EN VIVO: Jeff Sessions, fiscal general de EEUU testifica hoy en el Senado. Cobertura especial traduc

in the presidential elections and his direct role in this episode and on screen at this time the desk where Jeff Sessions will be and where he will receive questions from each of the members of this Senate committee, the analysts and experts will also be to be attentive to the answers that the session provides about the type of relationship that the president maintains with President Donald Trump, however in all this and the intense chapter in the recent history of the United States there is a special ingredient and it is for you to be attentive If this happens and we are going to take it by the hand in this special broadcast because

sessions

may not answer the questions that are asked and that as a senior member of the government he can appeal to what experts call executive privilege that means that he could not answering questions or not answering some questions protected in the legal shield enjoyed by people of his category in the administrative if he does so, that is, if he does not answer, he would join a short list of senior members of the cabinet or presidential cabinets who are They have refused to answer questions from the Senate, among them are Wigan Bonds who used that executive privilege three times former President George Bush Sr. who did it once Bill Clinton 14 times George W.

Bush did it six times and we have information at this time that Jeff

sessions

is already very close to that door that we showed you a few moments ago to be able to begin this session of intense questions that is going to be held in the senate and that has been widely anticipated by the media who, like the people you see On the screen he has his representatives at this hour ready to bring him this information at the national and international level. Barack Obama also used that privilege of not answering the questions in the Senate, this testimony from the Secretary of Justice and this in the context occurs only a few days.

After another made by the former FBI director James, as occurred in that presentation, James Coming denounced that Trump's president asked him for his total loyalty, something that was uncomfortable to say the least and at this moment when it is two in the afternoon 33 minutes There is a silence of attention because everything means that at any moment we will burst in to enter Mr. Jeff Sessions through that door hand in hand and accompanied by the members of the Senate who will be asking these questions. Now if all this turns out, let's say reality is a little confusing and The importance is that we are facing one of the deepest scandals that has hit the White House in recent history, the question that basically wants to be resolved today or that the senators in charge of carrying out this questionnaire want to resolve today.

What role did the Russians play in the presidential elections in the United States? Another question is, did they favor Donald Trump's president, as did they, who did they contact, who did they speak with, and with what objectives, precisely on these last points, whoever will be questioned today has recognized that yes, obviously He met twice with representatives of the Russian government, however, there is information and journalistic investigations that indicate that there was a third meeting. A little more context about sessions. He was one of the first American politicians to support the policies of the United States and President Donald Trump.

However, he is a figure in decline. In the last five months, he suffered one of the biggest blows within the cabinet. It is said that it has emerged that President Trump has distanced himself from him and that his ability to maneuver is limited and at this moment they are beginning Some of the members will now enter, on this occasion members of the Democratic Party who are already beginning to occupy their corresponding places within this platform from where the questions will come that will have to be answered. Jeff Sessions told them that in March after the fall of the counselor of national security michael flynn it was discovered that sessions had hidden from the senate his meetings with the russian ambassador in washington that he had not told he had not reported his meetings with serge x law so he recused himself from anything related to the scandal that is, he could not refer or come out on defense in this entire episode of the current administration as it is, instead of having served the president as a parachute as a defender of the administration, he ended up being someone who, despite the fact that his position was designed to simply occupy that defense position could not carry it out, let me tell you about this committee about these people who are going to be occupying the chairs that you at this moment see as the first part of this takeover and who are the people who are going to face the questions or better yet the people who are going to ask The questions that will face Jeff Sessions is made up of eight Republicans, six Democrats and one independent, and among the Republicans are who you see on the screen, Marco Rubio from the state of Florida, Richard Ver from North Carolina, who is the chairman of the committee, who is expected either The person who starts this session in the Senate James Rey from Idaho Susan Collins from Maine Roy Blunt from Missouri James Lankford from Oklahoma from Arkansas and Jon Wer Wenn from the state of Texas and on the side of the Democrats will be Mark Warner from Virginia is the vice president of the committee and who is supposed to do the second question session diane feinstein from california ron wyden from oregon martín heinrich from new mexico angus king the main joe manchin the west virginia and erick which website from california each of the members of this committee of the senate has a specific time to ask your questions you have a specific time to frame your speech frame the type of accusations and frame the type of answers you want to find from 16 jones we tell you that you can find or could find repetition among several of the questions that will be asked in the next few minutes here in this Senate committee and we are already seeing John McCain who also occupies one of these seats sit down and be ready for this committee that is going to ask all these questions and that has already been in place for approximately nine minutes.

I delayed what was considered the initial time for him to begin answering the Facebook questions. We heard a little about the atmosphere that exists at this time in this committee of the US Senate and the members of the Senate who are going to ask these questions are now entering and We also already see sessions that are no longer occupying the place where they are going to make their responses to this appearance for the first time in public on what is considered the Russian plot moments in which the photographers begin to take their photographs that will surely be part of the electronic media in the next few hours a detail the president of donaldson will not be aware of what is happening at this moment in the senate he has a lunch with 15 republican senators this afternoon and was recently seen leaving the white house to holding this lunch in session he has already shaken the hand of some of the members of the senate committee and is diligently preparing to answer their questions.

It is also worth noting again that this is the first time that sessions talks about the Russian plot

especial

ly This scandal of Russia's alleged participation in the presidential elections after having recused himself, that is to say, having legally warned against it and is going to speak more on this issue, however, at the request of that Senate investigation committee, he has returned to appear before the public light and we will see whether or not he is going to make use of his legal right not to answer questions, the so-called executive privilege, we are in this special broadcast on Telemundo news, in this day stations testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, it is already there. and we are going to have the special translation live not only on the television platform to which you are going at this moment but also on all of them, then this historic session begins, Joaquín, the US Senate, I appreciate your willingness to attend before the commission in the today that he left with his years of service as a member of this body for his recent leadership before the department of justice as I mentioned when the director as he appeared last week the role of this commission is to be the eyes and ears of the other 85 members of the senate and the american people ensuring that the intelligence community operates legally and has the necessary tools to keep the country safe the community is large and diverse we recognize the significance of our investigations into russia's interference in the 2016 elections but we I remind the population that although we are investigating Russia, while we are investigating Russia we continue to review the CIA budget of the National Security Directorate of the satellite program and all the efforts that are made to recruit and retain the best talent. around the world, the commission's work was often done behind closed doors, something necessary to ensure that our most sensitive information is protected.

The sanctity of these sources and methods are crucial to the security of the intelligence community and to maintaining the safety of our allies. of those who want to harm us, I have repeatedly said that I do not believe that any commission should be made in public, but I recognize the importance of this investigation and the need for the American people to know the facts so that they can make their own determinations, which is why this commission is holding its 10th open hearing of 2017, more than double the number the commission has had in recent years and is the fifth on the topic of russian interference secretary sessions is your chance to separate fact from fiction and to clarify numerous allegations that have been made in the press, for example, there are many topics that we can address today, one of them: if you had meetings with Russian officials or their representatives during the Trump campaign, what was your role in the foreign policy team of the team of possible interactions with russia third because from you of collecting from the government investigation into russia and fourth what role did you have in relation to the issue of the director of the fbi com I hope we have an honest conversation and open about russian interference in the 2016 elections the experienced staff of the investigative commission questioned more than 85 individuals to date including yesterday an interview with joe johnson former secretary of homeland security and we are also reviewing some of the most intelligence information delicate issues that our country has, as we have said, we are going to establish the facts, separating them from the rampant speculations, and we are going to present it to the population so that the people can make their own determination.

Only then can this episode be left behind and we can concentrate on the future, I hope. that members with their questions in the investigation on russia and not waste the opportunity to make political or partisan attacks the vice president and I continue to conduct this investigation together on a politically hot topic we want to maintain a unified team with a professional team is working tirelessly on name of with our American to discover the truth the commission has made great progress in the midst of a whirlwind of political winds we agree that despite the acid public debate on how to proceed in this matter the intelligence commission has fulfilled its obligation to advance the purpose and aside from politics the secretary of justice it is a pleasure to have you back here I have not been the word to the vice president what he has to do I want to praise the way the investigation is progressing thank you for seeing it secretary and you have here after Mr.

Com's revealing testimony and last week to begin proto argument to express concern about the process by which we are not seeing this doi I understand that you were originally scheduled to testify today before the House Ways and Means Animation I understand that those appearances were canceled so that this one could be posted here but we appreciate your testimony before our commission, I believe and I think that I speak on behalf of many colleagues that we must respond to questions from members of that commission and the judicial affairs commission, Mr. Secretary, I hope that you will schedule those hearings as soon as possible.

In addition, I want to say from the beginning that although we consider that your appearance is only the beginning of our interaction with you and your department, Mr. Secretaries, we have always thought of speaking with you as our investigation, but we thought that it would be later, it is a We are pleased to have your request to appear today and we hope that there will be cooperation in any future requests that you will be available when necessary in the course of this important investigation let's now move on to the topic of today's conversation camping let's start with the campaign our you were one of the first to fervently support mr trump head of mr trump's national security team you and the strategic advisor will help shape the campaign's national security strategy there is no doubt that you have a unique perspective on some of the associates that we will speak with in the coming weeks have also raised some questions about your interactions with representatives of russia you said during the campaign that you had no communication with the russians then senator law and asked you in writing if you had been in contact with anyone who has been linked in any way to the Russian government in relation to the 2016 elections andYou responded definitively notwithstanding the fact that you did have interactions with Russian government officials during the course of the campaign in March.

You acknowledged having had two meetings with the Russian ambassador; however, there have been some published reports about a possible third meeting. On April 6, I hope that you helped us clarify those discrepancies. We also hope and trust that you will be willing to give the commission any documentation that is necessary to clarify this matter, such as electronic calendar correspondence. Then there is the point of the distinction of the day. Last week we had the testimony of the gentleman as under oath that of the Indian and his worrying interactions with the president as well as the circumstances of his revolutions some worrying points came to light the experience in the department of justice and the FBI serving under presidents of both parties felt so concerned about the president's actions that they felt forced to document all of their memberships Mr.

I ate tubes in bra size today and stated that it was worrying that the US president could lie about the nature of his meetings and that is Worrying coming from one of the main authorities in our country we also understand that Mr. Gómez interpreted it as an order from the president to suspend the investigation into the end of the pin. We also heard from Mr. Home that he thinks he was dismissed for his handling of the Russia investigation The president himself confirmed this in statements to the press. This is very worrying for all those who thought from both parties that it is important to preserve the independence of the FBI.

We have a lot of work to do to be able to work on these statements. Mr. Secretary, in your encouragement today, it is a opportunity to begin the process of asking those questions. For example, you are a resource in the Russia investigation. However, you participated in the dismissal of Mr. Coming for the handling of that investigation. We want to ask you about how you interpret his recusal and if you believe that he is complying. precisely with her we also heard from Mr. Com and last week that the president asked her to leave the oval office to speak individually with the gentleman as again something very worrying we want to hear from you about how you see or how you saw that request from the president appropriate and we want to know if you are aware of any attempt the president has made to undermine this very important investigation.

It is very important to know what you are doing to ensure that Russia or any foreign adversary does not attack our democratic process in this way ever so that the president still does not recognize the seriousness of the threat I understand that to this day he has not even recognized the unanimous options of the intelligence community that Russia intervened massively in our elections the threat we face is real and is not limited to us recent events In France they remind us that all Western democracies must take measures to protect themselves. I think that the United States should and can be a leader in this effort, but this requires that our government faces this issue seriously.

Finally, in recent weeks we have seen a worrying pattern that works that refuses to answer questions from the public on non-confidential matters in relation to allegations surrounding the president and with this intention I want to congratulate the president of the commission who at the end of a hearing last week heard that it was not acceptable for witnesses to come to the congress not to respond the american people deserve to know what is happening thank you mr president for listening the secretary if you stand up take the oath and rise add the right please now solemnly tell the truth the whole truth with the help of god i swear thank you secretary sessions you have the floor thank you very much president for allowing me to appear publicly before the commission today I appreciate the incredibly important effort of the commission to investigate Russian interference in our democratic processes that interference cannot be tolerated and I encourage it to be done every effort possible to get to the bottom of these allegations as you know the assistant secretary has appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the matter concerning russian interference in the 2016 elections i am here to address numerous issues that have been raised before this committee and I appreciate the opportunity to answer questions very much, but as I told you, Mr.

President, consistent with long-standing practices of the Department of Justice, I cannot violate my responsibility to protect confidential communications. I understand that the President now allows me to touch on some points directly. I did not have any previous meeting nor do I remember any conversation with any Russian official I did not attend any meeting at that event separately before the speech I went to a reception with my staff including at least two dozen people plus the president although I remember multiple conversations that I had at that reception but I don't remember any particular meeting with the ambassador or Russia or any other official if there was any casual interaction with the Russian ambassador I don't remember that reception after the speech the press interviewed me there was a space for it in a different room and then I left the hotel but I did not go to a reception where Russia was but that is not the point of this investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 campaign let me say this clearly colleagues I have not met nor had any conversations with any Russia or foreign official concerning any type of interference with any campaign or election in the United States, and I am not aware of any conversation of that nature by anyone linked to the Trump campaign.

I was his colleague in this body during 20 years at least to suggest that I could participate in any type of collusion or was aware of any type of collusion with the Russian government to harm this country that I have served honorably for 35 years to undermine the integrity of our democratic processes is a detestable lie, it has also been said that I did not respond to Senator Frank's questions, honestly, in my confirmation hearing, colleagues, that is false, I should not say it with her because I am not part of this body, however, former colleagues this It is true that Senator Frank asked a question after six hours that included dramatic allegations that the US intelligence community had advised the president-elect by telling him that there was a continuous exchange of information that occurred during the campaign between trump's aides and intermediaries with The Russian government that cited me was surprised by this explosive assertion that they said was being reported that same day as breaking news, which I have not heard, and they tried to immediately deny any suggestion that I could be part of that activity I responded to Senator Frank in this way and I quote Senator Frank in hardware and I do not know of any of those on one occasion or another the so-called collaborator of that campaign that I have not had any communication with the Russians and I cannot comment In this regard, the end of the quote was the context in which the question was asked.

In that context, my response is a fair and correct response to the allegations as I understood them. I was responding to the version that a contributor to the campaign had. meeting regularly with the campaign it did not occur to me to extrapolate from the question I have had to edit in detail any other conversation that I could have had with many in routine situations in the same way that I have had routine conversations with other foreign officials basic please listen well It was only in March after my confirmation hearing that a reporter asked the spokesperson if I had ever met with the light of France on airplanes.

That was the first time that question was presented to me directly and on the same day we gave the reporter information concerning a meeting my staff and I had in my Senate office with Ambassador Kislyak as well as a brief meeting in July following a speech I gave at the convention in Cleveland Ohio I was also to report a list of 25 meetings with ambassadors that I had in 2016 plus supplemental testimony offered to the Senate Judiciary Committee explaining that I recognized the treatment meetings and certainly nothing inappropriate occurred in any of those meetings connect me plus tell you clearly what the circumstances of my recusal were like the investigation into russia's interference in the 2016 elections please listen and I was sworn in as attorney

general

on February 9 the next day as promised to the judicial affairs committee I met with career officials of the department including authorities in ethical matters to discuss what had been published in the press saying whether or not I should recuse myself from this case from that point onwards on February 10 until I formally announced my recusal on March 2 I never received any type of information about details of an investigation and I had access to no information concerning the investigation I only received the limited information that the department's career officials determined was necessary for me to receive in order to form an opinion about the reassessment therefore I do not have any particular knowledge of this investigation except for what has been published publicly and I do not even read that in depth and I have not taken any action regarding any investigation of this story on the day of my formal recusal my chief of staff sent an email to the bosses of departments including the director of the FBI giving them instructions that they will inform their personnel of this recusal and that I tell them not to give me any type of information or get me involved in these matters and they have not made it very important I responded not because I was admitting no bad action or because I had done something inappropriate during the campaign but because the department of justice by regulation 28 is made based on that regulation I felt obliged to do so that regulation affects officials of the department who say that they should not participate in investigation investigations of a campaign if they have served as advisors to the aforementioned campaign therefore the scope of my recusal does not and should not interfere with my ability to supervise the department of justice including the fbi which has a budget of 8 billion dollars and 35 thousand Employees I expressed my concerns to the President and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein regarding matters concerning the FBI as indicated in the letter recommending the removal of Mr.

Coming as well as in a memorandum on this same subject that has been publicly released by the House. White, those represent a clear position. I appointed Secretary Rosenstein to make my recusal. It is absurd to suggest that a recusal of an individual investigation is going to incapacitate the Secretary of Justice from leaving the different components of the Department of Justice that carry out thousands of investigations, ultimately during his testimony. Mr. Committee discussed a conversation he and I had about the meeting Mr. Comi had with the President. My pleasure is to share what I remember of that conversation with the Commission after a routine part in Mr.

Con spoke with me, Chief of Staff. Although he did not tell me the details of his conversation with the president, apparently the day before, the man with me expressed concern regarding the communication protocols with the White House and the president. I responded, he does not remember it, but my response to his comment The gentleman was saying that the FBI and the Department of Justice had to be careful about the department's policies regarding contacts with the White House. He has served me for more than two decades in the department and I had complete confidence that he would understand and would to abide by the established rules limiting communications with the White House

especial

ly regarding ongoing investigations that is very important my comments encouraged him to do just that and I understand that he did so the Justice Department's rules on communications between the department and the White House They have been in force for years.

Mr. Commit knew about it and I assumed that he was going to comply with those regulations. In conclusion, I rejected any investigation into the presidential campaign but I have not remembered to defend my honor against irresponsible accusations in the throughout the campaign in the confirmation process and since taking office as attorney

general

I have dedicated myself to meeting the highest standards I have a reputation for it over decades of service including this commission the people of this country expect an honest and transparent government and that is what we are providing. This president wants to focus on the American people so that they are treated fairly and he has remained safe.

President Trump's agenda is to improve the quality of life of the American people. There are different approaches but that is his agenda and I share it, important as secretary of justice, I have the responsibility to ensure compliance with the laws of this country, to protect this country from its enemies and to ensure the administration and I intend to work every day with an excellent team and excellent professionalsof the department of justice to advance the important work that we have to do these false attacks and damaging infiltrations, you can be sure that they are not going to intimidate me, in fact this has strengthened my determination to fulfill my obligations, including reducing crime, supporting our State and local law enforcement authorities working the streets every day just last week it was reported that drug overdose deaths in the country are increasing at an unprecedented rate last year with 52 thousand in the new york times' estimates that the year It will reach 62,000 deaths from overdoses.

The homicide rate has been reported at 10 percent, the largest increase since 1968. Overall, we are telling gangs, letters, criminal organizations to terrorists, we are coming after you, each of our citizens. whoever wherever they are who already has the right to live safely at home and in their communities, I will not allow this department or myself to be added to this high mission, thank you, Mr. President, Mr. Warner, I have the honor of appearing before you and I give you I will do my best to answer your questions. Thank you sweet Ajax for your testimony. I would like to highlight that the president and vice president will have 10 minutes.

I want to remind you that our books that we are in an open session do not include any reference to confidential information. Please pay attention now. The most important news of the morning and afternoon has just been given sessions who has said that it is a deplorable and detestable lie to say that he participated in any collusion in the elections against the United States. He has also said that he does not remember having had a conversation with the ambassador of Russia in a campaign event and the most important thing is that since he has been part of the administration he has not had information about the Russia investigation and has taken any action in this regard, he has answered the most important questions at this time in three words In this session that we broadcast live on Telelam news, I have no doubt that he has been in fact recently and a video where he is seen entering the room and you do not remember having had a conversation with a Christian creator and at some point a private room is established where you were and did not save the reception area where you were separated from the general group of assistant I assume that in a survey the president shakes hands with people follow people you mentioned that you had members of your staff director of legislative affairs of the senate director of legislative affairs a retired army colonel who served with senator won before and joined my staff was with me in the reception area and throughout the evening he was in his capacity as senator i was there a person very interested in seeing how I was going to the president in his first relevant speech on foreign policy.

I understand that he had had a previous course, so it was an important moment for me to listen to his message. That was my purpose. You spoke of two meetings with the one with the greatest happy fans in the Republican confession. and another in September in your office in the Senate. Have you had any other interaction in the campaign? What I can tell you is that I wonder if I in a meeting when we had the meeting in my office and we made that public? possible meeting in the that would have taken place on the 17th is formally in any participation in the Russia investigation carried out by the FBI and the Department of Justice what were the specific reasons for their actions in the federal ader regulations established by the Department of Justice as they say the following: investigation if you have the type of personal or political relationship with any person involved in the context of the investigation adds the policy of identification with an important official ends you should not participate in an investigation many have suggested quotes because I thought that I personally was the investigator I could have done something wrong but the reason for my recusal is this I think I was obligated to do it under the rules of the news department how to clean the department of justice so you knew I was going to have to recuse this regulation is made of what occurred in May was sworn in on February 9 topics general issues we did not talk about the particular benefit for me it was clear that I qualified and advisor of importance of the campaign and relevant regulations this would explain the director's comments and he knew that most likely It was going to be rejected because he was familiar with this statute.

It is possible. I am sure that the lawyers from the Department of Justice are trying to communicate with him because, Mr. President, let me tell you this clearly. In fact, I recovered that same day. I never received any information about the campaign. It seemed that it would be a problem if I, as secretary of justice, intervened in this issue and that I was going to have to recuse myself, so I assume that my correct position was not to get involved at all in this process and I did not do so. You make a reference to your head of staff about the email notifying internally of your recusal decision you can ask him to provide us with that email with pleasure I think I have it with me you have had any interaction with the prosecutor pro return since his appointment regarding the email we sent to the director as well indicating that my recusal one of those emails was directly addressed to him by name I am not accusing him of any improper conduct but in fact this email was addressed to him personally secretary spoke to us before the commission about his interactions with The president highlighted in some cases his presence in those meetings can refer to the lake where they asked everyone to leave except the director, how he held a private meeting with the president.

You say that you informed him that you felt comfortable about it and his recommendation was that The FBI and the Department of Justice had to follow the rules regarding these communications. The director who once expressed additional discomfort to you with conversations you may have had with the president because you had two other meetings in total but there were six phone calls. It is correct. It is nothing. There is nothing wrong with the president talking to the director of what is problematic for any employee of the justice department and niqab is to talk to cabinet members or high-level white box officials about ongoing investigations if this has not been approved by the high levels of the department of justice and I understand that this regulation is healthy and I certainly believe that we must restore discipline in the department and adhere to those standards the standards regarding information leaks and these standards must be restored you could not talk to him president about the investigation because he was never informed of them, I must say that in relation to the private meeting of the director he told me, I understand that there were six of these exchanges, being that he had with the president throne, several with president obama, this is not something inappropriate per se but the point is to share information about an ongoing investigation if this has not been approved by the department secretaries years did you perceive this foreign policy team for the trump campaign that you know that team ever met we met in a couple On occasion there was an external agent, but frankly, Mr.

President, we never functioned as a coherent team. There was a member of that commission that you did not get to know. This is as I mentioned in my opening statement. If we thank you for your appearance, this is a first step. We want your commitment. that you will make yourself available to the committee in the weeks and months, please Senator Word, I undertake to appear before this committee and any other committee as appropriate. I do not believe it is good policy to continually summon my cabinet to talk about And I understand that I am responding to you.

You also commit to this that you are going to give us access to documents. Better go, Mr. Vice President, we will gladly answer all your questions. The president's friend would have suggested that the president was considering being a special prosecutor. Do you have confidence? Frankly, I do not know about these reports or their validity. I have known Mr. Blair for years. He served 12 years as the chief's director and I knew him before and I have, but I am not going to discuss hypothetical matters of what could happen in the future, which I I don't know because I don't know anything about the investigation.

You think the president has confidence in the director. I had no idea. I never told him about it. If we commit, he would commit to the commission not to take any measure that indicates the dismissal of the director. Müller. I can say with complete confidence because you have recused me in the investigation in fact how does this work senate word the assistant secretary of justice is leading the investigation with your recusal you could result in destruction I do not think it would be appropriate for me to do you know of any conversation between these officials about presidential pardon involved in the mitigation about Russia Mr.

President I cannot comment on conversations within the house mark that would violate the rules of communication to be able to understand the same these are confidential communications it is a long-standing policy the The Department of Justice does not comment on conversations between the Secretary of Justice and the President of the United States for reasons of confidentiality that are based on the distribution of powers established by the US Constitution, but in order to understand what you are getting at, executive privilege, I am not invoking executive privilege. because that is the president's prerogative, it is not my responsibility and what about conversations with other officials of the department of justice, a white house about potential sir, I have not had any conversation about forgiveness, apart from all that, there are communications reserved for the news department, we have the right to have a fair and robust debate to the justice department by encouraging people to express their views on whether that should not be made public because of his recusal this investigation whether the president or others will pardon someone in the midst of this investigation or our investigation That of the director, biology, that would be the problem with a comment that you made in your testimony was the skin, this conclusion about the doctor's performance and his ability to manage the FBI.

You agreed with the secretary's statement. Did you have any conversation about the performance or failures? in the performance of the director as if somehow the FBI had problems did you have any conversation with the director as and about this not in you as his superior enough things were said events about you appropriate to express my actions before your moral dismissal was prepared memo was prepared by the assistant secretary of justice evaluating his performance highlighting that there were some serious problems i agreed closer warner we talked about this before my confirmations of his verification we both agreed that it was necessary to have a new start in the fbi i want to understand if You want to talk about this before you get the opportunity for a renewal suddenly in the middle of the investigation in circumstances that are so particular at least for me the president fires the director of the FBI and there are all these problems and lack of control the deputy director The FBI denies that this is the case.

I want to know if you had this conversation with the director. Let's move on to the meeting on April 27. For April 27, you had been appointed to candidate Trump's national security team, so it would have been pertinent to attend this meeting. the Mayflower meeting I understand that the iron of the residents was also there I think that if you remember if Mr. Kirchner spoke with Ambassador Chrysler and as far as you remember you did not speak with the Christian ambassador I do not remember if I can assure you that there would not be been inappropriate if that conversation had occurred if it is feasible possible but I don't remember it when he was asked about the other two sessions after the question this did not come up out of excess of caution he told him it is possible that I no longer remember it and I tomorrow or well, nothing in my testimony from my subsequent letter that was intentionally false, I understand if I just want to understand that let's clarify that rotary should have already gone out to sessions, Crista who was there would have been something noticeable, I only agree with little of what the president said, there was no other meeting with a Russian official during the campaign not that I remember and I must tell you with respect to the two meetings one at the Mayflower hotel that you referred to I had no idea who was going to be there I don't remember it having come out that I was going to be there communications with him after that event, in the same way at the convention I went to the convention but in the hotel the public is allowed I understand that at the Mayflower there was this special cause room and then the speech came that is what I remember and you were the group from that reception another worrying matter that I want to touch on in the testimony of the gentleman, please pass by.

He says that he felt uncomfortable when the president asked everyone to leave the room and he was left with the impression that you stayed behind because you also left the room. felt uncomfortable you have said that if after this meeting the director felt uncomfortable you never asked him to be com and what happened development I'm going to put it this way we were there I was standing there and I remember is that I think each one did itWhat did the director have to do, as he was sitting in front of the president and they were talking, I think it was the next day that he said something and expressed concern that he had been left alone with the president, but that doesn't seem to be a problem.

He didn't tell me at all. At that moment, a detail of nothing that came up with an inappropriately large stream said that we should follow the guidelines of the department of justice and he wanted me to support him in that sense and that he should not have conversations with the president in our person about a conversation in a way that was not It was appropriate, we are in the middle of Jerseys Jones' statement. He has already given three very important pieces of news. The first has to do with describing as deplorable and detestable the idea that he has resolved with the Russians or with any foreign government in the US elections and having acted against the US He also says he has not had a meeting with the Russian ambassador at any campaign event and has also said that he has never had a meeting or conversation with members of the Russian government against the US or against the elections These are three of the most important answers that Jeff Sessions, the Secretary of Justice of the United States, has given so far in this highly anticipated appearance before the Senate Investigations Committee.

Of course, we are going to have the summary of the most important aspects of this appearance that are still It has not ended here in Telemundo news. We are going to continue listening to this important appearance, not exactly, but I remember making my allegations. Mr. Cominos said last week that he specifically remembered this matter and saying that the deal through the intelligence community to find something who corroborates this, he was told that this was false that there was nothing to substantiate these assertions of freedom, however, after this commission dedicated a considerable amount of time to this matter, we have carried out thousands of pages of information, interviewed witnesses and others. changed nothing radically from when we started and there has not been any factual report that corroborates any type of that refers to the famous dossier good of what Mr.

Frank told me during my testimony and I believe that these assertions have been discredited but you know better That is to say that I participate and continuous communications with the Russians as a representative of the campaign is absolutely false. He has spoken of his conversations, sure senators who have served in foreign relations and other commissions, the conversations with officials from other governments, ambassadors and so on, one thing. What happens routinely is that something that can be done and if you usually find a sister in the store you would talk to them it is certainly nothing to apply on the other hand when talking about coexistence with the Russians they are to the other governments in relation to the series and It would certainly be inappropriate and absolutely legal.

You are willing to tell the American people here without a media filter that you did not participate in any conversation of any kind where there was coexistence between the Trump campaign and a foreign power, but I can say without hesitation that you have been and very important within the Senate you traveled with the campaign you were an advisor to the campaign you spoke on behalf of the campaign on some occasions based on your experience and your participation in the campaign did you hear any rumors or suggestions referring to the campaign involvement of the Russians what I would have done if I had heard it I would have been surprised and I would have known immediately that this was inappropriate and I was looking for a way out certainly this is a serious matter because you must be talking about intervening in the computer systems of a private individual or from the Democratic National Committee that is not correct and if one thing happened it would certainly be breaking laws so it would be inappropriate and someone from the White House or the government including the president has instructed you has asked you to do something illegal or inappropriate like us attorney general will not be two that no thank you fascist senator thank you very much Mr.

President webcam welcome attorney general on May 19 Mr. Rosenstein in a statement before the House of Representatives essentially told them that on May 8 he learned that the president had the intention to remove the director as when you wrote your letter on May 9, did you know that the president had decided to remove the director home and senator fighter would tell you that I believe this has been made public that the president asked us for our opinion and he He asked for that opinion in writing. I don't know if he said anything beyond that, but I think he made a reference and I would let his words speak for themselves.

On May 11, the nightly news in January, the president said he planned to fire, like, aside from any recommendation so this is a take wheat payment that the decision had already been made so what was the need to submit recommendations to us we were asked for our opinion and we expressed it in consistency with the memorandum and the written letter I think it seemed pertinent giving that information in writing I agree with you with the president in the sense that he was going to dismiss Kobe outside of the recommendations because the problem was in the investigation into Russia Senator Fighter should let his words open for themselves I don't know what was he was thinking when we were talking about did you ever discuss the handling of the russia investigation in the fbi did you discuss the performance of being with the president or another installer afghanistan that was referring to a conversation communication between the secretary of justice the president and I cannot comment about that you can't ask the question if you discussed it with him right and how you kissed and discussed his dismissal because they didn't discuss the reason this is what was put in writing it was sent to the president he made it public you didn't speak verbally with him about it the institution of the gentleman as I cannot deny or confirm the nature of private conversations that he may have had on this subject we know that this is going to be discussed but those are the rules of the department of justice long-standing rules as you know senator missing colleagues long standing but we heard admiral rogers say essentially the same thing with migration very easy if the answer is no say no well they are equally easy to say yes if it had been yes but in any case it would have been inappropriate exactly how far were you involved in the removal of the director com because I see your letter of May 9 and you say that the director of the FBI must be someone who faithfully respects the rules and principles and is an example for the police authorities and therefore I must recommend the dismissal of the director and identify a successor to guide the great men and women of the FBI do you really believe that this had to do with the performance of the director and staff of the FBI and main in a very clear perspective on my part and the secretary control crossing style he explains it at length In his memorable speech, the president said that there were problems and that in my best judgment this was pertinent and the secretary's letter in pink touched on various points.

When Mr. Combi refused to investigate Clinton's case, he was violating the department's requirements and The FBI is an investigative entity, it is not its responsibility to carry out and establish criteria on whether something is investigated or not. This is something that cannot be done. These policies are there. If one of Clint does something, he simply does it and that's it. This tells me that there were problems. of discipline and this generated controversy throughout the political spectrum and I came to the conclusion that a new beginning was necessary and I saw nothing wrong with putting it in writing saved I would like to close the gap on some pending things from the declaration prison there was a meeting in the white house on the 14th remember you are from state there the meeting was over everyone stood up the president asked the combi director to stay well that is one like the one they are in which I cannot comment but remember having seen that he Your testimony remains that you stayed behind in your opinion because you thought you should be there.

You remember feeling the need to stay and I remember that I was one of the last to leave. You decided to be one of the last to leave. There was this one in a part about anti-terrorism activities there were multiple people there I remember that I left and I was the last one of the last to leave it could be said that you felt it was necessary to stay because you wanted to meet the director of the FBI well I don't know how you would characterize it my senator no I saw it as a major problem.

The comic director is an experienced individual and he could handle himself well in this situation. Afterwards, he told him, "Don't leave me alone with the president again. That's your description. He says that you, with your gesture, dismissing him as saying what?" You want me to do I think I described that interaction more completely than I correctly did. He raised this issue with me I think it was the next day and he expressed concern to me about that private conversation and I agreed with him essentially that there were rules about conversations. private with the president but they are not prohibited, I understand that he himself acknowledged having had more than six of these meetings with President Obama and the president did not give me any details of what was discussed or what the point of his concern was and he certainly knew that he could call his supervisor director who in the department of justice is the deputy secretary he could have complained to the deputy secretary if at any time he felt pressured but I have no doubt that he would not have given in to pressure do you know if the president records conversations in the oval office other places in the white house I don't know if any president will record conversations in the white house it would be mandatory to preserve that probably I want to touch on the topic of the campaign or it is known that a lot has been said that government intelligence entities from Russia who have had undercover people acting as journalists have you ever had any interaction with anyone who in retrospect seems like they were trying to influence you I don't think in my conversations in general and I met with a lot of people foreign officials who wanted to expose the perspective of their countries on issues that they considered important but that is normal but as someone who is not an official but is some businessman law who had tried to determine what you were doing memories of some type of interaction that in retrospect seems suspicious well I would have to think about it but I don't remember, the Republican platform was changed to not give defensive weapons to Ukraine and you can be part of that decision.

I did not work on the platform committee and I did not participate. I do not think I had any direct relationship with memories of any debate on this issue the campaign if this happened this debate in the platform committee I don't remember it senate blonde and I would have to reflect for many hours Mr. President I want to thank you for having this meeting open and in view of the American people as it should be I believe that the American people are tired of obstructionism, the country does not want to hear that the answers to relevant questions are reserved or cannot be given in public or that it would be inappropriate for a witness to tell us what they know about this three in the afternoon 49 minutes we have been there for just over an hour In this appearance by Jeff Sessions in the Senate, this intelligence committee has just finished his participation in Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who asked several very specific questions about Jeff Sessions' presence in possible meetings with groups of members of the Russian government. his part to which the 16 jones has again reiterated that he had in no way or form any type of meeting that could be classified as a collision or as some action against the government and the actions of the US elections on the departure of James committee Marco Rubio also asked several insistent questions and Jersey Jones said he has no idea what was going through President Exxon's head at some point when he fired James with several very important pieces of news that are worth highlighting at this time as this session continues. questions by this senate committee the first time that james com and has already repeatedly denied having had any type of special meeting that had the objective of affecting the US elections with members of the Russian government and has also described it as deplorable and Any idea that points towards that qualification is detestable.

We are in this special broadcast on Telemundo News and on all our platforms and of course we are going to invite you to join us on our central newscast at 6:30 p.m. for a summary of all this. what is happening in the most important political news of the day and trends of the coming weeks in the United States we continue in this special coverage of Telemundo news and to be accused of being obstructed for that reason is not appropriate, the director probably knows it, but especially I I responded since I arrived at the department because I never accessed files, I never met with members of the investigation, they never asked for documentation, the documentation that I received was already in the media and was presented by department authorities and I made an honest and appropriate effort to recuse me as I told Senator Feinstein and the members of the commission as I said I would do when I was confirmed as senator you are not answering me what the question is the question is Mr.

Cobo said that there were issues regarding the recusal thatThey were problematic and I couldn't talk about that, what those issues are because you don't tell me, none of them, I can tell you with absolute certainty, this is it and I don't sell without foundation and it doesn't seem appropriate to me and I have responded honestly to all the commissions to which I have appeared and go around spreading fallacies saying that I have not been honest I am trying to be honest and I have little time you have highlighted you have made that point he says that the gentleman how is he doing when he said that it was problematic and I the product that is what problematic things that have leaked from what he said in the private commission I asked the former FBI director if his participation in his dismissal violated his recusal for the connection with the Russia investigation the comic director said that this was a reasonable question so I want to ask you directly why you signed the letter recommending the dismissal of the director as when this violated your recusal did not violate while quotation did not violate my realization that would be the answer and the letter that I represent presented my views that had been defined to That answer doesn't smell good to me.

The president repeatedly spoke of his discontent with the investigation. The day after you sent the letter, he said that this was all a fallacy and said when is this charade paid for by the American taxpayer going to end? The memorandum from the secretary of control rosa time and my letter in that sense represents two points of view on the healing situation Coles thank you I want to clarify who did what with respect to the dismissal of the gentleman first of all allow me to ask you when you had your first conversation with brad rose are they about Mr. com we talked about this before the confirmation of one of us it was a conversation between people who have served in the department for a long time we knew that this was something really unusual many people considered it inappropriate and in that context we talked about it we both saw What we agreed on was that a new conflict was necessary, based on the way in which Mr.

Cobo and handled the investigation into Hillary Clinton, saying that this usurped the responsibility of the Department of Justice and commenting on the investigation beyond what the policies establish. We need to restore the prevailing regulations in the department of justice, too much information about department investigations was being leaked. The general rule of the department is reservation regarding synthetics. The president asked you to express your opinions in writing. I understand that you rightly took resources from the Russia investigation but on May 9 you describe the president recommending the dismissal of Mr. Combi and obviously this goes back several months to your previous conversation with Mr. 2 Sánchez but my question is why do you think that his recommendation to destroy the director as it was not inconsistent with his reputation thanks to the discharge the recusal that had to do with a case of the department of justice and the axis they carry out thousands of investigations I am the secretary of justice of the United States and it is my responsibility regarding the condition of judicial affairs and other courses ensure that the department has been handled appropriately I have to make difficult decisions I do not think it is appropriate to say that if one recuses himself from a case that has to do with some of the major areas the dea or another entity the department of justice cannot then make any decision relevant to said entity if you had known that the president was subsequently going to say on television and an interview with our that this Russia issue was the reason why he was going to dismiss the director of the civil would have been uncomfortable feeling at the moment of the decision senator Coles I do not think it is appropriate to deal with hypothetical matters I must concentrate on the facts and out of respect I am not going to comment on that in retrospect do you think it would have been better for you to have stayed out of it The decision to dismiss the director as I think was my responsibility.

I was appointed Secretary of Justice to supervise multiple federal entities. It is my responsibility to have the best people in charge of those entities. Those responsibilities and that is my obligation. It is the director who tells me that You did not feel like in relation to your individual conversations with the president that he did not want to tell you about it because he thought that you were going to recuse yourself from the image in the Russia investigation, things that you did, the director told me that he did not tell anyone else in the department except the leadership to the larger plan on the issue of the fbi do you think the director was obligated to expose this information about the president of trying to let michael klim go many lawyers in the department of justice more than 10,000 I think it was appropriate It had been for the coming sector to speak with the secretary of men of justice who is his supervisor of the event who has 23 years in the department of justice and had 6 years of service appointed by President Obama he is a man of integrity decency and good judgment yes He had some concern, he should have presented himself to the assistant secretary, who had been the right person, and if he thought that I was going to recuse myself, the assistant secretary should have informed him, thank you.

The president ever expressed frustration about his decision to use fact I cannot share with this private communications commission I cannot invoke the executive the president is so objective and I understand that you were sworn in here and you said that you swore to simply tell the truth the whole truth and only the truth and now they are not answering questions You are preventing this investigation as I understand it due to the legal standard that you answer the question and say that it would be the best alternative you say this is confidential I cannot answer it here I can do it in something that sometimes number 2 number 3 is the executive privilege this is not a legal standard for this what are these long-standing rules that protect executive conversations without invoking public embellishment I am protecting the president's constitutional right not to interfere before he has a chance to make a determination I am saying the truth when answering your questions that it is a starting policy of the department of justice they are written the president has to have full opportunity to decide on these issues when you share those policies with us they are written in the ass I think that if this is the legal standard to not respond to questions from the email, it is my opinion that it would be inappropriate for me to reveal private conversations with the president and if he has not had the opportunity to review the questions and make a decision as to whether he approves that answer number one euros, there are other privileges that could be invoked one of them has to do with the special prosecutor's investigation we are not asking questions about visions if I had wanted to know something about that investigation I would have asked those questions to achievements are I am referring to your personal knowledge of this commission the constitutional obligation to get to the bottom of this matter that two investigations a special prosecutor investigation and the congressional investigation and you are obstructing that congressional investigation by not answering these questions and I think your silence like the silence of director coach and the glasses Rogers is eloquent.

I must tell you that I have discussed with high-level lawyers in the department and this is consistent with my duties. Senator Reid asked him about the relevance of his actions and whether he had anything inappropriate to do with the campaign if that had been the case. your answer vision leave because your answer was maybe because there would have always been some illegal action for the campaign absolutely I would have left I think that's a good answer I don't understand why you can't your answer in the first round it seems strange to me that you nor the Secretary Rosa is talking about the comedian director's performance, talking to him and in fact director Mike has refuted any assertion that there were problems with his performance.

This is worrying because it seems that the president decided to ask the director why he was carrying out the Russia investigation. and you ask him to give you an excuse when his evaluation of the comics sector was not substantiated, the president finally admitted that he did it because he was carrying out the investigation into Russia, I refer to the interview with the games, you say that he did not violate his recusal when he participated in the dismissal but it seems that it has directly with Russia not like the management of the department how do you reconcile those two things let me tell you first in about a week I think it was May 3 when the director told me that he thought it had been appropriate to stay to investigate clinton I found it worrying because that is something that most professionals in the department of justice would agree that the FBI does not decide whether or not to investigate the criminal investigation this would have been a usurpation of the functions of the secretary of justice this was the basis of our concern and that it was necessary for us to have someone in Mexico City who could continue with this line of action.

I understand that there was a memorandum and that was also a factor before giving the floor to Senator Long. I must say that last night Admiral Rodgers was almost two hours in a closed-door session with almost the entire commission fulfilling its commitment by saying that the private session was going to answer the questions and I understand that it did so and I just want the president to know this for the record, pleasure See you Mr. Secretary I am sure there are other places where you would have liked to be but you have always appreciated public service like what you see together it is a pleasure to see you here you say that your family continues to feel proud and supports you what you do thank you it has been a blessing with a couple of things to clarify you were speaking at the April 27 meeting at the mayflower hotel in the presidential candidate's speech you did not have a meeting there in a private room I understand that you were a reception attended by how many people I think that two or three dozen people heard the speech and it may be that you saw people when you were leaving.

Correct when you say that it is possible that you met or saw the ambassador. I did not have any formal meeting. It is possible that we bumped into each other. At the reception I cannot say with certainty but I did not have the meeting. I understand that that is what you said but when it is said that you met a person it can be interpreted in a way that you saw other ambassadors there. It is possible that I remember one in particular with Who we talked to, your country has investments in Alabama and we talked about them but I don't remember any discussion with the Russian ambassador.

You were there but you didn't have a meeting to speak individually with someone at the Mayflower hotel when you spoke with Mr. Job and after your meeting with the president perhaps the day after you did not stay was not the time he left the people no your testimony may have suggested that this happened immediately this was the next morning or the day after that we had meetings three times per week so it was after we had that conversation, which I'm not very clear about. You respond that you responded. You responded when he told you. Your concern grew.

I think he's not right. I think he indicated that he didn't know how to describe the encounter. I remember that I was with my chief of staff. We remember that I reiterated the long-standing written policy of the Department of Justice regarding communications with the White House. We have to follow those rules and in the long run you are better off if you do so without prohibiting communications. of the director of the face with the president but if that conversation enters certain areas the rules have to do with the department of justice the director of the FBI should say in that case Mr.

President I can't talk about that apparently that's how it was because he says that he did not discuss anything inappropriately with the patient mentioned in the matter of Mr. Flame no he did not refer to any particular fact that he considered inappropriate he said that he felt uncomfortable after that discussion with injury as in fact I do not remember him saying that it was awkward and I think he described it in other words I don't remember exactly how he said it but he didn't refute it either what he said is that you didn't react and that you just shrugged your shoulders but you made reference to the normal form of this meeting I I did not interpret it as a concern, he could attack something that they consider inappropriate and I made the reference that he can say no and not do anything that could be seen as inappropriate.

You do not open the meeting on May 8 but you say that no decision It is final until this decision to remove someone or something like that is carried out. The fact that the president said it on May 8th does not mean that the information he received from you on the 9th was not necessary. How many times can the president have said we have to remove this person but I am sure that these things happen Mr. Secretary thank you for joining us and project your children and it will be said that you said that you could not invoke the executive first because it is the prerogative of the president the president has granted executive privilege over his testimony you have not done so because you refuse to answer these questions senator who in the president has the president has not exercised it you cannot exercise the privilegeexecutive in your name then why you refuse to respond I respect the right of the president the first executive has invoked if he decides to do what he can make applicable in these circumstances but I do not understand it the president has not invoked this privilege and you say that only the president can However, I do not understand what the legal basis is that you say reduces the response of the cabinet members and other officials who have appeared here to protecting the right of the president to do so if he considers it necessary if the time comes when there is a clear issue and there is a dispute about this the president may or may not invoke executive or other privileges but at this time I understand that it would be premature and it would be premature at this time to deny the president the ability to invoke the executive chairman if he so chooses you told us A few minutes ago they asked us for our opinion who asked for our opinion you said they asked us for our opinion I think it's correct when the president said it he didn't ask you directly I think he was referring to the privilege of asking you said they asked us for our opinion Mr. rózsa, I think it was appropriate to say it because whoever asked you for your opinion, the president asked for our opinion, so you have testified about the content of a communication correctly, but I understand that he has already said it publicly and indicated it when answering that question.

If not He has done it and I am wrong I would have limited his constitutional right so he is being selective I am not doing it purpose in any conversation about the destruction of comics the issue of mitigation regarding Russia was raised which I cannot answer because that would be a communication with the president and if this had happened it would have been a communication that he has not demanded but has not exercised it. You think that the Russians intervened with the Russian selections apparently yes as an intelligence idea you seem to agree on this but I must tell you senator that I do not know In anything beyond what I read in the press I have never received any detailed report about inappropriate actions and so on, but on October 9 a detailed memo came out after the elections and before the inauguration you never saw anything about this dramatic attack against our country you never lived part or assisted in part on these reports you would strongly criticize you if I had tried to get intelligence information about something relevant to the campaign being part of the campaign I mean what the Russians did you did not receive any part Regarding the actions of the Russians in relation to the 2016 elections, I don't think so.

On May 12, in your letter, you say to move on to my evaluation and for the reasons expressed by the deputy secretary, well, from an extinct evaluation, my evaluation was shaped. for months in writing the memo from secretary rosa this is the evaluation and he was the direct supervisor of the director of the fbi and that evaluation is based on the handling of the hillary clinton email issue there were other matters as I remember but explicitly He pointed out errors made in that process by the director of the FBI and the most significant one which many people would have understood, a pleasure to see and secretary of sessions you sound like a man eager to clarify things from the beginning you have been very direct I am surprised that conversations with the president private conversations that we do not have to discuss some conversations refer to matters of memory and documents this has to be done through the legal system and the courts say yes or no the president can withhold the amounts in a certain way some accusations they say saying that you are not disclosing everything there is a long standing story the attorney general saying that the conversations with the potential president it also seems to me that some unidentified source I was in the hearing this morning when we talked about the budget you he has to be there but windsor beats him they bombarded him with questions about russia those conversations very clearly saying that he never talked to you about this topic and that you never asked him for anything concerning this they also bombarded him with questions about the rumor of the day this time the president might be thinking about dismissing the books is right there he said I'm the only one who could do it and I'm not contemplating such a thing nor would I do it no one has any idea what the source of this version of the day is but it seems like it's calling all the attention attention to the issue of recusal in the email you sent to others on March 2 this is what you said in your email after careful consideration over the course of the last few weeks the attorney general has decided to appeal any present investigation or future on any matter related in any way to the president of the United States this recusal regarding these investigations if any extends to the department's response to any congressional request regarding these investigations this has been its position since March 2 certainly since I assumed the position of Secretary of Justice, we have discussed this and if I made the decision not to recuse myself, I would marry and, being careful to say that I have not lost in the investigation, but I have not done so, as the memorandum from my chief of staff instructs to these agencies and another person involved in this was the one who with the director of the FBI is asked to instruct members of his staff not to give information to either the attorney general or people associated with the attorney general's office about any matter pertinent to the topics described above, this is a perfectly clear position on the recusal and on this meeting on April 27, the host of the event says the center that hosted this investigation had a determination to decide who was invited, not the Republican Party, the campaign most of the guests were journalists and foreign policy experts ambassador keys was invited as other ambassadors listen to the speech regularly we invite diplomats and others to these events to facilitate dialogue and adds those who were there were seated in the front row in reference to his diplomatic status the campaign had nothing to do with this process and there was a brief reception before the speech inside at the reception there were about 24 guests the line went down quickly and any conversation in that context would not have been private had there been been inherently brief we remember that any interaction would have been a courtesy greeting and that there was no serious conversation with Ambassador Kislyak or the senator at the reception however of this nature it is unlikely that there would have been a private conversation in the background without attracting attention of others present have this reason to disagree with this I do not think it is a fairly accurate description of the context of the retention and I appreciate that they made that statement thank you secretary for showing it by following up on what the senator asked that we had never seen your life with an eye on the Russians like our friends we went to the white and having said that the seriousness of this Russian intervention is extremely serious and it worries me greatly.

You say that you have not been informed about this matter I think it was October 9 when I believe What was Mr. Glaber and Mr. Johnson from National Security letting them publicly report what was happening on December 29? President Obama at that time expelled 35 Russian diplomats and blocked access to two Russian complexes in the United States. Have you had any conversations or discussion or have you been in a meeting where recommendations were made to lift those sanctions, I do not remember any meeting of this type and during that time since the president took his position before that in the campaign between the campaign and the transition there was a meeting where the will express interest in tree that enhances the action of the Russians I do not remember any conversation of that type I think you have not understood your question well you are part of the national security team if you had heard something about Russia and our capabilities and what they could do In our electoral process, if there was ever a conversation of this nature, I don't remember it.

I don't know what was asked about the issue of executive privileges and their protection of the president. I can understand it, but we also asked the gentleman, like him, there were many things. who could not respond in an open session, could you change your answers or speak more candidly about certain topics in a private session, senator, I don't know, I don't see how those executive privileges could or could not be subject to this in the discussion, whether public or private. It is problematic and to have people who are not cooperating with the prosecutor conducting an investigation and I think it would be very useful because there are many questions that the members of the course want to ask.

Maybe we could review a little bit about that. Did you have any other meetings with Russian officials that have not been made known, I have been thinking a lot about this and I don't believe it. I can assure you that in no meeting was manipulation of a campaign in the United States discussed in any way or violation of emails. There have been other meetings with partners of the US campaign. trump that they have revealed to us I do not remember to the best of your knowledge some of these individuals met with Russian officials during the recording campaign or as I read the list by marc ford to the best of your knowledge some of these individuals met with Russian officials during the fixed campaign did not meet and I do not have any information that he could have done it they do not estimate I have no information that he did it it was in general michael flynn I do not remember great tribes I do not remember I do not remember that he had that conversation with waves that I do not remember that any of these individuals would have had meetings concerning russia page I don't know finally you are possible some versions may have been published about Mr. page's conversations with Russian but I don't know you have been on both sides of this without blessing if you were sitting On this side, on that side, no one asks you about private conversations.

Well, this is an opportunity to give advice. If you were on this side, what would you ask and I would ask about whether or not there was an impact on the elections on the part of a foreign power particularly Russia given that the intelligence community has suggested that it was like that but I think it has to do its job so the question should focus on that part of the story that we are missing I don't know because I am not associated with the inteco campaign information concerning that I don't know what stage you are in, you know better than me, secretaries, I can assure you that we are very focused on Russia's actions and we hope to complete this process so that the American people can make their decisions.

I thank you. The search is a very simple question that should be asked very simple question is Donald Trump or some of his associates in the campaign collaborated with the Russians with the Russians in the violation of emails or salaries in the campaign as far as I know no one has regulated that ask the explorer and many other avenues but it is not perhaps because jean as he said last week that on three occasions he assured donald with whom he was investigating perhaps because many of those shown in this commission have said that they have not seen any evidence after six months of investigation and 11 times of FBI investigation into collusion that you spent what spies call the good job those occasional bases and other part of that you like fiction novels john le carré james jones you like jason's movie bourne james bond if you have ever heard of a plot so ridiculous that a senator and an ambassador are coexisting in an open place in front of hundreds of people to try to launch the greatest adventure in the history of legionnaire, thank you for saying what senator k Friend, it's like looking at the other side of the mirror.

I have explained it. I have said it in good faith. I have said that I did not meet with the Russians. It has been suggested that I have been continually meeting with the Russians and suddenly they are accusing me of having been at a reception plotting to influence the American election campaign, this is something that I cannot understand and I appreciate, Mr. President, having the opportunity to at least say publicly that I did not participate in that and I know nothing and I think that is one of the reasons why I wanted you from the public testimony last week in a theatrical manner, Mr.

I ate as usual, he said that you were going to talk about what you may have acted inappropriately, you have faced those assertions, do you understand or know why they did so? No one really gave me any information. He was asked if you had talked about your conversation with Mr. Cobo and then he ordered a private conversation with the president. You say that you answered the gentleman, as he told me, that you did not answer him. Do you know why? As the gentleman tells me that you did not respond to him in this conversation on February 14 or 15, it was a very brief, very long conversation but I responded to him, perhaps because of everything he was asking, but I did respond to him and I believe that appropriately he knows why.

The gentleman ate my distrust of the French president from his first meeting on January 6, is there something that makes you think why he had that distrust, I cannot speculate on that in terms of possible crimes leak of information is a short list the content of transcripts of conversations between the lord online the solstice journey the content of the lord's phone calls are leaders ofaustralia enmexico the content of meetings with the chancellor and banorte of russia and the leak of information about the investigation of the attack in manchester those responsible ask and last week after the meeting with jimmy cobb and it was revealed what the basis was for him and not where mr. cobo these leaks are a threat to our national security and the department of justice is investigating them with the required seriousness thank you senator we recently had a very successful case in georgia this person was denied bail but some of these leaks like You know, they do terrible damage to the security of the United States.

We need to restore order and the principles we cannot have in our investigative entities, in intelligence entities in Congress - by disseminating confidential information, this has already given rise to investigations and I think that some people will have to respond project well I have said before that the Republican platform was weakened strengthened and there have been no calls from both sides of Congress to restrict the transfer of weapons to Ukraine you preface many of your questions as far as you can remember based on to your written statement you say I don't remember I don't remember I don't remember my question is did you make a document to refresh your memory your calendar correspondence email notes and so on I have tried to reflect my memory but many of these things I am part of the whirlwind of an extraordinary campaign advancing so quickly that one keeps notes I do not keep notes of my conversations with the ambassador of producing more they ask me if I took notes can't you give the commission the notes you have as appropriate can you tell me what you mean I would have to consult with the department's lawyers who know the procedures before releasing documents from the Department of Justice.

I cannot form that opinion here now. You prepared for this hearing and many of the questions that have been asked were predictable, my question is, did you review with the department's attorneys what the law says regarding what you can or cannot share with us that is confidential and that we are not talking about the basic parameters of testimony, frankly, I did not talk about The rules on documents would complement you with this commission to share any written documentation, notes, emails and others that have occurred at any time. You have the obligation to do so with the commission.

I undertake to review the department's regulations, if necessary, respond. Appropriately, you had some communication with Russian officials during the campaign that has not been made known. I do not remember it, but I must say, I cannot give testimony of what happened when we were at the convention, as far as you know, you had any communication with anyone. Russian businessman or any citizen, I don't remember, I don't think I've had any conversations with businessmen and helped at the convention, there were a lot of people, it's possible that someone, but allow me, if you don't allow me to declare myself, to accuse me of lying, it's not as correct as it can be, you can't rush me what They make me nervous.

Do you know of any communication between any other officials in Frank's campaign who have had contact with Russian officials or citizens? Are you aware of any communication or did you have any communication concerning Russia or Russian interests in us before january 20 i may have had some conversations and i think i had them with the general strategic concept of the possibility that russia and the us have a more harmonious relationship and will move away from the climate of hostility the soviet union collapsed and it is an event strategic that we have not been able to take advantage of before your swearing-in typically how you communicated with the candidate and then president-elect can repeat before you were sworn in as secretary of justice typically how you communicated with the candidate and then president-elect as I did not prepare memoranda or presentations formally, do you ever communicate with him in writing, I don't think so.

You are talking about a long-standing policy in the department. What policy are you referring to? Well, most of the members of the cabinet, like the previous witnesses that those individuals have had here, stated that they commented because the Question: We are having conversations with the president. You are referring to a policy. It is a policy that transcends the Secretary of Justice. It is a written policy. I think that if you did not consult that policy before appearing before the commission talking about this, you asked to be shown that policy. where that policy is based on the principle if you were leaving fundamental in this policy you did not ask to be shown the policy that would be your basis for refusing to tell them to let the witness answer the question closed we talk about this and we talk about the fundamental principle which is that having spent 15 years in the department of justice and 12 as a prosecutor, the principle is that the constitution gives certain privileges to the chief executive and one of those is the confidentiality of communications and it would be inappropriate for members of any department of the executive ignore that privilege without the explicit approval of the president, Mr.

Series, my question is, I don't answer it, yes, consult 1 secretary, the former director, as in his letter to an FBI employee when he was dismissed, he began by saying, I have always thought that the president can dismiss the director of the fbi for any reason or no reason at all do you agree i think it was appropriate for me to say that because i think we are going to have a great new director of the fbi an intelligent individual disciplined with integrity and good judgment that will be good for the fbi and it is important that the director, as he has said and I appreciate that he has done so, reiterating his recusal and his letter to the president recommending the dismissal of the gentleman as you appealed on March 2, formally correct that day if the letter that you He wrote complementing Rosa Time's memorandum, which was the basis for the distinction of being a comic.

It was two months after his recusal. It is not true, then, that the investigation into the complaint was not a factor in his recommendation. Correct, the assistant secretary's memorandum, his letter to the president. Sending you this recommendation does not mention Russia at all, that is what you remember, it will be correct, let's review the web then, you must walsh, what was the basis of Secretary Rosa's recommendation, he says, I cannot defend the handling of the director of the FBI Death on the conclusion of the investigation of hillary clinton's email nor can I agree with his statement that he was wrong he referred to the director as the director comes and acted badly by usurping the authority of the secretary of justice on July 1 and adds the director of the fbi has never had the power to assume command of the department of justice finally they say adding to the serious error the other other basic principle we do not hold press conferences to make rogatory comments on an investigation in fact there are written guidelines from the department of justice above all the title is delicate matters in a election year are you aware of these policies that may these guidelines that may interfere with the elections I am generally familiar with some of these individuals some were memos written after they left the department allow me to read to you an excerpt from a memo from March 9 of 2012 of treatment of justice says the police and prosecutorial authorities cannot select the handling of a criminal investigation with the purpose of affecting elections or with the intention of giving an advantage or advantage to any candidate or political party.

This would be inconsistent with the mission of the department and with the principles of a federal prosecutor you agree on licenses and within them essentially what the assistant secretary says is that the former director as a biologist guidelines of the department of justice when he called a press conference in July 2016 and announced that Secretary Clinton had been very careless with confidential correspondence and made other derogatory comments, however, she said that there was no reason to act against her that is not the job of the FBI director, that is not the case, that is the responsibility of the department of justice.

That's what the memo from Mr. Rosas Team 4 refers to, saying that the director of South Comics for the role of the Department of Justice is correct and Billboard, the former Secretary of Justice, recently wrote that in the Union that the Secretary had urged Mr. How to make the announcement. so that he no longer had to do it but apparently he did it without her full approval and that is also something surprising that violates fundamental issues and when he reiterates that he thinks his decision was correct that came to corroborate that his criteria was not the most correct and Christian the pig Henri and others have referred to these long-standing regulations if these regulations are written in the suppliers the commission gives you I will do it thank you the senator colonel mentioned that the central basis of his recommendation to the president for the removal of Mr. comic because his unprofessional conduct in handling the investigation on the client and I want to support everything said by the deputy secretary in his memorandum because I considered that they were important factors in determining whether he had performed appropriately in the position, that is evident and basically this has already been marked the discussion of his performance was a bipartisan discussion it started during the elections the democrats were very unhappy with the way he behaved and in retrospect I think this was much more serious than I would have thought that moment, I don't want to interrupt, excuse me, on July 7, when Mr.

Comí made his first announcement about the case, you declared on Fox News, the director, as he is an experienced prosecutor, concluded by essentially saying that the problem was not his but Hillary Clinton's. in november on november 6 after mr ate at the end of october reopen the investigation you said on fox news the fbi director did the right thing when he found the new evidence he had no choice but to tell congress if the investigation was over he had to correct and say that he had to do this so in July and in November the comic director was doing the right thing you do not criticize him it seemed to you that he was an experienced prosecutor he thought that his statement issued in October was fully justified so as Going from that to agreeing with Mr.

Ross Stein and recommending to the president that he be removed from office in retrospect, as we are all seeing all of this and talking about all of this as it relates to the Department of Justice, when we first entered into the public discussion of this investigation, it would have been preferable not to discuss it publicly when he said it was over then when he found additional evidence I think he had to tell Congress that the investigation was not over because new evidence had emerged maybe that would have been better if it had been consistent with the rules of the department of justice if I had not talked about the investigation once one enters the 60 these are the type of problems that one encounters again are classic policies of the work of a prosecutor and I learned that as a prosecutor and deputy prosecutor to Your premise in recommending impeachment to the president were the actions in October concerning Secretary of State Clinton and this whole controversy.

You felt that there was the truth of misleading information when talking about Mr. Com's investigation. I cannot characterize what I'm going to try to comment on it. Don't you think that one of you think that this had to do with Russia until the president of the United States said it on television and in the Oval Office when he told the chancellor of Russia, the pressure went off, my desistence was crazy. What I can tell you, Senator, is not that our recommendation was made in writing. I think it was the correct recommendation. I think the president took it into consideration, but since he made the decision, it is a personal process.

You didn't know that he was talking about Russia's investigation. russia I'm not going to try to do it there is a scenario in which this whole recapitulation about the client becomes a story of reason in the russia investigation say it is the case by principle stability recused from any participation in sole senator mccain in the last weeks the government has referred to your undisclosed meetings with the ambassador as meetings you had as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Let me ask you some questions about that. In these meetings you expressed concern about Russia's actions in Ukraine. and I did and if I may expand on one of the meetings one is one of the issues that I remember explicitly the day before my meeting with the ambassador of Russia I met with the ambassador of Ukraine and I heard his concerns about Russia and he raised this with being kislyak and you could imagine that he didn't give an inch according to him what was done was the right thing to do was a little tense in the exchange on that topic knowing you I can't imagine you expressed concern about Russia's relationship with Bashar al-Assad's campaign against his own people.

I don't remember if this was raised. I'm talking about Russia's interference in the electoral process or its interference in electoral matters of our society. I don't remember it being discussed in those meetings with the ambassador that you talked about. as a member of the armed services commission presumably they talked aboutRussian security issues that you have shown are important to you, you demonstrated it as a member of the commission, if you were a discusses security systems, I don't remember that you were particularly looking into these things, this whole issue of Russian security, you have shown that it was of importance to you did you raise these issues with him issues such as nuclear issues and other in other words security issues concerning Russia as chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee did you hold hearings or express any interest in these issues we may have discussed it I don't remember specifically a meeting I was not doing a report on that for no one I was willing to meet and talk about visual and the answers I do not remember in the 2016 campaign did you meet with agents or lobbyists of any Russian Russian company as part of your capacity as a member of the recently created armed services commission it was reported that during the campaign the fbi cases of a missing diplomat who was found in the desert and then his movements were said to indicate that russia's espionage had become bolder and that the kremlin had been trying to draw up a map of the telecommunications infrastructure of the United States.

Do you know about this and the department of justice and other entities are not interested in this? We have to do more. Senator, I am worried about this. We also see it with other nations that have these technological advances china and other nations that are penetrating our national security business interests as a member of the armed services commission I supported and I think you do too bills requiring the department of defense to identify weaknesses in our systems and how we can correct them But in fairness I must tell you, Senator McCain, in the short time he has been in the Department of Justice, I have been more concerned about breaches of computer systems and other issues than I was when I was in the Senate.

It is a very important issue. You were right yesterday. The Washington Post reported that Russia had a cyber weapon that could neutralize the US energy and telecommunications infrastructure Weapons that they used to hit Ukraine in 2015 They discussed this issue in open session I don't think we can talk about these technological issues just to say that this It is extremely worrying that Russia continues to develop hostile actions in its foreign policy. That is not good for the United States, for the world or for Russia itself. In my opinion, do you believe that we have a strategy to counteract these growing threats to our national security and our way of life? life not enough we don't have a strong enough strategy to deal with these these technological attacks against our systems and I think it's more important than ever to do so and I appreciate your concern and leadership on this issue and in fact all members of Congress have to do more We have the floor to the Vice President.

Thank you, Mr. President and Secretary. I especially appreciate your comments to Senator McCain about the seriousness of this threat. That is why so many of us are worried when the issue of Russian intervention was raised. The President says that this tells us that a hunt is false. of the place and does not seem to recognize the seriousness of the threat. I believe that I share the almost generalized opinion of the seriousness of Russia's actions and that it is not a partisan issue, but we need to know how the government plans to address this situation. Comments have also been made here. about where we are going with some trump associates who may have had contacts with russia we have not managed to do that yet after the unprecedented dismissal of the director of life every who was handling this investigation so those members I hope are analyzing with the same energy these actions of individuals allegedly associated with Russia who were members of the campaign of a final comment I understand your points but serious comments have been made by the gentleman like last week and some members of this sector we understand executive privileges we understand confidentiality these these procedures as an established thing and to have these categories to have conversations with the president, we would like to be able to see it because we need to know in view of some contradictions where all this ultimately leads between interning them said last week we are talking about 2016 that happened the serious accusations that were have formulated but thinking from now on the Russians seem not to have finished their activities with the elections and we must be more prepared for the future thank you Mr.

President Mr. President if you allow me a brief comment I want to say that the changes in the leadership of the fv They do not have to influence the investigations in any way. The teams have been working and continue to work. Their work has not been altered at all, but there have been some comments in science, Mr. Comic, thank you, Secretary, you sat down in a position to appear, perhaps you did not know. say but your successor has declared that we do not have the basketball team he is an excellent player you have been asked numerous questions I think you have responded to the allegations of meetings at the Mayflower about the reasons for his recusal about the fact that he has never received no report from the first day on the investigation and indicated that he could not remember any conversations he had with Russian officials.

You spoke in detail of the conversations you had with the director such as those he alluded to after his meeting with the president. I believe that you have helped us clarify these issues. There were some questions that you chose not to answer due to confidentiality with the president. I would like to ask you to speak with the White House to see which of these questions the White House feels confident in answering. You can respond and do so in writing with the commission. I must also remind you that the documentation that the commission can provide you will help us clarify schedules and determine any possible view and substantiation of actions or identify individuals who could have to do with all these events. that would be extremely useful and more importantly I want to thank you for accepting and maintaining an ongoing dialogue with us because other questions may arise as the investigation progresses.

It certainly does not have to be in the framework of a public hearing but it can be a dialogue that Let's keep it up, we have been helped enormously and we are grateful to you and Barry for the enormous sacrifice you have made in this institution and now with this administration the session is concluded at five in the afternoon seven minutes after two hours and twenty minutes This day stations presentation then ended before the US Congress. The Secretary of Justice said that he would respond to the extent that the confidentiality of his position allows. He assured that he did not meet or speak with members of any government to interfere in the US elections.

And in what would perhaps be the third leg element of this table of provisions that he made, Jeff Sessions said that he did not participate in any collusion that could affect the government. He said that since he has been part of the administration, he has not obtained any information about Russian investigations. nor that he has taken any action in this regard by answering the question if he has obstructed the investigation or investigations into the White House. He has said that he did not explain that the investigation was appealed to President Trump but that this does not immediately translate into a confinement to defend himself against the lies lies that according to him are deplorable and detestable to say that he collided or colluded or better in the elections against the United States he said that he never had meetings or conversations with the Russians with the Russians about the elections in the United States and that perhaps he would have left the administration As if he had known about some type of interference from Russia or its government, Jerseys Jones also responded to Marco Rubio that he does not know if President Trump records conversations in the White House.

We have had this special coverage here on Telemundo News. We are going to have a summary. at around 6:30 in the afternoon eastern time of the United States of our central newscast so that you can finish knowing the details of this historic and important presentation by Jeff Sessions, the Secretary of Justice of the United States in Congress, Luis Carlos. Vélez, thank you for joining us, this is Telemundo news, very good afternoon.