 2nd of 

2016, how many people were in the room for that? How many people had the opportunity to question her? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, I do not know the answer to 

that. I believe when the inspector general completes his review, we 

may have additional information, but I personally do not know. 

Mr. KING. And would you know who selected that team? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No, I do not. 

Mr. KING. Really? Okay. I recall the testimony here by James 

Comey and also by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch that testified, one of the two of them, that there were three representatives 

of the FBI and three representatives of DOJ in that room during 

26 

that interview. Would that be consistent with practice that you 

would anticipate? Am I going to hear ‘‘IG’’ again? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Typically, we would have at least two agents 

conduct an interview, and there may be any number of attorneys 

based upon who is on the case. I just don’t know the details of that 

particular decision. 

Mr. KING. Okay. And the practice in an interview like that, 

would there be records kept of that interview? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. If there were FBI agents present, typically 

they would take notes and produce a report summarizing the interview. 

Mr. KING. Would there be a videotape, audiotape, or a transcript? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Generally no. 

Mr. KING. And why not? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, it is just not—it is not the practice to do 

it. 

Mr. KING. It needs to become the practice. The practice out 

across the countryside, many of our local law enforcement is that 

if you are a county deputy and you interview somebody for drunk 

driving, you tape that interview. And we have sheriffs out there 

that will say if they don’t do that, that is cause for discipline. 

Now we are sitting here with a mystery on what went on in that 

interview of July 2nd, and many questions have been asked about 

that before and after, and they will trickle through history until we 

get to the bottom of it. 

We don’t know yet who was in the room, at least you can’t tell 

me who was in the room. Do you have any knowledge that Peter 

Strzok might have been one of the people? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I do not know. 

Mr. KING. It has been reported in the news that he was one of 

those people. Are you aware of that? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I have read a lot of news reports. I may have 

seen that in the news, but I personally do not know. 

Mr. KING. I see. And when I look through just a timeline here, 

I will just quickly drop this into the record. April, May of 2016, 

Peter Strzok interviews Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, Cheryl 

Mills, who happened to be in the room with Hillary Clinton, and 

her general counsel, and her chief of staff, and the subject of the 

investigation. 

Then on May 2nd, Comey emails FBI officials a draft statement 

a couple of months before his recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton, and in that chain, Peter Strzok’s name shows up. It 

has been reported that he is the one that swapped out the references from ‘‘gross negligent’’ to ‘‘extremely carelessness.’’ 

I don’t know if that is true. Do you have any knowledge about 

that? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No, but I would point out, Congressman, that 

it is the inspector general review that has turned up—— 

Mr. KING. I thought that was going to be the answer. 

And then, also skipping forward to July 24th, the FBI interviews 

Michael Flynn on Russia. It is reported in the news that Peter 

Strzok is in that interview. No knowledge to disagree with the reports that are in the news, however? 

27 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. KING. And then we get the news later on some time in midsummer, Peter Strzok had been removed from Mueller’s investigative team, but we find out December 4th that that took place publicly. I kind of understand that. If that had drifted into the jet 

stream, perhaps we wouldn’t be in the middle of this controversy, 

but what about—if his hands are in so many things, and I have 

not touched them all by any means, but if he has his hands in this 

many things, what about the fruit of the poisonous tree? This is the 

reverse of this. This is the voids of the fruit of the poisonous tree. 

And I am looking at what was reported this morning. I just took 

a picture of the television set on my iPhone just so that we all 

know what I am talking about here, a quote from an August 6, 

2016, text, Lisa Page to Peter Strzok, and they are talking about 

President Trump, ‘‘And maybe you are meant’’—she is speaking to 

Peter Strzok, her lover, I hear, ‘‘and maybe you are meant to stay 

where you are because you are meant to protect the country from 

that menace.’’ 

And Peter Strzok’s response is, ‘‘Thanks. It is absolutely true 

that we are both very fortunate, and, of course, I will try and approach it that way. I just don’t know. It will be tough at times. I 

can protect our country at many levels. Not sure if that helps.’’ 

Does that sound like a declaration that he would use his job to 

leverage his work against the President of the United States? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, the inspector general’s investigation includes interviews of numerous witnesses, and I anticipate, 

hopefully in the near future, we will have a report with the inspector general’s conclusions. 

Mr. KING. Would you have any opinion on the lack of the fruit 

from the poisonous tree that might have been erased by Peter 

Strzok? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, as a legal matter, Congressman, I can tell 

you that if evidence is tainted—and that would raise a concern for 

me, but typically our cases would be prosecuted based upon witnesses and documents, and not upon the agent, unless the agent 

personally were a witness in the case, but that would certainly concern us if there were any tainted evidence in the case. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Rosenstein. I appreciate it. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you for your service to the country, Mr. Rosenstein. 

Based on the language in your special counsel order, or your 

order appointing the special counsel, does the special counsel have 

the authority to investigate any individual who may have obstructed the investigation that FBI Director Comey confirmed on 

March 20th of this year, which was the Russian interference with 

the 2016 elections? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. The special counsel does have authority to investigate any obstruction related to his jurisdiction. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Does this authority to investigate possible obstruction include investigating President Trump? 

28 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I hope you won’t take an inference one way or 

the other, Congressman, but as I have explained, that is simply 

something we do not do. We do not discuss who may or may not 

be under investigation. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, I am not asking you whether or 

not the President is under investigation. I am just simply asking 

whether or not your order appointing the special counsel authorizes 

the special counsel to investigate the President. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It authorizes him to investigate anybody who 

there is predication to believe obstructed justice. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. And that includes the President, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It would include anybody who was suspected of 

obstructing justice. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. All right. Do you think that it is appropriate for the President to comment publicly on any pending investigation? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, a decision about whether people 

in political positions comment on investigations is not mine. My responsibility is to ensure that our investigations are not impacted 

improperly by any opinion, whether it be a Member of Congress or 

anybody else. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, it would not be appropriate for 

you to comment about any pending investigation. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. And the President is the chief law enforcement officer, he considers himself, in the country. It would be 

inappropriate for him, then, to comment on a pending investigation, would it not? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, I believe over the years, there 

have been presidents who have made comments about investigations, and it is simply not my responsibility to make that decision. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, do you think it is appropriate for 

the President to publicly call for the investigation of specific individuals? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I am simply not going to comment on that, Congressman, other than to tell you it is my responsibility, along with 

the Attorney General, to make sure that those decisions are made 

independently by the Department based upon the facts and the 

law. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Has the President ever contacted you 

to urge action in any pending investigation? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, I have not received any improper 

orders, and I am not going to be talking about particular communications I may have with—which are appropriate communications 

with the White House. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, what would be your legal basis 

for refusing to answer the question whether or not the President 

has contacted you to urge any action in any pending investigation? 

What would be your legal basis for refusing to answer that question? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, this is not a partisan issue. I 

worked on an investigation where the previous president encouraged the Department to do an expeditious investigation. And so the 

29 

question for me is, are we or are we not appropriately making an 

independent determination regardless of who comments on it? 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, my question—I respect your question, but my question is, has the President ever contacted you to 

urge action in any pending investigation, yes or no? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I have nothing further to say about it, Congressman. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. So you are going to refuse to answer 

a question from a Member of Congress seeking to do oversight? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I have told you, Congressman, that I have not 

received any improper orders, and I am simply not going to talk 

about communications. 

I think in every administration, senior law enforcement officers 

have to be able to communicate with the President and his officials 

about appropriate matters within their responsibility and not comment on it. So you shouldn’t draw any inference. It is simply not 

appropriate for me to talk about communications I may have with 

the administration. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. So it would—— 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I would tell you if something happened that 

was wrong, if somebody ordered me to do something that was improper, but that has not happened. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Well, it would be improper for the 

President to ever contact you about initiating an investigation of 

someone, would it not? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. We have discussed this previously, Congressman. Presidents have commented publicly and—— 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. No, no, no. My question is, it would be 

improper for a president to contact you about initiating an investigation of someone? It would be improper, wouldn’t it? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It would be improper for the President to order 

me to conduct an investigation that wasn’t justified based on the 

facts and the law. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. It would be improper for the President 

to ask you to initiate an investigation, would it not? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If it were for improper reasons, yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. And so is it your testimony today that 

the President has not asked you to investigate someone specifically? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, I understand what you are getting at, but as I said, I was in the last administration, and the 

president in the last administration commented on matters. There 

is nothing wrong about that. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. You are being very artful—— 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No, I am not. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia [continuing]. In jumping around and 

evading answering my question, and so you are not going to answer it, and that is—— 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I am not evading. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia [continuing]. That is unfortunate. 

Are you afraid of President Trump firing you? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No, I am not, Congressman. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. With that, I will yield back. 

30 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Gohmert, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for being here, 

Mr. Rosenstein. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Thank you. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Did you ever tell Special Counsel Robert Mueller 

that, in essence, everything you do must not only be just and fair, 

but must also appear beyond reproach? Anything like that? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. In essence, yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. Well, since Attorney General Sessions 

recused himself, you are effectively the boss of the special counsel 

and staff, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It is correct that I am effectively the boss. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, we all know that FBI Director James Comey 

was fired, we know of your letter, we know of your public statements, but here is the question: To your knowledge, who first proposed the idea of firing James Comey as FBI Director? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, I am not going to comment on 

that. The President has explained that he made the decision, and 

I am not going to comment beyond that. 

Mr. GOHMERT. At the time you wrote the letter suggesting a firing, did you believe what you put in that letter? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes, I did. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. If an FBI employee goes into a meeting 

as part of his job, in furtherance of his job, someone in the government, and he comes out and he makes a memo memorializing the 

meeting, perhaps an in-the-future past memory refreshed, is that 

memo DOJ property? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Generally, Congressman, I would think that it 

would be. It might depend on what is in the memo, what the subject matter is, but generally the answer would be yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, in an FBI employment agreement statement, it says, and this is the person agreeing to work for the FBI, 

‘‘All information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material to which I have access 

remain the property of the United States of America. I will not reveal, by any means, any information material from or related to 

the FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment.’’ 

If you make a memo of things that were discussed as part of your 

job, then it would be a violation of that agreement to send that to 

someone to leak to the press. Isn’t that right? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It well may be. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. In the question I am about to ask, I am 

not asking what you may have told Attorney General Jeff Sessions, 

I don’t want to know any words used or ideas conveyed nor sources 

referenced, in fact, I am asking a question that could not possibly 

have any other answer other than one of two words, that would be 

‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no.’’ You are completely free to wholly answer this question with one of those two words, and neither word is privileged, 

confidential or classified. 

Here is the question: As Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ deputy, 

did you give Jeff Sessions any advice regarding whether or not he 

31 

should recuse himself in the matter of the Russian investigation, 

yes or no? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. Can I give a little bit of an explanation, 

Congressman? I appreciate your asking that question. 

I wasn’t there. I was confirmed, I believe, on April 25th, and took 

off on April 26th. I was not there at the time of the recusal. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. And have you ever talked to Bruce Ohr? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And wasn’t he four doors down from yours? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I haven’t counted, but he was down the hall. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. And, of course, he has been demoted 

over the relationship with Fusion GPS, and then, of course, we 

found out that his wife, Nellie, was a Russian expert and was paid 

by Fusion GPS in the summer and fall of 2016 helping the Clinton 

campaign get apparently a dossier from the Russians. 

How well do you know the people that work on your hall? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, it varies, Congressman. I think that is 

precise. It varies. Some of them I know well, some of them I don’t 

know as well. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. Of course, everybody has some opinions, 

political opinions or otherwise. The key is not having those affect 

or bias you in the Department of Justice. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, here is Mr. Strzok, some of his texts talking 

about Trump. ‘‘He is an idiot like Trump.’’ ‘‘And Martin O’Malley 

is,’’ he said, well, a D word. ‘‘I am not watching. I can’t tell you 

how little I care right now.’’ He is talking about the Republican 

Convention. ‘‘So much more substantive than the representative 

debates.’’ 

He goes on, ‘‘At some point, the Republican Party needs to pull 

their head out of their ‘blank,’ shows no sign of occurring any time 

soon.’’ 

Of course he is—you know, the ‘‘F,’’ we were told by Christopher 

Wray, stands for fidelity, but these were all made in the course of 

infidelity. 

And then he makes slurs against Kasich. He is just unbelievable. 

‘‘I truly hate these people,’’ talking about the Republicans. ‘‘No support for the women who actually has to spend the rest of her life 

rearing this child, but we care about,’’ quote, ‘‘life,’’ and then, ‘‘A 

holes.’’ ‘‘How can he’’—‘‘how the F can he be a Republican?’’ And 

on and on it goes. ‘‘America will get what the voting public deserves, and that is what I am afraid of. God, Hillary should win 

100 million to zero. Did you hear him make a comment the size 

of’’—— 

Anyway, this is not just political opinions. This is disgusting, unaccountable bias, and there is no way that could not affect a person’s work. 

Were you aware of just how biased Mr. Strzok was? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No, I was not. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. One final thing. I am asking a question, and the answer is not classified nor privileged. 

Based on information you believe, to the best of your knowledge, 

has the FBI ever used work product or report any part of which 

32 

was paid for by a political campaign, political party, political candidate, or prepared on a candidate’s behalf? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, the issue that you are—— 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The witness may answer the question. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I know that we are working with at least one 

committee, House Intelligence, that has access to that information. 

I believe that they will get whatever information—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Sir, I am asking a general question. I am not specifically asking—— 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But I am asking you if I can get an answer. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. In the form it was already presented. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Not in my personal knowledge, but I am not 

representing—I don’t know everything about the FBI. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And, Mr. Chairman, a point of personal privilege. 

Since my character was slandered by Mr. Cohen, who said that I 

never—we never challenged Mueller until he came after the administration, when he knows how tough I went after FBI Director 

Mueller. He has been here when I went after Mueller while Bush 

was President. He knows I have been after him for the damage he 

did. And what he stated about me is a lie, and I need the record 

to properly reflect that. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The gentleman’s comment is duly noted. 

The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Bass, 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

According to an August 17th FBI intelligence assessment titled 

‘‘Black Identity Extremists Likely Motivated to Target Law Enforcement Officers,’’ quote, ‘‘It is very likely that Black identity extremists’ perceptions of police brutality against African Americans 

spurred an increase in retaliatory violence.’’ 

So I have tried to get to the bottom of where this report came 

from, who did it, what its status is. I have asked Attorney General 

Sessions, I have asked Director Wray, and so now I want to ask 

you. Did you order the FBI to conduct this assessment? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Sorry. What was the date? 

Ms. BASS. August 2017, August of this year. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No, I did not. 

Ms. BASS. Do you know who authored the report? Are you familiar with the report? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I am not familiar with the report. I am familiar 

with the general issue. 

Ms. BASS. And so maybe you could talk a little bit about the general issue—— 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

Ms. BASS [continuing]. In particular, when the FBI began tracking black identity extremism. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I think it is important for me to explain, Congresswoman, that the FBI does not make a determination with regard to domestic groups to investigate them based upon their First 

Amendment views or their affiliation. It bases its decisions on evidence of a propensity to violence. 

33 

So with regard to members of any ideology domestically, the FBI 

would only be investigating if there were some indication of violence. 

Ms. BASS. Do you believe that there is a political movement in 

the country called Black identity extremism? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I don’t believe the FBI intends that to encompass a particular political movement. What they do is they try to 

categorize different threats that they identify. 

Ms. BASS. So you said ‘‘investigate,’’ but before you do an investigation, there is surveillance, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Generally, no. There might need to be a determination first that there was a basis for an investigation typically 

before any surveillance. 

Ms. BASS. So how does that determination take place, and where 

has it taken place? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If you want details, I need to get back to you, 

but the FBI does have very strict guidelines. As you know, several 

decades ago, there was quite a bit of controversy about this issue, 

and the FBI has very detailed guidelines for when they initiate investigations, and I am not aware of any departure from those 

guidelines. 

Ms. BASS. So one thing that—and I am aware of the FBI’s history from many years ago, COINTEL-Pro, and many people are 

looking at this document, ‘‘Black Identity Extremism,’’ as 

COINTEL-Pro II. 

One of the concerns that has been raised and that I raised with 

Attorney General Sessions and Director Wray is that this document, for whatever reason, was mass distributed to law enforcement offices around the country. Are you aware of that? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No, I am not. 

Ms. BASS. So when we talked to Director Wray, it wasn’t clear 

how this term was even developed, in other words, what evidence 

was it based on to even come up with a term like that, and then 

to write a document about it, and then to distribute it to law enforcement around the country. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I don’t know the answer to that, Congresswoman, but if it is of any reassurance, I have been in this job for 

8months, I haven’t seen any indication that the FBI is approaching 

this in a biased way. They are conducting investigations where 

they believe the person who is the subject represents a potential 

threat, not simply because they believe in an ideology or associate 

with an ideology, but because they represent a particular threat. 

And I believe the FBI guidelines are designed specifically to ensure 

that there are no abuses. 

Ms. BASS. So what I am hearing from activists around the country, in particular, activists who were protesting law enforcement, 

you know, police brutality or deaths at the hands of law enforcement, is that they are being visited by the FBI, that the FBI is 

leaving, you know, business cards. And then what the concern 

about that is is that if they do engage in a conversation with an 

FBI agent, and perhaps make a mistake, or maybe say something 

that isn’t true, then they are vulnerable to be prosecuted for lying 

to a law enforcement officer. 

34 

So the activists that have received visits by the FBI have never 

been involved in violence at all. Are you aware of that happening 

in any of your offices around the country? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. 

Ms. BASS. Let me just express another concern about this. When 

a document that doesn’t seem to have any scientific basis that develops a category called Black identity extremism, that nobody can 

say whether or not it really exists, when you send a document like 

that to law enforcement around the country, you know, in some 

places, I will worry that they will take that to say that any time 

there is an officer-involved shooting, and then there is a protest, 

that the people that protest might be Black identity extremists. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congresswoman, to the best of my knowledge, 

the FBI is not investigating people who are peacefully protesting. 

As having read that document, I will review it and I will see what 

it says, but—— 

Ms. BASS. I would appreciate it if you would; and if there is no 

basis for this term, that then the FBI take the step to retract the 

document and send a message to law enforcement around the country that no such category exists. 

I yield back my time. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Did the FBI pay Christopher Steele? And was the 

dossier the basis for securing warrants at the FISA Court to spy 

on Americans associated with the Trump campaign? Really, when 

you sum it all up, it boils down to those fundamental questions. 

Did you pay the guy who wrote it, and did you use what he 

wrote, disproven, discredited dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign, did you use to go get warrants to spy on Americans? That 

is what it comes down to, and you are the guy who can answer 

those questions. 

Yesterday, I was convinced that the answer to those questions 

was probably yes, but today I am even more convinced the answer 

is yes, based on the text messages we got to read early this morning. 

Mr. Rosenstein, you know Peter Strzok? Are you familiar with 

that name. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes, I am familiar with the name, and—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Former deputy head of counterintelligence at the 

FBI, Peter Strzok? That one? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I don’t know his precise title, but, yes, he had 

a significant role in—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Peter Strzok ran the Clinton campaign; interviewed 

Mills, Abedin, Clinton; changed the exoneration letter from ‘‘gross 

negligence’’ to ‘‘extreme carelessness’’; Peter Strzok, who ran the 

Russia investigation, interviewed Mike Flynn; Peter Strzok, selected by Mr. Mueller to be on his team. 

That Peter Strzok, we learn, had all these text messages, we got 

to read some of them early this morning. Now, as my colleagues 

have pointed out, some of them are, you know, they are——so he 

didn’t like Trump, he and Ms. Page are exchanging text messages 

back and forth that show they don’t like the President, but that is 

35 

nothing new. Everyone on Mueller’s team, no one on Mueller’s 

team likes Trump. We already knew that. 

But I want to focus on one in particular, one in particular, and 

this is a text message from Mr. Strzok to Ms. Page recalling a conversation and a meeting that took place in Andrew McCabe’s office, 

Deputy Director of the FBI, recalling a meeting earlier, and Mr. 

Strzok says this: ‘‘I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office,’’ and there is a break, dash, it says that 

‘‘there is no way he gets elected. No way Trump gets elected.’’ He 

said, ‘‘I want to believe that. You said that in a meeting in Andrew 

McCabe’s office. ‘‘I want to believe that.’’ But then he goes, ‘‘But I 

am afraid we can’t take that risk.’’ 

Now, this goes to intent. He says, we can’t take the risk of, you 

know, the people of this great country might elect Donald Trump 

President. We can’t take this risk. This is Peter Strzok, head of 

counterintelligence at FBI. This is Peter Strzok, who I think had 

a hand in that dossier that was all dressed up and taken to the 

FISA court. He is saying, We can’t take the risk. We have to do 

something about it. 

Now, don’t forget the timeline here either, Mr. Rosenstein. Mr. 

Strzok, January 10th, he is the guy who changes the exoneration 

letter from ‘‘gross negligence,’’ criminal standard, to ‘‘extreme carelessness.’’ 

July 2nd, he is the guy who sits in on the Clinton interview. July 

5th, 2016, that is when Comey has the press conference, says we 

are not going to prosecute, Clinton is okay, we are not going to 

prosecute. 

And then August 2016, we have this text message, the same 

month that the Russian investigation is opened at the FBI, August 

2016, and my guess is that is the same month that the application 

was taken to the FISA court to get the warrants to spy on Americans, using this dossier that the Clinton campaign paid for, Democrats paid for, fake news, all dressed up, taken to the court. 

So I have got really just a couple basic questions, because it 

seems to me if the answer to any of those two questions, if the answer is yes, if you guys paid Christopher Steele at the same time 

the Democrats and the Clinton campaign were paying him, or, if 

you took the dossier, dressed it all up, took it to the FISA court 

and used that as the basis to get warrants, and now we have intent 

in this text message saying—there is another text message, my colleague referenced it earlier, where Mr. Strzok says, ‘‘I can protect 

our country at many levels,’’ says it with all the humility he could 

muster. ‘‘I can protect our country at many levels.’’ 

This guy thought he was Super Agent James Bond at the FBI. 

This is obvious. ‘‘I am afraid we can’t take that risk. We can’t’’— 

‘‘There is no way we can let the American people make Donald 

Trump the next president. I got to protect our country.’’ 

This is unbelievable. And I am here to tell you, Mr. Rosenstein, 

I think the public trust in this whole thing is gone. So it seems to 

me you have got two things you can do. You are the guy in charge. 

You are the guy who picked Mueller. You are the guy who wrote 

the memo saying why you needed to fire Comey. You are the guy 

in charge. You could disband the Mueller special prosecutor and 

you can do what we have all called for: Appoint a second special 

36 

counsel to look into this, to look into Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr, everything else we have learned in the last several weeks. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes, Congressman. And I can assure you that 

I consider it very important to make sure a thorough review is 

done, and our inspector general is doing a thorough review. That 

is how we found those text messages as part of that review. 

Mr. JORDAN. You have given that answer, like, 15 times. Let me 

ask you this: Are you concerned—this is what a lot of Americans 

are believing right now, and I certainly do, that the Comey FBI 

and the Obama Justice Department worked with one campaign to 

go after the other campaign. That is what everything points to. 

Think about what we have learned in the last several weeks. We 

first learned they paid for the dossier, then we learn about Peter 

Strzok, and last week we learned about Bruce Ohr and his wife 

Nell. This is unbelievable. So what is it going to take to get a second special counsel to answer these questions and find out was 

Peter Strzok really up to what I think he was? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I think it is important to understand, Congressman, we have an inspector general that has 500 employees, and 

$100 million budget, and this is what he does, he investigates allegations of misconduct involving Department employees. That review of what he is conducting is what turned up those text messages. It will also involve interviews of those persons and of other 

witnesses. 

Mr. JORDAN. We are looking forward to his report, and we have 

met with Mr. Horowitz and we are anxiously awaiting that report. 

But that doesn’t dismiss the fact that the country thinks we need 

a second special counsel. Twenty members of this committee, the 

Judiciary Committee, with primary jurisdiction over the Justice 

Department, thinks we need a second special counsel. What fact 

pattern do you have to have? What kind of text messages do you 

have to see before you say it is time for a second special counsel? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I want to assure you, Congressman, I think the 

Attorney General explained, we take very seriously the concerns of 

20 members of this committee, or one member of this committee, 

but we have responsibility to make an independent determination 

and we will. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the chair. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

New York, Mr. Jeffries, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rosenstein, there 

are approximately 14,000 special agents within the FBI, is that correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. 37,000 total employees. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And is it fair to say that a majority of those FBI 

agents are registered Republicans? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I haven’t asked them, and I wouldn’t want to 

speculate. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Is it fair to say that the majority of 14,000 FBI 

special agents have conservative-leaning political views, like much 

of the law enforcement community throughout the entire Nation? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I am certain that many of them do. I haven’t 

counted. 

37 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, the Department of Justice apparently, last 

evening, invited a group of reporters to its offices to view the private text messages that were sent during the election by Peter 

Strzok and Lisa Page. Is that correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I believe that is correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, who exactly authorized the Department of 

Justice, in advance of a congressional hearing, to invite reporters 

to come view private text message communications between two 

Department of Justice employees who were the subject of a pending 

investigation? Did you give that order, sir? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It is a very important question you ask, Congressman, because that was one of my concerns about this issue is 

what the status of these messages, and is it appropriate to release 

them? And the determination was made that it is, so we gave notice to their attorneys, we notified the committee, and our goal, 

Congressman, is to make sure that it is clear to you and the American people, we are not concealing anything that is embarrassing 

to the FBI. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. So is it extraordinary that you would invite reporters for a private viewing in advance of a congressional hearing? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Only if the information is appropriate for public 

release. If it is not appropriate for public release, it is never appropriate to disclose it to reporters. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, Shannon Bream is a FOX News Supreme Court reporter. She tweeted last at 9:29, that FOX News 

producer Jake Gibson has approximately 10,000 text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Now, it is my understanding 

that only about 350 or so were released to this committee. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. There are others that are being reviewed, and 

we have assured the committee chairs that we are going to produce 

them as soon as we have them available. There are some 

redactions that need to be made. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. So how is it possible that FOX News apparently 

has 10,000 text messages? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I wouldn’t assume that is true just because it 

was in the news, Congressman. I am not aware of that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. But this is a FOX News reporter who is indicating that. I am sure we are going to get to the bottom of it. 

Hopefully, the chairman, in a bipartisan way, would be interested 

in what is clearly a—what would be a violation of law in the Department of Justice proceedings. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If there were any evidence that we disclosed information to a reporter that wasn’t appropriate for public release, 

or wasn’t disclosed to Congress, I would agree with you. I am not 

aware of that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, the Department of Justice investigation should be free of political interference, true? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Let me put up a tweet from Donald Trump on November 3rd at 3:57 a.m. in the morning. God knows what he was 

doing at that time other than tweeting. It says, everybody——can 

we put that tweet up? 

38 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 

o’clock stop while we are trying to—— 

Chairman GOODLATTE. What was the gentleman’s request? 

Mr. JEFFRIES. The committee had been given notice of a tweet 

that I wanted displayed on the screen last evening, and I am asking for that to be put up. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. And there is some technical difficulty in 

doing that? All right. We will suspend. 

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman had a minute 

and 45 seconds. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. We will make sure he gets plenty of time. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Gaetz. Well, in the interests of 

time, Mr. Chairman, I will just read what was written by the 

President. He said, ‘‘Everybody is asking why the Justice Department and FBI isn’t looking into all of the dishonesty going on with 

crooked Hillary and the Dems.’’ 

Let me ask you a question. Is it ever appropriate for a President, 

any President of the United States, to encourage the Department 

of Justice to launch criminal investigations against his or her perceived political enemies? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I am not going to comment on that, Congressman. As I have explained previously. The President has put a team 

of experienced folks in charge of the Department of Justice, and we 

are not going to be influenced by anything other than the facts of 

law. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Is that an appropriate tweet for the President of 

the United States of America to send? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It is not my role to opine on that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Does the President’s repeated attempts to encourage criminal prosecution against perceived political enemies concern you, sir? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, as I said, we understand our responsibility, and we are going to continue to conduct our responsibility in accordance with the facts and the law, and I am grateful 

that the President’s put an experienced team in charge of the Justice Department who understand what to do. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. On June 20, The New York Times published 

a wide-ranging interview with Donald Trump. In it, the President 

criticized you for being from Baltimore, saying there are very few 

Republicans in Baltimore, if any. So he is from Baltimore. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. That’s true. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Rosenstein, are you unable to be fair and impartial because you are from Baltimore? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, I am actually not from Baltimore. I did 

work in Baltimore for 12 years. It’s true that there are not a lot 

of Republicans in Baltimore. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Donald Trump’s statement had no basis in 

reality, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, as I had said, that part of it was true. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Preet Bharara is a former U.S. attorney for 

the southern district of New York, true? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And he was fired by Donald Trump in March. Is 

that correct? 

39 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Along with almost all sitting U.S. attorneys. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. U.S. attorneys in the southern district of New 

York has prosecutorial jurisdiction over Trump Tower in Manhattan, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It has jurisdiction over everything in its jurisdiction. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And Presidential interviews of U.S. attorney 

candidates, as has been reported to be the case for Preet Bharara’s 

replacement, that would be a departure from traditional Presidential protocol, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. For the President personally to conduct the 

interviews? 

Mr. JEFFRIES. That is correct. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I am not aware of all the prior practices, I don’t 

think it was done in the last two administrations that I’m familiar 

with. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And you were appointed by President Bush 

and then continued in that position as U.S. attorney for Maryland 

by Barack Obama. That is correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. That is correct. As a matter of law, I was appointed and never removed, correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Were you ever asked by President Bush for a loyalty pledge? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Were you ever asked by President Barack Obama 

to take a loyalty pledge? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Is it ever appropriate for the President of the 

United States to demand that a Department of Justice official or 

FBI Director take a loyalty pledge? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I don’t have any opinion about that, Congressman. Nobody’s asked me to take a loyalty pledge other than the 

oath of office. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thanks. I yield back. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POE. I thank the chairman. 

Thank you for being here. Just so it is clear, I am one of the numerous members of the Judiciary Committee that have asked for 

a second special prosecutor based on what Mr. Jordan earlier said. 

The Justice Department is responsible for investigating criminal 

conduct. Would that include criminal conduct by the NSA? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. POE. Okay. We all learned, under the PRISM, that was happening years ago by the NSA that the NSA was doing, in my opinion, unconstitutional surveillance on Americans and their emails by 

tracking it and hacking in to see those emails. It came to light 

under Snowden, after Snowden, who I care nothing for, brought 

that to America’s attention. The NSA said we are not going to do 

that anymore, which, I think, is appropriate, because I thought it 

was unconstitutional. 

And we have heard reports through the media that there has 

been unmasking of information. What I mean by that is, classified 

information is seized on somebody, and someone else, an American, 

40 

that their name is caught up in the communication, and if someone 

leaks who that was, unmasked that individual, my understanding 

is if it is classified information, whoever does that unmasking has 

committed a felony. Is that correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. The only distinction I would make, Congressman, is the unmasking typically is something done in the course 

of the intelligence analysis. Leaking would be a violation. 

Mr. POE. That is what I am talking about, the leaking of that 

information. 

And as of today, has anybody been indicted under PRISM? Has 

anybody been indicted under leaking information on unmasking up 

until today? Has the Justice Department indicted anybody under 

those two scenarios and events? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. We have indicted, prosecuted people for leaking. I am not certain whether—I don’t believe any of them related 

to unmasking. 

Mr. POE. So no one’s been indicted, to your knowledge? Which I 

want to bring up now the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 

that has been discussed by this committee numerous times. It is 

the law that allows secret courts to issue secret warrants to try to 

go get terrorists that are operating overseas and get their information. Does the Justice Department present those FISA warrants to 

a FISA judge? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. In situations where a warrant is required, yes, 

it needs to be obtained from a Federal judge. 

Mr. POE. That is right. But the Justice Department is responsible for that. Is that correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. That’s correct. 

Mr. POE. Also under FISA, once again, Americans are brought 

into the scenario because you target a foreign terrorist, and then 

you go after their emails, and then you find emails of Americans, 

and those are inadvertently caught in the surveillance of the target. According to The Washington Post recently, 90 percent of those 

inadvertent emails are on Americans. And my question to you is, 

why hasn’t the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence community, presented to Congress and our request that took place 

years ago, how many of those inadvertent emails, communications, 

text messages, conversations have been on Americans? We have 

been asking for the number. Do you know why that has not been 

brought to our attention? And let me just follow up with this reason. 

Here is the reason we need it. We are getting ready to maybe reauthorize 702, which I have a lot of problems with, I think it is unconstitutional in many other ways, but beside the point, here we 

are at a deadline getting ready to reauthorize it, and still, the intelligence community refuses to tell us how many Americans’ information has been seized. Can you tell us why we haven’t gotten that 

information that we have asked for for years. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. I testified at a hearing with Director Coats, 

who I think would be a more appropriate person to answer that, 

because he has access to the data, and he is—he has explained it, 

but I—I would simply point out that you used the term ‘‘inadvertent.’’ I think that we use is incidental. 

Mr. POE. Incidental. I don’t mind the name change. 

41 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. My point is simply if you are investigating a 

foreign terrorist, knowing with whom that person is communicating 

may be relevant to your investigation. So it is—— 

Mr. POE. That is not my question. My question was we are getting ready to maybe reauthorize 702. I don’t think we ought to reauthorize it until we find out from the intelligence community, 

where there are no indictments that have been issued against the 

intelligence community based upon the statements that you have 

made, to see whether or not they are violating the law, and they 

refuse to give this committee the information about how many people have been caught up in that. And we have been—we have been 

stonewalled by the intelligence community saying, well, we just 

can’t do it. Why can’t the intelligence community get some geek 

over at Best Buy and have them come in and answer that question 

with a few little taps into the big computer system? We just want 

the number. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The witness may answer the question. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. As I explained, Congressman, I have heard Director Coats explain this, and he is in a better position than I. 

Mr. POE. So we don’t know. Still don’t know. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair thanks the gentleman. The 

gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutie ́rrez, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTIE ́ RREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to ask you about sexual assault by the President of 

the United States of America. Over the past few days, echoing previous allegations made against the President in the past several 

years, at least 16 women have come forward to say that the President of the United States felt them up, kissed them without permission, put his hands under their clothing without permission, 

groped them, touched their genitalia, walked into dressing rooms 

unannounced to see them naked, and made other unwanted sexual 

advances that, to everyone, are clear violations of the law. 

Now, I believe the women, and I generally give the women and 

their word a lot of weight. And when the him in question is Donald 

Trump, there really should be no further discussion, because as everybody, regardless of their political affiliations or partisanship can 

clearly see, we have a man in the Presidency who has a very difficult relationship with the truth. 

In this case, we have women who were made to feel powerless 

and insignificant, who, at great personal cost and risk, have come 

forward. And I believe them. I do. Al Franken is resigning from the 

Senate. And it goes no further than this committee, where two senior members resigned because women came forward and made 

credible claims. 

That just happened last week. And others on this dais right now 

are among the additional Members of the body who are accused, 

credibly accused of misconduct. Right now, with the number two 

person in the Justice Department before our committee and sworn 

to tell the truth, I think it is important to get your opinion on 

whether there are grounds for a criminal investigation, or an ethics 

investigation against the President of the United States of America. 

42 

For example, Rachel Crooks is one of the 16 women that we 

know of who have come forward. She said that President Trump, 

before he was President, quote, ‘‘kissed me directly on the mouth. 

It was so inappropriate. He thought I was so insignificant that he 

could do that,’’ end quote. 

Jill Harth, another one of the 16 women said, quote, ‘‘He groped 

me, he absolutely groped me, and he just slipped his hand there, 

touching my private parts,’’ end quote. 

Now, these are just two examples of unwelcome sexual advances. 

I think were he on the subway or in a restaurant, would not either 

or both of these incidents be enough to get him arrested, in your 

experience as the number two most important law enforcement officer in the United States? But before you answer that, how about 

these cases? Kristin Anderson in an interview said, quote, ‘‘The 

person on my right, who unbeknownst to me at the time was Donald Trump, put their hand up my skirt, he did touch my vagina 

through my underwear,’’ end quote. 

And Cassandra Searles said ‘‘He continually groped my ass and 

invited me to his hotel room,’’ end quote. These are very serious allegations of crimes committed by the President, are they not? 

But before you answer the question, I think it is important to 

point out that these stories are corroborated by one of the most important witnesses of all. The President himself corroborates this. 

He told Billy—he told TV host Billy Bush when he was mic’d up 

for an interview with Entertainment Tonight, quote, ‘‘I just start 

kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And 

when you are a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.’’ He 

continued, said, ‘‘grab them by’’—and you know what he said. ‘‘You 

can do anything,’’ end quote. 

Samantha Holvey said on national television that when she was 

a contestant in a beauty contest, Trump would come back unannounced to the dressing room. And she tells her story, and once 

again, we have audiotape of the President corroborating this account when he told Howard Stern, well, quote, ‘‘I will tell you, the 

funniest is that before a show, I will go back stage and everyone’s 

getting dressed and everything else and, you know, no men are 

anywhere, but I am allowed to go in because I am the owner.’’ And 

he went on to say ‘‘The chicks will be almost naked,’’ end quote. 

Mr. Rosenstein, I see you as you a law enforcement officer, and 

I value your opinion on these matters. Would it be appropriate for 

you to investigate these and other allegations of assault and unwanted sexual advances by the President of the United States? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, I am happy to take any questions regarding oversight of the Department of Justice. With regard 

to that matter or any other allegation that you think warrants investigation, I would invite you to submit the evidence, and the Department will review it if you believe there is a Federal crime. That 

applies to any alleged violation by any person. And that’s all I have 

to say about that. 

Mr. GUTIE ́ RREZ. But, Mr. Rosenstein, you’re the number two top 

law enforcement officer in the Nation. 

Let me ask you, if a person on a train went and kissed a woman, 

is that a crime? 

43 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If it’s a Federal train, it might be a Federal 

crime, Congressman. 

Mr. GUTIE ́ RREZ. It’s Amtrak. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Just not going to answer any hypotheticals. 

Mr. GUTIE ́ RREZ. It’s Amtrak. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to answer any 

hypotheticals. 

Mr. GUTIE ́ RREZ. It wouldn’t be appropriate? You think that, as 

the number two law enforcement officer, you don’t think it’s a 

crime for a woman to be on a train, to be in a restaurant sitting, 

and a stranger, unwanted, stranger would come up to her and 

grope her and kiss her, that that’s not a crime? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. So if you ask me if there’s a crime—— 

The CHAIRMAN. The time that the gentleman has expired. The 

witness may answer the question. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN [continuing]. I would have to know the facts and 

I would have to evaluate the law. I’ve never prosecuted a case like 

that in Federal court, Congressman, but if you have an allegation 

by any person at any time, you should feel free to submit it. 

Mr. GUTIE ́ RREZ. The women have made the allegations—— 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Marino, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. 

Deputy Attorney General, it’s good to see you again. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO. We did a lot of good work together over the years. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MARINO. And I’m proud of it. And I’m still proud to tell people that I was part of the Justice Department. 

Actually, I have a strong bias for the Justice Department. I know 

your character, I know what kind of man you are, and I have the 

most confidence in you that you will direct that agency to follow 

the rule of law and to see that everything is above board. 

Ninety-nine-point-ninety-nine percent of the people that I worked 

with there are good, honest law enforcement people, and I have ultimate respect for them. They helped me in many cases, even when 

I was a DA. 

I would like to ask you to clarify a procedure. And first of all, 

would you tell me if I’m right here. A special counsel is appointed 

by the Attorney General, or under the circumstances by you, and 

that special counsel reports to you. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. MARINO. Am I correct in saying that an independent counsel 

is, again, appointed by the Attorney General or you, but that counsel is independent and not report to anyone in the essence of, ‘‘Can 

I do A, B, or C?’’ Is that correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Under the independent counsel statute that 

lapsed in 1999, the appointment would actually be made by a Federal judge. So there would be no role for the Department in the selection or oversight. 

Mr. MARINO. DOJ wouldn’t be involved in it at all. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. 

44 

Mr. MARINO. Let’s talk a moment about, I’ve been in many interviews with FBI agents, DEA agents concerning potential cases and 

what I’ve seen handled was above board. But wouldn’t you explain 

to the committee what a 302 is? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. A 302 is simply the form number for an 

FBI interview report. So after conducting a witness interview, the 

FBI agent would write a summary of the interview, and we refer 

to that as a Form 302. 

Mr. MARINO. And during an interview, whether it’s done by attorneys or investigators at the Department of Justice or it’s done 

back in my district in the middle of Pennsylvania, at some point 

is there usually an assistant U.S. attorney present in those interviews? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. There’s no rule against it, Congressman, but 

typically not. I would say the majority of interviews would be conducted by two agents without a prosecutor. 

Mr. MARINO. Who makes the final determination on whether immunity is granted? Is that by the U.S. attorney or the attorney at 

Justice Department who could, perhaps, be handling that case? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. That’s correct. It would be a prosecutor who 

would need to make that determination. And depending upon what 

type of immunity, it might require a higher level of review. 

Mr. MARINO. And before any immunity is given to anyone, 

whether it’s absolute or not, we in law enforcement look for a proffer, is that correct, from that individual or the attorney, what are 

you going to tell us why should we give you immunity? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. We have a strong preference for obtaining a 

proffer prior to any grant of immunity. We don’t always do it, but 

we have a strong preference for it. 

Mr. MARINO. I have never been in a situation, and perhaps it’s 

not unique, where immunity has been given where there has not 

been a proffer. Would that be an extreme or unusual situation 

where someone would, say, get their immunity but we have no idea 

what they’re going to say? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I wouldn’t want to characterize it, Congressman. As a U.S. attorney, I had to approve formal immunity, and 

in the majority of the cases there had been a proffer. If there 

wasn’t a proffer, I typically would ask why. So I can’t characterize 

what percentage of cases might fall into that category. 

Mr. MARINO. And also any evidence that would be collected, such 

as laptops, computers, things of that nature, pursuant to the investigation, again, there would be a thorough investigation of that 

equipment before immunity would be given to someone. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It would depend upon the circumstances, Congressman. We would have to make a determination of whether we 

believed what was—the data might be relevant to the decision. 

Mr. MARINO. But there is—we just don’t give blanket immunity 

because someone asks for it or just to get them into talk. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. We should not give immunity just because 

somebody asks for it, correct. 

Mr. MARINO. That’s all I have. Thank you very much for being 

here. And I know you will keep eye on things and keep everything 

above aboard. It is a pleasure to see you again. 

I yield back. 

45 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Likewise. Thank you. 

Mr. POE [presiding]. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here. 

There has been a lot of talk about dates and timelines. I’d like 

to actually just walk through, for the benefit of my colleagues, just 

a short timeline from this year. 

In January, the FBI, CIA, and NSA concluded the following, and 

I quote: ‘‘We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an 

influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. Presidential election. 

Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her 

electability and potential Presidency. We further assess Putin and 

the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump,’’ close quote. 

Mr. Rosenstein, do you have any reason to dispute that? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. 

Mr. DEUTCH. In January, also in January, on January 24, Michael Flynn denied to the FBI agents that he discussed U.S. sanctions with Russia before he took office. 

On January 26, Acting Attorney Sally Yates told the White 

House Counsel that Flynn lied about the nature of his calls with 

Kislyak and is vulnerable to blackmail. 

On February 13 of this year, Flynn resigned over his conversations with the Vice President. 

On February 15, public reports of telephone records that show 

that members of the Trump campaign and other Trump associates 

had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in 

the year before the election. 

On March 16, documents released by Representative Cummings 

show that Flynn received $33,750 dollars from Russia state-owned 

TV for a speech that he made in Moscow. 

On March 20, the FBI Director acknowledged an investigation 

into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. 

On May 9, the President fired the FBI director. 

On May 10, Trump met with Russian diplomats in the White 

House and revealed classified information and told them that he 

fired the head of the FBI, called him a nut job, and said, and I 

quote, ‘‘I face great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off,’’ 

close quote. 

On May 11, the President told NBC News that the Russia thing 

with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. 

On June 7, we learned President Trump urged Comey to drop 

the Flynn investigation. 

On July 8, we learned of an undisclosed Trump Tower meeting 

between Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Paul Manafort, and a 

Russian lawyer. 

The next day, five sources stated that Donald Trump Jr. agreed 

to the meeting on the premise that damaging information on Hillary Clinton would be provided. 

And 5 days after that, a veteran of the Russian military, we 

learned, also attended that Trump Tower meeting with Donald 

Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner. 

46 

On October the 5th, George Papadopoulos, one of five people the 

President identified as a policy adviser, pleaded guilty to one count 

of making a false statement to the FBI on January 27 about the 

timing, extent, and nature of relationships and interactions with 

certain foreign nationals. In the statement of offense, we learned 

that he reached out regarding his connections that he could help 

arrange a meeting between Trump and Putin. 

On October 27, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort 

and campaign adviser Rick Gates were indicted on multiple counts, 

including conspiracy against the United States. 

In November, the President of the United States met with Vladimir Putin and said, and I quote, ‘‘He said he didn’t meddle. He said 

he didn’t meddle. I asked him again. You can only ask so many 

times. Every time he sees me, he says, ‘I didn’t do that.’ And I really believe that. When he tells me that, he means it.’’ 

The President went on to say, ‘‘I mean, give me a break,’’ talking 

about the national security folks who put together that report that 

I quoted earlier, ‘‘give me a break. They are political hacks.’’ 

On December 1, former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn 

pleaded guilty to one count of making a false statement to the FBI 

about conversations he had with the Russian Ambassador regarding sanctions. 

This is a little walk through what happened over the past year. 

I would like to ask you, Mr. Rosenstein, I would like to quote 

some of my colleagues from this committee. One of them said that 

the special counsel’s investigation into whether the Trump campaign assisted in its effort to interfere in the election is actually an 

attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. 

Do you believe that, Mr. Rosenstein? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. 

Mr. DEUTCH. He said we’re at risk of a coup d’etat in this country if we allow an unaccountable person. Is the special counsel unaccountable here? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No, he is not unaccountable. 

Mr. DEUTCH. He went on to say with no oversight. Is there no 

oversight at all of the special counsel? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. There is oversight. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And then he went on to say that if we allow an unaccountable person with no oversight to undermine the duly elected 

President of the United States. Is pursuing the rule of law undermining the duly elected President of the United States, Mr. Rosenstein? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No, it is not. 

Mr. DEUTCH. One of my other colleagues said we’ve got to clean 

this town up. He talked about firing Mueller. 

One of our former colleagues on this committee accused Mueller 

of having a vendetta against President Trump because he fired 

James Comey. 

Mr. Rosenstein, do you believe that he has a vendetta against 

the President? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No, I do not. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I would just conclude that this little walk through 

this 1 year in American history makes it impossible to understand 

how it is that my colleagues on the other side continue to launch 

47 

attacks, not only against reporters, against the FBI, against the 

special counsel, but they do so to throw dirt on this story, to make 

it try to go away. 

They may want to bury their heads in the sand, but Mr. Chairman, I want to make clear that they will not bury the rule of law 

in the United States of America. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. POE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. 

Gowdy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Judge Poe. 

There are a lot of issues that I would like to ask you about, Mr. 

Deputy Attorney General. We had a terrorist incident in New York 

this week, we have 702 reauthorization that is pending in Congress, gun violence, the opioid epidemic, criminal justice reform. 

But when I go home to South Carolina this weekend, trust me 

when I tell you, no one is going to ask me about any of those 

issues. They’re going to ask me: What in the hell is going on with 

the Department of Justice and the FBI? 

The reason we have special counsel—this is a very important 

point, and you know it—the reason we have special counsel is because of a conflict of interest. The regulation itself specifically 

makes reference to a conflict of interest. And we don’t like conflicts 

of interest because it undercuts people’s confidence in both the 

process and the result. 

So let’s be really clear why we have special counsel: There was 

either a real or perceived conflict of interest that we were fearful 

would either impact the result or people’s confidence in the process. 

That’s why we have something called special counsel, and that’s 

why we have special counsel in this fact pattern. 

And then, lo and behold, those who were supposed to make sure 

there are no conflicts of interest seem to have a few of their own. 

There’s a senior prosecutor who sent obsequious emails to a fact 

witness. She can be described as nothing other than a fact witness. 

She’s a really important fact witness if you pursue the line of inquiry that my Democrat friends want to pursue. 

They got off of collusion and now they’re on obstruction of justice. 

She may be the most important fact witness in an obstruction of 

justice case. And the senior prosecutor for this conflict-of-interestfree special counsel sent a fawning, obsequious email to a fact witness. 

And then we have prosecutors assigned to conduct this investigation who donated almost exclusively to one candidate over another. 

And then we have a prosecutor assigned to this conflict-of-interest-free team that attended what was supposed to be, what he had 

hoped to be a victory party for Secretary Clinton. 

And we have a senior DOJ official, Mr. Deputy Attorney General, 

with an office that used to be two doors down from yours, meeting 

with Fusion GPS. And Fusion GPS, of course, was paying for Russian dirt on the very person that they’re supposed to be objectively 

investigating. And then that same senior DOJ official’s wife, the 

one that met with Fusion GPS, his wife was on the payroll of Fusion GPS. 

48 

And then we have a senior agent assigned to investigate Secretary Clinton’s email, helped draft the exoneration letter where we 

changed the language from grossly negligent to extremely careless, 

interviewed Secretary Clinton in an interview I’ve never seen and 

I doubt you have either in your career as a prosecutor, interviewed 

Michael Flynn, was actively involved in the investigation into the 

Trump campaign, before the inspector general found his text. 

So this agent in the middle of almost everything related to Secretary Clinton and President Trump sent pro-Clinton texts, antiTrump texts to his paramour in response to being told maybe he 

is where he is to protect the country from that menace, Donald 

Trump. He said, ‘‘I can protect our country at many levels.’’ And 

then he said, ‘‘Hillary Clinton should win 100 million to nothing.’’ 

Now, think about that, Mr. Deputy Attorney General. That’s a 

pretty overwhelming victory, 100 million to zero. And when I read 

that last night, what I thought was this conflict-of-interest-free 

senior agent of the FBI can’t think of a single, solitary American 

who would vote for Donald Trump. That’s where the zero comes in, 

not a single, solitary American he can imagine would vote for Donald Trump. This is the conflict-of-interest-free special agent assigned. 

And then he went on, if that weren’t enough, to belittle Trump 

supporters by saying he could smell them at a Walmart in Virginia. 

This is the person we needed to avoid a conflict of interest. And 

then he said this: ‘‘They fully deserve to go, and demonstrate the 

absolute bigoted nonsense of Trump.’’ 

But he wasn’t content to just disparage Donald Trump. He had 

to disparage Donald Trump’s family. This is what he said, Mr. Deputy Attorney General. He said, ‘‘The douche bags are about to come 

out.’’ He’s talking about our First Lady and children, this conflictof-interest-free special agent of the FBI. 

This is who we were told we needed to have an objective, impartial, fair, conflict-of-interest-free investigation. So he is openly pulling for the candidate he had a role in clearing, and he is openly 

investigating a candidate that he has bias against. 

And then, if that’s not enough, he says, ‘‘Trump is an F-ing, what 

the F just happened to our country?’’ This is the same man that 

said he would save our country. 

What happens when people who are supposed to cure the conflict 

of interest have even greater conflicts of interest than those they 

replace? That’s not a rhetorical question. You, nor I, nor anyone 

else would ever sit Peter Strzok on a jury. We wouldn’t have him 

objectively, dispassionately investigate anything, knowing what we 

know now. Why didn’t we know it ahead of time? 

And my last question, my final question to you—and I appreciate 

the chairman’s patience—how would you help me answer that 

question when I go back to South Carolina this weekend? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, first of all, with regard to the 

special counsel, Mr. Strzok was already working on the investigation when the special counsel was appointed. The appointment that 

I made was of Robert Mueller. 

So what I’d recommend that you tell your constituents is that 

Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein and Chris Wray are accountable and that we will ensure that no bias is reflected in any of the 

49 

actions taken by the special counsel or in any matter within the 

jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. When we have evidence 

of any inappropriate conduct, we’re going to take action on it. 

And that’s what Mr. Mueller did here. As soon as he learned 

about this issue, he took action. And that’s what I anticipate that 

the rest of our prosecutors, our new group of U.S. attorneys, our 

Justice Department appointees, they understand the rules, and 

they understand the responsibility to defend the integrity of the 

Department. And if they find evidence of improper conduct, they’re 

going to take action. 

So, Congressman, that’s the best assurance I can give you. But 

actually, there’s one other point, which is you should tell your constituents that we exposed this issue because we’re ensuring that 

the inspector general conducts a thorough and effective investigation. And if there is any evidence of impropriety, he is going to surface it and report about it publicly. 

Mr. GOWDY. I’ll try. 

Chairman GOODLATTE [presiding]. The time of the gentleman has 

expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. 

Cicilline, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Rosenstein. 

In February, the Department of Justice changed its litigation position in Veasey v. Abbott, the Texas photo ID case. 

Did you have any involvement in this decision to reverse the Justice Department’s longstanding position in this case that the Texas 

voter ID law was intentional and discriminatory. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No, I did not. 

Mr. CICILLINE. In August, the Department of Justice changed its 

litigation position in the case Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute. The Justice Department is now defending Ohio’s voter purging law. 

Were you involved in the decision to change this litigation position and now side with the voter purging law? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I was at the Department at that time, but I 

don’t believe I had any involvement in the decision. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And were you involved in the Justice Department’s decision to file an amicus brief in Masterpiece Cake Shop 

v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on behalf of the baker who 

seeks to deny baking wedding cakes to same-sex couple. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. That decision was made by our inspector general—pardon me, our solicitor general. 

Mr. CICILLINE. You described the special counsel as a heroic figure who served his country, a career prosecutor, someone who was 

confirmed unanimously as FBI Director, someone of extraordinary 

reputation, service, and patriotism. I take it your judgment on Mr. 

Mueller has not changed today? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And you would not have appointed a special counsel or appointed Mr. Mueller if you thought he was going to engage 

in a witch hunt, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. 

50 

Mr. CICILLINE. So you then would disagree with the President’s 

labeling of the special counsel’s investigation as a witch hunt, I assume. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I don’t know exactly what the President meant 

by that, Congressman. The special counsel’s investigation is not a 

witch hunt. 

Mr. CICILLINE. It’s not a witch hunt, the President said it is, you 

disagree. I mean, you’re supposed to be independent. You can answer a question contrasting with the President. You disagree it’s a 

witch hunt. The President’s wrong, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I do not know what the President meant by 

that, Congressman. I can only answer for myself. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Do you believe that the repeated attacks on the 

credibility of Special Counsel Mueller, whether by conservative 

pundits on TV or by my colleagues here in Congress, threatens to 

undermine the credibility of the independent investigation? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. The independence and integrity of the investigation is not going to be affected by anything that anybody says. 

Mr. CICILLINE. You delivered remarks on October 25 before the 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and I quote, you said, ‘‘If we permit 

the rule of law to erode when it does not directly harm our personal interest, the erosion may eventually consume us as well. The 

rule of law is not self-executing. If it collapses, if the people lose 

faith in the rule of law, then everyone will suffer,’’ end quote. 

In the context of the President’s attacks, the American people are 

really witnessing an unprecedented attack on our democratic institutions by this President, first diminishing the seriousness of the 

investigation which is underway about Vladimir Putin’s interference on our elections, attacks on the judiciary, attacks on the 

free press. 

The one institution which continues to enjoy broad public support 

and remains key to protecting the rule of law is the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice. America is 

counting on your integrity and your commitment to protecting the 

independence of the special counsel to reaffirm our commitment to 

the rule of law. 

And so when you said just a moment ago that you don’t have an 

opinion about a loyalty oath from the President being asked of people, it might be useful to remind you, sir, that members of the Department of Justice take an oath to the Constitution. And so a loyalty oath to the President of United States is inappropriate for any 

President to ask for and for anyone to swear it. Do you agree? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, nobody has asked me for a loyalty oath. 

Mr. CICILLINE. That’s not my question, sir. My question is, you 

are here to demonstrate the independence of your office. And you 

are unwilling to say that an oath to the President of the United 

States rather than to the Constitution is not inappropriate? That 

does not inspire a lot of confidence. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No, I am willing to say that. An oath to the 

President of the United States rather than the Constitution would 

be inappropriate. 

Mr. CICILLINE. An oath to the President of the United States, period, is not appropriate. 

51 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, you’re talking about a hypothetical. It’s not clear what was asked or what was said. 

Mr. CICILLINE. You also said—— 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. As long as you are following your oath of office, 

you can also be faithful to the administration. 

Mr. CICILLINE. No, that’s not—faithful is not the question. I’ll 

move to a new question. 

You also said you would not respond to the question to say 

whether or not the President of the United States had asked you 

to initiate criminal prosecutions against political adversaries, that 

you would not disclose whether or not those conversations took 

place. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I said I would disclose if I was told to do something improper. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But what about if you were encouraged to do 

something improper? What if you were encouraged to initiate a 

criminal investigation? That’s not appropriate to do, is it? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Several of your colleagues on both sides have 

encouraged me today, Congressman. And as I’ve explained, I’m 

going to base my decisions on the facts and the law. 

Mr. CICILLINE. I understand that, Mr. Rosenstein, but the action 

of a President to encourage you to initiate a criminal prosecution, 

separate and apart what you will do with that, that very action is 

not appropriate. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. You’re free to make that judgment. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Well, I’m asking you in your judgment. Isn’t that 

inappropriate? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. My judgment is it would be inappropriate for 

somebody to order me to do something inappropriate. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But it wouldn’t be inappropriate for your supervisor, the person you serve, the President of the United States, to 

tell you or suggest to you or encourage you to initiate a criminal 

prosecution against a political adversary? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, I think I’ve been very clear about 

this, that nobody has given me an improper order. 

Mr. CICILLINE. I’ll just end with this, Mr. Deputy Attorney General. 

You know, we’ve heard you very proudly here talk about the integrity of the Department of Justice and the work of the FBI. We 

heard Director Wray say the same thing. 

These two agencies, the FBI and the Department of Justice, are 

in the midst of an unprecedented attack by individuals who are 

trying to undermine the credibility of this independent counsel’s investigation. 

These are the same group of individuals who praised Robert 

Mueller when he was appointed—spectacular, was praised uniformly. And now the only thing that’s changed is two indictments, 

two pleas. Michael Flynn, part of the President’s inner circle, now 

cooperating with the government. That’s the only thing that’s 

changed. 

We need to hear your voice, defending the integrity of this Department, rule of law, the independence of this investigation, because the very future of our democracy is at stake if you fail to do 

that. And so I urge you to do so. 

52 

And with that, I yield back. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Idaho, Mr. Labrador, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Rosenstein, for being here today. 

I shudder at some of the questions from the other side. And I 

just want to ask you a quick question. Have you ever said that you 

are the President’s wingman? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No, sir. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Has the current Attorney General of the United 

States ever said that he is the President’s wingman? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But yet the Attorney General under President 

Obama said that he was the President’s wingman, and I never 

heard a single Democrat object to that. So it’s kind of ridiculous to 

sit here and try to question your integrity or try to question whether somebody is going to be loyal to their President or not. 

As you clearly indicated, you can both be loyal to the Constitution and to the President of the United States. As long as there’s 

not a conflict of interest, as long as you’re not doing anything that 

is inappropriate, it’s okay to be the President’s wingman. It’s also 

okay to say that you’re going to be loyal to the President, as long 

as they’re not asking you to do anything that’s illegal. Isn’t that 

correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So what was the goal of the Russians when they 

tried to interfere with the elections in the United States? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. The assessment of the intelligence community, 

as reflected in their public report, is that the goal of the Russians 

was to undermine American confidence in democracy. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So to undermine the Americans’—— 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I’m paraphrasing, Congressman. I don’t have it 

in front of me. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So they tried to undermine the public faith in the 

U.S. democratic process. Is that correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I believe that’s correct. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I believe that no one in the United States has 

done more to undermine the belief in the United States democratic 

process than the Democrats, and the press in some cases, when 

they continue to report on false allegation after allegation after allegation. 

In fact, what you see from the Democrats is that they move from 

one allegation, that allegation is proven to be false, and they move 

to the next one and they move to the next one and they move to 

the next one, because they are unhappy with the result of the election. 

Can you tell me why the independent counsel was actually appointed? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Special counsel, Congressman, I’ve explained 

publicly that I appointed the special counsel based upon the unique 

circumstances in order to promote public confidence. And I have 

nothing to add to that. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So why when Mr. Mueller was charged with investigating, he was charged with investigating, quote, ‘‘any links 

53 

and/or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump and any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation,’’ end 

quote? 

That charge is overly broad, but there’s been two prosecutions, 

or at least two charges so far brought by the independent counsel. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Four individuals charged. Two pleaded guilty 

and two will stand trial. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Have any of them been charged with any links 

and/or coordination between the Russian Government and individuals associated with the campaign for President Trump? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, the charges speak for themselves. I’m not going to comment beyond what’s in the charging 

documents. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But is there anything in those charging documents that there was a coordination between the Trump administration and the Russians? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, I’m not going to comment beyond 

what’s in the charging documents. I think you can draw your own 

conclusion. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So something I do agree with my friends on the 

other side is that we should get to the bottom—that we should 

know the truth. We should know whether there was collusion between Russia and the President of the United States. 

We should also know whether there was collusion between any 

Department who tried to interfere with our elections. 

So can you tell me, was there collusion between the DOJ and Fusion GPS to use a Democratic-funded document for political and 

legal purposes? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I don’t know the answer to that, Congressman. 

I simply point out that the language actually used in the appointing order was coordination, and I believe that was the language 

used by Director Comey when he publicly testified about an ongoing investigation. I did not use the word collusion. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. So that coordination—was there any coordination between the DOJ and Fusion GPS to try to undermine 

an election of the United States? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If there were, Congressman, I would be very 

concerned about that. As you know, there are ongoing reviews, and 

I’m not in a position to comment about that. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So there are ongoing reviews. So there could potentially be an investigation whether the DOJ and members of the 

DOJ actually colluded with an enemy of a political party and a political candidate to undermine the elections of the United States? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If there’s any evidence that warrants it, congressman, we’ll do what’s appropriate. 

Mr. LABRADOR. All right. 

So I think if you want to restore the trust of the American people, I think the Department of Justice has a duty to give us all the 

information that we have been asking for. We need to find out who 

started this investigation. We need to find out what the purpose 

was. 

54 

If you have an individual who actually had a desire to have an 

outcome in a political race and they decided to use the Department 

of Justice to investigate their political opponents, I think that is 

one of the worst crimes that has occurred in the history of the 

United States when it comes to politics. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It would, if that were what happened, Congressman, it would certainly be of great concern. 

Mr. LABRADOR. All right. Well, I hope that you are truly investigating this and that we get to the bottom of this. 

Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

California, Mr. Swalwell, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Rosenstein. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Thank you. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And please express my thanks to your employees 

who serve at our national interest every day and do very important 

work at the Department. 

Mr. Rosenstein, have you spoken with the President since you 

were appointed? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Of course. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And is that in a one-on-one setting? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I’ve never spoken with the President in a oneon-one setting. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Okay. Has he called you since you’ve been appointed by telephone? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And what was discussed? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. As I said, Congressman, I have told you that 

if I were told to do anything inappropriate I would talk about it. 

But if the President is consulting me about matters within my official responsibility, that’s part of the way you run the government. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Did he discuss at all Mr. Mueller’s investigation? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I’m not going to comment, Congressman, about 

my communications with the President. 

Mr. SWALWELL. How many times has he called you? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, I do not—I’m not going to comment about my communications with the President. There is nothing wrong with the President consulting with his Deputy Attorney 

General about matters within the jurisdiction of the Justice Department as long as it’s not inappropriate. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Rosenstein, I agree, except that this President has demonstrated, and that’s been expressed through testimony from James Comey that has not been contradicted under 

oath multiple times, that he is willing to talk to individuals at the 

Department about ongoing investigations. That’s where the concern 

arises. 

With respect to Attorney General Sessions’ recusal, was he involved at all in the decision by the Department to allow reporters 

to review the text messages that you discussed earlier? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Will you tell us if he was? 

55 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If I learn about it, if it matters, Congressman. 

As I said, there is—I’m not aware of any impropriety in what the 

Department has done in making these text messages available. 

Mr. SWALWELL. But Attorney General Sessions is recused from 

Bob Mueller’s investigation, right? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Attorney General Sessions is recused from Director Mueller’s investigation, correct. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And these text messages related to an individual 

on Bob Mueller’s investigation? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I don’t want to argue with you, Congressman. 

I’m aware of the recusal, and I’m not aware of any evidence that 

the Attorney General has violated his recusal. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Rosenstein, if you are overseeing an investigation and lead a team of investigators and you learn that one 

of the investigators has demonstrated a perceived bias against an 

individual in the investigation, should you, A, keep the person on 

the team, or B, remove the person from the investigation? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. B. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And knowing that fact pattern, what did Bob 

Mueller do with a similar fact pattern? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. He chose the correct option. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Mr. Rosenstein, the President has said a number 

of things about you, the Attorney General, the FBI being in tatters. 

He even compared our intelligence community, which your employees are a part of, to Nazi Germany. 

And I want to ask, considering his continued disparagement of 

the Department and your employees, are your employees proud to 

work for a person who holds their high integrity in such low regard? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, my employees are, I believe, 

proud to work for the Department of Justice. Some of them support 

a particular President, some of them don’t. But as long as they do 

their job appropriately, that’s my concern. 

Mr. SWALWELL. I agree, and I hope so, and I hope that’s the case. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN, your testimony today is that you believe Bob 

Mueller is a person of high integrity. Is that right? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. SWALWELL. You believe that his investigation is being conducted fairly. Is that correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. SWALWELL. You also believe that—and you understand that 

he’s publicly indicted two individuals with respect to his investigation. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. SWALWELL. He’s also obtained two guilty pleas with respect 

to his investigation. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Is there good cause to fire Bob Mueller as we sit 

here today? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Now, I am concerned that my House Judiciary 

Committee colleagues, particularly on the majority, have signaled 

quite indiscreetly today that they would probably give the President a pass if he were to fire or order you to fire Bob Mueller. 

56 

There have been a number of statements attempting to undermine 

the good character of Bob Mueller. 

That concerns me because that would certainly fly in the face of 

the rule of law in this country. It would not be okay, I believe, with 

the American people or the spirit that our country was founded 

upon. 

Mr. Deputy Attorney General, your investigation is a very narrow bridge. The important part, I believe, for our country is for you 

to not be afraid. During these trying times, we need you to be fearless. We have a President who has demonstrated a willingness to 

involve himself in ongoing investigations that involve he and his 

family. 

And for the sake of our country, for the sake of rule of law, I 

hope that you continue to demonstrate the character that got you 

into this position and that has given us as a committee, I think, 

faith in your ability to carry out that mission. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Farenthold, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I know we’ve talked a lot about this today, but I feel obliged 

on the account of the folks that I represent are always asking me 

about this to say there is a real concern out there, in Texas certainly, and I think around the Nation, that we’ve got a special 

counsel who’s working 24/7 investigating the Trump administration, yet the Department of Justice, various witnesses we’ve had up 

here, basically has not been able to confirm or deny what investigations, if any, are going on with respect to the potential misdeeds 

of the Clinton campaign in their dealings with Russia, be it 

through Uranium One, various speaking engagements for former 

President Clinton, and the like. 

And, again, I’m not asking to you break that confidentiality, but 

I am suggesting that there are a lot of people out there who would 

be sadly disappointed if there isn’t an investigation and may actually—or who do actually think that there might ought to be a special prosecutor or a special counsel appointed to look at the other 

side. 

So instead of beating that dead horse, I’m going to beat another 

one that I’ve been talking a lot about, and that’s specifically the 

DOJ’s opposition to the USA Liberty Act. Why is it so hard, why 

is a warrant requirement so difficult to deal with on your part? 

We understand the need to have exigent circumstances where 

things get looked at quickly, but it’s like the FISA court and this 

whole process of obtaining things for foreign intelligence purposes, 

to stop terrorists, are being rolled into more normal mainstream 

criminal investigations where traditionally there’s been a need for 

a warrant. 

Why is it so difficult to get a warrant? In many cases you can 

create the necessary probable cause in paperwork in a matter of 

hours, if not minutes. There are judges on call 24/7 to look at these 

things. Why is it such a problem? And why are you all opposed to 

it? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I believe—I don’t want to duplicate Director 

Wray’s comments about this, Congressman. I wish, actually, that 

57 

you could join us in the Department and see how we go about our 

work and I think that would actually enhance public confidence. 

The public sees when things go wrong. They don’t see the 99.9 percent of the time, as Congressman Marino pointed out, when things 

go right. 

And it would be burdensome. And I certainly respect and I understand the concerns, Congressman. And I think those are serious 

concerns and we’re going to do everything that we can to try to reassure people about it. 

But I can simply tell you, it would take me a lot longer than the 

time that you have to explain the full process, but I believe Director Wray is correct about this. 

And the national security community, I know many folks who 

were involved pre-9/11 and post-9/11 have spoken up about how 

important it is for us to have this tool because we do not want to 

be in a position again, as we were in 9/11, when people said, why 

didn’t the FBI put all these facts together and figure out about this 

threat before the terrorist attacks? 

So that’s the basis, Congressman. And I can assure you that if 

it were easy to do with a warrant, I would be in favor of it. But 

it’s not. And I believe that we have appropriate safeguards in place 

and that we have people who are responsible who are conducting 

these investigations and are going to avoid infringing Americans’ 

rights. 

That’s our primary concerns, Attorney Sessions has made that 

one of his priorities, to make sure that there are no violations of 

Americans’ rights. And I do not believe the program as it exists 

represents a violation of anyone’s rights. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, you and I may respectfully disagree on 

whether it violates folks’ rights or not. I agree we’ve got to fight 

terrorism, but there’s a reason the Fourth Amendment was included in the Constitution. 

Finally, I just want to touch for a second on cybersecurity. I used 

to run a computer consulting company. And you’ve heard about 

breaches all throughout the public and private sector. 

Can you just give me an overview quickly about what you all are 

doing with respect to that and what, if anything, Congress needs 

to do to help you? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It would be hard for me to do it quickly, Congressman, because we do have a lot of resources, both the FBI and 

other agencies that are protecting against the cyber threat. It’s a 

significant threat. We face both an intelligence threat from hostile 

foreign governments, and also a criminal threat from people who 

try to break into our systems to commit crimes and defraud Americans. 

And so it’s a very challenging issue, as you know from your experience. Technology continues to evolve and we need to stay a step 

ahead of the capabilities of our adversaries and of criminals. 

So the FBI does have a lot of resources devoted to that. I testified 

about our budget a couple of months ago. And I think that’s going 

to be an area where we will need increasing support from the Congress to make sure that we keep up with our adversaries. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

58 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Lieu, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, for being here 

today. 

I note for the American people that not only were you appointed 

by Republican President Donald Trump, you were also previously 

appointed by Republican President George Bush to serve as U.S. 

attorney for Maryland. 

And in a profile of you in The Washington Post when you were 

a U.S. attorney a former prosecutor says, ‘‘Rod Rosenstein is the 

poster child for the professional, competent, ethical, and fair-minded prosecutor.’’ So thank you for your service to the American people and for your exemplary service. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Thank you. 

Mr. LIEU. Last week FBI Director Christopher Wray told us that 

no one is above the law. You would agree with that statement, correct—— 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. LIEU [continuing}. That no one is above the law? 

Mr. Rosenstein. Yes, I would. 

Mr. Lieu. Now, important to our democracy is not only that concept, but also that people have to have trust in our law enforcement investigations. There are some of my colleagues and some in 

the media who have suggested that if you make political contributions, somehow you cannot be fair and impartial. 

So, as you know, these political contributions are a matter of 

public record. You previously said that when it comes to a special 

counsel investigation, you, Special Counsel Mueller, and FBI Director Wray will be the ones held accountable. 

So we looked up the political contributions of FBI Director Wray. 

He has made over $39,000 in contributions exclusively to Republicans, including $2,500 twice to Romney for President, $2,600 

twice to Perdue for President, thousands of dollars to the National 

Republican Senatorial Committee, $1,000 to Comstock for Congress, and on and on. 

Do you believe FBI Christopher Wray can remain fair and impartial? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes, I do. 

Mr. LIEU. Your colleague, Associate Attorney General Rachel 

Brand, has made over $37,000 of political contributions exclusively 

to Republicans. 

Do you believe she can remain fair and impartial despite her political contributions? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. LIEU. Okay. I think it is important right now to shut down 

this silly argument from my colleagues across the aisle that somehow if a Department of Justice employee exercises their First 

Amendment right to make political contributions that somehow 

they cannot do their job. And it shows the desperation that some 

people have about the Mueller investigation, which I now want to 

turn to. 

59 

You supervise that investigation, so you are aware, of course, of 

their guilty pleas and indictments. And in reviewing the guilty plea 

of George Papadopoulos, you would agree that there is a solid legal 

and factual basis for that guilty plea, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I believe he was represented by competent defense counsel who assisted him in making his decision. 

Mr. LIEU. And he pled guilty to lying to FBI agents about interactions with Russia, Russian officials, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I believe that’s correct. I don’t want to comment, Congressman, beyond what’s in the charging documents. 

They speak for themselves. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. 

The guilty plea of Michael Flynn, you must have looked at those 

as you supervise this investigation, you would agree there is a legal 

and factual basis for that guilty plea as well, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. LIEU. And he lied to FBI agents about his interactions with 

Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Again, Congressman, the documents speak for 

themselves. 

Mr. LIEU. You have read the indictments against Paul Manafort 

and Mr. Gates. You would agree there is a solid legal, factual basis 

for those indictments, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, when we return an indictment, 

we are always careful to say the defendants are presumed innocent, but I’m comfortable with the process that was followed with 

regard to that indictment. 

Mr. LIEU. You’re aware of the various people that have been 

interviewed by Special Counsel Mueller’s team. You would agree 

that there was a factual and legal basis to interview those witnesses, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I’m not aware of any impropriety. 

Mr. LIEU. You previously had testified about Robert Mueller’s exemplary record and dedication to service. You did mention he was 

a Vietnam veteran. I just want to note for the record, and I’m sure 

you know as well, he also did receive a bronze star for his service 

in Vietnam, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I believe two, correct. 

Mr. LIEU. He also received a purple heart for his service in Vietnam, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. LIEU. Okay. So what do we have here? We have a special 

counsel investigation that is being supervised by Mr. Rosenstein, 

who has been described as a fair-minded prosecutor appointed 

twice by Republican Presidents, being run by Special Counsel 

Mueller, a man of extraordinary dedication that is a Vietnam veteran, bronze star winner, purple heart, and in coordination with 

FBI Director Christopher Wray, who has been appointed by a Republican President, who has made over $39,000 of contributions exclusively to Republicans. That is the leadership of this special counsel investigation, and I am okay with that. 

I yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana [presiding]. The gentleman yields 

back. 

60 

And the chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

DeSantis, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Mr. Deputy Attorney General, when Sally Yates 

defied President Trump’s travel restriction order at the end of January 2017, was that appropriate what she did? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I disagreed with her decision. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So if you’re in a position where you get an order, 

your job is to follow the order. If you think it’s unconstitutional, 

then your response would be to resign your office, correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, my response would be, I think, first to 

talk with the person who gave the order. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Of course. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. But ultimately, if I concluded it were unconstitutional, I would not implement it. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And obviously you can’t have a Department operating where each one is a law onto themselves, or if they happen 

to think something is bad, that they just don’t follow the orders, 

correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. That’s exactly right. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So it bothered me, then, one of the recent revelations. You know, you have Andrew Weissmann. Yeah, he’s a big 

Democrat donor, which I agree doesn’t disqualify you from being 

fair. He went to Hillary’s supposed victory party. It doesn’t mean 

that necessarily disqualifies you. 

But when she took that action, he sends her an email with his 

DOJ email account saying how he’s in awe and so proud of her basically standing up to Trump. I mean, it was seen as a very direct 

rebuke to the President. 

So your test was, are the political opinions affecting how one conducts himself in office? I think that’s a fair test. But isn’t that example, of that email, an example of his strongly held anti-Trump 

opinions affecting how he is conducting himself on his official 

email? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. As I mentioned, Congressman, I’ve discussed 

this general issue with Director Mueller on several occasions. He 

understands the importance of ensuring that there’s no bias reflected in the conduct of the investigation. 

Mr. DESANTIS. It looks bad to the public, I’m just telling you 

right now. Part of it is, is there is an actual bias, but as you know, 

as someone very experienced, is there an appearance of that. And 

this appears that to be because, clearly, what she did was not 

something that experienced prosecutors would think was good, and 

obviously the Supreme Court has slapped it down. 

The Russia investigation, who started it? Who was the agent? 

Was it Strzok who started it? Who opened the case? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, that matter is under review by 

the Intelligence Committee and there is nothing that I can talk 

about publicly regarding the initiation of the investigation. But I 

can assure you, we’re going to provide appropriate access to the Intelligence Committee to what they need to answer—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. Did the FBI pay for the dossier? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I’m not in position to answer that question, 

Congressman. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Do you know the answer to the question? 

61 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. And that is, I believe I know the answer, but 

the Intelligence Committee is the appropriate committee to make 

that determination. 

Mr. DESANTIS. That is not true. We have oversight over your Department and the FBI. And whether public funds were spent on a 

dossier, that is not something that’s classified, we have every right 

to that information. You should provide it. If you’re not, then there 

will probably be things. 

Was that info used to get surveillance over anybody associated 

with Trump? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I appreciate that question, Congressman, and 

I know that’s been a concern for several members of the committee. 

I have set aside about a half hour every day to review FISA applications, and it is not legal for me to talk about those applications. 

So I’m not able to answer one way or the other. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, I would like that authority. I think that you 

can say—you may not be able to talk about the sources and methods of the substance, but if this was used, we need to know that. 

Do you agree that given—so what was the rule of Bruce Ohr? He 

met with Christopher Steel before the election. Was that an authorized meeting? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, I do not know all the details. 

This information is still developing. So I don’t know the full story, 

but we’ve agreed to make Mr. Ohr available for congressional interviews, and they will be free to ask him those questions. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I mean, you need to pursue it. It’s your Department. You demoted him. He is working with Christopher Steel. You 

have an anti-Trump dossier funded by the Democratic Party. His 

wife works for Fusion GPS. This doesn’t look good, so we need answers to those questions. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I’m not suggesting that I’m disinterested, Congressman, just that we have done everything we can to allow you 

to get those answers. 

Mr. DESANTIS. No, I get it. I get it. 

Let me ask you this. The role of Mr. Strzok, how much of this 

Russia investigation was due to him? Because, yes, Mueller saw 

the texts. Obviously, I think there was nothing he could do, you get 

rid of him. But how much of this whole investigation has been infected with his bias? Have you made a determination on that? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I have not. But I do want you to know, and, 

again, without talking specifically about this investigation, that the 

FBI does have procedures for all investigations to ensure that 

they’re appropriately vetted. So there’s no case for any one individual would be able to make decisions on—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. I hope not, but if you look at that damning text 

on 15 August, 2016, this is bad. He said, ‘‘I want to believe the 

path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office’’—I’m going 

to go out on a limb and say that’s Andrew McCabe’s office—— 

‘‘that there’s no way he,’’ meaning Donald Trump, ‘‘gets elected. 

But I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. We in the FBI can’t take 

that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die 

before you’re 40.’’ 

So let me ask you this. If you have those Walmart-shopping 

Trump voters that Peter Strzok so derided in his text messages, 

62 

how do they react to that? Do they have confidence in their FBI, 

in their Department of Justice when you see that, that you can’t 

let the American people vote somebody in who they want to? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, I think—what I hope you can tell 

your constituents, and to provide reassurance to the American people, is that we have appropriate internal affairs officers who will 

get to the bottom of that. 

Our inspector general is the one who exposed that and he’s going 

to deliver a report and we’re going to take—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. When is that report due? 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. The gentleman is out of time. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I believe it is going to be relatively soon. I believe he is actually testifying, coincidentally, next door. He knows 

I want to complete it as quickly as possible, but consistent with his 

responsibility is to make sure he gets it right. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I thank the gentleman. I yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Raskin for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Mr. Rosenstein, welcome. It’s good to see you again. I’m aware, 

from having been a State senator in Maryland for a decade, of your 

excellent service as U.S. attorney there. And thank you for your 

service to your country now. 

My first question is about the Emoluments Clause, which you 

know forbids the collection of foreign government payments by the 

President of the United States and other public officials. 

More than 180 Members of the U.S. Congress brought a lawsuit 

in the District of Columbia against the President’s continuing collection of foreign government money for the Trump Hotel, the 

Trump Tower, Trump golf courses, and so on. 

The Department of Justice took the position that we don’t have 

standing to raise that. If Members of Congress whose permission 

is required under the Emoluments Clause do not have standing to 

raise the President’s violation of the clause, how do we deal with 

the problem? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, that, as you mentioned, it’s 

pending litigation. The Department has taken its position in court. 

It will be the judge’s determination whether or not that position 

prevails. And I don’t have anything to say beyond that. The court 

will make that decision. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Thank you. 

You said that Robert Mueller is a dedicated, respected, and a heroic public servant whose distinguished military career and career 

as a prosecutor make him eminently qualified, perhaps singularly 

qualified to be running the special counsel investigation right now. 

He’s also a registered Republican, nominated FBI Director by 

President Bush and unanimously confirmed by every Republican 

and Democrat in Congress. Is his judgment impaired or are his decisions suspect because he’s a registered Republican? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. 

Mr. RASKIN. Do criminal prosecutors and investigators have a 

right to contribute money to candidates for public office? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

63 

Mr. RASKIN. And there are members of this committee who, as 

prosecutors at the Federal or State level, gave thousands of dollars 

of contributions while they were prosecutors to candidates for office. 

Do you think that that would be the grounds for overturning verdicts that they received against criminal defendants? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. So I want to ask you this. On the eve of this 

hearing, we got a dump of hundreds of text messages that we’ve 

been spending most of the day talking about between Mr. Strzok 

and Ms. Page. And they no doubt make for fascinating reading. It’s 

a little bit like ‘‘Anna Karenina’’ to go through them. 

And they are, of course, equal opportunity critics of public officials. They trash Bernie Sanders. They trash Senator McConnell. 

They trash Martin O’Malley, the Governor of our State. 

And of course they trash Donald Trump, who is repeatedly called 

an idiot, and at one point I think Mr. Strzok says, watching the 

Republican debates, ‘‘OMG, he is an idiot,’’ which hardly qualifies 

him for any awards for originality or exceptional insight. You probably could have found that in millions of tweets across the country. 

But I was amazed to learn from Business Insider that the Department of Justice had invited a select group of reporters yesterday evening to DOJ to screen these emails, to look at these private 

emails. 

And I’m wondering whether you know of any precedent of the 

Department of Justice calling reporters, asking them to come in to 

look at part of an ongoing investigation outside of a press conference, or even if that’s taken place during a press conference. I 

was amazed. Can you just explain that? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I’m accountable, Congressman, but as you 

know, I’m not the public affairs officer, so I wouldn’t know what 

the precedent was. But generally speaking, our goal is to be as 

forthcoming with the media as we can when it’s lawful and appropriate to do so. So I would not approve anybody disclosing things 

that weren’t appropriate to disclose. 

Mr. RASKIN. Do you know of any other cases where material in 

an ongoing investigation were released by the press officer to reporters? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I don’t know the details, Congressman, but—— 

Mr. RASKIN. And are you aware of the IG rule which says that 

material in an ongoing investigation cannot be revealed? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. I appreciate that. No, when this inquiry 

came in from the Congress, we did consult with the inspector general. And he determined that he had no objection to the release of 

material. If he had, I can assure you, I would not have authorized 

the release. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. There’s been much propagandistic talk today 

about fruit of the poisonous tree. And so, you know, they are in a 

mad wild goose chase for a villain and they found their villain in 

Mr. Strzok, who was promptly removed from the investigation by 

Mr. Mueller. But they’re saying, well, there might be fruit from the 

poisonous tree here. 

And, of course, fruit of the poisonous tree is a Fourth Amendment doctrine that relates to evidence that derives from an illegal 

64 

search or seizure. Have you heard any allegation of Mr. Strzok or 

any other agent in this case having conducted an illegal search or 

seizure? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes Mr. Ratcliffe for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Chairman Johnson. 

Mr. Deputy Attorney General, good to see you. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Likewise. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. I had a line of questions that I wanted to go into, 

but like many of the folks on this committee, last night I had a 

chance to see a number of these text messages between Agent 

Peter Strzok and Ms. Page. You’ve been asked about those. 

Have you had a chance to read them? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Not all of them, Congressman. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. How many you have read? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. A few dozen, I believe. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. Well, I will tell you, I can’t read some 

these publicly, they are that obscene, they are that offensive. And 

as someone who served with you at the Department of Justice and 

reveres the independence of the Department of Justice, I will tell 

you that I changed my questioning to ask you about them because, 

as I read them, I found them so sickening and heartbreaking that 

I felt compelled to do so. 

In addition to being sickening and heartbreaking, these texts are 

also evidence. They are not evidence of an appearance of impropriety, they are evidence of an actual vitriolic bias of actual prejudice, of actual hatred for the subject of the special counsel’s investigation by folks serving as the independent investigators and lawyers on the special counsel itself. 

Mr. Deputy Attorney General, I guess, please tell me that when 

you read these texts your heart fell and that you were appalled by 

what you read there. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I don’t mean to quibble with you, Congressman, 

the special counsel investigation does not have any identified subjects, that is individuals, other than the persons who have already 

been charged. 

But I can tell you with regard to those text messages, we concluded when we learned about that them that it was appropriate 

to complete the inspector general’s investigation. And if the inspector general reaches the conclusion that it is misconduct—and obviously, I have an opinion, as anybody may, about what it looks like. 

But it’s important for me, since I supervise that investigation, to 

await the formal conclusion and then any recommendation before 

I reach an official decision and take any action. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Well, I guess when you line up Agent Strzok and 

Ms. Page, along with Bruce Ohr and Aaron Zebley and Andrew 

Weissmann and all the other conflicts of interest, I would tell you 

that, first of all, these aren’t run of the mill conflicts of interest. 

You mentioned Mr. Ohr being a few doors down. He is your Assistant Deputy Attorney General. And, you know, employees of the 

Department sometimes have spouses that are involved with corVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:20 Nov 10, 2018 Jkt 032476 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A476.XXX A476
65 

porations. But we’re not talking about companies like Walmart or 

Microsoft here. We’re talking about Fusion GPS, a company that 

had 10 employees, and his wife was one of them, and he was engaged in meetings with that. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I just to clarify, if I may, Congressman, that 

while Mr. Ohr was part of my office when I arrived, I never involved Mr. Ohr in the Russia investigation, so he had no role assigned by me. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Well, I understand that, but I guess what I’m 

getting at is, you know, the conflict of interest here and the appearance of impropriety are, as everyone has said, colossally bad. 

But let’s talk beyond that about judgment. You said in response 

to Mr. Gowdy’s questioning that we should have great confidence 

in Mr. Mueller and in Director Wray and in yourself, and you 

pointed out that as soon as former Director Mueller found out 

about Mr. Strzok, for instance, that he took action. I want to give 

him credit for removing or reassigning folks, but isn’t he the one 

that chose them in the first place? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, Mr. Mueller was assigned by me 

to come in as special counsel, and there were a number of folks already working on the investigation. So I don’t know to what 

extentMr.Mueller—my goal was to get him in and working as 

quickly as possible. So I don’t know what, if any, screening he 

did—— 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Well, do you know what anyone did with respect 

to vetting this team? Because, you know, if you set out to create 

an appearance of bias or prejudice or impropriety or conflict of interest, the only way you could do a better job of doing it would be 

to pick this team and then have them wear their ‘‘I’m With Her’’ 

t-shirts to work every day. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I regret that you feel that way, Congressman, 

but as I said, I’ve talked with Director Mueller, and he understands the importance of avoiding any bias in that investigation. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Well, Deputy Attorney General, I have talked 

often about the fact that I think people can lose faith and trust in 

elected officials. But if they lose faith and trust in organizations 

like the FBI and the Department of Justice to fairly investigate 

and adjudicate violations of the law, then we may lose the Republic. 

I know that you take that charge seriously in the role where you 

are. But as has been said, events like these and the daily transgressions that become public one after another are not serving either the Department of Justice or the FBI well. And I just encourage you to do everything you can to restore integrity to those organizations that I know that we have both revered. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I agree with you entirely, Congressman. And I want to assure you that when Attorney 

General Sessions talked with me about taking on this job, he conveyed to me his desire to make certain that we do everything we 

can to enhance public confidence in the rule of law and ensure that 

the Department of Justice runs appropriately. 

He, like you and me, served as a U.S. attorney, he had the privilege of serving for 12 years. And he was so proud to return because 

of the deep respect that Attorney General Sessions has for the DeVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:20 Nov 10, 2018 Jkt 032476 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A476.XXX A476
66 

partment. And I think that’s reflected in the appointments that 

have been made to the Department, setting myself aside. We have 

a superb team of experienced professionals, including Chris Wray, 

who are in position to run that Department. 

So I cannot assure you that there will be no wrongdoing. We 

have 115,000 employees, things go wrong. But I can assure you 

that we will respond appropriately when they do. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. I appreciate it. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. 

Jayapal, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Deputy Attorney Rosenstein, thank you for your service to 

the country at this consequential time. 

We have spent 3 hours, and many of my colleagues on the other 

side have continued to harp on the theme of expressing concern 

with FBI Agent Peter Strzok and the text messages that were just 

released yesterday. But I’d like to remind everyone of where we 

were just a little over a year ago. 

The FBI was conducting investigations of Hillary Clinton’s 

emails, and leaks occurred routinely. Reports cited anti-Hillary 

Clinton bias within the FBI as the cause of leaks surrounding the 

investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails. One current agent even 

described the FBI as, quote, ‘‘Trumpland.’’ Another agent said that 

some within the FBI viewed Secretary Clinton as, quote, ‘‘the antiChrist,’’ and said, quote, ‘‘The reason why agents are leaking is 

that they’re pro-Trump.’’ 

Now, these leaks had serious consequences, and they arguably 

swung the election results in Trump’s favor, and I didn’t hear any 

of my colleagues on the other side expressing concern about the 

FBI’s bias last year when this was happening, despite the very real 

problems we were seeing. 

I agree with you in your earlier statement that political affiliation is different from bias. I believe I’m quoting you correctly 

when you say that. And I want to remind my colleagues that people are allowed to have their personal opinions and their political 

affiliations. For instance, Special Counsel Mueller and former FBI 

Director James Comey and you are lifelong Republicans. 

But that is not what is at issue. As much as my colleagues on 

the other side would like to deflect attention away from the urgency of the special counsel’s investigation into obstruction of justice and collusion at the highest levels of our government, it is 

clear to me after listening to 3 hours of questioning that none of 

this is about text messages. 

It is, rather, a full-fledged, irresponsible, and very dangerous attempt on the other side to attack and undermine Robert Mueller’s 

investigation and his credibility and to lay the groundwork for a 

desire to fire Robert Mueller or invalidate the results of his investigation, acts that I believe would cripple our democracy and acts 

the likes of which we have not seen since Watergate. 

Let me just warn my Republican colleagues and the American 

people that history will not judge those acts kindly. And being 

dragged into a President’s personal vendettas or apparent attempts 

67 

to undermine the very fundamentals of our democracy is something 

we must resist. 

And so, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein, let me just ask you 

again, in your role overseeing the FBI, is it your sense that the 

FBI’s impartiality is at any risk? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congresswoman, I think it’s important to distinguish the reputation of the FBI from the character of the FBI. 

Reputation obviously is damaged by every incident that comes to 

public attention, but the character of the FBI is a function of the 

approximately 37,000 employees. And as I said earlier, I’ve been 

very impressed with the character of the agents and employees 

who I know personally. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. And do you believe that the FBI as an agency is 

politically motivated? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I don’t believe you can characterize any agency, 

Congresswoman. We all recognize there can be individuals who do 

things they shouldn’t do, but that’s something that we address 

when it comes to our attention. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Deputy Attorney General, what can you do to protect the integrity of Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation and the 

results that it comes out with? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congresswoman, I don’t think there’s anything 

special that I need to do. Director Mueller has his mandate, he’s 

conducting his investigation, and I believe he’ll continue to conduct 

it until it’s concluded. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. And let me ask you one more time, you’ve said this 

a couple of times, but do you have full faith and confidence in Director Mueller’s ability to conduct this investigation? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes, I do. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you. 

Let me move to election security. On November 15, when the Attorney General appeared before this committee, I and several of my 

colleagues asked questions about the Justice Department’s actions 

to ensure the security of our elections. And at the time, the Attorney General said that he had not yet ordered a review of what laws 

might need to be updated to protect our elections from foreign influence. Has such a review yet been ordered? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I can tell you, Congresswoman, we have a lot 

of ongoing work relating to protection of elections. I don’t have 

enough time to go through it all now, but that is a very high priority for us. We have met with, that is the Attorney General and 

I, have met with Director Wray and some of his experts, and we’re 

going to continue to do everything that we can to ensure that our 

elections—— 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you. And we’d love to have an update on 

that. 

Let me use my last few seconds to ask you about civil rights. I 

have been very concerned that the DOJ is not actively defending 

civil rights and is instead dismantling critical structures and abandoning tools that for decades have been used by the Department 

of Justice to protect people from police brutality and discrimination. 

68 

What is the status of the 18 open reform agreements, 5 open investigations, and 1 case in active litigation brought under section 

14141 that is managed by the Department’s Civil Rights Division? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I regret I don’t have personal knowledge of all 

of those, Congresswoman. But if I may, yesterday I attended the 

annual awards ceremony of the Civil Rights Division, and the Civil 

Rights Division has a lot of very talented and proud attorneys. The 

Attorney General spoke about his deep respect for the work of the 

Civil Rights Division. And so I’m confident that work will go on. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. I would appreciate just a response to that later 

when you have a chance. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here. 

Just a few things that I’m not—I mean, there has been a lot of 

questions, a lot of understanding of texts and bias and a lot of 

things. 

And I think something that was really interesting and two things 

that I want to of base some of the questions I’m going to have on, 

because someone asked a little bit, one of my colleagues asked, is 

the special counsel not accountable—is unaccountable. And you 

said, no, they’re accountable to you. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. COLLINS. Which presents my line of questioning in a little bit 

of a way, because I think there has to be at least in your mind a 

little bit of embarrassment of what’s going on right now. Because 

I think you in good conscience chose Director Mueller believing, as 

many of us did, you know, just a very respectable record, one that 

we could all trust. And now we’re starting to find out that this 

team has been put together with interests. 

One of the questions that was also asked about Mr. Strzok was, 

did you know of his bias? And you responded, no. 

Now, given the indication there, the flip side is, is you would 

agree that there is a bias it looks at least to be presented in these 

text messages. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I agree that the text messages raise concern. As 

I said, I’m going to withhold my judgment until the investigation 

is completed. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, that brings up an interesting question, because I spent time last week with FBI Director Wray, and it was 

really interesting that he, especially some of his comments, that he 

felt like he didn’t have to provide to this committee. I think, hopefully, after that he realized that we do have direct jurisdiction and 

he will be getting us stuff. 

But he brought up this issue of Mr. Strzok and where he is now. 

So I want to focus just these last few minutes on where this issue 

is now. 

At the time—you give direct accountability to Director Mueller. 

When you discussed—was there a discussion between you and Director Mueller about moving Mr. Strzok off the committee, off the 

investigation. 

69 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I believe Director Mueller and I were together 

when we learned from the inspector general about what he had 

found. 

Mr. COLLINS. And by the way, when did you have that discussion 

and he was removed again? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. It was approximately July 27. 

Mr. COLLINS. And it is just coming out that he was removed, correct, publicly? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I think the fact that he was no longer on the 

case was known. The reasons were not known. 

Mr. COLLINS. The reasons were not known. And I think that’s an 

interesting thing, because it does—and, again, perception is reality 

in most parts, and whether that’s true or false is perception is reality. 

And the perception is, is that, uh-oh, we found a problem, this 

investigation could be tainted, we don’t really want this to come 

out, and now it’s starting to come out. 

But I do have a question just in a process, because Mr. Wray last 

week said he was not demoted, he was just moved to HR. I made 

the comment at that point that said it is funny to me that the second in command in the investigation division being put on a very 

high profile investigation, one of the highest in this town in a long 

time, and then simply being moved over to HR was not a demotion. 

In fact, why would you put somebody with challenges that you’ve 

now seen in texts, which we didn’t have last week, why would you 

put him in HR? There seems to be a little bit of a problem there. 

So I do have a question. When he was removed moved from the 

investigation, did he possess a security clearance? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I believe he did. I don’t have personal knowledge, but I’m fairly confident he did. 

Mr. COLLINS. You don’t know if he has a security clearance for 

working on what he was working on? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I’m certain he would have had a security clearance. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. Is it revoked or suspended at this point? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. COLLINS. Why would it not be? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Why would it not be revoked? 

Mr. COLLINS. Because I think what we’re having here is there’s 

a double standard. The new agent coming in working, or the new 

U.S. attorney in an office coming in and having what is now perceived as bias, working on a case in which that bias would at least 

be perceived by most average individuals as having an influence on 

the outcome of an investigation, especially him being involved in all 

of these other parts of this, changing letters, changing this, I think 

the interesting issue here is he being treated differently than a 

younger agent or a line agent out in, you know, another field office? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I appreciate that question, Congressman. If I 

may explain. I can understand why to the average American it 

might seem unusual, but within the Department of Justice we’re 

subject to the government employment regulations, and there are 

very strict rules about what we may and may not do. 

70 

So when we have an allegation of misconduct, it’s investigated, 

and we don’t take any disciplinary action unless and until a conclusion is made that it’s warranted. 

So the decision to transfer the agent was made based upon what 

was known at the time. That’s not a punishment. If there is an adverse finding—and, again, I’m supervising the inspector general, I 

need to withhold my judgment—but if there is an adverse finding— 

and our employees have due process rights, so they have a right 

to provide any explanation or defense. I don’t know what it’s going 

to be, but they have the right to do that. And at the conclusion— 

Mr. COLLINS. And I agree with that. Let me just jump in here. 

And I appreciate where you’re headed there, I understand investigations. 

But also let me say, this is a gentleman who, through these texts 

that we have seen, there is an understanding that he wanted to 

protect America, that he didn’t like the new President. He is still 

involved in the FBI, he’s still at this point undoubtedly still has his 

security clearance. 

Does it not strike you that at least this person who had access 

to very high risk, sensitive security issues dealing in this Russia 

investigation, why would they have not been separated out under 

all rules and regulations, but at least taken out? 

Has he been polygraphed simply since he’s—in regards to this? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. The inspector general is responsible for handling that review, and when he concludes it, as I said, there will 

be a public report. 

And with regard to the timing, I should clarify, I actually anticipated and hoped the report would have been done, completed in 

November, but it’s not completed yet. But I anticipate it will be 

ready soon. 

Mr. COLLINS. Is there a reason why it’s not been completed? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes, because the inspector general made a determination that he wasn’t finished. 

Chairman GOODLATTE [presiding]. The time of the gentleman has 

expired. 

Mr. COLLINS. I think the impression here is, though, again, is 

that somebody’s been treated special, and that you’re looking at it. 

And I think from your having the responsibility and the accountability for the special counsel, it is on you at this point—— 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. COLLINS [continuing]. To make sure that that is corrected, 

and right now there is a lot of mistrust out there. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Schneider, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you. 

Deputy Attorney General, I believe you touched earlier on this, 

but I want to confirm your answer. Do you agree with the unanimous finding of the Director of National Intelligence and the 17 

agencies of the intelligence community that Russia, on orders of 

Vladimir Putin, actively worked to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I agree with the assessment of the intelligence 

community, yes. 

71 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, Mr. Rosenstein, in an October interview 

with the Target USA podcast, you stated the following, quote, ‘‘If 

we have foreign countries that are seeking to interfere in our elections, I think we need to take appropriate actions in response,’’ end 

quote. I wholeheartedly agree with you. 

Unfortunately, on several occasions, including recently before 

this very committee, Attorney General Sessions stated that we’re 

not where we need to be on this issue and there is no review underway by the Department on what steps should be taken. 

You have said that protecting the integrity of our elections is a 

high priority. You seemed to indicate earlier that you have had 

conversations with the Attorney General and FBI Director. 

I have a simple yes-or-no question. Has there been a formal review of the attacks made on the 2016 election and what DOJ must 

do to protect the integrity of our 2018 elections? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, that’s the second time this 

issue’s been raised. And I did not watch all the Attorney General’s 

testimony, and I’ll have to check, but I believe he may have been 

referring to a review of legislation as opposed to a review of the 

issue. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. No. If I can reclaim my time. I asked him very 

specifically what steps have been taken following the appearance 

on the Senate side and the question asked by Senator Sasse, if any 

steps had been taken to review the elections and to take steps to 

protect our future elections. 

I’m asking the same question of you, simple yes or no. Has there 

been a review of what Russia tried to do or any other agencies 

tried to do to interfere in our elections last year and what must we 

do to protect our elections next year? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I believe the answer is yes, but I can get further information for you if you like. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. If that answer is yes, it has not been shared 

with us. As of today, we have had no information shared. I think 

this is an important issue. The elections are a short time away, and 

we need to make sure they are secured. 

Have there been any specific actions taken by the Attorney General following his appearance before this committee? You talked 

about meetings. Is there anything specifically you can share with 

us as actions to protect our elections? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. The FBI has—the Attorney General and I 

met with a team of FBI experts and discussed a variety of things 

that they’re doing, some of which are classified. In addition to that, 

Homeland Security has a role to play in this, too, in coordination 

with State and local elections officials. So there is a lot going on 

in that area. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I appreciate that, but I think we have to expect 

that 2016 wasn’t the first time the Russians have tried to interfere 

in our elections. They’ve interfered in elections around the world. 

They’re going to try to interfere in our future elections. Their attacks are going to become more aggressive, more intensive, more 

complicated. We need to be staying a step ahead of them. 

Twice now Attorney General Sessions, first in front of the Senate 

and then recently in front of this committee, said not enough has 

been done. 

72 

The meeting you are talking about, did that happen before November or is that subsequent to Mr. Sessions’ appearance here? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I don’t recall the date, Congressman. I’ll be 

happy when we take a break to review it. But I don’t think there’s 

any inconsistency in my answer. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, Mr. Sessions committed to me that the Department would brief this committee on any actions taken. Last 

month, after his appearance, I sent a follow-up letter asking for 

that briefing before the end of the year, ideally before this week 

and the intended adjournment of Congress. Unfortunately, I have 

not even received a response, let alone a scheduling of a briefing. 

Are you willing to commit that we can have a briefing, that you 

will update this committee on what actions are being taken to 

make sure our elections are secure next year? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If the Attorney General committed to that, Congressman, I will make sure it happens and I will make sure we respond to your letter. As I mentioned earlier, we make every effort 

to and I’m sure it’s in the queue. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you. I would hope that this moves to the 

top of the queue, that this is not a priority of a long list of items 

that may get to eventually. 

I think if the confidence of the American people in our electoral 

process, if the confidence of the American people in our democracy 

is damaged, as the Russians clearly have tried to do, then the future of the Republic is challenged. 

This is not a partisan issue, it’s not Republican, it’s not Democrat. We need to make sure that people respect our elections, know 

that their votes will be counted, know that their voices will be 

heard. 

I am imploring the Department of Justice to work with this committee, to work with Congress, to make sure that the American 

people can be confident in the future of our elections. I hope we can 

count on you to work with us. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Absolutely. And I want to be absolutely clear, 

that is near the top of the list for us, and I know it is for the Attorney General as well. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you. I look forward to hearing back on 

our letter from last month. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair thanks the gentleman. 

The committee is advised, Mr. Schneider and I are advised, that 

we have votes on the floor. General Rosenstein, we will be back in 

about 35 to 40 minutes. So if you want to get a bite to eat, whatever, you have time. 

The committee will reconvene immediately after this vote series. 

I think we have about four to six more members to ask questions. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Thank you. [Recess.] 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The committee will reconvene and continue the questions for the Deputy Attorney General. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gaetz, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GAETZ. Was Peter Strzok the author, recipient, carbon copy, 

blind carbon copy on any documents relating to the meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on the Arizona tarmac? 

73 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I do not know the answer to that. 

Mr. GAETZ. Will all of the documents relating to that tarmac 

meeting be produced in an unredacted format? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, the inspector general is having 

that investigation, and as I said, we’re going to try to accommodate 

any congressional requests that we can. But I will have to consult 

with him before I do. 

Mr. GAETZ. So if the President declassified the documents, how 

quickly could they be produced? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If documents are declassified, they could be 

produced fairly quickly. 

Mr. GAETZ. Is that, like, within a week? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, it would depend upon the sensitivity of 

the document. I can’t answer—— 

Mr. GAETZ. Well, if they were declassified, I guess they wouldn’t 

be sensitive anymore. So, I mean, could we get them within a 

week? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Which documents are we talking about, Congressman? 

Mr. GAETZ. The documents relating to the tarmac. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Oh. Well, I don’t know—I don’t know if they’re 

classified. I just—I don’t know anything about them. 

Mr. GAETZ. No, assuming they’re declassified, how quickly would 

it take to get them from you to us if the President declassified 

them? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If they’re documents that’s appropriate to disclose, then we disclose them as quickly as we could. 

Mr. GAETZ. When did Justice first learn that Nellie Ohr was employed by Fusion GPS? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I do not know the precise date, Congressman. 

Mr. GAETZ. Can you find that out and get it to us? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, if we know it, yes. 

Mr. GAETZ. Well, we’ve got to find that out, right? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. 

Mr. GAETZ. I mean, you’ve got the wife of someone who was one 

of the top counterintelligence officials in the Department of Justice 

working for the company that was a pass-through for money from 

the Democratic Committee to Russians to get dirt on the President 

to discredit him both before and after the election. I feel like it 

should be a pretty high priority to figure out when that occurred, 

right? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I don’t want to quibble with you except to say 

that Mr. Ohr is not a counterintelligence official. But, yes, I agree 

with you. In fact, I believe Mr. Ohr is scheduled to testify before 

one of the committees, or at least to be interviewed, next week. 

Mr. GAETZ. Right. But that doesn’t absolve us of the obligation 

to actually go and find out when his wife started working for these 

people that wrote this salacious and unverified dossier. 

So when did the Department of Justice learn of Bruce Ohr’s contact with Christopher Steele during the 2016 campaign? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, I’m reluctant to answer that only 

because I don’t know all the information, and I want to make sure 

we know all the information before we give any answers. 

74 

Mr. GAETZ. We, too, want to know all the information. That’s 

why we keep asking these questions. I mean, again, you’ve got this 

person who works at the Department of Justice whose wife is working for Fusion GPS, and during the campaign he’s meeting with 

the author of a dossier that Mr. Comey called salacious and 

unverified. 

And so I would hope that it would be a top priority to figure out 

when we first came to know of those meetings. Is that something 

you can get to the committee? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. If we get all the information and we have a 

firm answer. I don’t want to answer any questions until I know all 

the details. 

Mr. GAETZ. When did the Department of Justice first learn of 

Bruce Ohr’s contact with Fusion, with Glenn Simpson after the 

election? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, we have agreed to provide all the 

relevant documentation to the Intelligence Committee. I haven’t 

seen it all, so I’m not in a position to answer it. 

Mr. GAETZ. So during Mr. Chabot’s questioning he pretty thoroughly laid out the number of people on Mr. Mueller’s team who 

have financial donations to Democrats, to the Clinton, Obama campaigns. I mean, I think over half of the Mueller team donated to 

either Clinton or Obama. None of them donated to Trump. 

And so that’s either one of two things: Either Mr. Mueller was 

curating a universe of people who hate the President or it’s just one 

hell of a coincidence that a whole lot of people had demonstratable 

bias that we learn more and more about each day. 

And so you’ve answered that question by saying, look, people 

have personal opinions, but that doesn’t always influence action. 

And it’s the action that is your responsibility to make sure is not 

infected by this bias. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Correct. 

Mr. GAETZ. And I would proffer that, like, when Mr. Strzok goes 

and changes wording from ‘‘gross negligence,’’ a crime, to ‘‘extremely careless,’’ that’s not a belief. That’s an action. 

We can’t find out, you won’t tell us whether or not taxpayer 

money was used to go and buy this dossier. If it was, if the FBI 

was working with the Democratic Party to buy a dossier to discredit the President of the United States, that’s not a belief. That’s 

an action. 

If that dossier was dressed up as an intelligence document and 

brought to a FISA court, that wasn’t a belief. That was an action. 

If Bruce Ohr is meeting with the author of the dossier during the 

campaign and the head of Fusion GPS after the campaign, and as 

you sit here today, you can’t tell us when that occurred, those 

meetings aren’t beliefs. They’re actions that undermine the credibility of this investigation. 

And I would certainly suggest that when Mr. Weissman, 

Mueller’s number two in this probe, sends an email on his official 

Department of Justice email to Sally Yates praising her for defying 

the President of the United States, that’s not a belief. That’s an action. 

So my question to you is, like, what are we ultimately—what do 

you have to see in terms of the actions of people with demonstrated 

75 

bias against the President of the United States before you will appoint a special counsel to investigate the clear bias that has infected this investigation? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, Congressman, there are a number of different issues that you have raised. 

With regard to the allegations of bias, as I’ve explained, our inspector general is conducting a very thorough review of that. He’s 

the one who identified the text messages. And so I am confident 

that’s going to be done appropriately. We are going to get—— 

Mr. GAETZ. Mueller didn’t, right? It took the inspector general 

doing it. Mr. Mueller didn’t find this information. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, I don’t—Mr. Mueller found it when somebody told him about it. But it was in the text messages, which the 

IG got access to. 

Mr. GAETZ. It really makes you wonder how all these people, that 

we’re finding all this information about, with all these connections, 

ended up on his team. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, if I could just clarify. I do want 

to make clear—— 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The gentleman may answer. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Thank you, sir. 

With regard to oversight, we are working with the Intelligence 

Committee to try to provide them all the information they need to 

answer some of those questions. And I don’t personally know the 

answers, but I’m confident that we’ll be able to get that information to them. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Well, thank you, but I just want to note 

here, and I’ll take the time right now, I was going to say something 

at the end, but two things. 

First of all, the House Judiciary Committee, not the Intelligence 

Committee, has direct oversight responsibility over the Department 

of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

We have, the overwhelming majority of the majority, called for 

the appointment of a second special counsel to investigate all of 

this, and I think if that were taking place, that might satisfy a 

number of us. 

However, it’s not. And even based upon prior conversations that 

I’ve had with you, you’re aware of this and you’ve noted that we 

certainly have the right and the responsibility to do that oversight. 

So when you talk about providing documents to the Intelligence 

Committee, I have no problem with your doing that, but all of that 

information should be made available to this committee as well. 

Secondly, the inspector general, his investigation is very important. We support that. It is very encouraging to us that he is doing 

what I think is good, unbiased work, and we want that to continue. 

But our investigation does not need to—you may wait for them 

to draw conclusions—but our investigation does not need to wait on 

the inspector general. 

So, again, I thank you for the documents that were provided to 

us yesterday. There are, as you know, many, many, many more, I 

think 1.2 million documents that the inspector general has and 

that we have a commitment from the Assistant Attorney General, 

Mr. Boyd, to provide those by January 15. We have sent a letter 

76 

asking for certain information and commitments regarded to that 

January 15 production date. 

But that is very important for us, and we do not intend to wait 

on the inspector general’s report, whenever that may be, maybe before then, maybe after then, to pursue the investigation that this 

committee is pursuing. 

So as long as we have that understanding and that you live by 

the commitment that has already been made to be fulsome in your 

production of documents, I have no problem what you provide to 

the Intelligence Committee. But don’t look at this as something 

that’s just provided to them. It should be provided to this committee. 

If it needs to be handled in camera, if it needs to be handled in 

a classified manner, we have the facilities, and we are certainly 

prepared to make the necessary commitments to do that. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate, if I may further explain, I have instructed our staff to make sure they do make 

this information available to you as well. And my understanding is 

that we’re seeking to make arrangements with your staff to do so 

this month. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for being here today, sir. 

Last night I was discussing the importance of this hearing with 

my teenage daughter, she’s in civics right now. And I reminded her 

that it was 240 years ago when John Adams was trying to explain 

the difference between an empire and our fledgling Republic, and 

he famously summarized, ‘‘We’re a Nation of laws, not of men.’’ 

And I reminded her that the Founders understood that all men 

are fallen, we’re flawed, and that we have a natural instinct, people 

have a natural instinct to benefit their friends and seek retribution 

against their political enemies. And that’s a dangerous instinct 

when it’s exercised by someone in a high position of authority at 

the Department of Justice, obviously. 

So the Founders gave constitutional authority to Congress to 

monitor all this and to monitor those who are in responsibility so 

we can maintain the rule of law. And as has been mentioned here 

today in the hearing, the survival of our Republic depends upon 

that. 

So there has been a lot of discussion this morning about biases 

of some members of the Mueller team, and we have expressed our 

serious concerns about former FBI Director Comey’s investigation 

of Hillary Clinton’s illegal use of a private server. 

Of course, it has been mentioned Federal regulations strictly prohibit, for obvious reasons, any DOJ employee from participating in 

a criminal investigation or prosecution if the employee has a personal or political relationship or affiliation with any person under 

investigation. 

Reports have shown, and it has been mentioned this morning, 

that the lawyers on Mueller’s team have contributed more than 

$62,000 to Democratic candidates and only $2,750 to Republican 

candidates. 

77 

The question is, isn’t it reasonable for us to assume that there’s 

an inherent bias there? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, I appreciate that question. I 

have teenage daughters, and I have had the same sorts of conversations with them. 

And I can assure you, Congressman, that although I understand 

the basis for the concern, as I explained earlier, Director Mueller 

and I have a lot of experience as managers in the Department and 

we understand our responsibility to make sure that nobody’s personal opinions are improperly allowed to impact the investigation. 

So I can assure you that I’ve discussed that with Director 

Mueller, and he’s taking appropriate steps to make sure that his 

investigation is not affected by any bias. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. What are those appropriate steps? I 

mean, let us know what that looks like. I know you’ve explained 

it a little bit, but just—— 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana [continuing]. For my daughter back 

home, what does that look like? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I appreciate it. I think there are several aspects 

to it. 

Number one is the tone that you set around the office, making 

clear to everybody that although they may have personal political 

views, it’s not to factor into their work and they’re not to discuss 

it in the context of their work. 

Number two, it’s the process that we have within the Department of Justice. Nobody does anything on their own. Everything is 

subject to review, and the more significant the matter, the higher 

level the review and the more people are involved in reviewing it. 

And, of course, we have external checks at well. We have our inspector general, our Office of Professional Responsibility. 

And for any matters that we bring, of course, within the Department of Justice, we need to be prepared to prove our case in court 

beyond any reasonable doubt, so you need admissible evidence. 

So there are several levels of checks within the Department. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. In 2014, speaking of the processes, 

Attorney General Eric Holder announced a significant policy shift 

concerning electronic recording of statements, and there was established, at that time, a presumption that the FBI and other Federal 

law enforcement agencies will record all interviews of witnesses 

and suspects. My question is, is that policy still in place today? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I believe that the policy had to do only with 

custodial subjects, that is, somebody who’s in custody of the FBI, 

not with mere witnesses. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. With regard to the interview of 

former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about her email server in 

2016, was that recorded, do you know? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I have no personal knowledge of that. My understanding, from what I’ve read in the media, is no. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Could you find that out for us specifically? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Certainly. 

78 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. If it was not recorded, would you 

have any idea why that would not have been recorded under that 

policy? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I think the norm would be for a noncustodial 

interview not to be recorded. That’s my understanding. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. If it was her email server, wouldn’t 

she be—wouldn’t it be implied that she was a custodian of—— 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Not at that time? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. That policy only applies to folks who actually 

have been arrested or they’re in custody at the time of the interview. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. That’s not the way I understood that 

policy, but I’ll defer to you on that. But if you can get us followup information on that, that would be helpful. 

Earlier this year, certain names of individuals who were apparently illegally leaked who were caught in a FISA surveillance investigation, and obviously, when something like this occurs, it’s absolutely irresponsible and egregious that a leak on that level would 

ever happen. 

Can you inform this committee on what is currently being done 

within the DOJ to investigate potential FISA leaks? Just emphasize that for us. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes, sir. I appreciate the question. The Attorney General has made it a very, very high priority for us to pursue 

any leaks that are in violation of the law. So when we receive a 

referral from an intelligence agency that they believe there’s been 

a leak of information within their jurisdiction, and that they believe a criminal investigation should be conducted, we give that a 

very high priority. 

We’ve set up a new unit within the FBI to conduct those investigations, and we have attorneys within our National Security Division who are specializing in that, and we are monitoring those 

cases to make sure that they move expeditiously. Obviously, as you 

know, there are challenges in proving a leak case, but we are giving those extraordinary attention. 

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. I’m out of time. I yield back. Thank 

you. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Arizona, Mr. Biggs, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thought I understood in testimony to Mr. Ratcliffe that you said 

that you were supervising the inspector general and his team’s review. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. The inspector general reports to the Deputy Attorney General. In the conduct of the investigation, the inspector 

general traditionally has a high degree of autonomy. So I’m not 

micromanaging it, but I’m aware of the investigation and aware 

that we anticipate a conclusion in the near future. 

Mr. BIGGS. Is he providing you substantive reports or is he providing you timeline reports? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Generally, timeline reports. When there are 

significant issues that arise in his investigations, as, for example, 

79 

with the text messages that came up in the review of the Hillary 

Clinton email investigation, he brings that to my attention. 

Mr. BIGGS. And I am curious about the scope of the inspector 

general’s review. My understanding is it’s to review allegations of 

Department policies or procedures were not followed in connection 

with or in actions leading up to or related to former Director 

Comey’s July 16 announcement that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton would not be charged in her use of her private 

email server while Secretary of State. 

Is that the limitation of the scope, or is it broader than that? And 

what are the boundaries? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I believe it’s broader than that. The inspector 

general, I believe, was scheduled to testify today, and it would be 

better directed to him, but he actually has publicly talked about 

the scope of the investigation, and identified a number of matters 

within the scope of that investigation. And so it’s relatively broad, 

I believe. 

Mr. BIGGS. Well, in light of that, Director Wray was here last 

week, and in questioning, he said that he would try to un-ring the 

bell if the inspector general’s conclusions indicated that there was 

something that had gone amiss with the Hillary Clinton investigation. I asked him what that meant, and he alluded to some personnel issues and remedial personnel action, but he also said that 

he thought they might reopen that original investigation if necessary. Is that your understanding as well? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I don’t know exactly what he said. It’s hard to 

un-ring bells, but we do make every effort Congressman to take appropriate action if something comes to our attention. So I certainly 

support Director Wray if he feels there’s justification for reviewing 

that. 

Mr. BIGGS. And I’m not just talking about reviewing, I’m talking 

about reopening the investigation. If that is the direction, you 

would concur with that, if that’s the direction he—— 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, it’s certainly conceivable. It would depend 

upon the facts and circumstances, but if he felt it was appropriate 

to do that, I would certainly give that great weight. 

Mr. BIGGS. Additionally, I just thought it was interesting that 

you previously, I’m quoting from—this came from the media, so I 

don’t know if it’s accurate or not, that’s just my skepticism, but it 

says, ‘‘If there were conflicts’’—this is you speaking—‘‘if there were 

conflicts that arose because of Director Mueller other anybody employed by Director Mueller, we have a process within the Department to take care of that.’’ 

And just now, you’ve indicated that, I think, that those processes 

include the tone around the office, everything’s subject to review by 

a supervisor, and the inspector general could be called in if there’s 

something amiss, but the bottom line is, you ultimately have to 

prove the case in court, so there’s some checks and balances built 

into the system. 

But previously, Director Wray and Attorney General Sessions 

testified in this committee that there are no formal processes to 

discover individual conflicts of interest or vet for, and I’m going to 

call it unfair bias, because everybody has some biases, it’s just 

80 

whether it’s unfair or not. They both said it’s left up to each individual. 

Would you concur with their bottom line assessment there? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. To a large extent, Congressman, I would say 

it’s left to the individual, but also to the supervisor. The supervisor 

has a responsibility to know if there’s some reason for concern, and 

should take appropriate action and do an inquiry if there is a basis 

for it. 

Mr. BIGGS. Another issue that we have touched on today, and 

this has been brought up repeatedly, is this idea of integrity, independence, adherence to the rule of law, and this idea that we don’t 

want to lose faith in the rule of law. 

And one of the things that—I cannot convey to you in strong 

enough terms is that when I go home to my constituents, there is 

a real sense that there is disparity going on in how the current administration is being treated, and with former Secretary of State 

Hillary Clinton. I understand a lot of that is the divisiveness that 

exists in the Nation, a lot of that is partisanship, I understand 

that. But some of the things that we’ve talked about today, whether it’s the Strzok issue, Bruce Ohr, and Jeannie Rhee, Aaron 

Zebley, Andrew Weisman, et cetera, et cetera, it isn’t the money 

that people donate to campaigns, I think we have established that, 

it is what do they do beyond that. What did Aaron Zebley do? Set 

up a private email server—represented Cooper, who set up the private email server and destroyed Clinton computer, hard drives, and 

drives. 

I mean, these are actions, these are actions that someone took. 

And it’s not necessarily a mere bias that we might have or an unfair bias; it’s just something that goes beyond that, and it taints 

this investigation. 

And that is the reason that so many of us—it’s not because we 

don’t think Director Mueller is a war hero and has done great service to this country; it is simply that it has tainted everything 

around this investigation so that I can’t go home without people decrying it in loud terms. 

And so, I think that that’s what needs to happen and I think we 

need more information. Some of this information came out through 

FOIA requests, some through the inspector general, but some of it 

not very timely. And I do agree with the chairman here. This committee has jurisdiction. We need to be getting this information 

timely. 

And with that, my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman 

from Georgia, Ms. Handel, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. HANDEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good afternoon. Thank you for your time today. 

I am having a little trouble reconciling some comments from your 

opening statement with the realities. You said justice requires a 

fair and impartial process, and I think we could both agree that to 

have a fair and impartial process, no appearance even of conflict 

of interest or bias needs to be present. 

I want to ask specifically, it’s my understanding that the text 

messages and emails that Strzok sent were specifically labeled, 

81 

quote, ‘‘midyear exam’’ or ‘‘MYE’’ or ME, which was the code name 

for the Clinton email investigation. 

Were those emails and text messages, were they put into the 

Sentinel case management system at the FBI? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. To the best of my knowledge, no, but I can 

check and get back to you. 

Ms. HANDEL. I would appreciate an answer to that. Thank you. 

With the revelations regarding Strzok, Page, and others from the 

Mueller team, has Special Investigator Mueller taken any specific 

action on the remaining members of the team to ferret out whether 

they too have these types of biases and perhaps have sent such text 

messages or emails? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. As I mentioned, I’ve talked with Director 

Mueller about the importance of ensuring the integrity and neutrality of everybody working on the investigation. I don’t know precisely what steps he has taken. 

Ms. HANDEL. If you’re supervising this, don’t you think that 

would be something you should know? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes. And I can assure you, Congresswoman, 

based on his reputation, I’m confident that he knows what to do 

to ensure that his team is not biased. 

Ms. HANDEL. Okay. Well, apparently not, since we have just seen 

all of these text messages. 

I would like to—you said in your opening statement that there 

has to be a special responsibility for professional standards that 

rise to a truly higher standard. Do you think that the actions that 

we have seen rise to that standard? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congresswoman, that’s our aspiration. We recognize there are going to be deviations. I think the commitment 

that I have and the Attorney General is that when there are deviations, we are going to deal with them appropriately. So we can’t 

guarantee there will be no mistakes, errors or wrongdoing, but we 

can ensure that we’re going to set the right tone, and if anything 

comes to our attention, we’re going to take appropriate action. 

Ms. HANDEL. Okay. Were those text messages, or emails, sent on 

Bureau or DOJ-issued cells or other electronic devices? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I believe the answer is yes. 

Ms. HANDEL. You said that Special Investigator Mueller acted 

appropriately and immediately to deal with the issue of Strzok. He 

was, my understanding is, reassigned to H.R. Is that correct? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, Director Mueller would make the decision 

to no longer have him participate in the Special Counsel investigation. 

Ms. HANDEL. Right. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. The FBI would make the decision of where 

within the FBI to place him. 

Ms. HANDEL. All right. Let me be a little more succinct. Where 

is Strzok working now, in which Department? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. That’s my understanding, Congresswoman. I 

don’t personally—— 

Ms. HANDEL. That is H.R.? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. That’s what I’ve heard. I don’t know specifically. 

82 

Ms. HANDEL. Okay. It was reported that way. That would be 

very interesting. I would like to have the answer to that. 

It is peculiar to me that an individual under investigation by the 

inspector general would be redeployed to the very division and Department that is tasked with setting workplace policies. Do you 

think that’s a little strange? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I don’t—I assume that he’s not setting workplace policies, but I can check on that. 

Ms. HANDEL. Well, what else would you be doing in H.R., but 

dealing with personal matters? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, I think processing personnel matters, I 

think that’s largely what they do. 

Ms. HANDEL. Interesting. A person under IG investigation processing H.R. 

That’s all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Deputy Attorney General, thank you for your long testimony 

today. 

Listen, I want to talk a little bit about policy, because everybody 

understands that in a large organization, you’re going to have bias. 

And as was mentioned earlier, everybody accepts that you can have 

bias until it crosses into the workplace and it affects actions and 

how you conduct investigations, and that’s when leadership and 

policy comes into play. 

Can you tell me, has Special Agent Strzok—I don’t want to know 

if he has been found guilty of a charge, but is there a policy charge 

against Special Agent Strzok at this time? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. There is an inquiry being conducted by our 

watchdog, the inspector general, and he’ll reach a conclusion. And 

if he reaches an adverse conclusion, then there would be proposed 

discipline. 

Mr. Rutherford. Okay. And I’m not asking for the conclusion, because clearly, we have got to wait for due process, but the question 

is, is there a policy violation that Mr. Strzok is being charged with 

at this time? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, the charge would occur at the conclusion 

of the investigation. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Okay. And let me ask you this: You mentioned 

earlier that offering immunity in a noncustodial interview is not 

unusual, as happened with Cheryl Mills and several other top 

State Department aides. 

My question is on a policy. During the investigation, you give immunity and you don’t record the meeting, the interview? That to 

me is unprecedented. We discussed this with Director Wray last 

week. Is that normal policy for—— 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, as you know, that investigation 

occurred before I arrived, and so I don’t know the details of what 

decisions were made or why. 

In my experience, we typically would not record a witness interview, but on the decision whether or not to grant immunity, that 

would be based on the facts and circumstances of the case, and I 

83 

just don’t know what they were, and so I wasn’t involved. But the 

inspector general, if there’s anything suspected inappropriate about 

that, he’d have the authority to review it. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. See, here’s the situation that I think the 

American people are looking at. We have a situation where a special agent does something very unprecedented in an investigation 

by offering immunity and failing to record. You know, it was questioned earlier, was there a proffered statement during that interview. And I don’t recall if you said no, but I suspect the real answer is nobody knows, because it wasn’t recorded. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Well, if there had been a proffer, typically that 

would have been written down. I just don’t know—I have no knowledge about what was done in that particular case. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Okay. So here we have the situation with Special Agent Strzok, which is really bringing the agency’s integrity 

into question, and what’s going to be important is how you and Director Wray address this at the end of the investigation. I get that, 

and I appreciate that. And we are really waiting to see how folks 

are held accountable where we think bias has affected their investigative activities. 

Now, what really concerns me now with Mr. Strzok is after that 

situation and the others that have been mentioned earlier, do you 

see any reason that after President Trump’s election, that the Office of the Attorney General should have any reason to fear his 

election? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. And do you think the FBI should have any 

reason to fear the election of Donald Trump? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. Let me read to you, this is number 70—I’m 

sorry—on page 89 of Mr. Strzok’s conversations, and it says that 

he is worried about—hold on a second here—that New York Times 

probability numbers are dropping every day, talking about the election, and it says, ‘‘I’m scared for our organization.’’ 

Do you have any idea what he’s referring to there. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. No, sir, I do not. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. ‘‘Our organization.’’ 

And then on page 89, he says, ‘‘And I keep thinking about what 

D said. What is it? Sick to one’s stomach. Want to talk to you about 

it more and would like to talk to Jim and Andy too. Jim may be 

too much a true believer, though.’’ 

Those are scary comments from a special agent talking about 

other folks within the agency that he’s having these kind of political conversations about, and he’s worried because of the potential 

of a presidential election, he’s worried about what that’s going to 

do to his organization? Can you comment on that? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Yes, Congressman. Attorney General Sessions 

has been clear with me that our mission in this administration is 

to make sure we run the Department and the FBI properly. And 

if information comes to our attention or suggests there’s been any 

wrongdoing, to make sure we conduct an appropriate investigation, 

that includes due process for the folks who are accused of wrongdoing, and take appropriate action if there’s an adverse finding. 

84 

And I think, Congressman, that I’ve been asked several times 

this issue about what reassurance we have. And the reassurance 

is that that’s the commitment the Attorney General and I have 

made that is reflected by all of this administration’s appointees in 

the Department of Justice, a really superb experienced team, and, 

in particular, Christopher Wray, who the President appointed to direct the FBI, who I believe is well-positioned to do a superb job and 

promote public confidence in the future. 

Now, that’s all we can do, Congressman, is to commit to you that 

we will do everything we can in the future to earn and deserve 

public trust. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. And in closing, just let me say, if I could take 

just a moment, Mr. Chairman. I really do appreciate that. And I 

believe we have the right people in the right seats right now to root 

this out, but I’m going to tell you, I fear that it runs deep. And I 

do believe that we have the right people in place. Because we have 

to protect the integrity of all those men and women, all those 

agents, all those staff folks who are good, you know, law-abiding 

hard-working heroes out there. And they deserve an agency with 

strong integrity like theirs. 

So thank you for everything you’re going to do to make that happen. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. RUTHERFORD. And I yield back. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair thanks the gentleman. The 

chair understands the gentlewoman from Texas has some unanimous consent requests? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes, Chairman. Thank you for your kindness. 

And I thank the Deputy Attorney General for his testimony. 

I would like to submit in the record a December 12, 2017 letter, 

Mr. Chairman, to the committee by four members of the committee, 

four women of the committee—myself, Ms. Bass, Ms. Jayapal, and 

Ms. Lofgren—on asking this committee to hold hearings for the 

women accusers of Mr. Trump to be heard. 

I ask unanimous consent for that to be put in the record. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Without objection, that will be made a 

part of the record. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And then I have a line of questions that I 

hope to put it in a letter to the Deputy Attorney General that 

would not complete. I ask unanimous consent to put that into the 

record. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And then H.R. 3664, which is a complement 

to the Senate bill, follows my line of questioning regarding the protection of the integrity of the work of Special Counsel Mueller. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, the scheduling, if I could stop 

and ask for a scheduling question. Are we having another Judiciary, do you think in the next week? 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Not that I know of. I do not think at this 

point we have any plans next week. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And let me ask, I’ve been sitting here listening, but as well, noting a lot of meetings are going on. I would just 

ask the Judiciary Committee to be an active participant in the 

85 

DACA fix. I mean, this is our jurisdiction, and Mr. Chairman, as 

I go home, despite our likes or dislikes, there are so many young 

people that are living in such devastating fear. And I know that 

our engagement with the Speaker and the leadership could really 

provide some comfort to young people who are, right now, statused 

but they are so fearful that they will be unstatused, that I’ve had 

adults come to me whose children are not DACA, but whose children’s friends are about the suicidal nature of many of these young 

people because they are so frightened. 

So I don’t know whether we could fix it in the committee, the 

bills, or whether or not you would provide dialogue with the nowpresent ranking member and subcommittee’s ranker and chair, 

that we look to see how we can fix this, or at least provide a clarifying message for these DACA young people as we go home for the 

Christmas holiday. 

We are leaving young people coming home from school into 

homes that they are fearful that will be raided and that they will 

be immediately deported, and not be able to even go back to school. 

Medical school, Ph.D. candidates, various other academic individuals, and then, of course, people who are working. I am very concerned, Mr. Chairman. I am very concerned. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. I understand your concern. As you know, 

the Speaker has appointed a task force on the majority side, of 

which three members of this committee, including myself, are involved. I would be happy to have discussions with you about it. 

I also don’t believe that DACA recipients, where the program has 

been extended through March, need fear what’s going to happen 

here. And I do hope for an outcome that allows us to have the laws 

of the land changed to prevent this type of illegal immigration in 

the future, but also address the concern of these people who were 

brought here illegally, in many instances, by their parents. And I 

hope for a resolution just like you do. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I’ll take the—— 

Chairman GOODLATTE. It may not be the same resolution you 

want but I do want—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I’ll take you up on this order, and I would beg 

to differ that they were statused even as they came into this country through no fault of their own. So I don’t want that to hang over 

their head that they’re illegal. They’ve got a status here now. But 

let me just say that the March deadline has been, unfortunately, 

it seems to be encroaching on their thinking process because the 

raids are still continuing with their family members, the raids are 

continuing in their schools, ICE, places where they are. 

So if nothing else, let me just put on the record, first of all, we 

need the DACA fix. I disagree that March is an appropriate timeframe, and I understand what you’re saying, but we certainly need 

the President, the Speaker of the House, the leadership of this Nation, to be able to indicate that the Deputy Attorney General, 

Homeland Security, ICE officers, FBI officers, are not going to, unless there is some other element to their status, any action by them 

is not going to randomly deport DACA-statused young people. I 

think that is a crucial statement to have made. 

And I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

86 

Chairman GOODLATTE. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and the majority will definitely take them under advisement. 

I do want to thank the Deputy Attorney General for his participation, and I do have a couple more questions. 

Did former Director Comey, in sharing his memos with another 

individual, who then shared them with a New York Times reporter, 

share classified information? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Congressman, I do not know the answer to 

that, but the inspector general of our Department has jurisdiction 

to review that issue. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. And are you aware of the report indicating that Jim Baker, the general counsel of the FBI, was under 

investigation by the FBI for sharing classified information? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I believe that I read the media account that 

you’re referring to. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Do you still have confidence in the FBI 

general counsel? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I have counsel in the FBI, and I have confidence, Mr. Chairman, that Director Wray will make appropriate 

decisions with regard to his staff. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. And finally, in an interview with NBC 

Scott MacFarlane on December 6, you indicated that you were satisfied with how the special counsel’s investigation is proceeding. 

Why, after you’ve heard all the concerns expressed here today, 

why are you satisfied with the course of the investigation so far? 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. I’m satisfied, Congressman, because based upon 

what I know, which is different from what accounts may appear in 

the media, based upon what I know, I believe Director Mueller is 

appropriately remaining within his scope and conducting himself 

appropriately, and in the event that there is any credible allegation 

of misconduct by anybody on his staff, that he is taking appropriate 

action. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

We will have, I have no doubt, from both sides of the aisle, additional questions in writing, and we hope that you’re able to answer 

those and answer them expeditiously. 

Again, I thank you. You’re a little bit ahead, not much, but a little bit ahead of Director Wray’s time. And I know the sacrifice it 

is to prepare for this and then to give us the better part of a day 

to answer these questions, but they are very important. 

The FBI is an incredibly important law enforcement organization. In my opinion, it is still the premier law enforcement organization in the world. And again, as I said earlier, there are tens of 

thousands of employees there who are very dedicated to doing the 

right thing, upholding the rule of law, and providing justice in the 

fashion that the blindfolded woman with balanced scales stands 

for. I think the Department stands for that. But I do think at the 

higher levels of the Department, there are some serious problems. 

The gentleman from Florida asked some questions very much related to this, and I think that while we all have confidence in Director Wray, we also believe that there need to be some changes 

made, both in terms of the personnel, in terms of the protocols that 

are followed, and certainly, in terms of getting the necessary inforVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:20 Nov 10, 2018 Jkt 032476 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A476.XXX A476
87 

mation to this committee and whatever other appropriate committees so that all of this can be aired and the public’s understanding 

that these problems are being solved, and that they know what the 

nature of them are. 

So, again, thank you very much for your participation. Thank 

you very much for your work in a very difficult situation as Deputy 

Attorney General of the United States under these circumstances. 

Mr. ROSENSTEIN. Thank you. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. And with that, without objection, all 

members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional written 

additional questions for the witness and additional materials for 

the record. And the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:54 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

88 


Insert offset folio 204 here 32476A.001
89 


Insert offset folio 205 here 32476A.002
90 


Insert offset folio 208 here 32476A.005
91 


Insert offset folio 206 here 32476A.003
92 


Insert offset folio 207 here 32476A.004
93 


Insert offset folio 209 here 32476A.006
94 


Insert offset folio 210 here 32476A.007
95 


Insert offset folio 211 here 32476A.008
96 


Insert offset folio 212 here 32476A.009
97 


Insert offset folio 213 here 32476A.010
98 


Insert offset folio 214 here 32476A.011
99 


Insert offset folio 215 here 32476A.012
100 


Insert offset folio 216 here 32476A.013
101 


Insert offset folio 217 here 32476A.014