During a senate hearing, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly objected to Democratic Sen. Jon Tester's (Mont.) characterization of Jared Kushner as anything but a "great American."



"Let me tell you something," Kelly said, leaning away from the mic. "As a senator of the great state of Montana and a member of these committees, this is BS what you're doing, and you better stop it or whatever."



"I appreciate your faith in the system," Tester told Kelly. "I'm going to tell you that, whether classified information was delivered or not, I find this unacceptable."



"I just do. To have somebody who is a son-in-law to the president," the Montana Senator went on, "that goes in and sets up with Russia—the country I was told to hide under the desk when the nuclear bombs came—what the hell good that would do, I don't know. When I was in first grade—I just think … There's so much going on here that we don't know which direction to have the investigation happen."



Full transcript:





KELLY: I would just offer to you, sir, that we have to make the assumption that Jared Kushner is a great American.



KELLY: He's a decent American, he has -- he has a -- he has a security clearance at the highest level, as I understand it...



TESTER: Didn't then, though, did he?



KELLY: ... and if he was opening, he -- I believe he should have had.



TESTER: OK.



KELLY: Now, if he was trying to open back channel communications to pass information through that back channel to get to Putin or anyone else over there, to say, "Hey, look, we're concerned about this," or "This is what you might want to consider doing," because if it's official, then it's a whole different dynamic...



TESTER: I got you. So there -- but the question is -- is there were -- there was no -- no red flags that come up for you at all on this?



KELLY: Not at the time. I didn't know about it. Since it's been reported, back channels are the normal -- are -- are in the course of normal interactions with other countries. Very, very common.



TESTER: Can you tell me if -- if it's also normal to go to an embassy of a country that has been our foe for -- since World War II, and do this -- is that normal?



KELLY: I don't know if that was the case, but if that is the case, I'm not so sure it's normal. But certainly, it would be one way to communicate through the back channel.



TESTER: So if I were to do that, you guys would think that's OK? If -- I've got a security clearance. If I were to talk over to an embassy and say, "Hey, look, I want to -- I want to have a back channel communication, and -- and by the way, even though it appears that nobody in the United States will know what I'm talking about and this is why I did it, it's OK because I'm not..."



KELLY: Well, Senator, I think...



TESTER: Is that -- I mean, really.



KELLY: ... if -- if you went over to, whether you met them here in the building or you...



TESTER: Went to the embassy.



KELLY: ... or went to the embassy...



TESTER: The Russian embassy.



KELLY: ... 'Let me tell you something, as a senator from the great state of Montana and a member of these committees, this is B.S. what you're doing, and you better stop it or whatever or this...' That's essentially a back channel -- back channel of communication.



TESTER: Well, I would -- I would just say this. I appreciate your faith in the system. I'm going to tell you that whether classified information was delivered or not, I find this unacceptable. I just do.



To have somebody who is son-in-law to the president that goes in and sets up with -- with Russia, the -- the country that I was told to hide under the desk when the nuclear bombs came -- what the Hell good that would do I don't know -- when I was in first grade.



I just think if we don't get to the bottom of what's going on and what's happening, we've talked about the Russians, we've talked about money, there's all sorts of stuff going on here. And as Claire -- I mean, as the -- the ranking member said, there's so much going on here that we don't know which direction to have the investigation happen.



And I -- if it needs to be you, you've got the credentials, by the way, and you've got to respect I believe on this committee and probably in Congress to really find out what the Hell's going on. Because it doesn't make -- it doesn't make me sleep better at night, I will just tell you. And if it doesn't make me sleep better at night, you -- your probably eyes are wide open on this.



Am I -- am I just...



KELLY: No, Senator, I think -- again, I think we have to make the assumption that...



TESTER: But don't you think we should ensure that that assumption is correct?



KELLY: Well, sure. And I think there's numerous...



TESTER: But nobody's doing that.



KELLY: I think there's numerous investigations that'll look into this -- looking into this. I mean, I think it's part of the Bob Mueller investigation. I think there's a number of congressional committees looking into it.



TESTER: OK.



Another topic. I just want to echo what the ranking member said: There have been folks that have been frozen out by different agencies. I think that's inappropriate. Whether you're on that committee or whether you're a member of Congress, oversight is our big job.



I appreciate you not doing that and I hope that policy continues. I would assume that that's going to be the case, correct?



KELLY: Yes, sir. And if I could comment...



TESTER: Yes.



KELLY: ... as I was going through the process of confirmation, those senators that gave me and -- and House members gave me the courtesy of a -- of an office call prior to the hearing, the one single thing I heard repeatedly was how nonresponsive this department, my department, our department was...



TESTER: Was.



KELLY: ... prior to.



I would tell you that since I've been running the show, to the degree that I think I'm running it, we've got over 37 appearances in congressional hearings...



TESTER: Yeah, yeah.



KELLY: ... 57 witnesses, 973 Hill engagements. That is -- that is -- prior to that, it was a tiny fraction.



In fact, I was just talking to Senator Grassley, who was the -- the biggest critic of my department relative to congressional engagement. And he was -- I was on an open phone with him and his staff and asked him how we were doing and he gave me nothing but high marks.



We're going to make that better. And some of the things I've been -- first of all, we're leaning forward, and whether it's -- regardless of who the letter comes from, and it doesn't have to just come from a ranking member or chairman, we'll respond to any congressional inquiry.



TESTER: Thank you.



KELLY: If we can't get to it right away -- and some of the letters, as you might imagine, are lengthy and -- and in need of great detail...



(UNKNOWN): Too lengthy, sometimes.



KELLY: ... my folks will call -- if it falls into the category we can't get to it real quick and respond, we'll call the -- the staff and say, "Hey, we got it and we're -- we're on it, but it'll be some weeks or even perhaps months before we can get it to you." If need be, we'll send a letter or I'll call the -- the member and say, "Boy, this is a big one. I'm going to have set some people to work on this. It'll be a while, but if we're on it."



And I think in every case thus far, and certainly in the last 90 days -- 60 days anyways -- we're getting high marks. I will not freeze you out, sir.



TESTER: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And I look forward to seeing you in Montana.