I think it's important to make this distinction. Our committee is looking at the facts of what happened and trying to figure out how to prevent this from happening again.

This isn't somebody in a powerful position. This is the president of the United States in the Oval Office with you alone.

Putin is not a Republican. He's an opportunist. He's not a Democrat.

Well, my sense is, if he recused himself, he should have recused himself and not had anything to do with that decision.

He has a great deal of credibility, as we've heard in this hearings.

I would have to say it's quite preliminary. I mean, we're interviewing witnesses.

For months the president has been dismissing the whole matter as a hoax and a fake and a witch-hunt, and those kinds of things.

That tells me that the president knew what he was going to be discussing had some extraordinary significance.

Yes. We have unprecedented access to intelligence documents.

Let's find out if there were tapes and if there were, let's have them.

We know from the public record, I mean, the president cited Jeff Sessions recommendation in his letter firing Comey.

I think the point you're making is, if they had similar conversations about the investigation, as Mr. Comey reported, that certainly goes to buttress his position.

I don't think Putin is a Republican or a Democrat. He's an opportunist.

I think that's very important for the American people to understand, that this is very much a forward-looking investigation in terms of how do we understand what they did and how do we prevent it.

I don't understand why you're not answering our questions.

I hope so because I do think it is very important for any national lands, but particularly national parks, for the area to have a voice in the activities and to provide information to the National Park Service and to the local park.

I'm concerned by the distinction between query and search and where we run into the Fourth Amendment.

I want to understand the legal basis. You swore that oath, to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and today you are refusing to do so.

I do not get that. Can you explain why that order was issued?

I believe that the Fourth Amendment imposes a warrant requirement in between that step, which is not present in the present process.

And why are you not answering these questions? Is there an invocation by the President of the United States of executive privilege? Is there or not?

You took an oath: Do you solemnly swear to give the committee the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth?

It's your position that the special counsel's entitled to ask you questions about this, but not an oversight committee of the United States Congress?

What is going on? Why? And what are the prospects for getting these Advisory Commissions back to work?

What you feel isn't relevant, Admiral.