WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ROD J. ROSENSTEIN
FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JUNE 3, 2020
Chairman Graham, Ranking Member Feinstein, and other members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting me to join you today.
When I was sworn in as Deputy Attorney General on April 26, 2017, I became responsible
for helping the Attorney General supervise 115,000 Department of Justice employees and
oversee hundreds of thousands of matters.
One of the most important matters was an investigation of Russian election influence
schemes. Attorney General Sessions had complied with a legal obligation to recuse himself from
that investigation seven weeks earlier.
Many federal agents and prosecutors were working on criminal cases that officials
considered potentially relevant to Russian election meddling. As a result of events that followed
the departure of the FBI Director, I was concerned that the public would not have confidence in
the investigation and that the acting FBI Director was not the right person to lead it.
I decided that appointing a Special Counsel was the best way to complete the investigation
appropriately and promote public confidence in its conclusions. As we now know, the eventual
conclusions were that Russians committed crimes seeking to influence the election and
Americans did not conspire with them.
A special counsel appointment was consistent with Department of Justice precedent.
Attorney General Bill Barr and Attorney General Janet Reno each appointed special counsels in
several cases when they concluded that a prosecutor with a degree of independence from the
Department could best resolve sensitive matters.
Recently, Attorney General Barr has assigned U.S. Attorneys to take charge of significant
investigations. But in May 2017, there were only three confirmed U.S. Attorneys, all Obama
Administration appointees who had been ordered to resign and then permitted to holdover for a
few months.
Some people confuse Special Counsels with Independent Counsels. Independent Counsels
are appointed by federal judges. The Department of Justice does not supervise them. They often
expand their jurisdiction. And they usually investigate for many years.
In contrast, Special Counsel Mueller was supervised by the Department, with jurisdiction
that was limited in scope and duration.
I asked the Special Counsel to review each criminal allegation the FBI considered relevant
to Russian election influence operations and recommend whether to close the matter; investigate
because it might be relevant to Russian election meddling; or refer the matter to another
prosecutor.
1

 I also established a supervisory chain of command. Highly qualified Department attorneys
met regularly with the Special Counsel team to review recommendations about which matters to
investigate and to approve significant steps, in consultation with me. Whenever the Special
Counsel proposed charges for which a U.S. Attorney would need approval from a Department
headquarters division, those charges were reviewed as usual by the Tax Division, the National
Security Division, or the Criminal Division.
I understand that today’s hearing may focus on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
When I served as Deputy Attorney General, every FBI FISA application was written by agents
and attorneys, reviewed by supervisors, sworn under oath by a federal agent, and certified by the
FBI Director.
Before any application was submitted to the court, a senior Department official – either the
Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General for National
Security – met with National Security Division supervisors to ensure that the application set forth
a valid legal and factual basis. Ultimately, each application was submitted to a federal judge who
decided whether it established probable cause to issue a warrant.
Every application that I approved appeared to be justified based on the facts it alleged, and
the FBI was supposed to be following protocols to ensure that every fact was verified. But
investigative reviews published by the Inspector General in December 2019 and March 2020
revealed that the FBI was not following the written protocols, and that “significant errors”
appeared in applications filed in connection with the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
The Inspector General concluded, “That so many basic and fundamental errors were made
by three separate, hand-picked teams on one of the FBI’s most sensitive investigations … that
FBI officials expected would … be subjected to close scrutiny, raised significant questions
regarding the FBI chain of command’s management and supervision of the FISA process.”
Senators, whenever agents or prosecutors make serious mistakes or engage in misconduct,
the Department of Justice must take remedial action. And if existing policies fall short, those
policies need to be changed. Ensuring the integrity of governmental processes is essential to
public confidence in the rule of law.
While it is necessary to correct mistakes and punish wrongdoers, it should not go unsaid
today that our law enforcement agencies are filled with men and women who act with integrity.
As we watch them deal with extraordinarily difficult challenges throughout the country, we
should take this opportunity to let them know that they have our appreciation and support.
In conclusion, I know that members of this Committee share a commitment to the
principles of the Department of Justice. I look forward to addressing your questions.

2