AND ASK YOU TO READ YOUR OWN WORDS. MARCH 4THS, 2016,. >> YOU WANT ME TO READ THIS? >> YES. >> OMG HE IS AN IDIOT. >> MAY 4TH, 2016. >> NOW THE PRESSURE REALLY STARTS TO FINISH MYE. >> JULY 19TH, 2016. >> HI. HOW IS TRUMP OTHER THAN A DOUCHE? >> JULY 21ST. 2016. >> TRUMP IS A DISASTER. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW DESTABILIZING HIS ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE. >> I DON'T BELIEVE I WROTE THIS. >> AUGUST 8TH. 2016. I WILL SAY THIS FOR CONTEXT. LISA PAGE SAID NOT EVER GOING TO BECOME PRESIDENT, RIGHT? , RIGHT? >> NO. NO HE IS NOT. WE WILL STOP IT. >> REPEAT THAT AGAIN? >> NO. NO HE IS NOT. WE WILL STOP IT. >> AUGUST 15TH, 2016. >> I WANT TO BELIEVE THE PATH YOU THREW OUT FOR CONSIDERATION IN ANDY'S OFFICE. THAT THERE IS NO WAY HE IS SELECTED BUT WE CAN'T TAKE THAT RISK. IT'S LIKE AN INSURANCE POLICY. >> ON OCTOBER 20TH 2016. >> I CAN'T PULL AWAY. I DEFER TO THE CHAIRMAN. >> YOU CAN JUST USE ONE LETTER. >> WHY THE F -- WHAT THE F HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY? >> READ IT AGAIN THAT WAY. >> SIR, DID YOU NOT -- YOU JUST WANT TO HEAR IT AGAIN? OKAY. SIR, HAPPY TO IND ULGE. I CAN'T PULL AWAY. WHAT THE F HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY? >> WHY IN THE WORLD DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD NOT ASK FOR THE RECORD OF SIMILAR TEXTS FROM YOUR PRIVATE ACCOUNT. . >> MAY I ANSWER? >> YOU MAY RESPOND BRIEFLY. >> WHAT I THINK IS CRITICAL. I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP A LOT OF THESE. I WOULD TAKE. >> I DIDN'T BRING THEM UM. I JUST ASKED YOU TO READ YOUR OWN WORDS. >> IF I MAY. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THESE TEXTS REPRESENT PERSONAL BELIEFS JUST LIKE THOSE THAT YOU FIND ON MY PERSONAL PHONE. WHAT THEY DO NOT REPRESENT IS ANY ACT, ANY SUGGESTION OF AN ACT. ANY CONSIDERATION THAT WE NEED TO DO THIS OR NOT DO THIS AND FURTHER MORE I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU AS I BELIEVE I FORGET WHO I SAID THIS TO EARLIER THIS MORNING. YOU NEED TO READ THESE TEXTS IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WAS GOING ON AT THE TIME. SO WHEN I MAKE THE COMMENT ABOUT TRUMP HAVING NO IDEA HOW DESTABILIZING HIS ADMINISTRATION WOULD BE, THAT CAME ON THE HEELS OF A SPEECH WHERE THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP SAID THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HONOR ITS COMMITMENT TO MUTUAL DEFENSE UNDER NATO. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. CHAIRMAN. IN LIGHT OF THESE. NO. NO. [INAUDIBLE]. >> HE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO ANSWER. >> EVERYBODY WILL SUSPEND. I TOLD HIM THEY COULD ANSWER BRIEFLY AND HE D. >> HE HASN'T FINISHED. >> WE WILL NOW TURN TO THE WOMAN FROM WASHINGTON DC FOR HER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. IN ORDER TO ALLOW THIS WITNESS TO CONTINUE LET ME ASK -- LET ME ASK A QUESTION. YOU ARE A SENIOR -- WERE A SENIOR AND EXPERIENCED FBI STAFF PERSON IS THAT NOT RIGHT? >> I WOULD CONSIDER MYSELF A SENIOR AND EXPERIENCED FBI STAFF PERSON, YES. >> NOW, YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION OF THE LAST ELECTION INVOLVING HILLARY CLINTON AND DONALD TRUMP AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, IS THAT NOT THE CASE? >> IF YOU MEAN BY HIGHEST LEVEL THAT I HAD INTERACTIONS WITH THOSE CASES WITH THE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND SENIOR STAFF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, YES. >> THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. NOW, WE HAVE BEEN READING FROM YOUR PERSONAL PHONE AND YOUR -- AND YOUR OFFICIAL PHONE. DID IT OCCUR TO YOU THAT YOUR PERSONAL POLITICAL MESSAGES -- IF THEY BECAME PUBLIC MIGHT BE MISUNDERSTOOD IN LIGHT OF YOUR ROLE? >> I DIDN'T BECAUSE I NEVER THOUGHT THEY WOULD BECOME PUBLIC. >> EVEN THOUGH THEY -- SOME OF THEM WERE NOT ON YOUR PERSONAL PHONE. >> CORRECT. I'M -- YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO THAT MEANS ANYTHING THAT'S ON YOUR OFFICIAL PHONE OF COURSE BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC. SO, I JUST WANT TO ESTABLISH THAT THIS -- THIS CONFUSION BETWEEN YOUR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PHONE IS PART OF OUR PROBLEM HERE TODAY. NOW, AS WE HOLD THIS HEARING I WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS ON HIS WAY TO A VERY CONTROVERSIAL MEETING WITH PUTIN. LET ME ASK YOU SIR, ABOUT A UNDISPUTED FINDING OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND BY THAT I MEAN THE CIA, THE NSA, THE FBI, THESE PEOPLE DO NOT USUALLY SPEAK IN SUCH ABSOLUTE TERMS SO HEAR THEM. WE ASSESS RUSSIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN ORDERED AND INFLUENCED CAMPAIGN IN 2016 AIMED AT THE UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. THEIR GOAL TO UNDERMINE FAITH IN THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, AND HARM CLINTON'S CAMPAIGN. WE FURTHER ASSESS PUTIN AND THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT DEVELOPED A CLEAR PREFERENCE FOR PRESIDENT ELECT TRUMP. WE HAVE A HIGH CONFIDENCE IN THESE JUDGEMENTS. ARE THESE CONCLUSIONS FAMILIAR TO YOU? >> THEY ARE. >> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY FINDING THAT UNDERMINES THESE CONCLUSIONS OF THE THREE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES? >> I AM NOT. >> THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAPITOL UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF A REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN. RICHARD BURRR HAS MADE A BIPARTISAN FINDING AFFIRMING THE ASSESSMENTS AND I WANT TO QUOTE JUST BRIEFLY FROM THEM THAT THE THREE COMMITTEES -- THE INTELLIGENCE COMMISSION ASSESS MEMBER IS A SOUND INTELLIGENCE PRODUCT. NOW, LET ME -- INDICATE SOMETHING THAT I HAD NOT KNOWN BEFORE PREPARING FOR THIS HEARING. THEY NOT ONLY CITED THE USUAL CONTEXT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, THEY QUOTED PUBLIC RUSSIAN LEADER MONTEREY, MEDIA REPORTS, ALL LINE WITH THE BODY OF OUR INTELLIGENCE REPORTING. WERE YOU AWARE OF THE CONFLUENCE OF WHAT THE RUSSIANS WERE SAYING AND WHAT OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE SOURCES ARE SAYING? >> I BELIEVE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION TO BE BETWEEN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY SOURCES AND METHODS AND OPEN SOURCE REPORTING, YES I WAS AWARE OF ALL THOSE THINGS THAT COMING TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE OR THE NSA OR THE CIA OR THE FBI OR THE OFFICE OF THE DIVISION OF INTELLIGENCE ARE ON SOME KIND OF AN EFFORT TO DISCREDIT PRESIDENT TRUMP? >> YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED BUT YOU MAY ANSWER. >> NO, NOT AT ALL. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. >> YIELDS BACK TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO. >> THANK YOU. YOU WERE INVOLVED IN INVESTIGATING BOTH THE MATTER OF HILLARY CLINTON'S E-MAIL AND THE RUSSIAN MATTER IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND MRS. PAGE WAS ALSO INVOLVED. >> SHE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE INVESTIGATIVE TEAM. SHE WAS A SENIOR STAFF MEMBER FOR MR. MCABB. . >>> YOU WOULD AGREE THAT BOTH INVESTIGATIONS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE FAIR AND UNBIASED? >> YES AND THEY WERE. >> YET YOU WERE BOTH ROOTING FOR CLINTON TO WIN AND YOU BOTH DETESTED DONALD TRUMP, DID YOU NOT? >> THINK I THAT'S FAIR TO SAY. >> AND IN FACT AS WE HAVE LEARNED YOU APPARENTLY FOUND DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTERS DETESTABLE TOO LIKE THOSE AROUND VIRGINIA WHO WE HAVE HEARD WHO YOU CALLED IGNORANT BLANKS, I WON'T SAY THAT HERE AND THAT YOU HAD VISITED A WAL- MART AND COULD SMELL THE TRUMP SUPPORT. WHEN I READ THOSE COMMUNICATIONS AND WHEN I HEAR THEM HERE, THOSE BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY ABOUT TRUMP SUPPORTERS. IT REMINDED ME OF SOMETHING THAT HILLARY CLINTON HAD SAID ABOUT TRUMP SUPPORTERS. SHE FOUND THEM -- WHAT DID THEY CALL THEM? DEPLORABLES. I WOULD SUBMIT THAT IT WAS YOUR AND HILLARY CLINTON'S SMUG VIEW OF DONALD TRUMP'S SUPPORTERS THAT WAS TRULY DEPLORABLE. DON'T YOU THINK THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE PAYING YOUR SALARIES, PAYING FOR A FAIR AND UNBIASED INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI DESERVED A LOT BETTER THAN WHAT THOSE COMMENTS I JUST REFERRED TO REFLECT? >> TWO THINGS. ONE I ABSOLUTELY REGRET THE APPEARANCE OF SOME OF THOSE TEXTS AND WISH I WOULD HAVE SAID OR PHRASED OR NOT SAID WHAT I DID. TWO I TAKE -- I DISAGREE COMPLETELY. I NEVER SAID THAT. I EXPRESSED NO SUCH THING. THERE ARE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF AMERICANS. >> WE HEARD THEM HERE. LET ME -- I JUST. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> YOU TOLD LISA PAGE AND I WILL QUOTE HERE. I LOATHE CONGRESS AND SHE AGREED. YOU ARE PROBABLY IN GOOD COMPANY THERE. A SURVEY I SAW A WHILE BACK ABOUT CONGRESS FOUND US LESS POPULAR THAN ROOT CANALS AND HEAD LICE THOUGH WE DID BEAT OUT PLAYGROUND BULLIES AND EBOLA. THIS IS NOT ABOUT US. IT'S ABOUT YOU AND WHETHER OR NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN HAVE THE CONFIDENCE IN THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT YOU ARE INVOLVED IN AND WHETHER YOU WERE FAIR AND UNBIASED WHEN YOU INVESTIGATED BOTH HILLARY CLINTON AND DONALD TRUMP. WOULD YOU AGREE? >> I APPRECIATE THAT CONCERN VERY MUCH. LET ME EXPLAIN ABOUT THAT COMMENT. I HAVE THE YOU MOST RESPECT FOR CONGRESS, IT'S ROLE AND OVERSIGHT. FOR ITS ROLE IN PASSING LAWS AND ANY OF THE FUNCTIONS. WHAT I WAS STATING IN THAT COMMENT WAS THE EFFORTS BY SOME TO TURN REAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITY INTO UNWARRANTED. >> WE APPRECIATE. > CRITICISM OF THE FBI FOR THE FBI DOING ITS JOB. >> A LOST US UP HERE DON'T LIKE CONGRESS TOO. >> I'M SURE. >> A LOT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. MR. STRZOK, YOU WERE REMOVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION, CORRECT? >> YES. >> FOR THE MOST PART ALL THE OTHERS THAT WERE THERE ARE STILL THERE, CORRECT? >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE CURRENT STAFFING. >> LET ME TELL YOU WHO THEY ARE. GREG ANDRES WHO GAVE A THOUSAND DOLLARS TO THE DEMOCRAT RUNNING TO HOLD THE SENATE SEAT HELD BY OBAMA AND $2,600 TO A DEMOCRAT SENATOR AND NONE TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. IS HE STILL THERE. RUSH ATKINSON WHO DONATED TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND NOTHING TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. HE IS STILL THERE. STILL THERE. AND ANDREW GOLDSTEIN WHO DONATED TO BOTH OBAMA AND NOTHING TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND ELIZABETH PRELOBER WHO CLERKED FOR TWO LIBERAL SUPREME JUSTICES AND CONTRIBUTED TO THE OBAMA AND CLINTON CAMPAIGNS, STILL THERE AND JAMES -- WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGNS OF MULTIPLE CANDIDATES. HE GAVE 20,000 TO THE DEMOCRAT AND SENATE CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES AND NOTHING TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. I COULD GO ON BUT I'M ALMOST OUT OF TIME. NINE OF THE 16 INVESTIGATORS STILL ON THE CASE GAVE TO HILL CLINTON OR OBAMA OR BOTH AND NOTHING TO TRUMP. SHOULDN'T SUCH A WIDE D ISP A RIY GIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CONCERN THAT EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE OFF THE TEAM THAT THE FAIRNESS AND LACK OF BIAS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP DESERVES AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE JUST MIGHT BE LACKING HERE? >> YOU MAY ANSWER. >> WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU IS THIS. WHAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO TELL PEOPLE IS THIS. I HAD AND HAD NO IDEA WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS WERE MADE BY ANYBODY STAFFING THE SPECIAL COUNCIL'S OFFICE. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU AND WHAT I WOULD ASK YOU TO RELAY IS THE MEN AND WOMEN THAT I SAW, THE ATTORNEYS, THE AGENTS, THE ANALYSTS WERE THE MOST REMARKABLE, BRIGHT, PATRIOTIC, HARD WORKING PEOPLE I HAVE HAD THE HONOR OF WORKING WITH. I WANT YOU TO KNOW AND IF PEOPLE BELIEVE ME OR NOT. I WAS CONVINCED THAT THE EFFORTS AND THE PEOPLE WHO MAKE UP THE OFFICES OF SPECIAL COUNCIL ARE THE BEST IN AMERICA. . >>> GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE IS RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO START. IF I COULD GIVE YOU A PURPLE HEART I WOULD. YOU DESERVE ONE. THIS HAS BEEN AN ATTACK ON YOU IN A WAY TO ATTACK THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION THAT SO TO GET AT RUSSIA COLL USION WHICH IS WHAT THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD BE LOOKING THE. A DIRECT STRIKE AT DEMOCRACY AND FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS AND KEEPING US INDEPENDENT OF WHO IS OUR FOE. I JUST RETURNED FROM THE OSCE IN BERLIN. THERE IS LITTLE QUESTION AMONG OUR ALLIES AND PEOPLE IN AND DIPLOMATS THAT RUSSIA IS TRYING TO WREAK HAVOC IN THE BALTI CS, IN THE BALKINS. THEY TRIED TO USE ASSASSINATION TO TRY TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTIONS. WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN UKRAINE CAN CRIM EA, IN GEORGIA. THEY ARE THE BAD GUYS. YOU HAVE DEDICATED MOST OF YOUR LIFE IN WORKING IN COUNTER INTELLIGENCE AND ONE OF YOUR BIG CASES WAS TRACY ANF FOLEY. HOW MANY RUSSIAN FOLKS DID YOU EXPOSE? >> THAT WAS A LONG, LARGE INVESTIGATION THAT HAD A LARGE NUMBER OF EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE WORKING ON. THERE WERE TEN RUSSIAN PEOPLE WORKING HERE. I WAS HONORED TO START OUT AND THAT RAN A DECADE. >> HOW MANY WERE DEPORTED? >> 10 OR 11. >> DID YOU WORK ON RUSSIAN MAINLY AT THE FBI? >> AT THAT PERIOD, EARLY ON, YES. >> ARE THERE THINGS YOU CAN TELL US ABOUT THE RUSSIANS THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD KNOW BEFORE THE PRESIDENT MEETS WITH MR. PUTIN AND HIS VERY GOOD FRIEND AND A MAN HE CAN'T SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT? >> I CAN SPEAK TO MY EXPERIENCE AS A NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONAL IN THE FBI. THE RUSSIANS ARE TOP RATE ADVERSARI, S IN TERMS OF THEIR FIRM INTELLIGENCE, HOW THEY ARE ABLE TO USE IT TO ACHIEVE THEIR FOREIGN POLICY AND NATIONAL SECURITY GOALS. MANY OF WHICH YOU REFERENCED. THEIR DESIRE, THE THREAT FROM NATO TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE WESTERN ALLIANCE, TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE ROLE AND INFLUENCE AND LEADERSHIP OF THE UNITED STATES AROUND THE WORLD. ATTEMPTING TO MINIMIZE AND UNDERMINE THE EXTRAORDINARY GREATNESS OF OUR DEMOCRACY, TO MAKE IT SEEM PEDESTRIAN AND NOTHING SPECIAL AND ON PAR WITH THEIR NEAR DICTATORSHIP TO MAKE US SEEM LESS. THAT'S MY INTELLIGENCE PERSPECTIVE. I WOULDN'T PRESUME TO GET INTO A FOREIGN POLICY. >> THEY ENGAGE IN ASSASSINATION? >> THEY DO. >> POLITICAL RIVALS? >> YES. >> AND ARREST OF REPORTERS FOR MAYBE TALKING AND WRITING ABOUT THINGS THAT THE STATE DOESN'T BELIEVE? >> YES. >> IT'S NOT AMERICA. >> NOT AT ALL. >> WELL THAT'S UNFORTUNATELY WHAT THE INVESTIGATION IS LOOKING INTO IS RUSSIAN COLLUSION TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION AND OUR POLITICS. YOU HAVE DEDICATED YOUR LIFE TO WORKING AGAINST THAT TYPE OF INVOLVEMENT AND AGAINST THAT TYPE OF EFFORT TO SUBVERT OUR DEMOCR ACY. I THANK YOU FOR THAT. IT'S SHOCKING TO ME THAT YOU WOULD BE PUT ON TRIAL AS YOU HAVE TODAY. THIS DISCUSSION -- THIS COMMITTEE MEETING SOMEONE SAID WE DON'T WANT YOUNG PEOPLE TO LOOK AT THE FRONT PAGE AND SEE THINGS ABOUT THE FBI THAT IS PUTTING THE FBI AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IN QUESTION AND ON THE FRONT PAGE. I WOULD SUBMIT TO THIS COMMITTEE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PUTTING THAT ON THE FRONT PAGE IS THIS COMMITTEE AND THE PEOPLE WHO WON'T ACCEPT WHAT THE INVESTIGATOR GENERAL SAID THAT THERE WAS NO BIAS INVOLVED IN THE ACTIONS OF YOU OR OTHERS THAT WERE INVESTIGATED. THERE -- THEY FOUND IN EVIDENCE THAT THE CONDITION INCLUSIONS WOULD AFFECTED BY BIAS OR OTHER INPROMISE CONSIDERATIONS, THEY WERE DETERMINED ON THE PROSECUTOR'S ASSESSMENT. THERE'S NO REASON FOR THIS HEARING. NO REASON AT ALL. IT PUT ITSELF ON THE FRONT PAGE AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AS YOU SAID EARLIER THE RUSSIANS ARE LOVING IT. THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT. THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT. YOU THINK IT WAS BENGAZI. IT WAS A NEVER ENDING TELEVISION SHOW FROM CONGRESS THAT GOT NOWHERE BUT TRIED TO INFLUENCE THE PEOPLE THAT WATCH FOX NEWS AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. THIS IS REALLY UNFORTUNATE AND AS THEY SAY YOU CAN PUT LIP STICK ON A PIG BUT THIS IS A RUSE TO TRY TO GET TO THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION TO TRY TO MAKE PEOPLE THINK IT'S 13 DEMOCRATS THAT ARE WORKING ON THIS AND THEY ARE PREJUDICED AND DISCRIMINATING AND BIASED BECAUSE THEY JUST AS -- IN THE MOVIE -- AS THEY SAID -- A FEW GOOD MEN, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. THE TRUTH IS THIS IS THE MOST CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION EVER AND IT'LL BE EXPOSED, THANK GOD. I YIELD BACK AND I THANK YOU. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO IS RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU CLAIRE MAN. DID YOU PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION TO REPORTERS OR MEDIA PEOPLE ABOUT ANYTHING RELATED TO TRUMP, RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION IN 2016, 17 OR 18? >> NO. >> DID THE PRESS EVER TALK TO YOU, AGENT STRZOK ABOUT THIS APPEARING. DID THEY COME TO YOU? >> THIS -- THE TRUMP, RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION? >> DID THE PRESS EVER COME TO YOU? I'M ASKING DID YOU TALK TO THEM. DID THEY COME TO YOU ABOUT ANYTHING RELATED TO TRUMP, RUSSIA INVESTIGATION? >> I RECEIVED A NUMBER OF CALLS FROM VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA, PARTICULARLY WHEN I RETURNED FROM THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL. >> PRIOR TO GOING ON THE TEAM DID YOU GET QUESTIONS FROM THE PRESS THAT YOU TOOK? >> NOT THAT I TOOK. I REFERRED THEM TO THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS. >> HAVE YOU READ THE DOSSIER? >> I HAVE. >> AND YOU WROTE ABOUT IT TOO, DIDN'T YOU? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN. >> WE HAVE AN E-MAIL YOU SENT. IT SHOULD BE THERE. IN FRONT OF YOU. I WANT TO YOU LOOK. IT'S AN E-MAIL YOU WROTE TO LISA PAGE, JIM BAKER, AND OTHERS. SUBJECT LINE IS BUZZ FEED IS ABOUT TO PUBLISH THE DOSSIER. YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS? >> I AM. >> ALL RIGHT. SAYS THIS. COMPARING NOW THE SET IS ONLY THE SAME TO WHAT McCAIN HAD, IT HAS DIFFERENCES FROM WHAT WAS GIVEN TO US BY SIMPSON. DID YOU WRITE THAT? >> CONGRESSMAN I -- I -- LET ME ANSWER IT THIS WAY. IF I COULD ADDRESS THE CHAIRMAN. OVER THE BREAK I WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE GENERAL. >> HANG ON. I WANT MY TIME STOPPED. >> I WOULD LIKE. >> THIS IS ALL GOING TO COME TOGETHER? THE ANSWER. >> IS THERE A QUESTION? >> SOMETHING -- I WANTED TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION FROM EARLIER. >> WAIT. >> I THINK I'M AWARE OF WHAT THE FBI TOLD YOU AND YOU AND I WILL HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THAT. RIGHT NOW THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO CONTROLS THE TIME. >> YOU WROTE THIS. THAT WAS THE QUESTION. >> SO. >> WAIT. YOU SEE. >> HERE IS. >> HERE IS THE LINE? >> I DO. >> IT SAYS PETER STRZOK AND TOO LISA PAGE AND A LOT OF OTHER KEY PEOPLE AT THE FBI. DID YOU WRITE IT? >> I DID. >> LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. IT HAS DIFFERENCES WHAT WAS GIVEN TO US BY CORN AND SIMPSON. WHO IS CORN? >> TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION AND I WOULD LOVE TO AND EVERY PART OF ME AND YOU KNOW WHY I WOULD WANT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE YOU HAVE THIS INFORMATION. >> WHO IS SIMPSON? >> I CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> YOU WROTE ABOUT IT. IT'S NOW PUBLIC. WHO ARE THEY? >> BASED ON DIRECTION BY THE FBI, SIR, I AM NOT ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT ONGOING INVESTIGATIVE MATTERS. >> I WANT TO FIGURE THIS OUT. YOU ARE REFERENCING THREE COPIES OF THE DOSSIER. THE BUZZ FEED COPY YOU HAVE. THE ONE JOHN McCAIN'S STAFF GAVE TO YOU AND THE ONE THAT YOU SAID YOU GOT FROM CORN AND SIMPSON. THE ONE McCAIN AND BUZZ FEED ARE THE SAME ONES IN YOUR WORDS BUT THEY HAVE -- THE CORN AND SIMPSON ONE IS DIFFERENT. IT'S KIND OF IMPORTANT. >> IT IS IMPORTANT. I WANT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. HERE IS THE POSITION THAT I'M IN. I HAVE. >> LET ME. >> MAY I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> MAY THE WITNESS BE PERMITTED TO ANSWER? >> MR.-- >> STOP MY TIME AGAIN. >> HE ASKS A QUESTION AND DOESN'T LET HIM ASK. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO CONTROLS THE TIME. >> I HAVE BEEN DIRECTED THAT I MAY STATE THAT I HAVE READ THE DOSSIER, THAT I READ IT AS IT CAME IN PARTS AND PIECES. >> YOU TOLD MY YOU READ IT. I WANT TO KNOW WHO CORN AND SIMPSON ARE. >> I HAVE BEEN TOLD I MAY NOT STATE. >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS. I GOT THAT. I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. DID YOU EVER TALK TO DAVID CORN? >> NO. >> DID YOU TALK TO GLENN SIMPSON? >> NO. >> DID YOU TALK TO NELLYOR? >> NO. >> DID YOU TALK TO BRUCE ORR? >> YES. >> WHEN? > MY RECOLLECTION IS BETWEEN THREE, POSSIBLY THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE TIMES IN THE LATE 2016, EARLY 2017 TIME FRAME. >> WHAT DID YOU TALK ABOUT? >> WE TALKED ABOUT INVESTIGATE EVE MATTER THAT HE WAS INVOLVED? >> DID YOU TALK ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION WE ARE FOCUSED O HERE? >> MY DIRECTION FROM THE FBI. >> ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. I GOT IT. I GOT IT. LET'S GO BACK TO THE E-MAIL YOU SENT THAT YOU WON'T TALK ABOUT. ARE THERE THREE COPIES OF THE DOSSIER? >> TO BE CLEAR I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS E-MAIL. I WANT NOTHING MORE. >> YOU SAY THAT ALL YOU WANT BUT YOU AREN'T TALKING ABOUT IT. YOU AREN'T ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS. ARE THERE THREE COPIES? >> THREE COPIES OF WHAT? >> THE McCAIN COPY, THE BUZZ FEED COPY AND THE ONE FROM CORN AND SIMPSON? >> THE MOST I CAN SAY IS WE RECEIVED A VARIETY OF COPIES OF AND DIFFERENT TYPES. >> ONE OTHER QUESTION. GLENN SIMPSON TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF THE SENATE ON AUGUST 222,017TH. HE WAS ASKED DID ANYONE FROM FUSION EVER TALK TO THE FBI? HIS RESPONSE, NO. NOBODY EVER SPOKE TO THE FBI. HERE IS WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND. IF HE SAYS NOBODY SPOKE TO THE FBI, HOW IS THAT YOU HAVE I A COPY OF THE DOSIER FROM HIM? >> I NEVER HAD CONTACT WITH FUSION, WITH MR. SIMPSON, WITH MR. CORN. AGAIN. SIR. >> REGULAR ORDER. >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL HAVE A FEW MORE SECONDS SINCE HE WAS INTERRUPTED. >> I MEAN -- THIS IS THE FRUSTRATION THAT EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE FEEL IS WHEN AGENT STRZOK WON'T ANSWER. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FEEL WHEN HE WENT ANSWER FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS LIKE THE GUY IN THE E- MAIL AND WON'T SAY WHO THEY ARE. THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE. THAT IS WHERE IT'S GOTTEN TO NOW AND IT'S FRUSTRATING AS IT CAN GET. >> MAY I RESPOND? >> BRIEFLY. >> IT IS AS FRUSTRATING TO ME AS IT IS TO YOU. I CAN TELL YOU THAT I WOULD LOVE. >> YOU KNOW WHAT? >> MAY THE WITNESSBE PERMITTED TO ANSWER? >> IF. >> GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. >> IF IT'S SO FRUSTRATING ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> IF YOU WOULD LET HIM. >> HE HAS NEVER ANSWERED IT. WE ARE. >> THE GENTLEMAN. >> WE ARE ABILITY. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO TO STOP BADGERING. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO TIME IS EXPIRED. WE ARE ABOUT TO MOVE ON WHERE HE CAN ANSWER A QUESTION THAT HE REFUSED TO ANSWER EARLIER ON ADVICE OF COUNCIL AND I WILL YIELD TO. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DOING THAT RIGHT NOW. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. MAY I RESPOND TO MR. JORDON? >> BRIEFLY. >> I WOULD LOVE TO DO THAT. THERE IS AN APPROPRIATE TIME FOR OVERSIGHT AND AS YOU WELL KNOW THAT'S AT THE END OF THE INVESTIGATION ONCE IT'S OVER. I'M CERTAIN CONGRESS WILL ABSOLUTELY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT ANY INVESTIGATION ONCE IT'S CLOSED, ASK ALL THESE QUESTIONS AND I WOULD LOVE TO ANSWER EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS ONCE THE FBI ALLOWS ME. WE KNOW THAT ANSWER FROM YOU AND YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT YOU CAN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS HERE BECAUSE, GUESS WHAT? THIS IS THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS WHERE YOU ARE TESTIFYING, NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE FBI. >> WE SHOULD NOT -- WE CANNOT BE ASKING ABOUT AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION THAT IS SABOTAGING AN ONGOING INVESTIGATES. THAT'S WHAT HE IS -- HE CANNOT COOP WIT THAT. >> THESE QUESTIONS ARE TABLE SETTING QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FORMATION OF THIS AND HE CAN ANSWER THEM. >> HE CANNOT ANSWER QUESTIONS REGARDING AN ONGOING QUESTIONS. >> HE HAS BEEN TOLD HE CANNOT. >> HE HAS BEEN TOLD HE CAN. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO HA ASKED FOR 15 SECONDS. >> WHO IS BEING SQUARE HERE? GLENN SIMPSON SAYS NOBODY FROM FUSION SPOKE TO THE FBI. YOU SAY IN YOUR E-MAIL WE GOT A COPY OF THE DOSSIER FROM IMPSON. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. REGULAR ORDER. >> WE WILL HAVE REGULAR ORDER AND WE WILL REVISIT THAT QUESTION. NOW THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES GENTLEMAN FROM SOUTH CAROLINA. >> AGENT STRZOK. BETWEEN JULY 31ST, 2016 AND AUGUST. >> REGULAR ORDER. >> THIS IS REGULAR ORDER. THE GENTLEMAN REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION EARLIER. HE IS NOW BEEN ADVISED AND I HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY THE FBI THAT HE MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT WAS IN ORDER EARLIER AND HE IS NOW GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> BUT REPUBLICANS HAVE CONTROLLED THE TIME, NOW THE TIME GOES TO THE DEMOCRATS. >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL BE RECOGNIZED SHORTLY. >> AGENT STRZOK BETWEEN JULY 31ST AND 2016 AUGUST -- HOW MANY WITNESS INTERVIEWS DID YOU CONDUCT? >> I DON'T RECALL AND I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK THE CASE FILE. >> WE WAITED ALL THAT TIME FOR THAT ANSWER? >> YES, SIR. >> THAT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SAID A COUPLE HOURS AGO. >> SIR I AM TELLING YOU AND I WOULD REJECT THE IDEA THAT I WOULD REFUSE TO ANSWER ANYTHING. >> I JUST ASKED YOU ONE. I JUST ASKED YOU ONE AND I'M LOOKING FOR A NUMBER. I'M LOOKING FOR A NUMBER. >> I DO NOT KNOW WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHECK THE CASE FILES. >> YOU DON'T RECALL IN THE FIRST WEEK OF AN INVESTIGATION YOU STARTED, APPROVED, CONTACT PERSON ON, YOU DON'T RECALL HOW MANY WITNESS INTERVIEWS YOU DID IN THE FIRST WEEK? >> SIR, I REMEMBER THAT THERE WERE INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED. I DO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY FELL ON A CALENDAR TO BE ABLE TO TELL YOU WHETHER THEY WERE. >> WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU LOOKED. >> ON SOMETHING THAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE CONTEXT OF A NUMBER OF OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES. >> WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU LOOKED AT THE FILE? >> PROBABLY GOING ON A YEAR. >> FOR THOSE OF US WHO LOOKED AT IT YESTERDAY, WOULD YOU DISAGREE THAT THE FIRST INTERVIEW HAPPENED ON AUGUST THE 11TH? >> I DON'T KNOW. I CANNOT ANSWER THAT. >> WELL PRIOR TO JULY 31ST 2016 HOW MANY WITNESS INTERVIEWS DID YOU CONDUCT AS PART OF THE RUSSIA, TRUMP CAMPAIGN ALLEGED COLLUSION INVESTIGATION? >> NONE. >> NONE BEFORE JULY 31ST WHICH WOULD BE NONE AT THE TIME YOU SAID WHAT YOU SAID IN THAT TEXT ON JULY 21ST? >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TEXT YOU ARE REFERRING TO. >> POINT OF ORDER. THIS IS ON OUR TIME. >> NO. THERE ARE TWO MORE QUESTIONS HE WOULDN'T ANSWER. >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL CONTINUE. >> BETWEEN MAY. >> CAN HE EXPLAIN WHY HE CAN CONTINUE IN OUR TIME. >> HE ISN'T ON YOUR TIME. >> HE WAS ADVISED EARLIER BY THE FBI THAT HE COULD NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION ANDS NOW HE IS TOLD THAT HE CAN. THE QUESTIONS WILL BE ASKED AND ANSWERED. >> BETWEEN MAY 7. >> WHAT RULES WE FOLLOWING THAT WOULD DICTATE SUCH AN ANSWER BY YOU? >> WE ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES OF THE COMMITTEE. >> COULD YOU SITE THE RULE? >> NO. >> POINT OF. >> SEEMS TO. >> WE ARE GOING TO -- THE DEMOCRAT. >> POINT OF -- >> CAN CONTINUE BUT WHEN YOU DO AND THE FBI TELLS HIM THAT HE CAN'T ANSWER A QUESTION AND THEN THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND AND SAID HE CAN WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE TIME OUT TO DO THAT AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE. >> POINTS OF INQUIRY. THE DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE. >> THE MEMBER OF SOUTH CAROLINA IS RECOGNIZED. . >> HOW MANY INTERVIEWS DID YOU CONDUCT AS PART OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL TEAM? >> I DON'T BELIEVE I CONDUCTED ANY. >> BETWEEN MAY 17TH. TO 17 AND MAY 22ND, 2017 HOW MANY WITNESS INTERVIEWS DID YOU CONDUCT IN THAT FIVE DAY PERIOD? >> YOU JUST WENT BACK A YEAR FROM 2018 TO 2017 AND I DON'T KNOW. >> 2017. MAY 17TH. 2017. MAY 22ND. 2017. >> I THINK YUMA HAVE SAID 2018. >> WHETHER I DID OR NOT IT'S THE 17TH. >> FAIR ENOUGH. I DON'T RECALL. >> WELL CHAIRMAN I APPRECIATE YOU LETTING ME MAKE THAT CLEAR AND AGAIN, THE CONTEXT WHEN YOU WOULD NOT ANSWER IT WAS YOU USED THE WORD IMPEACHMENT ON MAY THE 18TH, 2017 AND YOU USED THE WORD IMPEACHMENT ON MAY THE 22ND, 2017 AND YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT YOU CAN'T RECALL A SINGLE INTERVIEW YOU WOULD HAVE DONE AS PART OF THAT INVESTIGATION THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO LEAD TO IMPEACHMENT. I THINK THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING I'M GLAD THE FBI FINALLY REALIZED IT, A COUPLE OF HOURS TO LATE WHEN YOU ARE PREJUDGING, NOT JUST A RESULT BUT A PUNISHMENT WHICH IS WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS, WHEN YOU ARE PREJUDGING THE CONVICTION AND THE SENTENCING, WHEN YOU HAVE NOT DONE A SINGLE INTERVIEW, I'M SORRY AGENT STRZOK BUT THAT IS LETTING YOUR BIAS IMPACT YOUR PROFESSIONAL JUDGEMENT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN MAY. >> BRIEFLY. >> SIR, LOOK. I NEVER PREJUDGED ANYTHING. NOT IN THIS CASE. NOT IN ANY OTHERS. > >> IMPEACHMENT FOR WHAT? > >> POINT OF ORDER. >> WHAT ARE THE RULES. >> WHAT ARE THE RULES? >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL ALLOW THE WITNESS. >> A NEW ROUND OF QUESTIONS. >> THEN WE WILL MOVE ON. >> SECOND. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> I WAS GIVEN TIME TO RESPOND. >> I HAVE SECTION CHIEFS, UNIT CHIEFS, IN THE FIELD, SUPERVISORS, AGENTS, PEOPLE WHO NORMALLY DO INTERVIEWS, NOT ME. IF SOMETHING IS NOTABLE OR HIGH LEVEL I MAY BE INVOLVED BUT IT WOULD BE RARE IF NEVER THAT I WOULD NORMALLY GET OUT THERE AND DO INTERVIEWS. FIRST OF ALL. SECOND, YOU MENTION THE USE OF THE WORD IMPEACHMENT. THAT WAS USED IN THE CONTEXT OF MY NOT KNOWING WHAT THIS WOULD LEAD TOO. I WAS NOT PREJUDGING IMPEACHMENT WHEN I USED THAT TERM IT. >> AGENT STRZOK. PLEASE. >> IT MAY LEAD ALL THE WAY. >> THANK YOU AGENT STRZOK. >> AGENT STRZOK ARE YOU KIDDING ME? >> THANK YOU. SPECIAL AGENT STRZOK, I JUST CONTINUE TO BE AMAZED AT MY COLLEAGUES IN THE MAJORITY ARE MORE INTERESTED IN YOUR TEXT MESSAGES THAN THEY ARE ABOUT THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO UNDERMINE THE WESTERN ALLIANCE. IT JUST AMAZING ME SPECIAL AGENT STRZOK AS A COUNTER INTELLIGENCE SPECIALIST YOU KNOW ALL TO WELL THE CONSTANT AND GROWING DANGER THAT THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION POSES TO THIS COUNTRY. OUR ALLIESS AND TO DEMOCRACY IN GENERAL. AT SHOCKING THAT MY COLLEAGUES IN THE MAJORITY CONTINUE TO RELITIGATE A 2016 ELECTION WHILE THE PRESIDENT DOES MORE DAMAGE IN THE WESTERN -- TO THE WESTERN ALLIANCE THAN THE SUM TOTAL OF ALL PREVIOUS RUSSIAN AND SOVIET LEADERS COULD HAVE DREAMED OF. IT'S REMARKABLE THAT MR. TRUMP ACCUSED OUR TRUSTED ALLY GERMANY OF BEING -- AND I QUOTE, TOTALLY UNDER THE CONTROL OF RUSSIA. I WOULD SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT IS HALF RIGHT. SOMEONE IS TOTALLY UNDER CONTROL OF RUSSIA BUT IT'S NOT GERMANY. YOU KNOW THE PRESIDENT SHOULD LOOK IN THE MIRROR AND EXPLAIN WHY NEARLY EVERY DECISION HE MAKES AND EVERY WORD HE UTTERS WEAKENS OUR KEY FRIENDS, ERODES OUR STRAY I CAN ALLIANCES AND STRENGTHENS OUR MOST DANGEROUS ADVERSARY. CAN YOU OFFER AN EXPRACTICE NATION WAS TO WHY THE PRESIDENT IS SO EAGER TO PUNISH OUR ALLIES PLEASE PUTIN? >> I WOULDN'T PRESUME TO DO THAT, NO. >> ALL RIGHT. LET ME MOVE ONTO THE MEETING OF JULY -- JUNE THE 9TH. 2017 IN TRUMP TOWER. WE HAVE A SERIES OF E-MAILS IN FRONT OF US. ONE FROM ROB GOLDSTEIN WHO TOLD DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR THAT THE CROWN PROSECUTOR OF RUSSIA MET WITH [INAUDIBLE] THIS MORNING AND THIS THEIR MEETING OFFERED TO PROVIDE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH SOME OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION THAT WOULD INCRIMINATE HILLARY AND HER DEALINGS WITH RUSSIA. >> WE WANT TO BREAK AWAY AND TAKE YOU TO ENGLAND WHERE THE PRESIDENT AND THE FIRST LADY HAVE JUST ARRIVED FOR BLACK TIE GALA. IT'S IN THE PALACE NEAR OXFORD AND WHERE WINSTON CHURCHILL WAS BORN. THE CURRENT PRIME MINISTER IS HOSTING THE EVENT. THEY ARE BEING GREETED BY ROLAY GUARDS AND BANDS. ITS BEEN A GREAT DEAL OF SECURITY. ALSO PROTESTS AGAINST MR. TRUMP'S TRIP. . >>> WE WANT TO GO BACK CAPITOL HILL. WE WILL HAVE MORE ON THE PRESIDENT'S VISIT TO THE UNITED KINGDOM. >> AGAIN. NOT RELATING IT TO ANY PARTICULAR EVENT. I THINK THE HYPOTHETICAL WOULD BE CONCERNING BECAUSE A HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER, ONE THAT HOSTILITY IS THEIR NATTER ARE ADVERSE TO OURS. THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE MEETING OR ATTEMPTING TO WORK TOGETHER SUGGESTS A VARIETY OF POTENTIAL CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS. I THINK IT WOULD GIVE CONCERN ABOUT THE MOTIVATIONS AND THE ACTIONS OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED AND WHETHER OR NOT -- WHOSE INTEREST, WHETHER AMERICA OR THAT HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER THEY WERE WORKING TOWARD. >> AND WHEN CAMPAIGNS ARE GIVEN DEFENSIVE COUNTER INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS THEY NORMALLY TOLD TO REPORT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE ATTEMPTS TO THE FBI? >> THAT IS NORMALLY PART OF ADVERSIVE BRIEFING, YES. >> I WANT TO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR RESPONSES AND YOUR PATIENE AND THE HEARING A SORRY DISPLAY ON THE PART OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE PUT THE DEFENSE OF THE PRESIDENT OVER THE RESPONSIBILITY WE IN CONGRESS HAVE TO PROTECT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. ALL OF YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF AND MR. CHAIRMAN I YIELD BACK. >> CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM IOWA, MR. KING FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. TO START THIS OFF I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM SOUTH CAROLINA FOR A BRIEF PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO. DO YOU HAVE YOUR TEXTS IN. >> I DO NOT. >> CAN YOU -- WELL. LET ME READ ONE AND YOU TELL ME IF YOU RECALL IT. ON MAY THE 18TH. 2017, WHO GIVES A -- I WILL GIVE YOU A HINT. IT STARTS WITH F, ONE MORE AD VERSES AN INVESTIGATION LEADING TO -- GUESS WHAT THAT LAST WORD IS? >> IT'S IMPEACHMENT. >> IMPEACHMENT. THE DAY AFTER THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WAS APPOINTED. HOW ABOUT ON MAY THE 22ND. ? DO YOU REMEMBER THAT TEXT? YOU HAVE THAT ONE? >> I DO NOT. >> LET ME SEE IF THIS REFRESHES YOUR RECOLLECTION. I'M TORN. I THINK, NO, I'M MORE REPLACEABLE THAN YOU ARE IN THIS. I'M THE BEST FOR IT BUT THERE ARE OTHERS WHO CAN DO IT. OKAY. YOU ARE DIFFERENT AND UNIQUE THIS IS YOURS. PLUS, LEAVING IN SC, HAVING BEEN IN SV RESULTING IN -- GUESS WHAT THAT NEXT WORD IS? >> I'M SURE YOU HAVE IT SIR. >> YOU WROTE IT. >> ARE YOU ASKING ME WHAT IT IS? > Y. WHAT IS IT? >> IMPEACHMENT. >> IMPEACHMENT. FIVE DAYS, FIVE DAYS AFTER THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR HAS BEEN APPOINTED YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT. TWICE. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO. >> MR. CHAIRMAN MAY I RESPOND? >> THE GENTLEMAN. >> AT THE CONCLUSION OF HIS TIME YOU MAY. >> OVER HERE TO YOUR LEFT AND I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT YOU HAVE STATED HERE BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE THAT YOU SEPARATED OUT YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS ANY ACTION THAT YOU TOOK. YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT I'M CONFIDENT. AS IMPLAUSIBLE AS THAT SOUNDS WE HAVE LISTENED TO THE DEFENSE OF THAT ARGUMENT THAT NO MATTER HOW BIASED AND HOW PROFANE IN THAT BIAS WERE YOU IT DIDN'T AFFECT YOUR JUDGEMENTS. THAT'S A HARD ARGUMENT TO MAKE BUT I RECALL YOUR RESPONSE TO MR. DUNCAN OF TENNESSEE ON THAT TOPIC AND YOU SAID I DON'T AGREE WITH THE IDEA OF MY VIEWS AS BIASED. DO YOU HOLD WITH THAT POSITION THAT YOUR VIEWS NOT BIASED? WHETHER OR NOT THEY -- IT COLORED YOUR ACTIVITIES AS AN AGENT? >> I BELIEVE THEY DIDN'T COLOR THEM AND THEY ARE NOT BIASED. >> THE TEXTS THAT YOU DELIVERED, THAT HAVE BEEN BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE FOR MOST THE DAY DON'T REFLECT A BIAS? >> THEY DON'T. WHY? BECAUSE. >> NOT A SINGLE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE IG HAS BEEN ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE A SINGLE ACT. >> NOT ONE. >> NOT ONE INDICATING BIAS. >> RECLAIMING MY TIME. ONE THIN THAT YOU FOUND A WAY TO WALL OFF YOUR BIAS BUT IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO TAKE UNDER OATH AND TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND IN COMMITTEE THAT THERE IS NOT BIAS. IF THERE -- THE EVIDENCE OF THIS BIAS IS THROUGHOUT THESE DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAVE. LET ME TAKE YOU ANOTHER PLACE. WERE YOU -- WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THE QUESTIONING OF HILLARY CLINTON ON JULY 22,016TH? >> YES I WAS. PAUSING BECAUSE -- I THINK SECOND OR THIRD. IF YOU SAY IT'S THE SECOND IT'S THE SECOND. >> SECOND IS THE DATE I BELIEVE WE WORK WITH. ANY CASE, IN THAT ROOM HOW MANY AGENTS WERE IN THAT ROOM? >> THREE INCLUDING ME. >> AND WERE THERE ANY OTHER REPRESENTATIVES OF THE BAN? >> YES. >> WHO? >> FIVE ATTORNEYS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. >> FIVE? >> FIVE ATTORNEYS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FOUR THEN FROM THE FBI? >> NO. >> INCLUDING YOU? >> NO. EIGHT PEOPLE. >> THREE FBI, FIVE DOJ. THEN THE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM WITH HILLARY CLINTON WERE? >> SECRETARY CLINTON. I BELIEVE FOUR OTHER ATTORNEYS. FOUR OR FIVE. >> I SEE. AND -- DID YOU RECORD ANY OF THAT INTERVIEW? DID YOU TELL ME HOW LONG IT TOOK? >> I -- WE DID NOT RECORD IT. RECOLLECTION IS IT TOOK SEVERAL HOURS. I DON'T RECALL THE TIME. >> WHAT DOCUMENTS WOULD YOU HAVE ON THAT? >> AN F302. >> AND HOW MANY OF THOSE EIGHT AGENTS OR OFFICERS WERE -- HAD THEIR NOTES -- THAT TOOK NOTES IN. >> I DON'T KNOW. I KNOW. I BELIEVE SOME AND I KNOW THAT THE TWO AGENTS DID. I DON'T RECALL ABOUT THE ATTORNEYS. > WHO WERE THE AGENTS? >> THERE WERE TWO OF THE CASE AGENTS ASSIGNED TO THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION. >> WHAT ARE THEIR NAMES IN. >> FBI POLICY. >> I EXPECTD THAT ANSWER. WE MUST KNOW WHO WAS IN THAT ROOM. WE MUST HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE NOTES BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY USED TO PUT TOGETHER THE 302 REPORT. DID YOU BRIEF THE DIRECTOR ON THAT 302 REPORT? >> TWO THINGS. GOING BACK TO THE 301 IT'S RELYING ON NOTES BUT ALSO DRAFTED BASED ON THE MEMORIES OF THE AGENTS PARTICIPATING. >> NOTES AND MEMORY. >> YES. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT I DID BRIEF DIRECTOR COMEY ON THE RESULTS. >> AND WE WILL BE ASKING FOR THE SPECIFICS ON THAT DATA THAT YOU ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE AND I WOULD ASK THE CHAIRMAN IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO ISSUE A SUBPOENA FOR THE TEXTS THAT MR. STRZOK TESTIFIES AS ARE NOT WORK RELATED. I BELIEVE THERE IS A VERY GOOD CHANCE THEY ARE WORK RELATED. THE BALANCE OF THIS FOR THE INFORMATION ON WHO WAS IN THE ROOM ON THAT DATE WHEN CLINTON WAS INTERVIEWED, WHICH OFFICERS FROM THE FBI, WHICH OFFICERS FROM THE DOJ AND LET'S CALL THEM TO THIS CONGRESS AND GET THEIR TESTIMONY ON WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE THAT ROOM. >> WE WILL TAKE YOUR REQUEST UNDER ADVISEMENT. THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. I SAID HE COULD RESPOND. >> YES. THANK YOU. IF I MAY JUST BRIEFLY TO MR. KING. FIRST, I AM ASSERTING TO YOU THAT MY PERSONAL BELIEF DOES NOT -- DID NOT SHOW BIAS. EVERY AMERICAN HAS POLITICAL BELIEF. EVERY SINGLE ONE AND I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT BIASED INDIVIDUALS. >> BY YOUR TESTIMONY I'M FREE FROM THAT ALLEGATION FOR LIFE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN IF I CAN RESPOND TO YOU. MY MENTIONS OF THE WORD IMPEACHMENT IF YOU LOOK AT THE TEXTS YOU HAVE PICKED AND EXPAND THAT LOOK TO OTHERS YOU WILL SEE THAT IN NO WAY DID I PREJUDGE THAT OUTCOME. WHAT YOU HAVE ADMITTED, OMITTED RATHER IS A STATEMENT I MADE EXPRESSING CONCERN THAT I'M NOT SURE THERE IS A BIG THERE THERE. WHAT THAT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES SIR IS NAH I HAD PREJUDGED NOTHING. WHAT IT DEMONSTRATES WAS I WAS LOOKING AT ONE POTENTIAL OUTCOME BEING IMPEACHMENT. I WAS ALSO LOOKING AT THE OPPOSITE OUTCOME THAT WILL MAY BE NOTHING, THERE MAY BE NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT ALL. I THINK IT'S FAIR THAT YOU TAKE TEXTS AND THE TOTAL CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY ARE MADE. >> THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MR. JOHNSON FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. MR. STRZOK YOU WERE -- YOU ARE A SPECIAL AGENT FOR THE FBI. HOW LONG? >> JUST OVER 20. >> YOU SPENT YOUR PROFESSIONAL CAREER AT THE FBI, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THE REPUBLICANS ON THIS COMMITTEE SEEM TO BE OBSESSED WITH YOUR TEXT MESSAGES BUT DURING YOUR LONG CAREER WITH THE FBI YOU HAVE ACCOMPLISHED QUITE A BIT MORE THAN JUST LEAVING A TEXT MESSAGE TRAIL IS THAT CORRECT? >> I HAVE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING ON EXTRAORDINARY NUMBER OF VERY GREAT CASES. >> YOU ROSE THROUGH THE RANKS OF THE FBI TO AT ONE POINT BECOME CHIEF OF THE COUNTER ESPIONAGE SECTION IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND YOUR CAREER AT THE FBI HAD YOUR APPOINTMENT AS THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECT EAR OF THE COUNTER INTELLIGENCE DIVISION IS THAT CORRECT? >> I HELD THAT. I WOULD TELL YOU I'M PROUD TO HAVE WORKED AS A DAD IN THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION. >> DURING YOUR CAREER IN COUNTER ESPIONAGE AT THE FBI DID YOU LEAD A COUNTER INTELLIGENCE OPERATION THAT WAS CALLED OPERATION GHOST STORIES? >> I DID NOT LEAD IT. I WAS ONE OF THE MANY AGENTS WHO STARTED THAT INVESTIGATION AND A PAIR OF THE SUBJECTS EARLY ON THAT I WAS ONE OF THE CASE AGENTS ON. >> YOU WORKED ON IT THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THAT TEN YEAR INVESTIGATION? >> NO. JUST AT THE BEGINNING, SEVERAL YEARS. >> I SEE. YOU WORKED ON MANY OTHER COUNTER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATIONS DURING YOUR CAREER AT THE FBI? >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> OPERATION GHOST STORIES WAS A MULTIYEAR COUNTER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION OF A NETWORK OF UNITED STATES BASED RUSSIAN SPIES WORKING AT COVERT AGENTS OF RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE, THE AGENCY KNOWN AS SVR, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THE TARGET OF THAT INVESTIGATION WAS A GROUP OF COVER T AGENTS WHO WERE LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES BE LONG TERM DOPE COVER ASSIGNMENTS CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU HAVE INVESTIGATED A NUMBER OF THOSE KINDS OF COUNTER OR -- INTELLIGENCE -- YOU HAVE PRESIDED OVER A NUMBER OF THOSE TYPES OF INVESTIGATIONS DURING YOUR TIME WITH THE FBI IS THAT CORRECT? >> I HAVE, YES. >> AND THESE RUSSIAN AGENTS HAVE GOTTEN INTO -- AMERICA, SET UP TO BE UNDERCOVER AND THEN DEVELOP SOURCES THAT THEY CAN USE THEN TO DEVELOP INFORMATION AND FUNNEL THAT INFORMATION BACK TO RUSSIA, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. ABOUT THAT INFORMATION FROM THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER AREAS. >> AND AS SOON AS YOU FIND ONE CELL IF YOU WILL OF RUSSIAN SPIES TAKE THEM DOWN, THERE ARE OTHER CELLS WORKING THROUGHOUT AMERICA, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S GENERALLY CORRECT. >> IT WAS YOUR JOB TO KEEP ON TOP OF THAT TYPE OF ACTIVITY? >> YES. >> YOU LED A TEAM OF FBI AGENTS WHO DID NOTHING OTHER THAN COUNTER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATIONS FOR THE FBI, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND YOU WERE SUCCESSFUL IN ARRESTING AND PROSECUTING SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS FOR ESPIONAGE AND CRIMES AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> ME AS PART OF A LARGE NUMBER OF FOLKS, YES. >> AND YOU HAVE GAINED A GREAT DEAL OF INTELLIGENCE ABOUT RUSSIAN SPYING ACTIVITIES, THEIR SOURCES AND METHODS AS THEY SEPARATE IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN OTHER ALLIED NATIONS ISN'T THAT CORRECT? >> CERTAINLY TRUE. THEN THE UNITED STATES AND TO A LESSER EXTENT OVERSEAS. >> AND YOU USED YOUR SKILLS TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE? >> I HAVE SIR. IT'S MY PROUD -- MY PROUD DUTY TO HAVE DONE SO. >> THERE'S A LOT MORE TO YOUR CAREER THAN A FEW E-MAILS ISN'T THAT CORRECT? AND TEXT MESSAGES? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> SO TO BOIL IT DOWN TO THAT IS REALLY A DISSERVICE TO YOU. I THINK AS OPPOSED TO THE REPUBLICANS HERE BEING SO DESPERATE TO FIND A WAY TO DISCREDIT THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION BY DISCREDITING YOU AS A PERSON I THINK RATHER THAN THEY DOING THAT WE SHOULD BE HONORING YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE OVER THE LAST 22 YEARS TO KEEP THIS NATION SAFE AND THIS HEARING IS A RECKLESS ABUSE AND MISUSE OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO REPUBLICANS FINISHING THE HELL UP WITH THIS DAMMED PETER STRZOK TEXT MESSAGE INVESTIGATION AND WITH THAT I WILL YIELD BACK. >> THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> BE RIGHT HERE. MR. STRZOK. YOU SAID EARLIER IN THIS HEARING THAT YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER AFFECTING OUR ELECTION. YOU RECALL THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY INSPECTOR GENERAL HAVING THE INVESTIGATION INTO SOMETHING FOUND ON HILLARY CLINTON'S E-MAILS. >> I DO NOT. >> LET ME REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION. THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY INSPECTOR GENERAL SENT HIS INVESTIGATOR FRANK RUTGER. >> WE HAVE IT. >> ALONG WITH AN ICIG ATTORNEY THAT I WON'T NAME AT THIS TIME ABOUT SOMETHING THEY HAD FOUND ON HILLARY CLINTON'S E-MAILS GOING TO AND FROM THE PRIVATE UNAUTHORIZED SERVER THAT YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO BE INVESTIGATING. NOW DO YOU REMEMBER IT? >> I REMEMBER MEETING MR. RETEMPER ON EITHER ONE OR TWO OCCASIONS. I DID NOT REMEMBER THE SPECIFIC CONTENT OR DISCUSSIONS. >> I WILL HELP YOU WITH THAT TOO THEN. MR. RUTGER REPORTED TO THOSE OF YOU, THE FOUR OF YOU THERE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ICIG ATTORNEY THAT THEY HAD FOUND THIS ITEM ON CLINTON'S E-MAILS GOING THROUGH A PRIVATE SERVER AND WHEN THEY HAD DONE THE ANALYSIS THEY FOUND THAT HER E- MAILS, EVERY SINGLE ONE EXCEPT FOR FOUR, OVER 30,000 OF THEM WERE GOING TO AN ADDRESS NOT ON THE LIST. IT WAS A BIT OF INFORMATION THAT WAS SENTING TO AN UNAUTHORIZED SOURCE. DO YOU RECALL THAT? >> SIR, I DON'T. >> WELL -- IT WENT ONTO EXPLAIN IT. YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING. YOU THANKED HIM. YOU SHOOK HIS HAND BUT THE PROBLEM WAS THAT IT WAS GOING TO AN UNAUTHORIZED SOURCE THAT WAS A FOREIGN ENTITY UNRELATED TO RUSSIA AND FROM WHAT YOU HAVE SAID HERE YOU DID NOTHING MORE THAN NOD AND SHAKE THE MAN'S HAND WHEN YOU DIDN'T SEEM TO BE ALL THAT CONCERNED ABOUT OUR NATIONAL INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTION WHEN IF WAS INVOLVING HILLARY CLINTON. SO, THE EXAMINATION WAS DONE BY THE ICIG AND THEY CAN DOCUMENT THAT BUT YOU WERE GIVEN THAT INFORMATION AND YOU DID NOTHING WITH IT. ONE OF THE THINGS I FOUND THE MOST EGREG RIOUS -- HOROWITZ GOT A CALL FOUR TIMES BY SOMEONE WANTING TO BRIEF HIM, LEAVING MESSAGES, TELLING HIM ABOUT THIS AND HE NEVER RETURNED THE CALLS. HE HAD 500 PAGES OF BIAS THAT HE GAVE US AND THEN THREW A BONE TO THE DEMOCRATS AND SAID WE CAN'T FIND BIAS. WHEN YOU HAVE TEXT MESSAGES MR. STRZOK THE WAY YOU DO, SAYING THE THINGS YOU DID, YOU HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF COMING IN AND SAYING, LOOK, THAT WAS MY BIAS. YOU KIND OF GET AROUND TO THAT A BIT WHEN YOU SAY HEY, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY HAS POLITICAL VIEWS. THOSE ARE CALLED BIASES. WE ALL HAVE THEM AND YOU HAVE COME IN HERE AND SAID, I HAVE NO BIAS. YOU DO IT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE AND I WATCHED YOU IN THE PRIVATE TESTIMONY YOU GAVE. I TOLD SOME OF THE OTHER GUYS HE IS REALLY GOOD. HE IS LYING. HE KNOWS WE KNOW HE IS LYING HE PROBABLY PASS A POLYBRAPH. >> POINT OF ORDER. THIS POINT OF ORDER. >> NO. >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS POINT OF ORDER. >> THE MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE JUST ASSERTED THAT THIS WITNESS WHO IS UNDER OATH AND A FORMER AGENT OF THE FBI LIED. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT I ASK HIM TO WITHDRAW IT. >> I DO NOT WITHDRAW IT. HE IS NOT A MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND JUST AS YOU HAVE BEEN EXPRESSING BIAS THROUGH YOUR MEMBERS ABOUT WHAT A HERO HE IS. >> WILL NOT A SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS. >> GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE ISLAND. >> IT'S MY TIME. >> THAT'S A DISGRACE. >> GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE ISLAND WILL SUSPEND. >> THE DISGRACE IS WHAT HE HAS DONE. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS WILL SUSPEND. >> THERE IS THE DISGRACE. IT WON'T BE RECAPTURED ANY TIME SOON BECAUSE OF THE DAMAGE YOU HAVE DONE TO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM. I HAVE TALKED TO FBI AGENTS AND YOU HAVE EMBARRASSED THEM, YOURSELF, AND I CAN'T HELP BUT WONDER WHEN I SEE YOU LOOKING THERE WITH A LITTLE SMIRK, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU LOOK SO INNOCENT INTO YOUR WIFE'S EYES AND LIE TO HER ABOUT LISA PAGE? >> MR. CHAIRMAN THIS IS OUTAGOUS. >> CREDITABILITY OF A WITNESS. >> >> YOU NEED YOUR MEDICATION? >> THE GENTLEMAN CONTROLS THE TIME. >> ASK THAT THE WITNESS BE PERMITTED TO RESPOND. >> HE WILL BE PERMITTED. >> HE WILL BE PERMITTED. >> IF YOU EVER TALK TO CLINTON DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION BESIDES THE ONE QUESTIONING YOU MENTIONED BEFORE THAT OR AFTER THAT TO THIS DAY? >> POINT OF ORDER. POINT OF ORDER. >> THE GENTLEMAN WILL STATE HIS POINT OF ORDER. >> IT IS -- I THINK AGAINST THE RULES OF THE HOUSE FOR A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE TO IMPUNE THE CHARACTER OF A WITNESS. >> IT IS NOT. >> HE SHOULD ASK REQUEST -- THE PURPOSE IS TO ELICIT INFORMATION. HE SHOULD NOT IMPUNE, THE CHARACTER OF THE. >> THE RULES ARE ONLY DIRECTED TO MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. >> IT'S OKAY TO IMPUNE THE CHARACTER OF WITNESSES IN. >> I HAD MEMBERS ON YOUR SIDE IMMUNE SOMEONE WHO IS COVERED BY THE RULES OF THE HOUSE. THE GENTLEMAN -- THE GENTLEMAN HAS 20 SECONDS LEFT. ON. HE CAN COMPLETE HIS TIME AND THEN THE WITNESS CAN RESPOND. >> SO, IF YOU TALK TO HILLARY OTHER THAN CLINTON OTHER THAN THE TIME IN FRONT OF THE WITNESS? > >>> . AFTER THROW AWAY WHAT YOU HAVE WITH ALL THE BIAS YOU HAVE. YOU NEVER GOT A THANK YOU? I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN MAY RESPOND. >> THAT'S -- QUITE A SET OF STATEMENTS. >> I DID NOT FINISH WITH A QUESTION. >> THE GENTLEMAN. >> THERE WAS NO QUESTION ASKED. >> HE HAS BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. >> YACHT WILL SUSPENDS. THE TIME HAS EXPIRED AND AS I HAVE INDICATED. >> RULES OF OUR HEARINGS ARE IF THERE IS A QUESTION ASKED DURING THE TIME THE WITNESS MAY RESPOND TO THE QUESTION AFTER THE TIME. >> THE WITNESS IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO RESPOND BRIEFLY. >> THAT'S A NEW RULE. >> SIR. >> FIRST, I ASSURE YOU. >> NO QUESTION. >> UNDER OATH AS I SPOKE ALSO DURING MY INTERVIEW A WEEK OR TWO AGO. I HAVE ALWAYS TOLD THE TRUTH. THE FACT THAT YOU WOULD ACCUSE ME OTHERWISE AND QUESTION IF THAT WAS THE LOOK I WOULD ENGAGE WITH IN A FAMILY MEMBER WHO I HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED HURTING GOES MORE TO A DISCUSSION ABOUT YOUR CHARACTER AND WHAT YOU STAND FOR AND WHAT IS GOING ON INSIDE YOU. >> IT'S TO YOUR CREDITABILITY AND YOU LOST IT. >> BOTH. >> WHILE I. >> POINT OF ORDER. >> LOST YOUR CREDITABILITY. >> WHILE I DOUBT IT PLAYS WELL TO AMERICA. . >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS WILL SUSPEND. THE WITNESS HAS HAD OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS HIS FEELINGS ABOUT THAT AND NOW THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES. >> MR. CHAIRMAN THERE IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE REPRESENTATIVE'S FIRST ASSERTION ABOUT WHAT THE ICIG SAID THAT I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TOO. >> BRIEFLY. >> VERY BRIEFLY. I HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF THAT CONVERSATION. I CAN TELL YOU I AM NOT A COMPUTER FORENSIC EXPERT. I CAN TELL YOU THAT EVERY ALLEGATION WE HAD AN ICIG WAS A GREAT AND CLOSE PART NEAR. EVERY ALLEGATION WE HAD WAS FORWARDED TO EXPERTS WHO LOOKED AT IT. THE SCORES AND SCORES OF BLACKBERRIES AND EVERYTHING WE GOT WERE COMBED OVER DAREFULLY TO SEE IF THERE IS ANY. >> YOU DON'T RECALL GOING OVER THOSE E-MAILS CORRECT? >> GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND. >> I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. >> YOU CAN'T LET A WITNESS GO ON FOR EVER WHEN YOU NEVER DID ANYTHING. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. ORDER. >> REGULAR ORDER. . >> YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. >> SIR. IF THERE WAS A LEAD I GAVE IT TO THE TEAM. >> THE GENTLEMAN. >> THERE WAS NOTHING ALONG. >> MR. STRZOK YOU WILL SUSPEND. >> THAT WILL COME OUT. >> THERE GOMER YOU WILL SUSPEND. I APOLOGIZE. I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE RANKING MEMBER THAT WE ARE GOING COMMITTEE TO COMMITTEE SO THE NEXT GENTLEMAN IS THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA. >> WOW. THE AMERICAN PUBLIC MAY BE FORGIVEN FOR MISTAKING THIS SO- CALLED HEARING FOR A RUSSIAN POLITICAL TRIAL. IT'S GOT ALL THE TRAPPINGS. CHARACTER ASSASSINATION, CONNECTING DOTS THAT AREN'T MEANT TO BE CONNECTED, CHERRY PICKING FACTS, SOMETIMES MAKING UP FACTS, IT'S ASTOUNDING, IT'S A NEW LOW IN THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS. WHAT A SHAME. MR. STRZOK YOU ARE UNDER OA, TH. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE BIG REPUBLICAN BEEF IN ORDER TO DID DID DISCREDIT YOU AND THE FBI AND HOPEFULLY UNDERMINE THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, HINGES ON THE FACT THAT YOU SENT OUT SOME PERSONAL E-MAILS ABOUT YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS ON THE THEN PENDING 2016 ELECTION, IS THAT CORRECT? >> SIR THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. >> ALL RIGHT. YOU ARE UNDER OATH. I THE FOLLOWING E-MAIL. CHARACTER MATTERS, REAL DONALD TRUMP WON'T WIN BUT HE COULD STILL STEP ASIDE AND LET SOMEONE ELSE TRY. DID YOU WRITE THAT? >> I DON'T BELIEVE I DID. >> NO YOU DIDN'T. REPUBLICAN SENATOR BEN SASSY WROTE THAT E-MAIL. ANOTHER UNFORGIVABLE SIN. HE SHOULD BE HERE AS WELL APPARENTLY. MY WIFE AND I, WE HAVE A 15- YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER. DO YOU THINK I CAN LOOK HER IN THE EYE AND TELL THEIR THAT I ENDORSED DONALD TRUMP WHEN HE ACTS LIKE THIS AND HIS APOLOGY THAT WAS NO APOLOGY. THAT WAS AN APOLOGY FORGETTING CAUGHT. I CAN'T TELL THE GOOD POPE ARE PEOPLE OF MY STATE THAT I ENDORSED A PERSON WHO AC ACTS LIKE. WAS THAT YOU? >> NO. IT WAS A FORMER CHAIRMAN OF MY COMMITTEE. DID YOU WRITE THE FOLLOWING. FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY, AND TO GIVE THE REPUBLICANS A CHANCE AT DEFEATING CLINTON, MR. TRUMP SHOULD STEP ASIDE. HIS DEFEAT SEEMS ALMOST CERTAIN AND FOUR YEARS OF CLINTON IS NOT WHAT'S BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY. MR. TRUMP SHOULD DO THE RIGHT THING? THAT'S YOU, RIGHT? >> NO. >> NO. YOU ARE RIGHT. IT WAS THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN FROM COLORADO. DONALD TRUMP SHOULD STEP ASIDE AND LET THE PARTY REPLACE HIM WITH MIKE PENCE OR ANOTHER APPROPRIATE NOMINEE. I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR CLINTON. THAT'S YOURS. >> NO. >> NO. THAT'S REPUBLICAN BARBARA CONSTACK OF VIRGINIA. HERE IS ANOTHER ONE. IT'S NOW CLEAR TRUMP IS NOT FIT TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANNOT DEFEAT CLINTON. I BELIEVE HE SHOULD STEP ASIDE AND LET THE GOVERNOR LEAD THE TICKET. YOU WROTE THAT ONE? >> NO. >> YOU DIDN'T? NO YOU ARE RIGHT. THAT'S REPUBLICAN BRADLEY BURN OF ALABAMA. HOW ABOUT THIS ONE? TRUMP'S BEHAVIOR MAKES HIM UNACCEPTABLE AND I WON'T VOTE FOR HIM. AS DISAPPOINTED AS I HAVE BEEN WITH HIM THROUGHOUT THIS CAMPAIGN I THOUGHT SUPPORTING THE NOMINEE WAS THE BEST THING FOR THE COUNTRY NOW ITS CLEAR THAT THE BEST THING IS FOR TRUMP TO STEP ASIDE AND ALLOW RESPONSIBLE, RESPECTABLE REPUBLICANS TO LEAD THE TICKET. YOU WROTE THAT ONE. >> NO. >> NO. THAT WAS THE REPUBLICAN OF ALABAMA. I ASK THAT YOU MR. TRUMP WITH ALL DUE RESPECT STEP ASIDE. STEP DOWN. ALLOW SOMEONE ELSE TO CARRY THE BANNER. YOU WROTE THAT ONE. >> NO. >> NO YOU ARE RIGHT AGAIN. THAT WAS THE REPUBLICAN FROM UTAH. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WHEN YOU WERE WRITING THESE E-MAILS IN THE HEAT OF THE CAMPAIGN YOU HAD A LOT OF GOOD COMPANY ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE AISLE. NOW YOU ARE AN ORPHAN. I WONDER WHAT CHANGED. YOUR OPINION WAS HARDLY A STRIKING ONE. HARDLY UNUSUAL. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU AND I LIVE, NORTHERN VIRGINIA, IS THAT úCOR >> YES. >> SO YOUR SIN OF WRITING AN E- MAIL CRITICIZING THE CANDIDATE TRUMP AND PREDICTING HE WOULD LOOSE WAS NOT AN ISOLATED KIND OF OPINION IS THAT CORRECT? >> NO IT WAS NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >> AND DO YOU UNDER OATH CONFIRM WHAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SAID THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE YOUR AMERICAN OPINION NOT WITH STANDING THAT IN ANY WAY TAINTED THE ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION? >> I DO. >> THAT ITS YOUR TESTIMONY? >> YES. >> I IT YOU AND I'M SORRY FOR THE TREATMENT YOU HAVE RECEIVED HERE TODAY. AS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS AND THE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE I TAKE NO PLEASURE IN WATCHING THIS. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS. MR. ME FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> I THANK THE CHAIRMAN AND I TAKE NO PLEASURE IN THE SELFPITY YOU HAVE SHOWN US. I LOVED BEING A PROSECUTE AND THE DA'S OFFICE AND I SPENT 22 YEARS ON THE CRIMINAL BENCH TRYING CRIMINAL CASES, SAW ABOUT 25,000 FELON CASES. I SAW A LOT OF PEOPLE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM PEOPLE ARE INVOLVED IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM. THOSE PEOPLE, WHOEVER THEY ARE CANNOT BE BIASED, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IS IT IT STARTS IN COURTROOM WITH THE JURY. THE LAWYERS SEND A LOT OF TIME TALKING TO JURORS ABOUT IF THEY ARE BIASED BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO ARE BIASED OR APPEAR BIASED ARE OUT OF HERE. YOU CAN'T SERVE ON THE JURY. YOU CANNOT BE FAIR. WE DON'T LET JUDGES SERVE ON CASES IF THEY HAVE A BIAS. THEY ARE RECUSED. THEY DO IT THEMSELVES. THEY RECOGNIZE THEY HAVE A BIAS AND WE DON'T LET PEOPLE TESTIFY UNLESS THE BIASED WHEN THEY TESTIFY IS ALLOWED TO BE BROUGHT OUT. IF A WITNESS IS TESTIFYING LET'S SAY YOU FOR EXAMPLE. BOTH SIDES ARE ENTITLED TO BRING OUT THE BIAS FOR OR AGAINST THE -- ABOUT THE WITNESS THAT IS AGAINST THE OFFENDER, LET'S USE IN THAT CASE BECAUSE IN OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM THINGS MUST BE FAIR AND THINGS MUST LOOK FAIR. THERE MUST NOT BE BIAS AND THERE MUST NOT BE A LOOK OF BIAS BY ANYONE. THAT IS THE WAY OUR SYSTEM WORKS. NOW, IN MY OPINION WHO HAS -- MY OPINION IS NOT BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE US BUT I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS. KIND OF IN THE PEOPLE BUSINESS, JUDGING PEOPLE. I HAVE HEARD YOUR STATEMENTS TO TODAY AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOUR OWN WORDS HAVE SHOWN YOUR BIAS. YOU SAY YOU ARE NOT BIASED BUT WE BASE THINGS ON EVIDENCE, NOT BASED NECESSARILY ON WORDS. YOUR WORDS TO ME PROVE YOUR BIAS. YOUR ATTITUDE PROVES YOUR BIAS. YOUR ARROGANCE PROVES YOUR BIAS AND I THINK YOUR PROTESTING TO MUCH PROVES YOUR BIAS. BEING THAT AS IT MAY THE SCARY PART OF THAT IS NOT IF YOU ARE BIASED OR NOT, THE SCARY PART OF IT IS WHAT ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE IN THE FBI? WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT HAVE THE SAME ATTITUDE THAT YOU DO ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE FBI? THAT IS WHAT IS SCARY BECAUSE PEOPLE OUT HERE, THE REST OF US WHO DON'T GET TO WORK FOR THE FBI OR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THE RIGHT REASON. MAKING SURE THAT OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM IS JUST AND PART OF THE FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE IS THAT THERE ISN'T A BIAS FOR OR AGAINST ANYONE AS THEY GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM. NOW, BASED ON WHAT YOU SAID I DON'T THINK I WOULD EVER ALLOW YOU AS A JUROR TO BE ON A CRIMINAL CASE. EVER. I DON'T KNOW THAT THE DEFENSOR ATTORNEY OR THE PROSECUTOR WOULD ALLOW YOU TO BE ON A JUROR BECAUSE YOUR WORDS ARE WHAT WE HEAR. YOUR PROTESTING JUST SEEMS TO MAKE THOSE WORDS MORE OF A SHOW OF YOUR BIAS. THE COMMENT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO STOP HIM. THAT NOT ONLY SHOWS YOUR BIAS, THAT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO ACT ON IT AND YOU ARE GOING TO STOP PRESIDENT TRUMP. THAT'S THE WAY IT COMES ACROSS. THE EVIDENCECOMES ACROSS. SO, HOW DO YOU ASSURE US THAT THE ATTITUDE THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN US TODAY OF THE TEXT MESSAGES AND ALL OF THIS THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT'S NOT RAMPANT THROUGHOUT THE FBI? HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? >> SIR, WHAT I WOULD ANSWER TO YOU. >> YOU CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION? HOW DO WE KNOW THERE ISN'T BIAS IN THE FBI AND THIS PARTICULAR INVESTIGATION OR OTHER INVESTIGATIONS? HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? >> THE WAY THAT YOU DO THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SUGGESTED. YOU LOOK TO THE EVIDENCE. YOU LOOK TO THE ACTIONS OF THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE FBI AND THE CONDUCT OF THE CASES. YOU LOOK TO MY ACTIONS IN THE CONDUCT OF THE INVESTIGATIONS. YOU HAVE DONE WITH OTHERS A FANTASTIC JOB OF PUTTING THE WORD BIAS WITH PERSONAL POLITICAL BELIEF AND IT'S ASTOUNDING HOW EFFECTIVE THAT'S BEEN. YOU KNOW THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. THE FACT OF BIAS. >> RECLAIMING MY TIME. YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO TRY TO ANSWER THE OTHER QUESTION THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ANSWER. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE ATTITUDE THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN US TODAY, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. SOME WANT TO MAKE A SAINT OUT OF YOU. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE FEUD ISN'T THE SAME ONE OF THE FBI? >> I WOULD ASK THAT THE WITNESS BE PERMITTED TO ANSWER. >> THE GENTLEMAN MAY ANSWER. >> HOPEFULLY WOULDN'T INTERRUPTION. >> THE WAY YOU JUDGE THAT IS WHAT I SAID. YOU LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. YOU LOOK AT THE ACTS, WHAT FBI AGENTS AND ANALYSTS AND EVERYBODY ELSE DO. YOU LOOK AT WHAT I DID. YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONCLUDED, NOT ONLY ME BUT ALL OF THE AGENTS AND ASSISTANT DIRECTORS AND EVERYBODY INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION AND YOU SEE THAT THEVIDENCE IS THERE IS NO ACT OF BIAS. SO THIS FALSE ASSERTION THAT YOU ARE MAKING THAT POLITICAL, PERSONAL BELIEF MUST EQUAL BIAS, THAT SOMEHOW WE HAVE MERGED THOSE TWO WORDS TOGETHER IS ONE OF THE TRIUMPHS OF WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON THAT I CAN'T DYSTIMBRIA WITH MORE. A JUDGE ASKS JURORS ARE YOU ABLE TO SET ASIDE YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS AND RENDER A JUDGEMENT BASED ON THE FACTS IN YOU KNOW THAT BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE. WHAT I AM TELLING YOU IS THAT I AND THE OTHER MEN AND WOMEN OF THE FBI, EVERY DAY TAKE OUR PERSONAL BELIEFS AND SET THOSE ASIDE IN PURSUIT OF THE TRUTH WHERE IT LIES, WHATEVER IT IS. >> I DON'T BELIEVE YOU. >> TIME HAS EXPIRED. THE CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. >> I THANK THE CHAIRMAN. LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DOESN'T LIKE THIS INVESTIGATION. WE UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S CLEAR. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN THIS JOINT COMMITTEE AND IN THE COMMITTEE MEETING JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS BACK WITH MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE DEMEANING THEMSELVES BY ASSERTING THAT THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL SAT THERE UNDER OATH AND LIED, TODAY REPEATED ASSERTIONS THAT MR. STRZOK IS SITTING BEFORE US UNDER OATH AND LYING TO US THE EFFORTS TO IMPUNE THE CREDITABILITY OF MR. STRZOK AND THE ENTIRE FBI. IT'S SHAMEFUL. TRULY SHAMEFUL. THE DEPTHS TO WHICH SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE PLUMMETED IN ORDER TO ADVANCE A NARATIVE TO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S OPPOSITION TO AN INVESTIGATION WHICH IS AN INVESTIGATION AS MR. STRZOK POINTED OUT AND AS TO MANY OF US SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN IS AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE RUSSIANS EFFORTS TO DESTABILIZE THE DEMOCRACY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? I WISH THAT THE ATTACKS THAT HAVE BEEN LEVELED AGAINST MR. STRZOK, THE ATTACKS ON OUR FBI DIRECTOR. I WISH THERE WAS A SLIGHT DEGREE OF THAT DIRECTED AGAINST WHAT THE RUSSIANS DID IN 2016 SO WE COULD TO BOTTOM OF THAT AND ANTICIPATE WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO THIS NOVEMBER AND IN 2020. NOW, MR. STRZOK, THIS IS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT. THE NUMBER ONE FINDING IN THIS INSPECTOR GENERAL'S REPORT IS THAT THE FBI SHOULDN'T DISCUSS ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS. THAT IS WHAT THE IG SAID DIRECTOR COMEY DID WRONG. THE IG SAID HE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT. THEY WENT INTO GREAT DETAIL ABOUT THE LONGSTANDING PRACTICE AND THE REASONS FOR THAT PRACTICE TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF ONGOING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, IN THIS CASE THE INVESTIGATION THAT I JUST REFERRED TO AND DIRECT ATTACK BY A FOREIGN GROUP. LISTENING TO MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, IT'S ALMOST AS IF THEY NEVER READ THE REPORT. LIKE YOU NEVER BOTHERED TO PICK IT UP OR WORSE, YOU READ IT AND UNDERSTAND IT BUT DON'T CARE. YOU ARE ASKING MR. STRZOK TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SAID NOT TO DO. EXACTLY. MR. STRZOK IF YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED ABOUT THIS INVESTIGATION ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL COULD INVESTIGATE YOU AND ISSUE A REPORT JUST LIKE THIS ONE THAT SAYS THAT YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT? >> I CERTAINLY -- THAT'S POSSIBLE. I WOULD BE MORE WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION. >> I UNDERSTAND. IT'S A RIDICULOUS POSITION TO PUT YOU IN. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL EXPLAINED IN THIS NEARLY 600 PAGE REPORT THAT THE MISTAKE DIRECTOR COMEY MADE WAS DISCUSSING THE ONGOING STEPS THE FBI WAS TAKING IN THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION. WE HAVE HEARD THIS FROM THE CHAIRMAN, FROM MY COLLEAGUES, YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES. YOU CAN IGNORE THE FBI'S POLICY THAT HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE TO PROTECT THESE INVESTIGATIONS AND I WILL LET YOU TALK ABOUT THAT IN A SECOND AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN WHICH CASE MAYBE YOU TRIGGER AN IG REPORT OR YOU DON'T ANSWER THEM AND MAYBE WE HOLD YOU IN CONTEMPT. NOW, CAN YOU JUST AGAIN SINCE THIS HAS BEEN A REALLY LONG DAY, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY IT'S IMPORTANT NOT TO INTERFERE WITHON GOING CRIMINAL MATTERS? >> THERE ARE A VARIETY AND I'M SURE I WON'T HAVE ALL THE REASONS BUT THE FIRST IS WE DO A LOT OF INVESTIGATIONS WHERE WE NEVER CHARGE ANYONE. IT'S NOT FAI TO GIVEN THE INVESTIGATE I'VE POWER WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY TARNISH THEM OR IMAGE. TWO TALKING ABOUT IT'LL MESS UP A LOT OF THINGS, TALKING TO WITNESSES TALKING TO THE SUBJECT. AND THEN FINALLY YOU WANT SOMEONE TO HAVE A FAIR TRIAL. IF WE ARE TALKING ABILITY IT OR PUTTING OUR FINGER ON THE SKILL, IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE AND AGAINST WHAT WE HAVE STAND FOR. >> AND THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES ON THE OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATION? THAT WOULD BE HUGE. THAT WOULD -- IMPACT THE ABILITY TO GET A FAIR TRIAL, TO CONDUCT A COMPETENT INVESTIGATION. >> I APPRECIATE THAT LAST COMMENT. I WOULD JUST URGE MY COLLEAGUES THAT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS APOPLEXY THAT SEEMS TO BE BREAKING OUT THAT WE REMEMBER THAT WHAT WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO DO HERE IS GET TO THE TRUTH. THE TRUTH THAT WE NEED TO GET TO IS WHAT A HOSTILE FOREIGN GROUP DID TO INTERFERE WITH OUR DEMOCRACY. LET'S KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE MOVE FORWARD. LET'S MAKE THAT THE FOCUS. THAT'S WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE EXPECTING. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE COUNTING ON US TO DO. LET THIS INVESTIGATION GO FORWARD. LET'S GET TO THE TRUTH. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA. >> MR. STRZOK. I HAVE HERE AND I'M SURE YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH IT, THE ETHICS HANDBOOK OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF WHICH THE FBI FALLS UNDER. >> YES. >> AND THERE ARE SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS THAT I WANT TO READ TO YOU. FIRST ONE IS GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL CONDUCT, CONTINUED, EMPLOYEES WILL WORK TO AVOID ANY ACTIONS CREATING THE APPEARANCE THAT THEY ARE VIOLATING THE LAW OR THE ETHICAL STANDARDS SET FORTH. WHETHER PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES CREATE AN APPEARANCE THAT THE LAW OR THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED WILL BE DETERMINED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A REASONABLE PERSON WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE RELEVANT FACTS. NEXT ONE IS APPEARANCE -- EMPLOYEE SHOULD AVOID ANY ACTION SHOWING THE APPEARANCE THAT THE EMPLOYEE IS VIOLATING THE LAW OR THE ETHICAL STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THESE GUIDELINES. FURTHER MORE IT STATES FOR EMPLOYEES FOR WHOM A SECURITY CLEARANCE IS REQUIRED AND YOU DO HAVE A SECURITY CLEARANCE, CORRECT? >> TODAY I DO. YES. >> YOU HAVE HAD ONE FOR QUITE A WHILE OTHER THAN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. >> YES. >> FOR PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES, PROHIBITING CONDUCT AND MORE MAY BE GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION, REMOVAL OF A CLEARANCE. THIS COULD ALSO RESULT IN ADVERSE DISCIPLINE ACTION INCLUDING SUSPENSION OR REMOVAL. UNDER THE HATCH AXE ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES MAY -- POLITICAL ACTIVITIES BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES IS RESTRICTED. AN EMPLOYEE AND I WANT TO YOU LISTEN TO THIS CAREFULLY, SERVING IN CERTAIN POSITIONS ARE MORE RESTRICTED THAN OTHERS. THINK YOU WERE A PERSON THAT FALLS IN TO THAT CATEGORY AS WELL. I AM JUST -- DISHEARTENED ABOUT THE SITUATION THAT YOU ARE IN. I SAY THIS WITH NO PREJUDICE AND I THINK THAT YOU ARE -- YOUR OWN WORST ENEMY. YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING. YOU HAVE AN ATTITUDE THAT IS VERY OBVIOUS TODAY AND YOU ARE THE KIND OF WITNESS THAT YOU AND I AS A PROSECUTOR FOR 18 YEARS, A DA AND A UNITED STATES ATTORNEY WOULD LOVE TO GET ON THE STAND. THE REASONABLENESS OF THE STATEMENTS THAT YOU MADE AND I'M NOT GOING TO GET IN TO THE LANGUAGE BUT THE REPETTIVENESS OF IT, WHERE WAS YOUR JUDGEMENT? WHAT WERE YOU NOT THINKING WHEN YOU WERE SENDING THE E-MAILS AND THE STATEMENTS THAT YOU MADE AND THE COMMENTS OF -- IN THAT -- OF THE PEOPLE IN VIRGINIA? I WOULD EXPECT SOMEONE OF YOUR CAL IB ER TO BE WAY ABOVE THAT. YOU GOT CARRIED AWAY. YOU GOT IMPRESSED WITH YOURSELF AND YOU ARE IN A POSITION THAT I'M SORRY THAT IS THE CASE. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO DRAW A DISTINCTION, A WIDE ONE BETWEEN BIAS AND POLITICAL OPINION THERE IS NOT THE WIDE DISTINCTION THAT YOU ARE DRAWING AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I WOULD BET THE FARM THAT IF YOU WERE SITTING NEXT TO ME AS THE INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR AND I WAS THE PROSECUTOR AND ANOTHER JUDGE WERE HANDLING A CASE WHETHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL, WE WOULD BE POINTING OUT THE BIASES THAT I SEE THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN HERE. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR JUDGEMENT BASED ON YOUR BACKGROUND AND YOU MAY RESPOND TO THAT. >> I -- I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN. THE FIRST THING I WOULD TELL YOU IS I -- I'M -- I'M DISAPPOINTED IF YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE AMOUNT OF REGRET THAT I EXPRESSED FROM THE HARM AND DAMAGE THAT THIS HAS CAUSED TO PEOPLE I LOVE. >> I DO UNDERSTAND THAT NOW. I DO BUT IT'S IN H IND SIGHT. PEOPLE LIKE AND YOU I THAT ARE HERE TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS, WE SHOULD BE THINKING OF THIS BEFORE. >> CONGRESSMAN. WITHOUT QUESTION. I WOULD ABSOLUTELY FREE WITH YOU THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT I REGRET LOOKING BACK. I HOPE THAT COME ACROSS TODAY. I KNOW A LARGE PORTION OF TODAY HAS BEEN COMBATIVE IN A WAY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY SENSE OF REGRET AND REMORSE. I WOULD DRAW SINCE YOU BROUGHT IT UP, I WOULD NOTE THAT IN THAT MANUAL EVERY FBI EMPLOYEE, DOJ EMPLOYEES, ARE RESTRICTED BUT WITH IN THAT CATEGORY IF YOU READ THAT MANUAL SITING THE HATCH ACT IT SAYS EXCEPT FOR PROHIBITED EMPLOYEES MAY NOT ONLY HAVE POLITICAL OPINIONS BUT THEY ARE ENCOURAGED TO EXPRESS THEM. >> I KNOW IT WELL. >> I DON'T DRAW ANY DISAGREEMENT WITH YOU ABOUT BIAS WHERE IT HAPPENS. WHAT I DISAGREE WITH YOU AND SO MANY PEOPLE TODAY IS THAT POLITICAL BELIEF DOESN'T EQUATE TO BIAS. WE HAVE TO GO TO THE EVIDENCE. THIS COMMITTEE. ANY NUMBER OF PEOPLE HAVE LOOKED AND LOOKED AND LOOKS AND NOT A SINGLE ACT TELLS ME THAT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. REALLY COMPETENT PEOPLE HAVE LOOKED FOR IT. BEYOND ME SAYING THAT I KNOW IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. IT'S NOT JUST ME. IT'S THIS ENTIRE GROUP OF FOLKS LOOKING AT IT, OF STRUCTURE OF THE FBI WHO IS BUILT NOT TO DO THOSE THINGS AND NOT TO ALLOW IT. >> THE TIME OF THE GENTLEMAN HAS EXPIRED. THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS. >> I KNOW ITS BEEN A LONG DAY FOR YOU. I WILL KEEP IT SIMPLE. SOME QUESTIONS WILL BE REPEATING. IN YOUR TIME AT THE FBI HAVE YOU INVESTIGATED A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY? >> YES. >> DID ANY OF THOSE INVESTIGATIONS RESULT IN AN INDICTMENT? >> NO. >> HAVE YOU INVESTIGATED ANYONE THAT IDENTIFIED AS INDEPENDENT OR UNASSOCIATED WITH EITHER OF THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES? >> I DON'T KNOW. >> YOU DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THOSE RE. >> I DON'T KNOW -- I KNOW -- I'M THINKING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SECRETARY CLINTON WAS PART OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. I DON'T TEND TO BEYOND THAT. I'M NOT A PUBLIC CORRUPTION AGENT AND POLITICAL ASSOCIATION IS NOT SOMETHING WE LOOKED AT. >> BUT IN YOUR ASSESSMENT WOULD YOUR WORK HISTORY SUGGEST A BIAS BY YOU TOWARD ANY ONE PARTY? >> NO. >> YOU INVESTIGATED AS YOU SAID SECRETARY CLINTON FOR USE OF PRIVATE E-MAILS. >> YES. >> SHE IS A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. >> YES. >> WE KNOW YOU HAVE INVESTIGATED A REPUBLICAN PROVIDED YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE ONGOING RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. WE KNOW THAT INVESTIGATION HAS LED TO AN INDICTMENT. IN FACT IT HAS LED TO 19 INDICTMENTS, FIVE GUILTY PLEAS AND A HOST OF CHARGES FILED AGAINST FORMER CAMPAIGN AND WHITE HOUSE ADVISERS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AS WELL AS RUSSIAN NATIONALS AND COMPANIES. IS THIS FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE INVESTIGATED AND INDICTED INDIVIDUALS FROM THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM? >> YES. WE DON'T LOOK AT THAT. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S A FAIR ASSUMPTION. >> NEWS REPORTS HAVE BEEN THAT IV, NKA TRUMP, STEVEN MILLER AND STEVEN BANNER ALL USED PRIVATE E-MAIL TO CONDUCT OFFICIAL BUSINESS. PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A REPUBLICAN. CORRECT? >> YES. >> SO THESE INDIVIDUALS WERE KEY STAFFERS FOR A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT YES? >> YES. >> THESE INDIVIDUALS SERVE OR SERVED AS SENIOR ADVISORS TO THE PRESIDENT, WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST, CHIEF OF STAFF AND DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL. IT IS SAFE TO SEE YOU THAT INDIVIDUALS IN SUCH HIGH RANKING POSITIONS ARE EXPOSED TO SENSITIVE, PERHAPS TOP SECRET MATERIAL. >> YES. >> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE HAS THE FBI OPENED INVESTIGATIONS AGAINST A USE OF PRIVATE E- MAILS FOR OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE BUSINESS? >> I WILL ANSWER THAT. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT BASED ON IF THEY WERE ONGOING. IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME TO TALK ABOUT THEM. >> OKAY. I WOULD, LIKE, TO NOTE THAT NIGHT THE HOUSE COMMITTEE OFFER OR NIGHT AND REFORM SIS HAVE OPEN HEARINGS ON THAT ISSUE AND SEVERAL OF THOSE NAMED CONTINUE TO ADVISE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND RECEIVE A PAYCHECK PAID BY OUR TAX DOLLARS. ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WHEN PEOPLE CALL MY OFFICE THEY ARE DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, INDEPENDENTS AND THEY AREN'T INVOLVED LIKE ALL OF US. IF YOU ASK THEM I'M SURE THEY WOULD SAY THEY RECEIVED TOP NOTCH SERVICE FROM MY OFFICE AND I HAVE MY BIASES LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE LIKE WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT. LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION TODAY I HAVE TO WONDER ABOUT SOME OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES, NOT EVERYBODY BUT SINCE YOU APPARENTLY THINK THAT BIASES PREVENT PEOPLE FROM DOING THEIR BEST JOB IT MAKES ME WONDER WHAT HAPPENS WHEN DEMOCRATS CALL YOUR OFFICE. DO YOU NOT GIVE THEM THE SAME SERVICE AS YOU GIVE YOUR REPUBLICAN PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU KEEP SUGGESTING OVER AND OVER AND OVER. I YIELD BACK. >> THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM SOUTH CAROLINA. MR. SANFORD FOR FIVE MINUTES. >>> I APPRECIATE CHAIRMAN AND IF I MAY I WILL YIELD MY TIME TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM OHIO. >> AGENT STRZOK I WANT TO GO BACK TO THIS E-MAIL REGARDING THE BUZZ FEED PUBLISHING OF THE DOSSIER. YOU HAVE THAT? >> I DO. MY LAST ROUND OF QUESTIONING YOU SAID THAT YOU SPOKE TO BRUCE ORR SEVERAL TIMES IN THE 2016, 2017 TIME PERIOD. IS THAT ACCURATE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND AT THE TIME YOU WERE WORKING WITH MR. ORR DID YOU KNOW THAT HE WAS MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM FUSION INCLUDING GLENN SIMPSON? >> MY I CONSULT WITH CON UNSEL? >> YOU SURE CAN. HOLD MY TIME, PLEASE. I WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION BUT AT THE DIRECTION OF THE FBI I DID NOT DISCUSS THE CONTENT. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. AT THE TIME OF YOUR MEETING BRUCE OAR DID YOU KNOW THAT HIS WIFE WORKED FOR FUSION? >> AGAIN -- I BELIEVE THE SAME ANSWER. STAND BY AGAIN, SORRY ABOUT THE TIME. . >>> IT SOUNDS LIKE IN YOUR E- MAIL YOU ARE SAYING COMPARING NOW, SOUNDS LIKE THERE ARE THREE COPIES BUT TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS. THE SET YOU WERE LOOKING AT AND REFERENCES TO YOUR COLLEAGUES, YOU SAY IS THE SAME OF WHAT McCAIN HAD, AGAIN REFERRING TO THE DOSSI ER AND THEN THE ONE FROM CORN AND SIMPSON. IS THAT AN ACCURATE READING OF YOUR E-MAIL? >> IT ISN'T AND I THINK TO GIVE YOU THE CONTENT OR THE CONTEXT. IT INCLUDES DETAILS I MAY NOT PROVIDE. >> THERE IS ANOTHER E-MAIL DOWN BELOW. ON THE ONE YOU ARE LOOKING AT. . >> BUZZ FEED HAS16 OF THE REPORTS. >> UNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT MEANS, IT WOULD REQUIRE ME TO PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT I HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO TELL YOU. > WE WOULD SURE LIKE TO KNOW. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE THIS IN FRONT OF YOU. THIS IS THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S REPORT. THERE'S A FOOTNOTE ON PAGE 113. IT SAYS IN LATE MARCH 2017 DANIEL JONES MET WITH THE FBI REGARDING PGW, THE PEN QUARTER GROUP THAT HE DESCRIBED AS HAVING FOREIGN INFLUENCE IN WESTERN ELECTIONS. HE SAID IT WAS BEING FUNDED BY SEVEN TO TEN WAL-MARTY OWNERS WHO PROVIDED $50 MILLION. HE FURTHER STATED THAT 42 HAD SECURED THE SERVICE OF STEEL, HIS ASSOCIATE AND FUSION GPS TO CONTINUE EXPOSING POTENTIAL RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE ELECTION. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS MEETING MR. JONES HAD WITH THE FBI? >> I'M NOT AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ACCURATE OR NOT. I'M NOT AWARE. >> I'M GOING FROM THE INTELLIGENCE REPORT THAT THE MAJORITY ISSUED FROM THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE. >> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT MEETING OR WHO THAT IS MANY. >> HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO DANIEL JONES? >> NO. >> DO YOU KNOW HIM? >> I DO NOT. >> ALL RIGHT. I WANT TO GO BACK TO -- ONE MORE QUESTION TO ASK YOU THE FIRST ROUND MR. STRZOK. MR. SIMPSON WHEN HE DID TESTIFY IN FRONT OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE WAS ASKED ABOUT FUSION. NOBODY FROM FUSION EVER SPOKE WITH THE FBI. IS THERE ANY WAY THAT GOES AGAINST WHAT IS IN THE E-MAIL THAT I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH YOU? >> I DON'T KNOW. I CAN TELL YOU I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO MR. SIMPSON. >> NOT SPOKEN TO HIM. I DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT. I ASKED YOU THAT THE FIRST TIME. I THANK THE CHAIRMAN AND I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FROM SOUTH CAROLINA FOR YIELDING. I YIELD BACK. >> THE CHAIR WOULD NOTE THAT SEVERAL OF THE QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE GENTLEMAN WEREN'T ANSWERED BY THE WITNESS ON THE ADVICE OF HIS COUNSEL AND I PRESUME THROUGH THE FBI. WE WILL NOTE THOSE QUESTIONS SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THEM AT A FUTURE TIME BECAUSE I FIND IT STUNNING THAT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWING YOU TO ANSWER THEM. CHAIR NOW RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMA FROM ILLINOIS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE CHAIRMAN STARTED THIS HEARING BY SAYING I WISH THIS HEARING WASN'T NECESSARY. WELL, SORRY IF I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. OF COURSE HE WANTS THIS HEARING IT'S NOT NECESSARY. I THINK THERE ARE HEARING THAT AREN'T NECESSARY. WE SEE THEM EVERY DAY. THERE ARE 3,000 CHILDREN SEPARATED FROM THEIR MOMS AND DADS AND THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T KNOW WHERE THEIR MOMS AND DADS ARE AND CAN'T BRING THEM TOGETHER. THAT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE INVESTIGATING. WE START A POLICY IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE WE BAN, BAN MUSLIMS FROM COMING IN AND WE MAKE A TEST, A RELIGIOUS TEST. SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING THE COMMITTEE SHOULD TAKE UP. WE HAVE A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THAT THERE ARE 16 WOMEN WHO HAVE COME FORWARD TO SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS ATTACKED THEM AND WHAT DOES THE COMMITTEE DO? NO HEARINGS. EVEN ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE HAD TO RESIGN BECAUSE HE ASKED ONE OF HIS STAFFERS FOR A MILLION DOLLARS IF SHE WOULD CARRY A BABY FOR HIM. DO WE HAVE ANY HEARINGS ON THE STATE AND THE PLIGHT OF WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE IN AMERICA? NO. THESE ARE ALL THINGS AND ISSUES THAT ARE ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S MINDS. WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THOSE ISSUES. THOSE SHOULD BE ISSUES THAT I BELIEVE ARE PERTINENT AND SHOULD HAVE HEARINGS BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE. WHAT WE WANT TO HAVE HEARING IS TO BRING MR. STRZOK SO THAT WE CAN REPEAT AND CONTINUE TO SAY THAT HE IS LYING AND THAT HE IS BIASED AND SOMEONE HE CORRUPTED THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE POINT THAT WE CAN'T BELIEVE CAN'T BELIEVE THE NEW FBI DIRECTOR OR ANYONE. AND THAT W SHOULDA SHOULD ABANDON. IF THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE THRILLED AND EXCITED TODAY. THE FOLKS AT FOX NEWS AND THE KREMLIN BECAUSE THEY BOTH WORKED ON ELECTING PRESIDENT TRUMP. PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THEY HAVE GOT TO BE OVERJOYED TODAY AT THE KREMLIN AND APPLAUDING AND WATCH THE NEWS REEL TONIGHT BECAUSE A LOT OF THIS TODAY IS WHAT? TRYING OUT FOR FOX NEWS AND OF COURSE AT THE CLAPPING AT THE KREMLIN. I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SEE A TIME THAT THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD DO THE WORK OF DESTROYING BECAUSE WHAT DO WE KNOW? WE KNOW VERY CLEARLY THAT OUR MEN AND WOMEN OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAVE STATED AND THIS IS UNREFUTABLE THAT THE RUSSIANS WORKED TO UNDERMINE OUR DEMOCRACY AND TO ELECT DONALD TRUMP. YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU WANT ABOUT MR. STRZOK. WE DO NOT INVESTIGATE THAT. HOW CAN WE HAVE SUCH AN ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY AND WE DON'T INVESTIGATE? I WANT TO ASK YOU MR. STRZOK. BECAUSE THEY HAVE KEPT SAYING HAVE YOU THIS BIAS. WHEN DID YOU LEARN AND HOW DID YOU LEARN ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE POSSIBLE COLLUSION BETWEEN THE DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIAN INFLUENCE IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >> SIR, I'M LIMITED TO WHAT DIRECTOR COMEY ISSUABLE TO SAY BUT IN LATE JULY. >> WHEN DID THE PUBLIC LEARN ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN COLLUSION AND DONALD TRUMP'S INVESTIGATION? >> I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFIC DATE BUT IT WAS INTO THE FOLLOWING YEAR. >> IT WAS AFTER THE ELECTION. >> YES. >> WHAT WE ARE TO BELIEVE FROM OUR REPUBLICAN MAJORITY THAT YOU ARE SO BIASED, YOU ARE SUCH A DEMOCRAT THAT YOU CAN'T HOLD BACK FROM TRYING TO DESTROY TRUMP BUT YOU NEVER TOLD ANYONE THAT THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION INTO DONALD TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN AND WORKING WITH THE RUSSIANS SNOW NEVER TOLD ANYONE? >> NO. >> YOU NEVER TALKED TO A REPORTER? >> NEVER. >> BUT YOU HAD IT IN YOUR HANDS. MAYBE YOU DIDN'T BECAUSE IN AMERICA IT'S YOU CAN DO ALMOST ANYTHING. YOU DID HAVE ALMOST A MAGICAL BULLET IN YOUR HANDS TO DERAIL THE DONALD TRUMP INVESTIGATION AND DID YOU USE IT? >> NO SIR. >> YOU DIDN'T. RIGHT? ARE THERE REPUBLICANS AT WORK AT THE FBI? IT MAKES IT SOUND LIKE ARE YOU ALL DEMOCRATS. I NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE. ARE THERE REPUBLICANS IN. >> YES. >> SINCE YOU LIKE TO CHERRY PICK THE DEMOCRATS THAT HAVE GIVEN MONEY, THE FBI AGENTS THAT GIVE MONEY WHY NOT REVEAL THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE FBI THAT GIVE MONEY TO REPUBLICANS IN WHY NOT REVEAL THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE FBI THAT ARE IN AND STATE VERY CLEARLY WHEN THEY APPLY FOR A VOTER REGISTRATION THEY APPLY AS REPUBLICANS. THEY DON'T. BECAUSE THAT'S 23409 WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. WHAT THIS IS ABOUT IS FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC MR. STRZOK, REALLY NOT ABOUT YOU. THEY WANT TO DAMAGE AND DESTROY OUR DEMOCR ACY AND ONE WAY IS BY DESTROYING THE FBI AND THAT'S REGRETTABLE. THE KREMLIN WON THE ELECTION AND NOW THEY WANT TO DESTROY THE INSTITUTIONS. CONGRATULATIONS. AND CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYBODY THAT IS HELPING THEM. >> GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE. >> THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU MR. STRZOK AND I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO THE CHAIRMAN. IN LIGHT OF THE LAST ROUND OF QUESTIONING, IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU WANTED TO STOP PRESIDENT TRUMP FROM BEING ELECTED? >> NO. THAT WAS THAT I HAD A PREFERENCE FOR HIM TO NOT BE PRESIDENT BUT I DIDN'T AND WOULDN'T. >> DID I NOT HEAR YOU READ YOUR OWN TEXTS THAT YOU WOULD STOP HIM? YOU WOULD STOP IT? >> NO. YOU MISUNDERSTOOD OR MISHEARD ME. I SAID THAT MY SENSE OF NOT RECALLING WRITING THAT TEXT WAS THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WOULDN'TELECT HIM. >> YOU DIDN'T LIKE DONALD TRUMP? ARE YOU THE ONLY ONE THAT COULD HAVE LED THIS INVESTIGATION? >> IT WAS LOGICAL GIVEN I WAS THE NUMBER TWO IN COUNTER INTELLIGENCE BUT NO, THERE ARE QUALIFIED FOLKS IN THE FBI. DADA, NOT THAT MANY. >> LOOKING BACK THEN SHOULD YOU HAVE RECUSED YOURSELF IN? >> ABSOLUTELY NOT. >> YOU DON'T LIKE THIS MAN. YOU DIDN'T WANT HIM TO BE PRESIDENT. YOU HAD SEVERAL VERYD ISP BAD TEXTS. >> THERE WERE TIMES I DIDN'T CARE FOR CLINTON AND I INVESTIGATED THAT. >> THAT'S THE ONE THING I HAVE STRUGGLED WITH HERE TODAY LISTENING TO YOUR TESTIMONY. I THINK A MAN IN YOUR POSITION AND POWER AND THE RESPECT THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE -- THAT YOU WOULD HAVE STOPPED TO THINK MAYBE THERE WAS SOMEONE THAT COULD DO A BETTER JOB WITHOUT SUCH DISDAIN FOR THE PRESIDENT. YOU CLAIM TO BE SUCH A PATRIOT BUT YOU CONTINUED TO DO IT AFTER HE WAS ELECTED. >> AGENT STRZOK I'M CONFUSED. I THOUGHT ON THAT AUGUST 8TH TEXT YOU THAT DIDN'T RECALL TYPING IT. THEN YOU SAID THAT YOU RECALLED IT WAS LATE AT NIGHT AND THAT MITIGATED THE CONTENT OF WHAT YOU TYPED. DO YOU RECALL IT OR WAS IT LATE AT NIGHT AND WHAT ELSE DO YOU RECALL ABOUT THE TIMING OF THAT? >> I THINK BY RECOLLECTION OF STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD. I DON'T REMEMBER TYPING IT. IT WAS LATE AT NIGHT. I CAN TELL YOU WHAT ITS WAS NOT. IT WASN'T A SUGGESTION THAT I OR THE FBI TAKE ANY ACTION. >> INSTEAD OF US MUSEUMIG ABOUT WHAT YOU MEANT, LET'S GO WITH WHAT YOU SAID. >> I WOULD RATHER YOU GO WITH WHAT I DID. THAT IS AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT IS. >> WE WILL GET TO THAT IN A SECOND. I PROMISE YOU. NO HE IS NOT. WE WILL STOP IT. I THINK YOU HAVE AGREED THAT IT WAS HIS ELECTION? >> I DIDN'T THINK, NOT RECALLING WRITING IT. HIS ELECTION, CANDIDACY. I DON'T RECALL WRITING IT. I. NOT SURE WHAT IT MEANT. >> WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY STOP? >> STOP IT. MY SENSE, LOOKING AT THE CONTEXT WAS THAT THERE WAS NO WAY COMING OFF THE HEELS OF INSULTING THE FAMILY THAT THE AMERICAN AND ALL THE OTHER STATEMENTS THAT HAD BEEN MADE IN THE COMPARISON OF SIZE DURING A DEBATE AND -- THAT THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THE AMERICAN POPULATION WAS GOING TO ELECT THIS MAN. MY SENSE WAS THIS IS A OFF THE CUFF, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT SORT OF COMMENT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEXT DAY WHEN I SENT A TEXT SAYING WHAT WAS THAT? ITS CLEAR THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY, THERE IS NO MEETING OF THE MINDS, NO SUGGESTION OF ACTIONS, IT WAS MERELY A ONE OFF COMMENT. >> AND OF COURSE IT'S ABOUT A WEEK BEFORE YOU USE THE WORD WE AGAIN IN CONNECTION WITH AN INSURANCE POLICY TO MAKE SURE HE WAS NOT ELECTED PRESIDENT AND THEN WE GET TO THE DAY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS APPOINTED. WHO GIVES A F, ONE MORE AD. INVESTIGATION LEADING TO IMPEACHMENT WITH A QUESTION MARK WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT THE DAY OF HIS APPOINT NEXT. YOU COULD HAVE SAID AN INVESTIGATION LEADING TO INDICTMENTS AGAINST RUSSIANS, AN INVESTIGATION LEADING TO BETTER ELECTION SECURITY, AN INVESTIGATION LEADING INTO A ROBUST RESPONSE TO WHAT RUSSIA TRIED TO DO TO OUR COUNTRY BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT. YOU WENT STRAIGHT TO IMPEACHMENT. DO YOU KNOW HOW IT WORKS? >> I HAVE A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING. >> HOW? >> SIR, MY UNDERSTANDING IS LIMITED TO THAT ITS SOMETHING DONE BY THE CONGRESS. THAT THERE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. >> DO YOU HAVE TO BE A SITTING OFFICE HOLDER TO BE IMPEACHED? >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. >> I ACTUALLY DO AND I WILL TAKE NOTE YOU THAT NEVER USE THE WORD IN CONNECTION WITH SECRETARY CLINTON DID YOU? >> SIR I -- I DID NOT. NO. >> YOU DIDN'T. IF YOU DID WE DON'T HAVE IT. THAT IS AN INVESTIGATION WHERE YOU DIDN'T THINK ABOUT MENTIONING IT BUT THE DAY THE AD WAS APPOINTED, RATHER THAN PUNISHING RUSSIA OR INDICTING RUSSIANS OR DOING SOMETHING ABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA, YOU WENT STRAIGHT TO IMPEACHMENT. >> WRONG. THAT'S NOT CORRECT SIR. >> I WILL TELL YOU WHAT. >> THE TIME. >> I'M OUT OF TIME AND WE >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA. >>> IS THE WITNESS NOT PERMITTED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION? >> I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO YOU NOT PERMITTING THE WITNESS TO ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED HIM. >>> I WILL FIND OUT WHO IS NEXT. THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION. >> SIR, YOU ASKED IF I WENT DIRECTLY TO IMPEACHMENT RATHER THAN RUSSIA. I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION. -- AS LONG AS YOU RESPOND TO THE QUESTION. MY IMMEDIATE CONCERN WAS HAVING ABSOLUTELY TO DO WITH RUSSIA AND EVERYTHING RELATED TO THAT. MY CONCERN WAS WHAT RUSSIA WAS DOING ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND WHAT THE OFFICERS WERE DOING IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHAT THE GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT BE DOING WITH MEMBERS OF THE DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN. THAT WAS MY RESPONSE. >> THAT IS WONDERFUL. TRUST ME THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A LONGER TEXT. I GET THAT. IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN A LOT LONGER FOR YOU TO TYPE THAT. YOU DID NOT. >>> REGULAR ORDER. >> ARE YOU GOING TO PONTIFICATE NONSTOP? >> RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU. MR. STRZOK, DURING YOUR 11 HOUR CLOSED-DOOR INTERVIEW WITH OUR COMMITTEE, REPUBLICANS ASKED úY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S AND THE FBI INVESTIGATION OF THE DONALD TRUMP, RUSSIA COLLUSION AND INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 ELECTION. AT ONE POINT, YOU DESCRIBED HOW THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION HAD AND I QUOTE, CREDIBLE ALLEGATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA HAD OFFERED ASSISTANCE TO ELEMENTS AND MATTERS OF THE TRUMP TEAM ON THE ELECTION. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE SO. I DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT. >>> AND SUBSEQUENTLY, HE FOLLOWED UP WITH THE QUESTION, STATING, AND I QUOTE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT RUSSIA WAS TRYING TO DO IT. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE OTHER WAY AROUND. DO YOU RECALL THAT? >> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT SPECIFIC EXCHANGE, MA'AM. >> YOU TOLD AND I'M GOING FROM THE TRANSCRIPT -- YOU TOLD RHETT MEDALS THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD HIS QUESTION BUT YOU COULD NOT ANSWER IN AN UNCLASSIFIED SETTING. IT APPEARS FROM YOUR TRANSCRIPT, SIR, THAT YOU INTERPRETED HIS QUESTION AS QUOTE, WHETHER OR NOT THERE WERE ANY RECIPROCATION OF THAT BY MEMBERS OF THE DONALD TRUMP TEAM IN OFFERING THEIR ASSISTANCE BACK TO RUSSIA. YOU LATER CONTINUE TO EXPLAIN AND I'M QUOTING FROM YOUR TRANSCRIPT, AS WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS INFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER ELEMENTS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WERE THEMSELVES ENGAGING IN THAT I CAN'T ANSWER THAT IN AN UNCLASSIFIED SETTING AND FURTHERMORE I DON'T THINK THE FBI OR SPECIAL COUNSEL WOULD WANT ME COMMENTING ON ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS TRYING TO COLLUDE WITH RUSSIA CALLS FOR A CLASSIFIED RESPONSE AND THE RESPONSE THAT WOULD INVOLVE INFORMATION THAT'S PART OF AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION. IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. >> THANK YOU. I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT WANT YOU TO REVEAL ANY CLASSIFIED OR SENSITIVE INVESTIGATIVE INFORMATION IN THIS SETTING. WE HAVE REPEATEDLY GONE BACK AND FORTH WITH THAT, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE TO REPEAT THINGS REPEATEDLY TO SUCH AN INTELLIGENT GROUP OF PEOPLE. BACK IN MARCH, CHAIRMAN GOWDY STATED ON NATIONAL TV AND I QUOTE, AND IF YOU BELIEVE AS WE HAVE FOUND THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO COLLUSION, YOU SHOULD WANT SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER TO TAKE ALL THE TIME AND HAVE ALL THE INDEPENDENCE HE NEEDS TO DO HIS JOB. CHAIRMAN GOWDY ALSO STATED AND I QUOTE, WHEN YOU'RE INNOCENT AND THE ALLEGATIONS OF COLLISIONS WITH THE RUSSIANS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT. YOU ARE NOT INNOCENT OF THAT. ACT LIKE IT. IF PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS ALLIES WANT US TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA, AND THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THEY TAKE CHAIRMAN GOWDY'S RECOMMENDATION AND BEGIN ACTING LIKE IT. AND I YIELD BACK MY TIME. >> SHE YIELDS BACK. AND YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. IN YOUR OPENING TESTIMONY TODAY, YOU STATED THAT QUOTE, NOT ONCE DID MY PERSONAL BIAS INTERFERE WITH MY JUDGMENT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF BIAS IN MY PROFESSIONAL ACTION CLOSE QUOTE. LET'S EXPLORE THAT STATEMENT FOR A SECOND CAN YOU PLEASE DIVINE BECAUSE I AM -- DEFINE, BECAUSE I AM REALLY CONFUSED, WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF BIAS? MAKE IT DEPENDS ON THE CONTEXT OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN REGARD TO POLITICAL OPINION. THAT IS ALLOWING YOUR BELIEFS TO GET IN THE WAY OF THE HONEST INDEPENDENT PURSUIT OF FACTS. >> ALLOWING YOUR OWN BELIEFS TO GET IN THE WAY OF YOUR ACTIONS. >> RIGHT. OF YOUR HONEST -- >> PLEASE GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF A SITUATION WHEN BUYERS WOULD INTERFERE WITH YOUR ASPECT, YOUR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT. >> IT IS DIFFICULT TO ANSWER HYPOTHETICAL. I AM NOT GOING TO INTERVIEW A WITNESS. I'M GOING TO DESTROY EVIDENCE. I'M GOING TO PREVENT SOMEBODY FROM TAKING INVESTIGATIVE STEP. I AM NOT -- IT IS DIFFICULT. >> HAS THERE EVER BEEN A TIME WHEN YOUR PROFESSIONAL ACTIONS OR YOU BELIEVED THAT YOU HAD BIAS? THAT YOU NEEDED TO MOVE ON FROM AN INVESTIGATION AT ANY TIME? >> NO. >> NO. HAS THERE BEEN A TIME IN YOUR CAREER THAT YOU HAVE RECUSED YOURSELF FROM A PROFESSIONAL ACTION? >> NO. >> OKAY. YOU WILL BE SURPRISED WHAT I ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT THE RUSSIANS TRIED TO DESTABILIZE OUR ECONOMY. OUR WAY OF LIFE, OUR GOVERNMENT. I THINK THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR A LONG TIME. I AM CURIOUS IF THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT RUSSIA TRIED TO INTERFERE WITH AN AMERICAN ELECTION. >> I AM AWARE OF TIMES WHERE THEY -- GOING BACK TO THE 1960S AND THE 1970S, WHERE THEY PLANTED EVIDENCE. THEY WERE SEEKING TO INTRODUCE ITEMS OF INFORMATION THAT WERE FALSE IN NEWSPAPERS. I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY DIRECT OUTREACH TO MEMBERS OF A PRESIDENTIAL, EITHER CANDIDATE OR HIS IMMEDIATE TEAM. >> DID THEY ATTEMPT TO INTERFERE IN THE 2012 ELECTIONS? >> I AM CERTAIN THAT THEY DID. YES. >> DO YOU REMEMBER PRESIDENT OBAMA TELLING THE RUSSIAN PRESIDENT THAT HE WOULD HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY TO NEGOTIATE ON THE ISSUES LIKE ADMISSION THE DEFENSE AFTER THE 2012 ELECTION? NO I DO NOT REMEMBER. >> HE SAID THAT IN A HOT MICROPHONE. WHY WAS THAT NOT INVESTIGATED? >> SIR, BECAUSE THERE WERE NO ALLEGATIONS TO MY KNOWLEDGE. AGAIN, I WAS NOT IN THE POSITION. >>> THIS IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TELLING THE RUSSIAN PRESIDENT THAT HE WOULD HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY AND HE WOULD DO CERTAIN THINGS -- DO YOU RECALL DURING THE DEBATES WHEN PRESIDENT OBAMA OBJECTED IT TO CANDIDATE ROMNEY THAT THE 1980S ARE NOW CALLING TO ASK FOR THEIR FOREIGN-POLICY BOOK, THE COLD WAR IS OVER. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? >> I DO NOT. >> SO YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE ELECTIONS IN 2012, BUT YOU ARE INTERESTED IN RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016. YOU WERE NOT INTERESTED IN AND THE ACTIONS OF THE PRESIDENT THAT WAS SAYING THAT RUSSIA WAS NO LONGER FOREIGN POWER THAT WE NEEDED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. >> SIR, I DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. >> YOU DO NOT EVEN RECALL THOSE STATEMENTS SO I DO NOT KNOW HOW YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH THEM. BACK YOU ARE CHARACTERIZING MY INTEREST INTERFERE THAT I CAN RESPOND TO THAT IF YOU LIKE. >> HOW CAN YOU ASSURE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT YOU ARE NOT LYING TODAY? >> ONE, AS I SAID BEFORE, I AM DOING IT UNDER OATH. I'M TELLING YOU HAVING SPENT 26 YEARS, PUTTING ON A GUN AND PUTTING MY LIFE AT RISK FOR THIS COUNTRY, I AM NOT LYING TO YOU. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT. I GET PEOPLE THAT MIGHT BE HESITANT. I WOULD SAY, LOOK AT THE RECORD. LOOK AT EVERYBODY WHO HAS WORKED WITH ME. AT WHAT THEY SAID. ABSOLUTELY. >> TODAY YOU STATED YOU DID NOT MEAN IT WHEN YOU SAID THAT DONALD TRUMP SUPPORTER SMILED AND YOU DID NOT MEAN IT WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU USE THE WORD IMPEACHMENT AND WHEN YOU SAID REPUBLICANS WERE HILLBILLIES. YOU WERE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. IN THOSE MOMENTS. >> I DISAGREE WITH THAT. I SAID I DID NOT MEAN IT WHEN I TALKED ABOUT PEOPLE THAT YOU COULD SMELL THE SUPPORTER HILLBILLIES. THAT WAS A POOR CHOICE OF WORDS THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IT I DID NOT SAY I DID NOT BELIEVE IN PEACE. MY EXPLANATION WAS DIFFERENT. THAT WAS, AS I CONSIDERED IT, THAT WAS ON THE FAR END OF WHAT MIGHT BE OCCURRING. WHAT I SAID WAS THE OPPOSITE. >> I UNDERSTAND FINALLY, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE ASSERTIONS THAT ARE NOT TRUE. FIRST THAT THE IG FOUND NO BIAS IN YOUR ACTIONS. THIS IS NOT TRUE. THE A.G. SAID, QUOTE, WE WERE DEEPLY TROUBLED BY TEXT MESSAGES SENT BY PETER STRZOK AND PAGE THAT INDICATED OR CREATED THE APPEARANCE THAT INVESTIGATIVE DECISIONS WERE IMPACTED BY BIAS OR IMPROPER CONSIDERATION. SMACKING RIGHT AND YOU READ WHAT YOU JUST SAID, POTENTIALLY CREATE THE APPEARANCE. THAT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT AN ACT OF BIAS. IT IS A HEDGE 23 ADJECTIVE DESCRIPTION ABOUT SOMETHING WHICH I CAN TELL YOU DOES NOT EXIST. >> MOREOVER AS WE DESCRIBE IN ASSESSING PETER STRZOK'S DECISION TO PRIORITIZE THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION OVER FOLLOWING UP ON THE MEDIA RELATED INVESTIGATIVE LEAD, DISCOVERING THE LAPTOP IN OCTOBER 2016, THESE TEXT MESSAGES LEAD US TO CONCLUDE THAT WE DID NOT HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT PETER STRZOK'S DECISIONS WERE FREE FROM BIAS. >> YES. >> SO THERE WAS NO DECISION THAT THERE WAS NO BIAS. THEY JUST CANNOT FIND WHETHER THERE WAS BIAS OR NOT AND MOREOVER, THEY DID NOT REALLY -- >> AND MR. CHAIRMAN, REGULAR ORDER. >> THEY DID NOT INVESTIGATE THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION SO THERE IS PENDING. >> THE GENTLEMAN IS OUT OF TIME AND YIELDS BACK. THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK. I DID NOT HEAR A QUESTION. >> I DO NOT AGREE BUT HE WAS ASKING ME WHETHER I BELIEVE THAT THE IG REPORT INDICATED THAT THERE WAS AN ACT OF BIAS. LIKE THEY ARE FREE TO HEAR YOUR ANSWER BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT THE WITNESS HE PERMITTED TO ANSWER A QUESTION. >> MAY I RESPOND? SIR, LET'S LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE LAPTOP THEY ARE WITHIN HOURS, LITERALLY LESS THAN FOUR HOURS OF LEARNING, I SIGNED AGENT TO GO AND CHECK IN AND FIGURE OUT WHAT IS -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION. >> WITHIN A DAY THEY HAD DONE SO AND THOSE WERE THE FOLKS ON RELATED --'S MAKE THE GENTLEMAN FROM IDAHO HAS YIELDED BACK AND IF YOU WANT TO GIVE A SHORT RESPONSE TO A QUESTION THAT HE DOES NOT BELIEVE HE ASKED, YOU ARE WELCOME TO DO IT BUT KEEP IT SHORT. >> SPEAK CLEARLY INTO THE MICROPHONE AND RAISE THE MICROPHONE. >> ABSOLUTELY BUT I WOULD TAKE ISSUE AND I DO TAKE ISSUE WITH THE IG CONCLUSION THAT SAID SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD NOT EXCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT PLAYED A ROLE IN WHAT I WOULD POINT YOU AND THEM TO ARE THE FACTS THAT ARE WITHIN HOURS OF LEARNING, HOURS, OF LEARNING OF THE WEINER LAPTOP, I ASSIGNED A SEASONED SUPERVISORY AGENTS AND SUBORDINATE AGENTS TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT AND WITHIN A DAY OF GETTING THAT INFORMATION, THEY HAD GOTTEN IN TOUCH WITH NEW YORK AND DETERMINED THAT NEW YORK HAD NOT COMPLETED THE PROCESSING AND THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GET BACK TOGETHER WITH THAT OCCURRED. THE NOTION THAT ANYTHING WAS BACK BYRD IS BELIED BY THE FACTS THAT LITERALLY WITHIN 24 HOURS OF LEARNING OF THAT INFORMATION, I HAD ASSIGNED PEOPLE WHO, BY THE WAY, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION, TO FOLLOW UP ON THE MATTER. >> YOU HAVE ANSWERED THE QUESTION. THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK. >> MR. STRZOK, THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE POSSIBLE COLLUSION IN THE 2016 ELECTION HAS RESULTED IN 23 INDICTMENTS, CORRECT? >> I DO NOT KNOW THE NUMBER. SNAKE IT HAS RESULTED IN 18 INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE BEEN INDICTED. TRUE? BUT I DO NOT KNOW THE NUMBERS. >> THREE CORPORATE ENTITIES HAVE BEEN INDICTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DONALD TRUMP RUSSIAN COLLUSION INVESTIGATION. CORRECT? BUT I WILL ACCEPT YOUR REPRESENTATION. >> THE INVESTIGATION HAS IDENTIFIED 75 DIFFERENT CRIMINAL ACTS. CORRECT? BUT AGAIN, I HAVE NOT TALLIED THEM UP. >> THERE HAVE BEEN FIVE GUILTY PLEAS. TRUE? >> I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN. >> PAUL MANFORD HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. CORRECT? >> HE HAS BEEN CHARGED BUT I DO NOT KNOW THE CRIMES. >> HE IS SITTING IN JAILS AS A RESULT OF WITNESS TAMPERING. TRUMPS FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR HAS PLED GUILTY TO LYING TO THE FBI. >> YES. >> THE DEPUTY MANAGER HAS BEEN INDICTED FOR CONSPIRACY TO FRY THE UNITED STATES. >> HE HAS BEEN INDICTED I DO NOT KNOW THE CHARGES. >> GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, A FORMER SECURITY NATIONAL ADVISOR HAS PLED GUILTY TO LYING TO FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS ABOUT HIS CONTACTS WITH RUSSIAN SPIES DURING THE CAMPAIGN. TRUE? >> CERTAINLY WITH RUSSIANS I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CHARACTERIZE. >> THE FBI PUBLICLY DISCLOSED INFORMATION ABOUT THE HILLARY CLINTON EMAIL INVESTIGATION, 11 DAYS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION, IN 2016. TRUE? >> YES. >> THE FBI MAINTAINED CONFIDENTIAL ABOUT THE DONALD TRUMP RUSSIAN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DURING THE ENTIRE DURATION OF THE DONALD TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. CORRECT? >> YES >> IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO STOP DONALD TRUMP FROM BECOMING PRESIDENT, YOU COULD HAVE REVEALED THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE PRIOR TO THE ELECTION. TRUE? >> YES, SIR. >> MR. STRZOK, YOU ARE BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE FOR ONE REASON. TO SERVE AS A MONUMENTAL DISTRACTION. THERE IS A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. INTO THE DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND POSSIBLE CRIMES RELATED TO THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, INVOLVING COLLUSION WITH RUSSIAN SPIES TO SELL OUT OUR DEMOCRACY AND HIJACK THE PRESIDENCY. MY COLLEAGUES IN THE COVER-UP CAUCUS DO NOT LIKE THAT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. THEREFORE, THEY NEED TO IDENTIFY A VILLAIN. MR. STRZOK, TAG. YOU ARE IT. HERE IS WHAT IS SO IRONIC ABOUT THAT CHARACTERIZATION. VLADIMIR PUTIN IS A THUG AND A DICTATOR. HE HIJACKED AND INTERFERED AND ATTACKED OUR DEMOCRACY. BUT APPARENTLY, HE DOES NOT MEET THE REPUBLICAN VILLAIN TEST. OUR SO-CALLED COMMANDER IN CHIEF CONTINUES TO PLAY FOOTSIE WITH HIM. KIM JONG-UN MURDERS HIS PEOPLE AND HAS THREATENED NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION AGAINST AMERICAN CITIES, BUT APPARENTLY, HE DOES NOT MEET THE REPUBLICAN VILLAIN TEST. THE ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES TO ENGAGE IN FAKE NEGOTIATIONS WITH HIM. DAVID DUKE AND NEO-NAZIS APPARENTLY FOR SOME DO NOT MEET THE REPUBLICAN VILLAIN TEST. OH, THAT'S RIGHT. I FORGOT. THERE ARE FINE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES. ROY MOORE, AN ALLEGED SERIAL PEDOPHILE, APPARENTLY DOES NOT MEET THE REPUBLICAN VILLAIN TEST. HE WAS THE NOMINEE OF YOUR PARTY FOR A SEAT IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE. BUT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THAT AGENT PETER STRZOK, A FORMER ARMY OFFICER, WHO HAS SERVED THE FBI WITH DISTINCTION, YES, MADE SOME MISTAKES, IS THE GRAVEST EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY. HOW DARE YOU LECTURE US ABOUT VILLAINS. WHEN YOUR PARTY CONTINUES TO TURN A BLIND EYE TO THAT PARADE OF DEGENERATES THAT I JUST LISTED. THIS INVESTIGATION IS A JOKE. IT IS A FRAUD. THIS HEARING IS A KANGAROO COURT. IT IS A THREE RING CIRCUS. IT IS NOT EVEN MERITORIOUS OF AN INVESTIGATION BY ACE VENTURA PET DETECTIVE, LET ALONE 75 MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS. LET'S STOP WASTING TAXPAYER DOLLARS, AND GET BACK TO THE BUSINESS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. >> YOU YIELD BACK TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH CAROLINA IS RECOGNIZED. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD MY TIME TO YOU.! THANK YOU, THE AGENT -- AGENT STRZOK ON MARCH 14, 2017, I THINK WE WERE WHAT, A COUPLE OF MONTHS INTO THE PRESIDENCY? LET'S SEE IF YOU CAN RECALL THIS TEXT. THIS TEXT THAT YOU RECEIVED. FINALLY, TWO PAGES AWAY FROM FINISHING A TPM. DO YOU KNOW THE PRESIDENT RESIGNS IN THE END? WHAT IS A TPM? >> I BELIEVE IT IS A REFERENCE TO THE BOOK ALL OF THE PRESIDENTS MEN. >> DO YOU RECALL HOW YOU APPLIED? >> GENERALLY I WOULD FAINT SURPRISE AND SAY SOMETHING TO THE FACT THAT WE SHOULD BE SO LUCKY OR FORTUNATE. >> NO, IT WAS LUCKY. LUCKY IN WHAT WAY? >> SIR, THAT HE WOULD RESIGN AS PRESIDENT. >> YOU WANTED HIM TO RESIGN TWO MONTHS INTO HIS PRESIDENCY? >> MY SENSE WAS IN A PERSONAL BELIEF THAT I WAS NOT PLEASED WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THINGS ARE BEING DONE WITH THE PRESIDENCY. >> I THOUGHT THAT YOU TRUSTED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I THOUGHT THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID IN AUGUST 2016, IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD STOP HIM AND THEN THEY DID NOT STOP HERE. HERE WE ARE IN MARCH AND ALL OF A SUDDEN. TRUSTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ANYMORE. >> I UTTERLY TRUSTED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT I WORRY ABOUT IS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA PUTS THEIR FINGERS ON THE SCALE AND CAUSES THAT WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. OTHER THAN AMERICA. >> HOW MANY INDICTMENTS HAVE THERE BEEN OF AMERICANS FOR COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA? >> I COULD NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. TO MAKE SURE YOU CAN. YOU WORKED ON THE INVESTIGATION. >> YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT COLLUSION IS NOT A CRIME. I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THE TERM CAME FROM. AMERICAN PEOPLE. >> IT IS NOT CONSPIRACY, COORDINATION, COLLUSION. A LOT OF PEOPLE USE THOSE WORDS IN THE SAME WAY. HOW ABOUT WE SAY CONSPIRACY? HOW MANY AMERICANS HAVE BEEN INDICTED FOR CONSPIRING WITH RUSSIA TO IMPACT THE 2016 ELECTION? >> NONE TO MY KNOWLEDGE, YET. >> WE WILL BE HAPPY TO GET MR. NADLER AS A WITNESS AT NEST -- NEXT WEEK'S HEARING IF HE WANTS TO HELP YOU ANSWER THAT. SO YOU WANTED PRESIDENT TRUMP TO RESIGN TWO MONTHS INTO HIS PRESIDENCY. >> NO, SIR. I THINK I READ THAT AS A SNARKY COMMENT ABOUT A BOOK THAT WAS BEING A RED AND A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE THAT IT IS A CONVERSATIONAL TEXT EXCHANGE AND NOT A WRITTEN -- A DESIRE FOR SOMETHING TO OCCUR. >> MAYBE I MISSED IT BUT HELP ME. DIED THAT WE SHOULD BE SO LUCKY. >> YES, SIR. I THINK YOU WOULD EXCEPT AS A VERY INTELLIGENT AND SOPHISTICATED MAN THAT PEOPLE FREQUENTLY SPEAK WHEN THEY ARE TEXTING AND IN CONVERSATION AND YOU WILL SAY THINGS THAT ARE HYPERBOLE OR EXAGGERATION OR NOT LITERAL BECAUSE THAT IS JUST THE NATURE OF THE WAY THAT WE SPEAK? USUALLY AGENT STRZOK NOT WHEN I AM SUPPOSED TO BE VIRTUALLY INVESTIGATED SOMEONE. I ACTUALLY DID NOT. LET'S GO. LET'S GO. WE HAVE ALREADY PASSED THE WHO GIVES A LETTER OF ONE MORE -- VERSUS THE INVESTIGATION THAT LEADING TO IMPEACHMENT. WE HAVE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS A SCHOOL OF THOUGHT THAT YOU CAN BE IMPEACHED EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT A CURRENT OFFICE HOLDER. YOU CAN BE BARRED FROM HOLDING OFFICE IN THE FUTURE, BUT YOU DID NOT ENGAGE IN ANY IMPEACHMENT ANALYSIS IN YOUR OTHER 2016 INVESTIGATION. IT WAS SECRETARY CLINTON. YOU SAVED ALL OF THAT FOR THE CANDIDATE DONALD TRUMP. SO I WANTED TO GO TO ANOTHER TEXT. YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THE ODDS ARE NOTHING. IF I THOUGHT IT WAS LIKELY, I WOULD BE THERE. NO QUESTION. NOW THIS IS THE DAY AFTER ROBERT MUELLER WAS APPOINTED. WHEN YOU SAID BE THERE, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ON HIS TEAM? >> YES. >> I HESITATE IN PART BECAUSE OF MICAH SENSE AND CONCERN. THERE IS NO BIG THERE THERE. SO IN ADDITION TO DISAPPOINTING THE HELL OUT OF MY DEMOCRAT COLLEAGUES, THAT SOMEONE WHO IS INVESTIGATING RUSSIAN COLLUSION DID NOT THINK THAT THERE WAS ANY THERE THERE, WHY WOULD YOU BE CONCERNED? WHY WOULD YOU NOT BE ECSTATIC THAT THERE WAS NO COLLUSION? WHY THE WORD CONCERN? >> SIR, I DO NOT KNOW WHAT I MEANT. CONCERN TO ME SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A LOT GOING ON AND A LOT PRESUMPTIVE THAT THERE MAY BE SOMETHING LIKE IMPEACHMENT BUT YOU HAVE GOT TO PICK PICK WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT? I AM EITHER CONVINCED THAT THERE IS IMPEACHMENT OR I AM CONVINCED WHAT YOU JUST READ, THAT THERE IS NO THERE THERE. AND THE REALITY, SIR, IF YOU LOOK AT IT IS THE FACT, THAT I WAS LOOKING AT THIS WITH AN OPEN MIND AND SAYING, I DO NOT KNOW THIS MAXIMA AGENT STRZOK, OF ALL OF THE UNIVERSAL OPTIONS, THAT IS NOT THE ONE THAT I PICKED OF ALL OF THE UNIVERSE OF OPTIONS, YOU LOOKING AT SOMETHING WITH AN OPEN MIND IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I PICKED. >> THAT IS THE OBVIOUS WANT TO CONCLUDE FROM THE EMAIL. >> I WILL TELL YOU THE ONE THAT I PICKED. THE ONE THAT I PICKED AND IT BREAKS MY HEART TO SAY THIS ABOUT AN AGENT FOR AN AGENCY THAT I HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR. YOU AS A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE OFFICER HAD NO INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS NOT GOING TO LEAD TO IMPEACHMENT. THAT IS HOW I READ IT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU ARE --'S BACK NO QUESTION. >>> YOU ARE ASSUMING SOMEONE ELSE. MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU ARE COMING TO CONCLUSION ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S VIEWPOINTS IN THE HEARING. ALLOW THE WITNESS TO RESPOND. >>> I WILL -- I'M SURE THAT MY TIME IS NOT RECOGNIZED. I HESITATE IN PART BECAUSE OF MY GUT SENSE AND CONCERN THAT THERE IS NO BIG THERE THERE. WHAT WERE YOU CONCERNED WAS NOT THERE? >> SIR, MY CONCERN WAS NOT KNOWING, GIVEN THESE ALLEGATIONS, WHAT EXISTED. WHETHER ON THE ONE HAND, THERE WAS NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHATSOEVER TOWARDS THE MIDDLE, THAT THERE ARE INDIVIDUAL KIND OF PURSUING THEIR OWN AGENDAS FOR THEIR OWN SELF ENRICHMENT OR ON THE FAR END THAT THERE <font color="#FF00FF"><u>IGHT BE AN IMPEACHABLE </u></font> OFFENSE. >> WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO INVESTIGATE? >> MY ANSWER TO QUESTION -- >> MY QUESTION IS WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO INVESTIGATE THAT? >> I DID WANT TO INVESTIGATE THAT. THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU ARE READING. WHAT YOU ARE READING IS MY TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT I WANT TO DO WITH THE COURSE OF MY CAREER AND A WHETHER TO STAY AS A DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE DIVISION WHERE I HAVE OVERSIGHT OF A WIDE VARIETY OF THREATS AROUND THE GLOBE OR WHETHER I WANT TO REMOVE MYSELF AND GO WORK ON SOMETHING IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE THAT IS VERY SPECIFIC, THAT IS GOING TO TAKE THE -- I DO NOT KNOW HOW LONG. BUT TO YOUR POINT OF THIS MAKES >> YOU ARE LEAVING OUT AN IMPORTANT WORD. IMPEACHMENT. >> REGULAR ORDER. IT IS A MINUTE AND A HALF OVER. SNACK ON AND ON AND ON. >> POINT OF ORDER. TIME IS UP. LIKE IMPEACHMENT. AT FOUR BIG WORDS OF NO BIG THERE THERE AND YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT I SAID BOTH AND YOU KNOW WHY I SAID BOTH. WHY I DID THAT AND WHAT I'M TELLING YOU UNDER OATH IS THAT I DID NOT KNOW WHAT EXISTED. I HAD PREJUDGED NOTHING. THAT WAS ALL TO BE DETERMINED. AND THAT IS A LOGICAL WAY FOR INVESTIGATORS, ATTORNEYS, AND STARTING -- WITH THE POLITICAL DEATH PENALTY AND IMPEACHMENT IS NOT A LOGICAL WAY THAT A NEUTRAL, DISPASSIONATE -- >> CHAIRMAN, WE ARE DEMANDING EQUAL TIME. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> IF YOU CANNOT CONTROL YOURSELF, HOW DO YOU EXPECT THIS COMMITTEE TO CONTROL ITSELF? YOU HAVE BEEN OUT OF CONTROL SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN ON THIS COMMITTEE. WHY DON'T YOU LEAVE IT ALONE? THIS IS NOT BENGHAZI. SELECT THE GENERAL LADY FROM NEW JERSEY IS RECOGNIZED. >> YOU ARE RECOGNIZE, CONGRESSWOMAN. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> HALLELUJAH. >> [ LAUGHTER ] BACK FIRST OF ALL, MR. STRZOK, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. SECONDLY MR. STRZOK, I THINK YOU MADE A BIG MISTAKE BY PUTTING THOSE TEXT MESSAGES ON YOUR BUSINESS TELEPHONE. BECAUSE THEN YOU OPENED UP YOUR PERSONAL TELEPHONE AND HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS MESS WHEN IT REALLY IS NOT IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE OTHER THING THAT I KNOW, MR. STRZOK IS THAT EVEN IF YOU DO HAVE BIASES, YOU DID NOT INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF THIS INVESTIGATION. THE ATTORNEY -- THE IG FOUND THAT THE OUTCOME OF THIS INVESTIGATION WAS PREDICATED UPON EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION. THE OTHER THING THAT I KNOW IS THAT NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU DISLIKE HILLARY CLINTON AND OR DONALD TRUMP, YOU DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH EITHER ONE OF THEM GETTING ELECTED. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISGRACING THIS COUNTRY EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY DAY WHEN HE EMBRACES OUR ENEMIES AND SUCKS UP -- EMBRACES OUR ENEMIES AND IS DISRESPECTFUL TO OUR ALLIES. YOU HAVENOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS DECLARED HIGHER TERRORISTS IN THE NAME OF SECURITY TO THIS NATION AGAINST OUR CLOSEST FRIEND AND NEIGHBOR, CANADA, BUT NO ONE ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE HAS OPENED THEIR MOUTH. YOU HAVE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRESIDENT AND ENRICHING HIMSELF WITH HIS EMOLUMENTS AND CARVING OUT OPPORTUNITIES FOR HIS DAUGHTER SO THAT SHE IS NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACTEDWITH HER BRANDS IN CHINA, WHILE THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE SAYS NOTHING. YOU HAVE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT PUERTO RICO IS STILL UNDERWATER AND WITHOUT ANY KIND OF ELECTRICITY AND 70 PLACES, WHY THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT IS A PART OF THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, HAS FORGOTTEN WHAT IT'S MISSION IS. BUT NONETHELESS, YOU HAVE BEEN HERE AND YOU HAVE TRIED TO ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS AND I HAVE NEVER SEEN MY COLLEAGUES SO OUT OF CONTROL, SO ANGRY, AND SO DESPERATE TO PROTECT A PRESIDENT THAT WE ALL KNOW IS NOT FIT TO BE PRESIDENT. SO I WANT TO LEAVE YOU THIS OPPORTUNITY. IS THERE ANY QUESTION ON THE TABLE, MR. STRZOK, THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY? BECAUSE I CAN GIVE YOU TWO MINUTES AND 25 SECONDS TO HAVE YOUR SAY UNINTERRUPTED. MET CONGRESSWOMAN, I DEEPLY APPRECIATE THAT TIME. I DO WANT THIS EVERYBODY IS WATCHING THIS AND MAKING UP THEIR OWN MIND, AND WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU IS, ONE, I AM SITTING HERE TELLING YOU THE TRUTH AND TWO, INDEPENDENT OF ME, I CANNOT EXPRESS TO YOU MY LOVE OF THE FBI ENOUGH. THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO MAKE UP THAT WORKFORCE -- THEIR ETHICS, THEIR INTEGRITY, ARE UNMATCHED ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT, ONE, BECAUSE IT IS WHO WE ARE. TWO, THAT NONE OF THEM WOULD ACCEPT ANY OF THE BEHAVIORS THAT ARE BEING ALLEGED ANY MORE THAN I WOULD ACCEPT IT IN HIM AND, THREE, THIS ENTIRE EXERCISE COMES AT A COST. WE ARE DOING THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO COME IN THE FUTURE, TEAR DOWN THE UNDERPINNINGS OF WHAT REPRESENT LAW AND ORDER IN THIS COUNTRY. AND THERE IS NOT A ROBUST TAKE A WALL THERE BUT I THINK THAT PEOPLE DO NOT APPRECIATE HOW TENUOUS THE BALANCE OF THE RULE OF LAW VERSUS CHAOS IS. WHEN WE, AS A PEOPLE, ENGAGE IN ACTIVITY WHERE WE TAKE INSTITUTIONS WHOLESALE, WHETHER THE FBI OR THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, AND WE COMPARE THEM TO NAZIS, WE DESTROY THINGS THAT, ONE, WE MAY NOT SEE FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND ONCE WE BREAK THOSE DOWN, THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT TAKES TO FIX IS GOING TO BE TENFOLD AND I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH THAT I ASK ALL OF YOU TO TAKE DEEPLY YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN OUR SYSTEM -- >> THANK YOU, MR. STRZOK. I NEED TO SAY IN CLOSING, IF ANYBODY SHOULD BE PLACED AT THE FBI, BECAUSE YOU ALL HELPED THIS UNFIT MAN BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY NOT REVEALING TO THE PEOPLE THAT HE WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION IN HIS CAMPAIGN, IT SHOULD BE ME. THEY SHOULD BE APPLAUDING YOU, KISSING YOU, AND GIVING YOU ALL AWARDS BECAUSE BUT FOR YOU, WE WOULD HAVE HAD A LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT ELECTED. I YIELD BACK MY TIME. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK IS RECOGNIZED FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, AS YOU ARE AWARE, MY MINORITY LEADERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND HEARINGS TO ALLOW WITNESSES TO TESTIFY. AS YOU KNOW DURING THE COURSE OF TODAY'S HEARING, THE MAJORITY OPPOSE REPRESENTATIVE MOTION TO SUBPOENA STEVE BANNON FOR TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF OF THE MINORITY MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE'S, I'M DELIVERING A LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN AND TO CHAIRMAN GOWDY, FORMALLY INVOKING OUR RIGHT TO CALL THE MINARDI DAVE HEARING SO THAT STEVE BANNON MAY TESTIFY AND I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO INSERT A COPY OF THE LETTER. >> WITH OBJECTION. THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGE'S RECOGNIZED. >> MR. STRZOK, I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE AND I WILL ASSURE YOU THAT I TAKE THIS VERY SERIOUSLY BUT I WANT TO COME AS YOU GO AND LOOK AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALKING ABOUT TEXTING AND ABOUT YOUR BIAS AND NON-BIAS IN YOUR OPINIONS AND YOUR WILLINGNESS TO ELABORATE ON THAT. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THAT WILL NOT REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE TO BE ELABORATE OR ANYTHING. THEY WILL BE SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD. AS I HAVE BEEN LOOKING THROUGH THIS AND TALKING TO THE CURRENT FBI DIRECTOR AND THE CURRENT DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND READING THROUGH THEM THINGS, THINGS HAVE POPPED UP THAT I THINK NEED SOME CLARIFICATION. WHAT WAS LAST TIME YOU WERE SUBJECT TO A POLYGRAPH? >> APPROXIMATELY TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO.'S BACK TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO BUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE HAVE YOU EVER FAILED A POLYGRAPH OR FOUND TO BE OUT OF SCOPE? BUT I HAVE NEVER FAILED ONE. I WAS OUT OF SCOPE PRIOR TO MY LAST POLYGRAPH. >> AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN WHAT TIME? TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO? COULD YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC? BUT I THINK WE CAN CUT TO THE CHASE AND I THINK THERE IS AN EMAIL THAT TALKS ABOUT PEOPLE BEING OUT OF SCOPE WHICH GENERATED THE LAST POLYGRAPH. >> WE ARE GOING TO CUT TO THE CHASE. YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND SAY JANUARY 2016 WHEN YOU RECEIVE THE TEXT OR EMAIL? BUT IF THAT IS THE DATE, I WILL STIPULATE TO THAT. >> WE WILL TAKE THAT AS A STUPID RATION. HAS EXAMINER EVER ACCUSED OF USING COUNTERMEASURES DURING A POLYGRAPH AND -- >> NO. >> YOU HAVE RECEIVED EMAIL AND STABILITY TO THE POLYGRAPH OUT OF SCOPE IN JANUARY 2016. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HOW LONG WAS YOUR POLYGRAPH OUT OF SCOPE? >> I DON'T KNOW I RECALL IT IS THE PENULTIMATE, SECOND TO THE LAST I HAD WAS WHEN I WAS A SUPERVISOR AT THE WASHINGTON FIELD OFFICE WHICH WOULD HAVE OCCURRED BETWEEN THE 2008 AND 2011. MY UNDERSTANDING OF OUT OF SCOPE FOR THE FBI MEANS THAT POLYGRAPHS HAVE A FIVE-YEAR SPAN OF EFFECTIVENESS OR VALIDITY. WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE AND WE ARE TRYING TO INCLUDE, INCLUDING ME TRYING TO GET RIGHT INTO A PARTICULAR INTELLIGENCE COMPARTMENT. THEY RAN THE NAMES, ME AND SOME OTHERS OUT OF SCOPE WHICH HAPPENS BECAUSE POLYGRAPHS ARE -- THE LINE FOR POLYGRAPHS IS LONGER. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT I AM IN THE MILITARY I UNDERSTAND THE LINE FOR POLYGRAPH AND THE DELAYS. YOU HAPPENED TO HOLD A JOB THAT IS HIGHLY SENSITIVE. THE QUESTION IS, I WOULD ASSUME TO ANSWER YOUR EVASIVENESS, YOU DID NOT KNOW HOW LONG YOU WERE OUT OF SCOPE YES OR NO? BUT THAT IS. I WAS TRYING TO RECANT. >> YES OR NO DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG YOU ARE OUT OF SCOPE? >> I DO NOT. >> WHAT STEPS WERE TAKEN TO BRING YOU INTO SCOPE? BUT I WENT AND HAD A POLYGRAPH. >> WAS THIS AFTER THE JANUARY 16 LETTER THAT YOU RECEIVED? BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN AFTERWARDS. >> IF YOU ARE OUT OF SCOPE, THE LAST TIME, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THAT YOU ACCESS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION? >> NIGHT BEFORE LAST PREPARING FOR THIS. >> YOU CURRENTLY HAVE WHAT CLASSIFICATION? BUT I HAVE THE TOP-SECRET CLEARANCE WITH SOME FCI COMPARTMENTS. >> DURING THE TIME THAT YOU WERE OUT OF SCOPE, DID YOU HAVE ACCESS TO SEI? MAKE YES. >> ARE YOU AWARE THAT IT IS FBI PROCEDURE THAT A FAILURE OR OUT OF SCOPE POLYGRAPH DOES NOT DETERMINE A TOP-SECRET BUT A FAILURE OF THIS WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO BE READ OUT OF SEI ACCESS ALTHOUGH YOU COULD MAINTAIN YOUR TOP-SECRET AND THIS WAS A DIRECT ANSWER FROM A QUESTION THAT I POSED AND WAS RECEIVED WITHIN THE LAST WEEK. WERE YOU AWARE THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN READ OUT OF ANY SCI INFORMATION WHEN YOU ARE OUT OF SCOPE ? BUT I BELIEVE YOU USED THEM WORD FAILURE AND I WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FACT THAT AN OUT OF SCOPE POLYGRAPH REQUIRED A READOUT OF SCI. >> I ACCEPT THAT BUT I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE QUESTION. THE ANSWER CAME BACK FROM THE FBI AND JUSTICE ITSELF, THAT IT WAS -- THAT IS THE PROCEDURE. THE NEXT QUESTION I HAVE IS, AFTER THE 26 -- YOU DID THE POLYGRAPH AT WHAT TIME? YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE OUT OF SCOPE AND PRODDED BY GIVEN A POLYGRAPH AND WHEN WAS THAT? MacRI REGULATION IS A 2016 TIMEFRAME BUT AFTER THAT EMAIL, I DO NOT KNOW WITHIN A MONTH OR TWO I THINK. >> ARE YOU AWARE IN THE PUBLICLY STATED VERSION THAT THERE HAS BEEN SERIOUS QUESTIONS AND ISSUES CONCERNING POLYGRAPH INFORMATION AND LACK OF POLYGRAPH PROCEDURES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FBI THAT WAS BROUGHT OUT BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL? >> I AM NOT -- GENERALLY AWARE THAT THERE WAS A REPORT BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF THE CONCLUSIONS. >> ONE OF THE GENERAL CONCERNS ON THIS IS THAT WHEN YOU ARE OUT OF SCOPE AND THIS IS THE ANSWER COMING BACK FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN READ OUT OF SCI. MY CONCERN IS IT, DURING THIS TIMEFRAME YOU WERE INVOLVED IN TWO VERY HIGH PROFILE WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN GETTING READY FOR A SCI INFORMATION AT WHICH YOU WERE NOT READ OUT OF. THIS IS A CONCERN. IS NOTHING ELSE FROM THAT QUESTION BUT I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. I AM FINISHED AND I YIELD BACK. >> I THINK THAT YOU MISSTATED THE CONCLUSION. I THINK THAT YOU SAID THAT -- 'S BACK MR. STRZOK. SPENT FAILURE TO REQUIRED READOUT AND THAT IS NOT CONCLUDED. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA CONTROLS THE TIME. >> THE TIME IS OVER. THE TIME IS UP. >> MAY I RESPOND? BUT THERE WAS NO QUESTION. FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, I READ YOU THE ANSWER. >> MAY I COMMENT TO WHAT I BELIEVE IS A MISSTATEMENT? >> FROM YOUR ANSWER, WHEN I TOOK THAT TO BE IS IN THE EVENT OF A FAILURE, AN INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE READ OUT. YOU ARE CONFLATING THAT WITH OUT OF SCOPE OR A FAILURE. IT IS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT OUT OF SCOPE REQUIRES SOMEBODY TO BE READ OUT. IT MAY BE. IAM NOT A SECURITY PROFESSIONAL BUT YOU UP HERE. >> YOU ARE OUT OF SYNC WITH THE ANSWER THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THAT IS THE ANSWER THAT YOU GAVE THAT YOU MAY HAVE BEEN OUT OF SYNC IN THE QUESTION NOW BECOMES, IS POLICIES AND PROVISIONS FAILED OR NOT? THIS IS A SERIOUS INVESTIGATION IF YOU ARE YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN READ OUT. THAT IS MY FINAL ANSWER, STATEMENT, NOT A QUESTION, NOT -- I YIELD BACK. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM RHODE ISLAND IS RECOGNIZED. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I LOOK FORWARD TO A COUPLE OF EXTRA MINUTES AS MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE HAD. SERVING ON THIS COMMITTEE, REPRESENTING -- THIS IS BEEN ONE OF THE GREATEST HONORS OF MY LIFE BUT THE CONDUCT OF THIS COMMITTEE TODAY HAS BEEN FOR ME TREMENDOUSLY SAD, EMBARRASSING, AND REALLY DANGEROUS TO OUR DEMOCRACY. I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THE WAY THAT YOUR BEEN TREATED BY THIS COMMITTEE. FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING, YOU OUGHT NOT WONDER WHY THEY HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE IN CONGRESS AND ARE SICK OF THE CIRCUS THAT THEY SAW BEING CONDUCTED IN THIS ROOM TODAY. RATHER THAN FOCUSING ON URGENT ISSUES LIKE FAMILY SEPARATION, REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE IN OUR COMMUNITIES, CONSIDERING LEGISLATION TO REFORM OUR BROKEN IMMIGRATION SYSTEM, PASSING LEGISLATION TO REDUCE THE COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS, ADDRESSING THE INABILITY OF AMERICANS WHO FALL BEHIND IN THEIR STUDENT LOANS TO DISCHARGE THAT DEBT AND BANKRUPTCY OR OVERSIGHT OF THE MANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND CORRUPTION IN THIS ADMINISTRATION, WE ARE HAVING YET ANOTHER HEARING ON THE HILLARY CLINTON EMAILS. WHAT YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND, MR. STRZOK, IS THE REASON THAT MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WILL NOT LET YOU ANSWER A QUESTION IS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR ANSWERS. THIS IS ABOUT PROMOTING A NARRATIVE. YOU ARE BEING A -- YOU ARE A PROP SO THAT THEY CAN PROMOTE A NARRATIVE IN AN ONGOING EFFORT TO DISTRACT FROM THE SERIOUS INVESTIGATION OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL THAT IS CLOSING IN ON THE DONALD TRUMP INNER CIRCLE. THIS IS A CAMPAIGN. TO UNDERMINE THAT WORK AND SADLY DOING WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO DO IT WITH -- IN CONCERT WITH THE PRESIDENT ATTACKED THE FBI AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. UNDERMINE THE RULE OF LAW AND SO YOUR EMAILS ARE A PERFECT FOIL FOR THIS EFFORT. THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN HEARING YOUR CONTACTS AND EXPLANATIONS BECAUSE IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU. IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING THE PRESENT. MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ACTED MORE LIKE THEY ARE THE DEFENSE TEAM FOR DONALD TRUMP THEN EXERCISING THEIR VERY SERIOUS OVERSIGHT RESPONSIBILITIES AS MEMBERS OF THESE COMMITTEES. ROBERT MUELLER WAS PRAISED TO THE HEAVENS BY EVERYONE, REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT ALIKE WHEN HE WAS APPOINTED. NOW HE IS A VILLAIN. WHAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT HAS CHANGED? 19 INDICTMENTS. FIVE GUILTY PLEAS. AND THE CIRCLE IS CLOSING IT. SO I ACCEPT YOUR SWORN TESTIMONY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIAS AND THE ACTIONS THAT YOU TOOK. WE DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. I DO. THE IG REPORTED 500 PAGES INTERVIEWS, REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS, COMES TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS. WE FIND THE DECISIONS MADE WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE ANALYTIC APPROACH DESCRIBED ABOVE. WE FOUND THAT THESE SPECIFIC DECISIONS WORTHY OF ALL IS A RESULT OF DISCRETIONARY JUDGMENTS MADE BY THE AGE OF AND PROSECUTORS AND THAT THEY WERE ALL REASONABLE. SO IT IS -- THERE IS A BIG ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE IS IT LOTS? 500 PAGES. THAT IS THE SAME CONCLUSION AND SAME REPRESENTATION YOU HAVE MADE TODAY. DO NOT BE FRUSTRATED. THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THAT. THIS IS ABOUT PROMOTING THE NARRATIVE. WE KNOW MR. STRZOK THAT THE PRESIDENT THIS WEEK THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES UNEQUIVOCALLY CONCLUDED THAT RUSSIA INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTIONS. IT WAS DIRECTED BY VLADIMIR PUTIN. FOR THE PURPOSES OF HELPING DONALD TRUMP AND HURTING HILLARY CLINTON. ISN'T THAT CORRECT? MECH YES. >> TO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO DOUBT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES MADE WITH HIGH CONFIDENCE? >> NO. >> THEREAFTER THE DEFENDANT INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND A REPUBLICAN-LED COMMITTEE CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION. >> YES. >> THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION CONTINUE TO DENY THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN ELECTIONS. AS RECENTLY AS JUNE 28 THE PRESIDENT SAID THAT RUSSIA CONTINUES TO SAY THAT THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MEDDLING IN THE ELECTION. EVEN SECRETARY NIELSEN SAID THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT I HAVE SEEN THE CONCLUSION OF THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO HELP PRESIDENT TRUMP WIN. IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU KNOW ABOUT THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION BETWEEN MEMBERS OF THE DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIAN OPERATIVES. >> I AM AWARE OF THAT. >> THE PRESIDENT THIS SPRING I WOULD NOT CHARACTERIZE IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. OPERATIVES OR NOT. I AM AWARE OF IT. >> IN THAT MEETING THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THEIR THAT THE RUSSIANS HAD ON HILLARY CLINTON. SMACKING THE MEDIA REPORTING INDICATED THAT. >> THE PRESIDENT ISSUED A STATEMENT IN WHICH HE LIED ABOUT THE MEETING AND SAID IT WAS ABOUT AN ADOPTION DISCUSSION. CORRECT? MAKE THE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. I AM RELYING ON WHAT HAS BEEN REPORTED IN THE MEDIA AND NOT THE FBI. >> WOULD YOU TELL ME THE TIME I HAVE REMAINING, WHAT SHOULD WE CONCLUDE? WHAT RAISES EYEBROWS TO YOU úAB CAMPAIGN MEETING WITH A FOREIGN ADVERSARY OF THE UNITED STATES TO TALK ABOUT DIRT FROM -- ABOUT THEIR OPPONENT AND THEN LYING ABOUT THE NATURE OF THAT MEETING? WHAT SHOULD WE -- WHY SHOULD THAT CONCERN THE MECCA PEOPLE? MECH I DO NOT WANT TO -- I DO NOT WANT TO COMMENT ON A SPECIFIC FACT PATTERN OR ANYTHING THAT RELATES TO AND AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION. I HESITATE AND I DO NOT WANT TO DO THAT. >> THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE HAD ZERO HEARINGS ON RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. ZERO HEARING IN THIS COMMITTEE ABOUT OUR EFFORTS TO SECURE THE DEMOCRACY AND THE ELECTIONS COMING UP IN NOVEMBER. WE HAVE HAD HUNDREDS OF HOURS DEVOTED TO HILLARY CLINTON'S EMAIL. THIS COMMITTEE HAS FAILED IN ITS RESPONSIBILITIES TO SECURE OUR ELECTIONS WHICH IS THE RESPONSIBILIY WE HAVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND WE FINALLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE THE ISSUE WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON'S EMAIL. SHAME ON ALL OF YOU. >> VERY HARSHLY FOR THIS BEHAVIOR. MAKE THE GENTLEMAN FROM FLORIDA. MR. DESANTIS FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU. MR. STRZOK YOU HAVE DEFENDED YOUR ACTIONS AND SAID THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE BIAS AND YOUR ACTIONS WERE NOT MOTIVATED BY BIAS BUT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DISAGREE. HE ASKED YOU ABOUT THE INSURANCE POLICY TEXT, THE WILL STOP IT TEXT. YOU PROVIDED AN EXPLANATION SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU DID TODAY. HE FOUND YOUR EXPLANATION TO BE UNPERSUASIVE AND YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT. >> I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT WITH REGARD TO THE TEXT. >> HE TESTIFIED WHEN WE HAD HIM IN JUNE AND WHEN -- IN RESPONSE TO MY QUESTIONING. HE ALSO SAID THAT YOUR EXPLANATION FOR HOW YOU HANDLED THE ANTHONY WEINER LAPTOP -- DELAYED AND YOU DID NOT TAKE ACTION INITIALLY. HE SAID THAT YOUR EXPLANATION FOR THAT AS HE DID NOTE THAT IN THE REPORT WAS NOT PERSUASIVE. YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT. >> I AM AWARE OF THE FACTS REBUTTING THAT HE HAS REBUTTING THAT SPECIFIC ASSERTION. SMACKING TESTIFIED TO US THAT HE WAS NOT PERSUADED BY YOUR EXPLANATION. FOR WHY YOU FOCUSED ON THE DONALD TRUMP AND RUSSIA COLLUSION AND YOU LET THE WEINER THINGS SIT AND THAT HE TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF OUR COMMITTEE THAT IT WAS REASONABLE TO INFER THAT YOUR ACTIONS INVOLVING WEINER'S LAPTOP, THE FACT THAT YOU DID NOT PURSUE THAT, AGGRESSIVELY, THAT IT IS REASONABLE FOR YOU TO INFER THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE BIAS THAT YOU EVINCED IN THOSE TEXT MESSAGES. ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? MECH NOT SPECIFIC TO THAT BUT I WILL ACCEPT YOUR REPRESENTATION. >> I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO SHOW THAT WHILE THE REPORT SAID THAT THE CLINTON CHARGING DECISION WAS NOT DUE TO BIAS. HE SAID THAT THE WEINER IS ABSOLUTELY A FAIR GAME TO INFER THAT, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE CONTINUING TO INVESTIGATE THE GENESIS OF THIS RUSSIA INTERFERENCE CASE. DO YOU ALSO KNOW THAT ROD ROSENSTEIN ON JUNE 28 WHEN HE TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF THIS COMMITTEE, HE SAID THAT YOU WERE BIASED ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? MECH I AM NOT. >> RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION, YES, HE DID, AND HE ALSO SAID THAT THE BIAS THAT YOU EVINCED DOES UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY OF YOUR INVESTIGATIVE ACTIONS. IT CAUSES THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO LOSE CONFIDENCE IN THE INSTITUTION. DO YOU KNOW THAT HE SAID THAT? MECH I DO NOT. >> HE DID. I JUST -- THE IDEA THAT THERE IS NO BIAS IS NOT -- I DO NOT THINK THAT YOUR EXPLANATIONS HAVE BEEN CREDIBLE. I THINK THAT IF YOU ACTED SO APPROPRIATELY, MUELLER -- ROBERT MUELLER REMOVED YOU FROM THE TEAM AND YOU ARE IN HUMAN RESOURCES WHICH IS A DIMENSION. YOU ARE NOW ONE OF THE SUBJECTS OF AN ONGOING IG INVESTIGATION. >> NO. >>> YOUR CONDUCT IS NOT BEING REVIEWED BY HORWITZ ABOUT WHAT YOU DID OR DID NOT DO IN THE RUSSIAN COLLUSION? MECH I AM UNAWARE OF BEING THE SUBJECT OF AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION. LET ME ASK YOU THIS. YOU OPENED UP THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION ON 31 JULY. WAS THAT BECAUSE OF THE GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS INFORMATION? >> SIR, I CANNOT GET INTO THE GUIDANCE THAT THE FBI HAS PROVIDED ME ABOUT ANSWERS THAT I CAN PROVIDE. THAT GETS INTO A LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT I CANNOT I HAVE BEEN DIRECTED NOT TO. >> YOU HAVE ANSWERED SOME QUESTIONS. THIS HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF CONVENIENCE. YOU HAVE ANSWERED QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR HIS GRAVE CONCERNS AND ALL OF THIS STUFF ABOUT WHY YOU ARE DOING IT. YOU DID NOT DO THAT. THE DOSSIER. WAS THE DOSSIER A PART OF WHY YOU OPEN UP THE INVESTIGATION? >> NO. NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN CONVENIENCE. THIS IS BASED ON WHAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS WORKED OUT WITH THE CHAIRMAN GOODLATTE ABOUT WHAT IS PERMITTED AND THAT. IS NOT A FUNCTION OF THE -- >> THE DOSSIER WAS NOT A PART OF THAT. THAT IS IMPORTANT. WHEN DID YOU LEARN THAT THE DOSSIER WAS FUNDED BY HILLARY CLINTON AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY? MECH I CANNOT -- I DO NOT THINK THAT IS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION AND THE FBI DIRECTED ME NOT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION BASED ON --'S BACK RIGHT. HILLARY AND THE DNC WENT TO FUSION WHO PAID --,. IT WAS A POLITICAL DOCUMENT. CORRECT? MECH THE LATTER IS CLOSER TO I CANNOT COMMENT. THE FBI HAS DIRECTED ME TO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THE DOSSIER -- WHAT WOULD YOU CHOOSE? IS IT A POLITICAL DOCUMENT? IS IT LEGITIMATE INTELLIGENCE? >> I WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I HAVE BEEN DIRECTED BY THE FBI THAT I MIGHT NOT GET INTO THE BASIN OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR EQUITIES. >> HERE'S THE ISSUE THAT I THINK WE HAVE WE SEE THE BIAS THAT YOU DID. YOUR EXPLANATIONS FOR WHY YOU SAID WHAT YOU DID. THEY REALLY ARE NOT CREDIBLE. WE ARE TRYING TO GET TO THE GENESIS OF WHY OPEN UP A COUTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE OPPOSING PARTY'S CAMPAIGN? I AM WITH YOU ABOUT FOCUSING ON RUSSIA AND HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE. YOU TRIED TO ROPE IN THE OTHER PARTY'S NOMINEE. THERE WAS ALSO A LOT OF BIAS. WE CAN GET ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE GENESIS OF ANY OF THIS WISE. LET ME FINISH. MAY 18, CHAIRMAN GOWDY MENTIONED YOU SAY, MY CONCERN IS THAT THERE IS NO BIG THERE THERE. THIS HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR AT LEAST 10 MONTHS. I THINK IT WAS GOING ON BEFORE JULY 31. THERE YOU ARE, ROBERT MUELLER'S APPOINTED, AND YOU CANNOT IDENTIFY ANY REASON TO SUSPECT THAT THERE WAS COLLUSION BETWEEN DONALD TRUMP'S CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA. THERE WAS NO BIG THERE THERE AFTER 10 MONTHS. SO THAT IS THE BIG CONCERN IS THAT SOMEBODY LIKE YOU WHO SAID, WELL, STOP HIM. WE NEEDED INSURANCE POLICY. YOU LET THAT BUYS. YOU WANTED THERE TO BE SOMETHING THERE. YOU WANTED IT TO BE TRUE. THAT, I THINK IS INFLUENCING YOUR ACTIONS. YOU CAN PROVE US WRONG BY PROVIDING US INFORMATION I WOULD LIKE INFORMATION ON ANY TYPE OF INFORMANTS. BEFORE JULY 31. I WOULD LIKE THE INFORMATION ON WHAT YOU USED TO OPERA -- OPEN UP THE INVESTIGATION BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER THAT WAS FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE VAULT OR IF IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT. THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT IF WE JUST PUT THOSE OUT AND ANSWER THEM, THEN A LOT OF US WOULD BE ABLE TO THEN MAKE, I THINK, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN MAKE A JUDGMENT. I'M GOING OVER MY TIME AND I YIELD BACK. >> THE NEXT QUESTION. BRIEFLY. >> SIR, TO THE WHY I CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY A CASE WOULD BE OPEN, I DO NOT THINK THAT IS ACCURATE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DIRECTOR'S STATEMENT WHEN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AUTHORIZED HIM TO SAY THAT THEY HAD OPEN THE CASE AND TO ALLEGATIONS THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF RUSSIA HAD MADE AN OFFER OF ASSISTANCE IN THE POTENTIAL INVOLVEMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE DONALD TRUMP CAMPAIGN, I CANNOT ENVISION A SCENARIO WHERE THAT WOULD NOT BE A REASONABLE PREDICATION TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION. >> IT IS PAPADOPOULOS. THAT IS NOT QUITE WHAT THEY HAD. YOU DID NOT QUITE GET THERE BUT I KNOW THAT JAMES COMEY MAY HAVE SAID THAT BUT YOU DID NOT GET THERE. IT IS PAPADOPOULOS. THAT IS WEAK. >> I THINK THAT THE CHARACTERIZATION WAS THAT IT WAS A CREDIBLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION STANDS ON HIS UPPER ANYBODY IN THIS COMMITTEE WOULD NOT ARGUE THAT, ONE, IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TO OPEN THAT AND, TWO, THAT IT WAS NOT ABSOLUTELY -- >> WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT IF IT WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW THE INFORMATION. WE READ IT IN THE NEW YORK TIMES FROM LEAKS BECAUSE IS PAPADOPOULOS SAID IN A BAR. >> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> THAT IS THE REASON. >>> REGULAR ORDER. THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE CHAIRMAN. >> THERE IS A SECOND ELEMENT OF THE QUESTION. >> NO. YOU RAISE THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT I AGREED WITH INSPECTOR GENERAL THAT I HAD ACTED IN A WAY THAT WAS BIASED. >> YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THAT? MAY I DID NOT. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU MR. STRZOK. MR. STRZOK, ON JULY 3, YOUR LAWYER, MR. GOLDEN MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT TO CHRIS CUOMO AND CNN REGARDING UCONN HIS CLIENT. ON FOX NEWS THEY TALK ABOUT HIM AS THE CENTER OF THIS ANTI- DONALD TRUMP THAT WAS DETERMINED TO THROW THE ELECTION AGAINST DONALD TRUMP NONE OF THIS HAS A SHRED OF TRUTH DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT? MECH I DO. >> IN A JUNE 19 OP-ED IN USA TODAY, YOUR LAWYER SAID, REGARDING THE RUSH INVESTIGATION, WHAT WE CALL THE RUSSIA INCLUSION INVESTIGATION THAT YOU AND YOUR TEAM QUOTE UNQUOTE WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO PREVENT LEAKS AND ACTIVELY ENSURED THAT NEWS REPORTS DID NOT OVERPLAY THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE INVESTIGATION. IS THAT TRUE? >> YES. >> NOW TELL US WHY DO SO IMPORTANT TO PREVENT LEAKS FROM THE FBI TO JOURNALISTS OR TO OTHERS. >> LEAKS ARE TERRIBLE. THEY UNDERCUT THINGS IN A VARIETY OF WAYS. THEY CAN UPEND INVESTIGATIONS. THEY CAN LEAD TO INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS. THEY CAN LET WITNESSES AND SUBJECTS KNOW THAT THEY ARE BE INVESTIGATED. THEY CAN LEAD TO WILD SPECULATION AND DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE AND ANY BAD DISCLOSURE OR INFORMATION. ANY NUMBER OF BAD ADVERSE THINGS. >> THE DOJ, IG REPORT HAS THIS TO SAY ABOUT YOUR INVOLVEMENT AND THE DECISION TO INFORM CONGRESS ABOUT THE WEINER LAPTOP. QUOTE UNQUOTE, PETER STRZOK EXPLAINED THAT THE DECISION TO SEEK A SEARCH WORN FOR THE WEINER LAPTOP WAS KNOWN TO MANY PEOPLE BEYOND THE MIDYEAR TEAM ON THIS RAISED A CONCERN THAT THIS INFORMATION COULD LEAK. IS THIS STATEMENT FROM THE IG REPORT TRUE? >> YES. >> NOW, CAN YOU UNPACK THAT FOR US IN THE BIT? FIRST OF ALL, YOU SAID ACCORDING TO THE IG REPORT THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE WEINER LAPTOP WAS KNOWN TO MANY PEOPLE BEYOND THE MIDYEAR TEAM. COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHETHER ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE IN THE NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE? >> SO THE -- MY REGULATION IS THAT THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIMES AGAINST -- AGAINST MR. WEINER WAS HANDLED OUT IN THAT FIELD OFFICES BY THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. BACK SO THE PEOPLE TO WHOM YOU ARE REFERRING INCLUDED PEOPLE FROM THE NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE. >> THAT IS CORRECT. YOU DID NOT INFORM CONGRESS ABOUT THIS WEINER LAPTOP? MECH I DID NOT HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT NEW YORK MY CONCERNS WERE GENERAL AND THE MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE AWARE OF SOMETHING THE BETTER CHANCE THAT IT LEAKS OUT SOMEHOW. THESE CONCERNS ARE NOT SPECIFIC TO NEW YORK. >>> OKAY. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THIS. IN A REPORT IN THAT SAME REPORT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA LYNCH RECALLED A CONVERSATION WITH HER THEN DIRECTOR COMEY IN THE FINAL DAYS OF THE 2016 ELECTION. QUOTE UNQUOTE, HE, REFERRING TO JAMES COMEY SAID, IT IS CLEAR TO ME THAT THERE IS A CADRE OF SENIOR PEOPLE IN NEW YORK WHO HAVE A DEEP HATRED OF SECRETARY CLINTON AND HE SAID, IT IS QUOTE UNQUOTE DEEP. WERE YOU AWARE OF THIS CONCERN? >> I WAS AWARE OF OTHER CERTAINLY SOME OF THE PRESS REPORTING OF SOME PEOPLE EXPRESSING THEIR CONCERN. YES. >> WAS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE DIRECTOR COMEY? >> THE PERSON HAVING THAT CONCERN? YES. ú>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT AND HOW THAT IN YOUR VIEW AFFECTED THE REVELATION OF THE WARRANT FOR WEINER'S LAPTOP? >> YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK DIRECTOR COMEY. I THINK THAT THERE WAS DISCUSSION. I REMEMBER PRACTICALLY SOME OF IT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF REPORTING FROM MR. GIULIANI AND OTHERS TALKING ABOUT CONNECTIONS TO NEW YORK. BUT AGAIN, I DO NOT WANT TO SCAPEGOAT NEW YORK BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE AWARE OF IT AND THERE WERE CONCERNS JUST ABOUT THE NUMBER OF FOLKS, BUT WITH REGARD TO MR. COMEY, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE CONCERNS BUT I WAS NOT PRIVY TO DISCUSSIONS THAT HE HAD WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR OTHER CONCERNS HE MIGHT HAVE HAD OUTSIDE OF MY PRESENCE OR CONVERSATION. >> WITH REGARD TO RUDY GIULIANI, ON OCTOBER 25, RUDY GIULIANI PROMISED A QUOTE UNQUOTE PRETTY BIG SURPRISE COMING UP IN THE CAMPAIGN. ON OCTOBER 28, RUDY GIULIANI CLAIM TO BE IN CONTACT WITH THE FORMER AGENTS AND A QUOTE UNQUOTE FEW ACTIVE AGENTS WHO OBVIOUSLY DO NOT WANT TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. LET ME MAKE SURE I HAVE THIS RIGHT. THERE WAS A CONCERN THAT THERE WAS A DEEP AND VISCERAL HATRED TOWARDS SECRETARY CLINTON IN THE NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE. AT THE SAME TIME RUDY GIULIANI SAID HE IS HAVING CONTACT WITH AGENTS. ACTIVE AGENTS. WHAT IS -- CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR TAKE ON THIS AND YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE? MECH I RECALL THE COMMENT THAT CAUSE ME CONCERN. GIVEN THE TIMING IT CAUSED ME GREAT CONCERN THAT HE IS IN REMISSIO ABOUT THAT. >> IN OTHER WORDS -- THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD? THROUGH A LEAK? >> THROUGH AN UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE, A LEAK, YES. >> THE MEMBER IS ADVISED THAT THERE ARE VOTES ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE. 4 VOTES. YOU PROBABLY HAVE A GOOD 45 MINUTES. >> ALL RIGHT, MEMBERS ARE ADVISED THAT THIS WILL BE THE LAST ONE. IF YOU WANT TO HEAD TO THE FLOOR FOR VOTES. THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE MAN FROM KENTUCKY, MR. MASSEY. >> I YIELD MY MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO, MR. JORDAN. >> SIR, I CANNOT HEAR YOU. >> AGENT STRZOK, IN AN EARLIER ROUND YOU SAID YOU NEVER SPOKE WITH GLENN SIMPSON, RIGHT? YOU NEVER SPOKE TO NELLY OR, AND YOU WOULD NOT SAY WHETHER YOU KNEW -- IF NELLY ORR WORKED FOR FUSION, CORRECT? >> MY DIRECTION IS THAT I AM NOT PERMITTED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> YOU DID TALK WITH BRUCE ORR, FELLOW EMPLOYEE AND NELLY'S HUSBAND? >> YES. >> IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT NELLY ORR WORKED FOR FUSION, IS THAT RIGHT? >> I DO NOT KNOW IF IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE. >> ALL RIGHT. YOU MET WITH BRUCE ORR IN 2016 AND 2017. >> TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, YES. >> I CAN TELL YOU, WE SPOKE ABOUT OPERATIONAL MATTERS THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN, BUT THE FBI HAS DIRECTED ME NOT TO GIVE YOU -- SPECIFICS. >> ALL RIGHT, DID BRUCE OHR GIVE YOU ANY DOCUMENTS? >> SAME ANSWER, I WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT THE FBI HAS DIRECTED ME NOT TO GET INTO -- >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS -- MR. CHAIRMAN, THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD WITH THE FBI, HE IS ALLOWED TO TELL US THOSE KIND OF -- PIECES OF INFORMATION. I HAVE BEEN ASKING WHAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE, I WANTED TO KNOW, DID BRUCE OHR EVER AND YOU DOCUMENTS? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WHEN IT COMES TO OPERATIONAL DETAILS, INCLUDING WHETHER OR NOT WE COLLECTED EVIDENCE, AND NOT PERMITTED TO ANSWER THAT. I WOULD LOVE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M COMING FROM, RIGHT AGENT STRZOK? >> I UNDERSTAND. I AM HERE TO TELL YOU -- >> YOU UNDERSTAND WE GOT AN EMAIL FROM YOU, BRIEFING EVERYBODY ON THE TEAM, ALL THE KEY PLAYERS BAKER, PAGE, MOFFAT, PRE-STEP, AND ANDY McKAY. AND, IN THAT HE NOW, YOU SAY THAT THE DOSSIER THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT, IT HAS DIFFERENCES FROM THE ONE GIVEN TO US BY CORN AND SIMPSON. EARLIER TODAY I ASKED YOU WHO THAT IS IN YOU WOULD NOT ANSWER THAT. IT IS KIND OF FUNNY TO ME, BECAUSE YESTERDAY DAVID CORN TWEETED OUT THAT HE IS THE CORN IN YOUR EMAIL. THE GUY HIMSELF HAS IDENTIFIED HIMSELF. WE ALL KNOW WHO IT IS. AND, THE OTHER NAME IS SIMPSON. SO, YOU HAVE THIS, AND WE ARE WONDERING HOW THE DOSSIER GOT TO OHR, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF IT GOT TO THE FBI THROUGH MEDIA SOURCES, NOT JUST THROUGH CHRISTOPHER STEELE. OF COURSE, WE KNOW NELLY OHR WORKED FOR THE GUY YOU MENTIONED, GLENN SIMPSON. SHE WORKED FOR HIM. THE WHOLE TIME. YOU HAVE NEVER HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH HER, BUT YOU DID HAVE A LOT OF IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS ON OPERATIONAL MATTERS AND ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS WITH HER HUSBAND, BRUCE OHR, WHO ALSO HAPPENS TO BE REASSIGNED AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. AND YOU HAVE SAID THAT -- WELL, YOU WILL NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT MR. OHR HAS GIVEN YOU DOCUMENTS OR NOT. I'M WONDERING WAS THAT THE ROUTE THE DOSSIER WENT? GLENN SIMPSON, NELLY OHR, TO HER HUSBAND, AND THEN TO YOU? >> SIR -- I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION, I UNDERSTAND THE ABSURDITY OF SOMETHING PRODUCED THAT YOU ARE READING THAT I HAVE BEEN DIRECTED NOT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT. THE BEST -- I WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER YOU, AND I'M AFRAID THAT IT IS AN ANSWER THAT WOULD BOTH REASSURE YOU AND DISAPPOINT YOU. >> WE ARE GOING TO BE ASKING THE FBI AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO GIVE US THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN EXCHANGE BETWEEN MR. OHR AND AGENT STRZOK. I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THE COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE, AND SEE IF IN FACT THERE WERE DOCUMENTS, WHAT THE HECK THEY WERE. I HAV A MINUTE, I WILL YIELD IT -- >> SIR, YOU'RE GOING TO LOVE THIS, I HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED, THE FBI HAS TOLD ME THAT I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RECEIPT OF THE DOCUMENT. SO, I WILL DEFER IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO -- >> WELL, HOW -- >> THE GENTLEMAN MAY PROCEED WITH HIS QUESTIONS, AND YOU MANSOUR. >> BEFORE, ME I CONFER WITH COUNSEL THE FLEET TO SEE IF THIS IS COMPLETELY UNBOUNDED, OR ANY LIMITATIONS ON WHAT I MAY SAY? >> I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS I HAVE ASKED ALL DAY LONG. >> LET'S ASK THE ONE YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD YOU CAN ANSWER. >> WHICH QUESTION, SIR? >> THE DOCUMENTS. >> THE DOCUMENTS WERE RECEIVED FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE AND THE INITIAL BATCH WAS IN MID- SEPTEMBER. >> NO, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING -- YOU SAID YOU GOT -- GO BACK, DID YOU GET DOCUMENTS FROM BRUCE OHR? >> YES. >> YOU GOT DOCUMENTS FROM BRUCE OHR, AND WHAT WERE THEY? >> WE RECEIVED DOCUMENTS FROM MR. OHR, NOT ME -- EXCUSE ME SIR. >> I CAN MAYBE MAKE IT SIMPLER -- AGENT STRZOK, WAS IT THE DOSSIER? >> WHAT I'M AUTHORIZED TO TELL YOU IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION -- DID YOU RECEIVE ANY DOCUMENTS FROM BRUCE OHR, THE FBI HAS DIRECTED ME THAT I MAY SAY THAT -- NOT ME, THE FBI RECEIVED DOCUMENTS AND MATERIAL FROM MR. OHR. >> DID YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT YOU DID NOT FOR MR. OHR. BUT, THE FBI DID GET DOCUMENTS FROM BRUCE OHR? DID THEY GET THE DOSSIER FROM MR. OHR ? >> THE FBI RECEIVED MATERIAL FROM MR. OHR. CONGRESSMAN -- >> THIS IS AMAZING, THIS IS AMAZING. SO, NELLY OHR WORKS FOR FUSION, WORKS FOR GLENN SIMPSON, AND SHE IS GIVING DOCUMENTS -- >> REGULAR ORDER PLEASE. LET US BRING THE DIRECTOR OF THE FBI TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. THE GENTLEMAN CANNOT ANSWER. ASKED AND ANSWERED. HE HAS ANSWERED. HE CANNOT ANSWER. >> THE REGULAR ORDER -- >> I UNDERSTAND MR. CHAIRMAN, REGULAR ORDER. >> FBI HAS INSTRUCTED MR. STRZOK THAT HE CAN ANSWER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. AND -- >> AGENT STRZOK , -- >> THE FBI APPROVED, HAVE THEY ALSO GIVEN YOU PERMISSION TO SAY OF GLENN SIMPSON IS THE NAME THAT YOU USED IN THE EMAIL WHERE YOU SAY SIMPSON? >> I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY HAVE GIVEN ME GUIDANCE. MY MOST RECENT UNDERSTANDING OF MY GUIDANCE FROM THE FBI IS IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE FBI RECEIVED DOCUMENTS FROM -- >> AS THE FBI -- >> -- OR, THE ANSWER IS -- >> HAS THE FBI GIVING YOU INFORMATION TO TELL ME WHETHER YOU KNEW THAT NELLY OHR WORKED FOR FUSION AT THE TIME YOUR MEETING WITH HER HUSBAND? >> TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE FBI HAS NOT DIRECTED ME TO -- OR ALLOWED ME TO RESPOND TO THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. I YIELD BACK, THANK YOU. >> THE COMMITTEE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL IMMEDIATELY AFTER THIS SERIES OF VOTES. >>> HELLO EVERYONE, I AM ELAINE QUIJANO IN NEW YORK. YOU HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO LAWMAKERS GRILL PETER STRZOK ON CAPITOL HILL. HE SENT ANTI-TRUMP TEXTS AS HE WAS TAKING PART IN ELECTION RELATED AND INSTIGATION'S IN 2016. HE HAS DENIED THAT HIS PERSONAL BIAS IMPACTED HIS WORK, BUT REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS HAVE BEGGED TO DISAGREE. THIS HAS BEEN A MARATHON HEARING THAT STARTED JUST AFTER 10 AM EASTERN TIME. IN ALL, STRZOK HAS FACED SIX HOURS OF QUESTIONING. WE WILL IMPACT THIS HEARING IN JUST A MOMENT. BUT, WE BEGIN TONIGHT'S
