the committee will reconvene and the chair recognizes the gentleman from California mr. Issa for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman struck you you were part of the Hillary Clinton email investigation that's correct yes and in that investigation you were part of the decision for her to and her lawyers to go through emails that were produced during exclusively used if you will during her time as Secretary go through and determine which ones were government and which ones were not both the classified it unclassified is that correct I was not you were not involved at all that's correct okay but you're aware of it I'm aware of their statements about how they did it and you think it was okay for Secretary Clinton to determine what could or couldn't qualify for her to turn in under the federal Records Act I can't speak to that that was a decision my understanding between her and her attorneys and okay but you're aware that that in her production she failed to deliver some items that have now been ruled as classified correct I am aware that we recovered information that was not in the material that she turned over I don't know if it was her failure the failure the attorneys conducting that sort or simply because she didn't have it I don't know the answer to that question so I bring up something that came up in the previous rounds so far only you have determined what should be turned over from your private emails that or your non-government emails and texts what should be delivered because it was government in nature you've made that decision that's right and it's your position that nobody else in the way of a government entity should be able to look over your shoulder so to speak and make that decision that's right so you think it's okay for the target and you are a target of an investigation to determine what should be delivered rather than if you will the government right so I'm not aware of any investigation of which I'm a target well you're a target of our investigation we think that you had a bias and you acted that's pretty made pretty clear so I'm gonna just ask one series of questions very quickly if I could you you did a number of texts all of the texts that have presented to us as far as I know came from your government phone correct I believe that to be the case yes so you've made no text available from your private phone is that correct that's correct did you ever text on your private phone I did did you ever text lisa page on your private phone I did did you ever text lisa page on your private phone similar text to the ones you did on your government phone by similar you mean what commenting on mr. Trump or Hillary Clinton or anything else political in nature I don't specifically recall but it's probably a safe assumption yes so it's likely that they'd be similar it's the safe assumption that oh so your personal phone has likely similar text to the ones that we found on your government phone that's correct I would say it has similar expressions of personal belief okay so in front of you have a one sheet of paper that was presented to you a few minutes ago and I'm gonna just go to go to a date and then ask you to read your own words March 4th 2016 you want me to read this yes please yes sir oMG he's an idiot May 4th 2016 now the pressure really starts to finish my e July 19 2016 hi how was Trump other than a douche Melania July 21st 2016 Trump is a disaster I have no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be August 6 2016 I don't believe I wrote this text sir okay it's been attributed to you so we'll go on to the next 8 2016 and I'll preface it by saying this for context miss page said not ever going to become president right right no no he's not will stop it repeat that again no no he's not we'll stop it August 15 2016 I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office the there's no way he gets elected but I'm afraid we can't take that risk it's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 on October 20th 2016 I can't pull away what the and I deferred to the Chairman well you can just use one letter if you don't mind why the f what the f happened to our country lease okay read it again that way aye sir did you not hear it you just want to hear it you repeat it please okay sir sure happy to indulge you I can't pull away what the f happened to our country lease why in the world do you believe that this committee should not ask for the record of similar text from your private account to find out what else you might have said about insurance policies or about the president United States or investigation that is a rhetorical question you need not answer and I yield back mr. chairman may I nonetheless answer you may respond briefly even though he said it was a rhetorical question I appreciate that mr. chairman congressman what I think is critical and I'm glad you brought up a lot of these because I would like to make the point that I didn't bring them up I just asked you to read them or if I if I may what is important is that these texts represent personal beliefs just like those that you'd find on my personal phone what these texts do not represent is any Act any suggestion of an act any any consideration that we need to do this or not do this and furthermore 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 to stabilizing his presidency would be that came on the heels of a speech where then candidate Trump said he didn't know whether or not the United States should honor its commitment to mutual defense under NATO I preached that sermon thank thank you very much that's not briefly mr. chairman in light male witness in light of these in actual everyone is quite everyone will suspend I told the gentleman could answer briefly he has answered briefly it is not finished answering we will now turn turn to the gentlewoman from Washington DC for her questions Thank You mr. chairman in order to allow this witness to continue let me ask let me ask question mr. full stroke you are a senior or were a senior and experienced FBI staff person is that not right I would consider myself a senior and experienced FBI stat person yes now you had been involved in the Muller investigation of the last election involving Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump at the highest level is that not the case if 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've been reading from your personal phone and your and your official phone did it occur to you that your personal political messages oh if they became public might be misinterpreted in light of your role in the investigation congresswoman to be very honest I I didn't anticipate that because I never thought these texts would become public well they were some of them were not on your personal phone oh correct I'm yes that's correct so that means anything that's on your official phone of course belongs to the public so so so I just want to establish the Hat this this confusion between your public and private phone is part of our problem here today now as we hold this hearing I just want to note for the record that President Trump is on his way to a very controversial meeting with Vladimir pootin let me ask you certain 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 Vladimir Putin ordered an influence and influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the u.s. presidential election Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process denigrate Secretary Clinton Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency we further assess Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for president elect Trump we have a high confidence in these judgments are these conclusions familiar to you sir 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 Burr and not split in the way our own intelligence committee here in the house has made a bipartisan finding affirming the intelligence committees assessments and I want to quote just briefly from them that the three committees the intelligence Commission assessment is a quote sound intelligence product now let me indicate something that I had not known before preparing for this hearing that they not only cited the usual context here in the United States they quoted public Russian leader ship commentator commentary Russian media reports all aligned 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 the between the intelligence community sources and methods and open-source reporting including those from Russia yes I was aware of the 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 a of an effort to discredit president Donald from philae's Thomas expire but you may answer the question no not at all Thank You mr. chairman gentlemen the District of Columbia yields back the gentleman from Ohio is recognized Thank You mr. chairman mis truck you were involved in investigating both the matter of Hillary Clinton's private email server and a so-called Russian collusion matter is that correct that's correct and ms page was also involved in both those that correct she was not a member of the investigative team for either she was a senior staff member for mr. mchabe who I believe began but somehow it would have been indicating with on a fairly regular basis her on these matters thank you and you would agree would you not that both investigations were supposed to be fair and unbiased yes and that they were yet you were both rooting for Hillary Clinton to win and you both detest it Donald Trump did you not I think that's fair say and in fact as we've learned you apparently found Donald Trump supporters detestable too like those around loud in Virginia's we've already heard whom you called ignorant blanks I'm not going to say that here and that you had visited a southern Virginia Walmart and could smell the Trump support now I have to say when I read those communications and when I hear them here that 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 supporter she found them what did she call them deplorable and I would submit that it was your and and Hillary Clinton's smug view of Donald Trump's supporters that was truly deportable don't you think that the American people when they're paying your salaries when they're paying for a fair and unbiased investigation by none other than the FBI deserved a whole lot better than what those comments I just referred to reflect congressman two things one I absolutely regret the appearance of some of those texts and wish I would have said are phrased or not said at all some of the things I did too I take I disagree completely with your attribution of my views of Trump supporters I never said that I expressed no such thing there are millions and millions and millions of Americans we just all so you told miss page and I'll quote here I loathe Congress and she agreed now you're you're probably in pretty good company there a survey I saw a while back about Congress found us less popular than root canals and head lice and colonoscopies and although we did beat out playground bullies and the Ebola virus but 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 were involved in and whether you were fair and unbiased when you investigated both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would you agree with that sir I I appreciate that concern very much and let me explain a little bit about that comment I have the utmost respect for Congress for its role in oversight for its role in passing laws for any of the functions what I was stating in that comment was the efforts by some to turn legitimate oversight activity into unwarranted we appreciate there's no doing nothing but doing it's there's a lot of us up here that don't like Congress particularly to so I would because a lot of the American people the vast majority would agree with you on that mr. struck you were removed from the molar investigation correct yes but for the most part all the others that were there are still there correct I can't speak to the current staff they are Greg Andres who gave $1,000 to the Democrat running to hold the Senate seat previously held by Barack Obama and $2,600 to Democrat Senator Gillibrand and zero to the Trump campaign he's still there andrush Atkinson who donated to the Clinton campaign and zero to the Trump campaign he's still there and Kaleigh Freeney who contributed to both the Obama presidential campaigns and the Hillary Clinton's campaign and zero to the Trump campaign still there and Andrew Goldstein who donated $3,300 to both Obama campaigns in zero to the Trump campaign still there and Elizabeth pre logger who by the way clerk for liberal Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan and contributed to both the Obama and Clinton campaigns and zero to the Trump campaign still there and James Quarles who contributed the Democratic presidential campaigns of Dukakis and Gore and Kerry and Obama and Hillary Clinton now I did contribute to former congressman Chaffetz and Alan but he contributed 20,000 to the Democratic and Senate campaign committees and zero to the Trump campaigns I could go on but I'm just about to run out of time suffice it to say that 9 of the 16 investigators still on the case gave to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or to both and none gave to trump now shouldn't such a wide disparity and political support of one party over the other give the American people concern that even though you are off the Moller team that the fairness and lack of bias that President Trump deserves and the American people deserve just might be lacking here the gentleman is out of time at the would this man sir the question Thank You mr. chairman sir what I tell you is this and what I'd ask you to tell your constituents is this I have and had no idea what contributions were made by anybody staffing the special counsels office but I can tell you and what I'd ask you to relay to your constituents is the men and women that I saw the attorneys the agents the analysts were the most remarkable right patriotic hard-working people that I've ever had the honor of working with I want you to know and whether people leave here believing me or not I was absolutely and remained absolutely convinced that the efforts in the personnel who make up the offices of the special council are the best in America and I have complete faith and confidence that they will arrive at the truth and that they will do that well gentleman from Ohio yields back the gentleman from Tennessee is recognized Thank You mr. chair mr. 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 mr. Muller and the investigation that is to get at Russia collusion involved in our election which is what this committee should be looking at a direct strike at democracy and what this country is about and free and fair elections keeping us independent of who is our foe not our our you know our competitor our foe I just returned from the OSCE in Berlin and there is little question among our allies and people and diplomats throughout Europe that Russia is an antagonistic country that is trying to wreak havoc in the Baltics in the Balkans as well they tried to assess youths assassination to try to influence the elections in Montenegro what they've done in Ukraine with Crimea and the Don bas what they've done at Georgia what they've done in Moldova they are the bad guys and you've dedicated your most of your life to working and counterintelligence one of your big cases I think was Donald Heathfield and Tracy and Foley is that correct yes sir and that was you how many Russian folks did you expose and bring to justice but that was a that was a long large investigation that tremendous number of extraordinary people worked on that they were ultimately I believe ten roughly Russian illegals that were here but that I started out in the early days and was honored to start out and again that ran a decade and how many Russians were deported for that right if memory serves ten or eleven but I'm not certain on that number pretty good case that you worked on a good job did you work on Russia primarily when you were in the FBI in that area at that period early on yes are there some things you can tell us about the Russians that maybe we should know before the president meets with mr. Putin his very good friend and a man he cannot say anything bad about sir I can speak to my experiences as a national security professional in the FBI the Russians are top rate adversary in terms of their foreign intelligence service in terms of how competently they are able to use their intelligence service to achieve their foreign policy and national security goals many of which you referenced their desire there 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 kleptocracy and and near dictatorship that they have to somehow make us seem less but that's my intelligence perspective I wouldn't presume to get into a foreign policy they engage occasion occasionally and assassination they do political rivals yes an arrest of journalists for for maybe to talking and writing about things that the state doesn't believe in yes it's not America not at all well that's unfortunately what the Muller investigation is looking into is Russian collusion to influence our election and to influence our politics and you have dedicated your life to working against that type of involvement and against that type of effort to subvert our democracy and to undermine it I thank you for that it's astonishing to me that you would be put on trial as you have today the bidding of this discussion this committee meeting somebody said we don't want young people to look at the front pages constantly and see things about the FBI that's putting the FBI and the Justice Department and questions and on the front page well 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 that were investigated there was found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations rather we determine they were based on the prosecutors assessment of the facts the law and past Department practice with that as a fact there's no reason for this hearing no reason at all but it puts it on the front page again and again and again and as you said earlier if the Russians are loving it because this is what they want this is what they want you think it was Benghazi it was a never-ending television show from Congress that got nowhere except tried to influence the people that watch Fox News and that's what this is about and this is really unfortunate and as they say you could put lipstick on a pig but this is nothing but a ruse to try to get to the Muller investigation and make people think it's baseless that it's biased that it's 13 Democrats that are working on this and they're prejudiced and they're discriminatory and they're biased because they just as Jack Nicholson said and in the movie a few good men you can't handle the truth and the truth is this is the most corrupt administration ever and it's gonna be exposed by robert muller thank god i yield back and I thank you the gentleman from Tennessee yields back the gentleman from Ohio is recognized which Jordan thank you Thank You chairman agent struck did you provide any information to reporters journalists or media personalities about anything related to Trump Russia investigation in 2016 17 or 18 no did the press ever talk to you agent struck about this issue do they ever come to you this the Trump Russia collusion investigation has come to you I'm asked that first did you talk to them I'm asking now did they ever come to you about anything related to Trump Russia investigation in 2016 2017 or 2018 I received a number of calls from various members of the media particularly when I returned from the Office of Special Counsel in every instance every prior to going on the special counsel team did you get any inquiries from the press that you took not that I took I referred them to the office of public affairs to the FBI have you read the dossier I have okay and you wrote about it too didn't you I know what you mean by writing about got it we got an email that you sent it should be presented there or should be in front of you there I want you to take a look at this this is an email you wrote to lisa page bill pre-snap Jim Baker Jim rebecky and cut and CC Danny McCabe subject line is Budd feeds BuzzFeed is about to publish the dossier you familiar with this email I am alright says this comparing now the set is only identical to what McCain had parentheses it has differences from what was given to us by corn and Simpson do you write all that congressman died let me answer it this way the first if I could address the Chairman over the break I was authorized by the general counsel time stopped he could are you addressing me the chairman I'd like to just hold the time this is all gonna come together in that answer is there a question you want to direct it's something I wanted to answer your question from earlier based on something I've been told by the FBI I think I'm aware of what the FBI told you and you and I will have another chance to talk about that but right now the gentleman from Ohio controls the time you wrote this that was the question so obviously you see the from line do you see the from line congressman I do then it says to Lisa page and a whole bunch of other key people at the FBI so did you write it I did write this all right let me ask you a couple questions about it it has differences from what was given to us by corn and Simpson whose corn sir to answer that question and I would love to answer that question and every part of me and you know why I'd want to answer that question because you have this information whose sim I have been served for me I cannot answer that question you wrote about it now it's now public whose corn who Simpson based on direction by the FBI sir I am NOT able to answer questions about ongoing investigative matters I just want to figure this out I want to figure this out agent struck you're referencing three copies of the dossier the BuzzFeed 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 gave to you and the one BuzzFeed has are identical in your words but they have corn and Simpson one is different sir is important here's it is important and I want to answer your question and here's the the position that I'm an congressman I have been directly answer your question mr. chairman may the witness be permitted the Chairman with a mr. mr. Jordan repeatedly asked a question doesn't let him answer it the gentleman from Ohio controls time I have been directed that I may state that I have read the dossier that I read the dossier as it came in and parts and pieces already told me about it and morning Simpson are and sir what I'm telling you is that I have been directed I may not state the various places I know which saying did you ever communicate with david korn nope did you ever communicate with Glynn Simpson oh did you ever communicate with Nellie or no did you ever communicate with Bruce or yes when did you communicate with Bruce or my recollection is somewhere between three possibly three or four or five times in the late 2016 early 2017 timeframe what did you talk about we talked about investigative matters and mr. Orr was involved in did you talk about the investigation we're focused on here agent struck my direction from the FBI let's go back to the email that you sent that you won't talk about are there three copies of the dossier as evidenced by what you said this email sir to be clear I want to talk about this email I want nothing more than are there three copies the three copies of what then the Kane copy the BuzzFeed copy and the one that you got from corn and Simpson sir the most I can say is we received a variety of copies of and different types of let me ask you what were the questions let me ask you one other question Glynn Simpson testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on August 22nd 2017 he was asked did anyone from fusion ever communicate with the FBI his response no no one from fusion ever spoke with the FBI so here's what I'm having trouble understanding if Glenn Simpson says no one ever spoke with the FBI how is it that you got a copy of the dossier from Simpson sir I can tell you I never had contact with fusion with mr. Simpson with mr. corn I can't again sir Jeremie regular order you gentlemen will have a few more seconds since say he was interrupted well I mean this is the frustration that every single member of this committee feels is when when agent struck walnuts well more importantly the American people feel when agent struck won't answer fundamental questions like the guy he references in an email corn and Simpson and won't tell me who they are this is unbelievable but that's where it's gotten to now and it's it's as frustrating as it can get mr. chairman I yield back mr. chairman may I respond briefly sir it is as frustrating to me as it is to you I can tell you sir that I would love but what is in the product mr. chairman may the witness be permitted if it's self if you don't I'm will suspend if it's so frustrating answer the question if you'll allow him to I'm sure he will he has never answered the question who burns them we're about the gentleman the gentleman from Ohio to stop badgering and around the Howard uestions we're about to move on the gentleman from Ohio Stein's expired and we're about to move on where mr. struck can answer a question that he refused to answer earlier on advice of counsel and I'm gonna yield to mr. Gowdy for the purpose of doing that right mr. mr. chairman before mr. Gowdy starts me I respond to mr. Jordan very briefly very briefly sir I would love to do that there's an appropriate time for oversight and as you well know that is at the end of an investigation once it's concluded I am 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 mr. FBI allows you more you know that answer from you and you have already been advised that you can answer the questions here because guess what this is the United States Congress where you're testifying not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation mr. chairman we should not we cannot be asking about an ongoing investigation that is sabotaging an ongoing investigation by this committee and that's what he's not cooperating with and we should not do it it is and he are not cooperating with it it is these questions are table-setting questions regarding the formation of of this and and he can answer those questions cannot answer questions that he can and so mr. Gowdy lines by the FBI that he cannot know he's been advised that he can and mr. Gowdy he's gonna again ask his question Jr from Ohio has asked for 15 seconds so agents truck who's being square here Glenn Simpson says no one from fusion spoke with the FBI you say in your email we got a copy of the dossier from Simpson mr. chairman regular order we will have regular order and we'll revisit that question now the chair recognizes gentleman from South Carolina agent struck between July 31st 2016 and August regular order this is regular order the gentleman refused to answer the question earlier he has now been advised and I have been advised by the FBI that he may answer the question that was in order earlier and he's now gonna answer the question but mr. chairman Republicans have controlled the time now the time goes to the Democrats the gentleman will be recognized shortly aegeon struck between July 31st 2016 and August 6 2016 how many witness interviews did you conduct as part of the Russia Trump campaign alleged collusion investigation I don't recall and I'd have to check the case file we waited all that time for that answer yes sir that's eerily similar to what you said a couple hours ago sir I am Telling You and I would reject the characterization that I refuse to answer anything I want to answer these questions well I might by the directions I just asked you one and I'm looking for a number sorry I'm looking for a number I do not know with the opportunity to check the case file you don't recall in the first week of an investigation that you originated approved or the 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 instances that or the other on something that was occurring in the context of a myriad other responsible inch the last time you looked at the file agents truck probably going on a year for those of us who happen to look at it yesterday would you disagree that the first interview took place on August the 11th I don't know congressman 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 so none before July 31st which would be non at the time you said what you said in that text on July 21st I don't understand the text refer point of order mr. chairman this is on our time no there are two more questions he didn't write he wouldn't he wouldn't answer gentlemen will continue between may seen you in our time it can continue its not on your time I personally Democratic it's on our time because he was advised earlier by the FBI that he could not answer the questions and now he's advised that he can so the questions will be asked and answered between May 7 Elementary inquiry what rules are we following that would dictate such an answer by You mr. chairman we are following the rules of the committee could you cite the rule no no mr. chairman Warnock we want him well anyway there seems to be well we're we're gonna mr. chairman point a column entry every can continue but when you do and the FBI tells him he can't answer a question and then they changed their mind and says he can we're gonna take the time out to do that and then we're gonna continue mr. chairman point of parliamentary inquiry the gentleman Mr Craddock diver's Airlines right no what the rules are in governing this here a gentleman can you share with that the gentleman is now you're working up as you go along agents got between May 17 2017 and May 18 2017 how many interviews did you conduct as part of the special counsel team I don't believe I conducted any between May 17 2017 and May 22nd 2017 how many witness interviews did you conduct and that five-day period well so you just went back a year from 2018 to 2017 and I don't know 2017 may 17 27 May 22nd 2017 may have said 18 but I 17 I don't owe whether I did or not it's the 17 2017 fair enough and I don't recall well chairman I appreciate you let me make that clear and 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 made the 22nd 2017 and your testimony is you can't recall the single interview you would have done as part of that investigation that was supposed to lead to impeachment and I think that line of questioning I'm glad the FBI finally realized it albeit a couple hours too 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 conducted a single solitary interview I'm sorry a destruct but that is letting your bias impact your professional judgment mr. chairman Mary's time briefly sir so look I never prejudged anything not in this case not in any others in second for what agent Scott and Pete Schmidt for was that can avoid a mr. Sherman or the rules here mr. chairman was a rule gentleman the gentleman will have a whole new round and twisting question and then we'll move on second he was given time to respond and now we should at the time I was a Deputy Assistant Director I have section Chiefs unit Chiefs in the field supervisors agents people who typically do interviews not me if something is notable or high-level I might be involved but it would be rare if never that I would typically get out there and conduct interviews first of all second you mentioned that we're used to the word impeachment that was used in the context of my not knowing what this would lead to I was not prejudging impeachment when I use that term it might not only it might lead all the way thank you Thank You agent strategy chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri mr. clay Thank You mr. chairman and Special Agent strike I I just continue to be amazed that 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 amazes me special agents trapped as a counterintelligence specialist you know all too well the pervasive constant and growing danger that the Russian Federation poses to this country our allies into democracy in general it is appalling that my colleagues in the majority continued to relitigate the 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 and it is 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 virtually every decision he makes and every word he utters weakens our key friends erodes our strategic alliances and strengthens our most dangerous adversary mr. Strock can you offer an explanation as to why the president is so eager to punish our allies and please flat amir putin sir I wouldn't presume to do that no all right let me move on to the meeting of July June and 9th 2016 in Trump Tower we have a series of emails in front of us one from Rob Goldstein who told Donald Trump jr. that the crown prosecutor of Russia met with Aris aguillera this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and be very useful to your father and he says this is obviously very high level in sensitive information but it's part of Russia and it's government support for mr. Trump mr. Strock without commenting specifically on these email or this instance can you explain generally from a counterintelligence perspective why would be concerning that high-level campaign age would be meeting with a representative from a hostile foreign government what would be toes the risk again not not relating it to any particular event I think the hypothetical would be enormous ly concerning because a hostile foreign power one by definition that hostility is their national interests are adverse to ours the fact that people would be meeting or attempting to work together implicates a variety of potential criminal violations I think it would give concern about the the motivations and the actions of the people involved and whether or not whose interest whether America's are that hostile foreign powers they were truly working towards and when campaigns are given defensive counter intelligence briefings are they generally instructed to report foreign interference attempts to the FBI that is typically part of a CI defensive briefing yes I want to thank you so much for your responses and your patience and you know today's hearing is a sorry display on the part of my Republican colleagues who have put the defense of the president over the ultimate responsibility we in Congress have to protect our national security all of you should be ashamed of yourself and mr. chairman I yield back the chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa mr. King for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman to start this off I'd like to the yield of gentleman from South Carolina for a brief presentation I think the gentleman from Iowa agents struck do you have your text in front of you I do not can you well let me read one to you and you tell me whether or not you recall saying this on May the 18th 2017 who gives a I'll give you a hint starts with F one more ad versus an investigation leading to guess what that last word is sorry called the Texas impeachment impeachment the day after Muller was appointed how about on made the 22nd get rid of that text do you have that one in front of you I do not well here let me see if this refreshes your recollection this is you in response to something Lisa page sent you on 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're deaf print and more unique this is yours plus leaving an SC having been an SC resulting in and guess what that next word is I'm sure you've got it sir No well you wrote it are you asking me what do you think yes in pH monsier impeachment five days five days after Mahler has been appointed special counsel and you're already talking about impeachment twice I thank the gentleman Iowa mr. chairman may I come on time you know mr. Kings time you make uh come over here now to your cherry or left in I wanted to point out that you've repeatedly stated here before this committee that you separated out your personal beliefs from any action that you took you'd agree with that I'm confident and as implausible as that sounds to us that we've listened to a dogmatic defense of the implausible argument that no matter how biased you were no matter how profane in that bias you were it didn't affect your judgment or your decisions now that's a tough argument to make but I recall your response to mr. Duncan a Tennessee on that topic and you said I don't agree with the characterization of my views as biased you hold with that position that your views are not biased whether or not they colored your activities as an agent I believe they did not color them and I believe they are not bias the derogatory texts that you delivered that have been before this committee for the better part of this day don't reflect a bias they don't sir and why because nothing a representative or the IG has been able to demonstrate age long indicating price not one weekly on the lifetime it's a that you found a way to wall off your bias but it's not possible to to take under oath and tell the American people in this committee that there's not bias stores never ever there's the evidence of this bias is replete throughout this evidence these documents that we have let me take you another place were you were you involved in the tuning of Hillary Clinton on July 2nd 2016 yes I was pausing cuz I think second 1/3 but if you represent its the second is a second second is the date that I believe we worked with but at any case in that room how many agents were in that room three including myself and were there any other representatives are the executive branch of government there were and who were they five attorneys in the Department of Justice five yes sir five attorneys from the Department of Justice and four then from the FBI no slitting yourself no sir a total of eight people for the MDI five and then the people in the room with with Hillary Clinton were Wilson one two three I believe four other attorneys four or five so I see and did you did you record any of that interview and could you tell me how long that took I did not record it my recollection is that it took several hours I don't recall the exact time uh-huh and then what documents would you have that memorialized the interview an ft 302 is created based on the notes taken by the participants in the interview and how many of those eight agents are officers were had their their notes that took notes in that room I don't know I know the team or I did I believe some and I know the two agents did I don't recall about the DoD attorneys I want to ask you to reconstruct who were those agents there were two of the case agents assigned to the Clinton investigation and what are their names sir FBI policy but I want to let you know we must know who was in that room and we must have access to those notes because that's what they used to compile the 302 report did you brief director Comey on that 302 report let's do two things going back to the 302 it is relying on notes but it's also drafted based on the memories of the agents participating in it and memory notes are not a hot lead but yes my recollection is I did brief director Comey on the results of that interview and and we will be asking for the specifics on that data that you are knowledgeable of and I'd ask the Chairman if you would be willing to issue Safina for the text that mr. struck testifies as are not work-related I believe there's a very good chance they are work-related and the balance of this for the information on who was in the room on that date when Hillary Clinton was and 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 took place inside that room as chairman we will take your request under advisement the time of the gentleman has expired I told mr. struck he could briefly respond to mr. cook gaudi's sir yes thank you and if I may just briefly to mr. King sir right first I am asserting to you that my personal belief does not did not constitute bias every American has political belief every single one and I would submit to you that the vast vast majority of those people are not bias individuals so that is a comment I'd like to make to you by your testimony I'm free from that allegation for myself for life mr. mr. chairman if I can respond to you by mentions of the word impeachment if you look at the Selective text that you've chosen and you expand that look to others you will see that in no way did I prejudge that outcome in fact what you've conspicuously admitted omitted rather is a statement I made expressing concern that I'm not sure there's a big there there what that clearly demonstrates sir is I had prejudged noting what it clearly demonstrates was I was looking at one potential outcome being impeachment I was simultaneously looking at the polar opposite outcome that there might be nothing that there might be no criminal activity whatsoever and I think it's fair that you take text in the totality of the context in which they are made the chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia mr. Johnson for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman mr. struck you were or you I special agent for the FBI how long going on 22 years and just over 20 sir you pretty much 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've accomplished quite a bit more than simply leaving a text message trail is that correct I've had the privilege of working on an extraordinary number of very great cases well you rose through the ranks of the FBI - at one point become chief of the counter espionage section at the FBI is that correct yes and your career there be culminated with your appointment as the Deputy Assistant Director of the counterintelligence division is that correct well I certainly held that I would tell you I'm extraordinarily proud to have worked as a DA and the Human Resources Division as well and during your career in s counter espionage at the FBI did you lead a counterintelligence 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 sir I see but you worked on many other counterintelligence investigations that during your career at the FBI yes sir that's correct now operation ghost stories was a multi-year counterintelligence investigation of a network of United states-based Russian spies working as covert agents of Russian intelligence the agency known as SVR in that correct that's correct and the target of that investigation was a group of covert SVR agents who had assumed false identities and were living in the United States on long-term deep-cover assignment correct that's correct you've investigated a number of those kinds of counter or intelligence you've 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 infiltrated America set up two be undercover and and then develop sources that they can use then to develop information and then funnel that information back to Russia in that correct yes it about that information from from the United States and other denied areas from within our government and as soon as you find one sale if you will of Russian spies take them down there are also other sales working throughout America in that correct that's Emily correct and it was your job to keep on top of that kind of activity yes you led a team of FBI agents who did nothing other than counterintelligence investigations for the FBI is that correct yes and you were successful in arresting and prosecuting numerous individuals for espionage and other crimes against the United States of America in that correct me as part of a large number of very competent talented folks yes and sir you've grant you've gained a great deal of intelligence about Russian spying activities their methods and sources as they operate in the United States and in other allied nations isn't that correct certainly true within the United States and to a lesser extent overseas and you've 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 emails in 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 Muller 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 damn Peter struck text message investigation and with that I'll yield back the chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas mr. Gohmert for five minutes it would be right here truck you said earlier in this hearing you were concerned about a hostile foreign power affecting our election you recall the intelligence community Inspector General Chuck McCulloch having an investigation into an anomaly found on Hillary Clinton's emails I do not well let me reflect refresh your recollection the intelligence community Inspector General Chuck McCulloch sin is investigator Frank Rucker along with an IC IG attorney Jeanette McMillan to brief you and Dean Chappell and two other FBI personnel that I won't name at this time about an anomaly they had found on Hillary Clinton's emails that were going to and from the private unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating now do you remember it I remember meeting mr. Rucker on either one or two occasions I do not remember the specific content or discussions well I'm okay with that do then mr. Rucker reported to those of you the four of you there in the presence of the IC IG attorney that they had found this anomaly on Hillary Clinton's emails going through a private server and when they had done the forensic analysis they found that her emails every single one except for for over 30,000 of them were going to an address that was not on the distribution list it was a compartmentalised a bit of information that was sending it to an unauthorized source do you recall that sir I don't well they went on to explain it and and 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've said here you did nothing more than not and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all that concerned about our national integrity of our election when it was involving Hillary Clinton so the forensic examination was done by the IC IG and they can document that but you were given that information and you did nothing with it and one of the things I found most egregious with mr. Horowitz his testimony and by the way Horowitz got a call four times by someone wanting to brief him leaving messages telling him about this and he never returned the call he had 500 pages of bias that he gave us and then he threw a bone to the Democrats and said but we can't find bias and let me tell you when you have text messages mr. struck the way you do saying the things you did you'd been better off coming in here and say look that was my bias and you kind of get around to that a little bit when you say hey you know everybody's got political views those are called biases and we all have them and you have come in here and said I have no bias and you do it with a straight face and I watched you in them in the private testimony you gave and I told some of the other guys he is really good he's lying he knows we know he's lying and he probably passed polygraph point it's a maze mr. chairman mr. chairman I'm sorry I lost this point of order no the general status point of order a member of this committee just asserted that this witness was under oath and a former agent of the FBI lied there is no evidence that I asked him to withdraw it I do not withdraw it he is not a member of Congress it's not a violation of the rule and just as you have been expressing bias through your members about what a huge legal person who has ever characterized it we had a man from Rhode Island gentleman gentleman from Rhode Island spent no the disgrace mr. what this man has done gentleman from Texas will suspend for a moment is the disgrace and it won't be recaptured anytime soon because of the damage you've done to the justice system and I've talked to FBI agents around the country you've embarrassed them you've embarrassed 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 lied to her about mr. chairman the gentleman controls the time I ask that the witness be permitted to respond during your investigation besides the one questioning you mentioned before that or after that to this day of order mr. chairman point of order mr. chairman the gentleman state his point of order it is I think against the rules of the house remember the committee to be impugning the character of a witness you should ask questions to elicit the purposes hearing is to elicit information you should ask questions to elicit information should not be impugning the character of the witness the gentleman has advised the rules of house only are directed to members the house and the president states the it is okay to impugn the character of witnesses and in any way whatsoever well I've listened I've heard many members on your side of the aisle impugn character somebody who is covered by the rules of the house but the gentleman the the the the gentleman has 20 seconds left the clock will be turned back on he can complete his time and then the witness can respond so if you talk to Hillary other than Hillary Clinton other than the time she was examined in front of the witnesses No so after throwing away what you have with all the bias you have you've never even gotten to thank you I yield back the gentleman may respond sir well that's quite a set of state mr. chairman I did not finish with a question that Jenner was no question asked determine he's been given the opportunity to receive gentlemen first of all suspend the time of the gentleman has expired and as I've indicated our hearings are if there is a question asked during the time the witness may respond to the question which after the time the witness is going to be allowed to respond briefly that's a new rule sir first I assure 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 the fact that you would question whether or not that was the sort of look I would engage with and 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 inside you its credibility Wow he's a gentleman from Texas will suspend the witnesses had ample opportunity to express his feelings about that and now the chair recognizes mr. chairman lawyers say there's discussion about the representatives first assertion about what the IC IG said that I would like to respond to very briefly very briefly I have no recollection of that conversation I can tell you I am NOT a computer forensic Kecksburg I can tell you that every allegation that we had and IC IG was a great and close partner every allegation that we had whether from them or anybody else was forwarded to experts who looked at it the scores and scores of servers and blackberries and emails and everything we got were combed over carefully by the FBI's experts to see if there's any indicia oven but you don't recall going over those emails I have no idea what you're talking about in fragments and the witness will suspend well not know what you're talking about that is when the fact is you never did is the Chairman about those more direct regular order you didn't do anything without it we sue but sir if there was a lead I gave it to the team unequivocally a gem there was nothing unless there's trucks they will not a trend well that will come out mr. Gohmert you will suspend mr. Deutsch I apologize I've been instructed by the ranking member that were going committee to committee for the next gentleman is gonna be recognized the gentleman from Virginia mr. Connolly for five minutes Wow the American public might be forgiven for mistaking this so-called hearing for a Russian political show trial it's got all the trappings character assassination demagoguery connecting dots that aren't meant to be connected generalizing form a isolated incident cherry-picking facts sometimes fabricating facts it's astounding it's the new low in the United States Congress what a shame but mr. stroszek you're under oath and my understanding is the big Republican beef in order to discredit you and discredit the FBI and their thereby hopefully from their point of view undermine the Moller investigation hinges on the fact that you sent out some indiscreet personal emails about your political views on the then pending 2016 election is that correct sir that's my understanding all right so you're under oath I want you to say yes or no the following email character matters real Donald Trump is obviously not going to win but he can still make an honorable move step aside and let someone else try did you write that email I don't believe I did no you didn't Republican senator Ben Sasse wrote that email another unforgivable sin he should be here as well apparently my wife Julia and I we have a 15 year old daughter do you think I can look her in the eye and tell her that I endorsed Donald Trump when he acts like this and his apology that was no apology that was an apology for getting caught I can't tell the good people in my state that I endorsed a person who acts like this was that you miss district no sir no it wasn't it was a republican jason Chaffetz 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 Hillary Clinton mr. Trump should step aside this defeat at this point seems almost certain and four years of Hillary Clinton is not what's best for this country mr. Trump should put the country first and do the right thing that's that's you certainly right no sir no you're right it was Republican member of Congress Mike köppen from Colorado in light of these comments Donald Trump should step aside and allow our party to replace him with Mike Pence or another appropriate nominee I cannot in good conscience vote for Donald Trump and I would never vote for Hillary Clinton that's yours no sir no that's Republican Barbara Comstock of our home home state of Virginia all right well here's another one it's now clear Donald Trump is not fit to be President of the United States and cannot defeat Hillary Clinton I believe he should step aside and allow governor Pence to lead the Republican ticket you wrote that one no sir you didn't no you're right that's Republican Bradley Bern of Alabama well how about this when Donald Trump's behavior makes him unacceptable as a candidate for president and I won't vote for him as disappointed as I've been with his antics throughout this campaign I thought supporting the nominee was the best thing for our country in our party now it's abundantly clear that the best thing for our country and party is for Trump to step aside and allow responsible respectable Republicans to lead the ticket you wrote that one no sir oh no that was Republican Martha Roby of Alabama well how about this one I respectfully ask that you mr. Trump with all due respect step aside step down allow someone else to carry the banner of principles you wrote that one no sir no you're right again that was Republican Senator Mike Lee if Utah so it sounds like when you were writing these emails in the heat of the campaign you had a lot of good company on the Republican side of the aisle and now you're an orphan I wonder what changed but your opinion was hardly a striking one hot hardly unusual especially were you and I live Northern Virginia is that correct yes sir so you're a sin of writing an email criticizing the candidate Trump and predicting he would lose was not an isolated kind of opinion is that correct no it was not to my knowledge and and do you under oath confirm what the Inspector General mr. Horowitz said there's no evidence your personal opinion notwithstanding in any way it tainted the ongoing criminal investigation led by mr. Muller I do that's your testimony under oath yes I thank you and I'm so sorry for the treatment you've received here today as a member of Congress as a member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee I take no pleasure in watching the spectacle Thank You mr. stroszek but being here the chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas mr. Poe for five minutes I thank the chairman and I take no pleasure in the self-pity that you have shown the rest of us the entire day I'm a former prosecutor I loved being a prosecutor in the District Attorney's Office and I spent 22 years on the criminal bench trying criminal cases saw about 25,000 felony cases and I saw a lot of people in law enforcement but in our entire justice system from the beginning the end of the justice system people are involved in our justice system and those people whoever they are cannot be biased one way or the other and it starts in a courtroom with the jury both lawyers spend a lot of time including the court talking to jurors about whether their bias why because people who are bias or come across as bias they're out of here you can't serve on a jury you cannot be fair we don't let judges serve on cases if they have a biased they are refused many times they just recuse themselves they recognize there's a bias and we don't let people testify unless the biased when they testify is allowed to be brought out in other words 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's the way our system works now in my opinion who had my opinion is not any better than anybody else's but I have seen a lot of people over the years kind of in the people business judging people and I have heard your statements today and it seems to me that your own words have shown your bias you say you're not bias but we base things on evidence not based necessarily on words and your words to me prove your bias your attitude proves your bias your arrogance proves your bias and I think you're protesting too much proves your bias but be that as it may the scary part of that is not whether you're biased or not the scary part of it is but 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 and 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 anybody 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 defense attorney or the prosecutor would allow you to be on a jury because your words or what we hear you're protesting just seems to make those words more of a show of your bias the comment that you're gonna stop him and an email or a text or something that not only shows your bias that shows that you're going to act on your bias and you're gonna stop President Trump that's the way it comes across the evidence comes across so how do you assure us that the attitude that you have shown us today of the text messages and all of these things that we've 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 can you just answer that question yeah how do we know that there's not by the FBI in this particular investigation or other investigations how do you know that sir the way 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 in the conduct of their cases you look to my actions in the conduct of the investigations you have done with others a spectacular job of equated the word by with personal political belief and it's astounding how effective that's been but you know full well they are not the same the fact of body-slamming my claim my time you'll had a chance to try to answer the other question that you're trying to answer how do we know that the attitude that you have shown us to date whatever you want to call it you know that mr. Cohen wants to make a saint out of you how do we know that the attitude you have today is not the same attitude of the FBI as they're investigating other cases how do we know that and ask that dominus time of the gentleman has expired and the gentleman may answer the question hopefully without interruption sir 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 the agents and assistant directors and iAds and Deedee's and everybody involved in an investigation and you see that the evidence unequivocally is there is no act of bias so this false assertion that you're making that political personal belief must equal bias that somehow we've merged those two words together in the dictionary is one of the triumphs of what's been going on recently that I cannot disagree with more a judge asks jurors are you able to set aside your personal opinions and render a judgment based on the facts sir you know that based on your extensive 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 vigorous pursuit of the truth wherever it lies whatever it is and I don't believe you how your ban has expired the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida mr. Deutsch for five minutes 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 but what we've seen in this joint committee and in the Judiciary Committee meeting just a couple 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. struck is sitting before us under oath lying to us the efforts to impugn the credibility not just a mr. struck but of the entire FBI it's shameful truly shameful the depths to which some of my colleagues have have plummeted in order to advance a narrative to support the president's opposition to an investigation which is an investigation as mr. struck pointed out and as too 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. struck the attacks on on rod Rosenstein the attacks on our FBI director I wish there was even a slight degree of that same fervor directed against what the Russians did in 2016 so that we could get to the bottom of that and anticipate what they're trying to do this November and in 2020 now mr. struck this is the Inspector General's report the number one finding in this inspector general's report is that the FBI should not discuss ongoing criminal investigations that's what the IG said director Comey did wrong the IG said he shouldn't have done if the IG went into great detail about the long-standing 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 a direct attack by foreign adversary but listening to my Republican colleagues it's almost as if they never read this report like you never bother to pick it up or worse you read it you understand it but you don't care you're asking mr. struck to do exactly what the Inspector General said not to do exactly mr. struck if you answer these questions that you've 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 should never have done that I certainly that's possible I'd be more worried 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 Hillary Clinton investigation here's what we've heard today we heard it from the chairman we heard it from my colleagues you've got two choices you can ignore the FBI's policy that has been put in place to protect these investigations I'm gonna 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 those questions 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 with ongoing criminal matters well there variety and I'm sure I won't come up with all the reasons but the first is we do a lot of investigations where we never charge anybody and it's simply not fair to given the investigative power we have to do something that would unnecessarily tarnish them or their image - in the cases where we are investigating talking about it is going to screw up a bunch of things you might want to do investigative ly talking to witnesses talking to the subject and then finally you want somebody to have a fair trial and if we're talking about it or putting our finger on the scale it would just be horribly inappropriate and against what we stand for in the criminal justices and the negative consequences on the outcome of that investigation it would be tremendous would would adversely impact potentially the ability to get a fair trial to conduct a competent investigation you conduct one that arrived at the truth right mr. struck I appreciate that last comment and I would just urge my colleagues that in the in the midst of this apoplexy that seems to be breaking out among so many of my colleagues that we remember that ultimately what we're really trying to do here is get to the truth and the truth that we need to get to is exactly what a hostile foreign adversary did to interfere with our democracy let's please 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're counting on us to do get out of the way let this investigation go forward let's get to the truth I yield back the balance of my time the gentleman from Pennsylvania mr. Marino is recognized for five minutes Thank You chairman mr. struck I have here and I'm sure you're familiar with it you know things handbook a 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 shall endeavor 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 these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with a knowledge of the relevant facts next what is appearance of impropriety an employee shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that the employee is violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in these guidelines furthermore it states for employees for whom a security clearance is required and you do have a security clearance correct today I do yes you've had one for quite a while other than the circumstances yes for performance of their official duties prohibited conduct and more made grounds for suspension a revocation of a clearance this could also result in adverse disciplinary action including suspension or removal under the Hatch Act all federal employees may vote express opinions and make political contributions on the Hatch Act active participation in partisan political activities by federal employees is restricted and employees and I want you to listen to this very carefully serving in certain positions are more restricted than others I think you are a person that falls into that category as well I am just actually disheartened about the situation that you are in and I say this with no prejudice and I think you are your own worst enemy you have any 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 district attorney and a US attorney would love to get on the stand and the reasonableness of the statements that you made and I'm not going to get into the language but the repetitiveness of it where was your judgment what we use not thinking when you were sending the emails and the ax statements that you made and the comments in that of the people in Virginia I would expect someone of your caliber to be way above that you got carried away you got impressed with yourself and you're in a position that I'm sorry that that's the case but if you are trying to draw a distinction a wide distinction between bias and political opinion there's not the why a 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 judge polar and other judges were handling the case whether it's civil or criminal we you and I would be pointing out the biases that I see that you have exhibited here I just don't understand your judgment based on your background and you maybe respond to that sir I I appreciate your comments and I appreciate your concern the first thing I would tell you is I I'm disappointed if you did not understand the amount of regret that I expressed in my from the beginning of my opening statement to the to the harm and damage that this has caused people I love I do I do understand that now so I joined it but it's in hindsight and people like you and I that are here to protect the citizens we should be thinking of this before Congress congressman without question and I would absolutely agree with you that there are things that I regret in retrospect and I hope that comes 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 up the ethics manual I would note in that manual in further restricted employees every FBI employee many DOJ employees other members of the intelligence community are restricted but within that category if you read that manual citing the Hatch Act it says except for where otherwise prohibited and that has to do with activities coordinating with a political party employees may not only have political opinions but they are encouraged to express them I know well and publicly so sir well I don't I don't draw any disagreement with you about bias where it occurs what I disagree with you and so many people today is that political belief does not equate to bias and we always have to go to the evidence if you can demonstrate evidence of acts of bias well then bias is there but in the absence of any and truly the Inspector General this committee any number of other people have looked and looked and looked and not a single act tells me it didn't occur because really confident people have looked for it and so beyond me telling you under oath that I know it didn't happen what's important realize is it's not just me it's this entirety of folks looking at it it is the entirety of structure of the FBI who is built not to do those things and not to allowed and I'm of the gentleman has expired the chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois miss Kelly for five minutes I know it's been a long day for you so I will keep it simple some questions will be repetitive but if you could just say yes or no and your time at the FBI have you ever investigated a member of the Democratic Party yes did any of those investigations result in an indictment no have you ever investigated anyone that identifies as independent or unaffiliated with either of the two major political parties ma'am I don't know so you don't know if any of those resulted in well III don't know that I I know when I'm thinking the Democratic Party clearly Secretary Clinton was part of who we looked at and she was very clearly part of the Democratic Party I don't tend to be on that I'm not a public corruption agent and political affiliation is not something we looked at but in your assessment would your work history suggest by suggestive bias by you toward any one political party no not at all you investigated as you said Secretary Clinton for use of private emails yes she is a member of the Democratic Party yes we know you have investigated a Republican provided your participation in the ongoing mulher investigation that we know that 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 advisors to President Trump as well as Russian nationals and companies so is it fair to say that you have investigated and indicted individuals from the political spectrum or you may not even be aware yes ma'am we don't look at that so I don't know but it's a fair assumption there have been news reports that president Trump's advisors Ivana Trump Derek Stephen Miller and former White House official Stephen banner Reince Priebus and Gary Cohn all use private email to conduct official business President Trump is a Republican correct yes so these individuals were our key staffers for a Republican president correct yes these individuals serve or served as senior advisors to the president White House chief strategist White House chief of staff and director of the National Economic Council it is safe to say that individuals and such high-ranking positions are exposed to sensitive perhaps top-secret materials yes to your knowledge has the FBI opened investigations against their use of private emails for official White House business I'm gonna answer that I can't answer that based on if they were ongoing it would be inappropriate for me to talk about okay I would like to note that needed the House Judiciary Committee nor the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have open hearings on that issue and several of those individuals named continue to advise the President of the United States and receive a paycheck paid by our tax dollars also I'd like to say when constituents call my office they are Dems they're Republicans or independents and they're not involved like all of us and if you ask them I am sure that they would say they received top-notch service from my office and I have my biases like everybody else like we've talked about and 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 constituents because that's what you keep applying implying over and over and over and over I yield back chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina mr. Sanford for five minutes I appreciate chairman and if I might I'm gonna yield my time to my colleague from Ohio thank the gentleman for yielding agent struck I want to go back to this email you sent on January 10th regarding the BuzzFeed pending publishing of must be publishing of the dossier you have that in front of you again I do okay my last round of question you said you spoke with Bruce or several times in the 2016-2017 time periods that accurate that's correct okay and at the time you were working with mr. Orr did you know that he was meeting with representatives from fusion including Glynn Simpson Americans Holt with councils her sure can you could hold my time please sir again I would like to answer your question and it's a short and easily answerable question but at the direction of the FBI I cannot discuss the content of the the operational matters that I discussed before I appreciate that aegeon struck at the time your meeting with Bruce or did you know that his wife Nellie worked for fusion against I believe the same answer stand by sir again please and sorry about the time sir again I'm sorry I would like to enter that question but at the direction of the FBI because it relates to an ongoing operational matter I can't let's go back to the email I just want to make sure I understand this it sounds like in your email you're saying comparing now sounds like there are three copies but two different versions the set you are examining and referencing to your colleagues you say is identical to what McCain had again referring to the dossier and then you're saying the one from corn and Simpson you won't tell me who those individuals are but that one is different is that an accurate reading of your email sir it isn't and I think to give you the content or the context of that comment I would have to I have to tell you sir this is a this is more frustrating for me than it is for you because of to frame that to give you an accurate answer I would have to give you the context of what was going on which includes details that I've been instructed by the FBI that I may not provide well there's another email down below on the one you're looking at which talks about BuzzFeed has 16 of the reports looks like they have 16 of the I believe 17 sections that made up the entire dossier is that an accurate reading there sir again it's not an accurate reading I would tell you what the FBI has a told me I may say an answer to the dossier is that well that's not an accurate reading that's what it says BuzzFeed has 16 of the reports well sir that is a literal reading but understanding what that means would it require me to provide information that is beyond the scope of what the FBI's permitted me to tell you we'd sure like to know I want to refer you to I don't know that you have this in front of you but this is the house intelligence committees report chapter 6 there's a footnote on page 113 and it says this in late March 2017 Daniel Jones met with the FBI regarding pqg the Penn Quarter group which he described as exposing foreign intelligence or foreign influence in Western elections he told the FBI the pqg was being funded by 7 to 10 wealthy donors located primarily in New York and California who provided approximately 50 million dollars he further stated that pqg secured the services of Steel his associate and fusing GPS to continue exposing potential Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential 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 but 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 have you ever spoke with Daniel Jones no do you know mr. Jones at all I do not all right I want to go back to one more question I asked you the first round mr. struck mr. Simpson when he did testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee was asked about diffusion no one from fusion ever spoke with the FBI is there any way that that contradicts what's in the email that I've been referencing with you I don't know I can tell you I have not spoken to mr. Simpson not spoken mr. Chen but I haven't asked you that I asked you that the first time all right I think the I think the chairman and I thank the gentleman from South Carolina from yielding I'd yield back to the gentleman the chair would note that several of the questions asked by the gentleman were not answered by the witness on the advice of his counsel and I presume through the FBI and we will note those questions so that we can address them at a future time because I find it's stunning that they are not allowing you to answer those questions mr. struck chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois mr. Gutierrez for five minutes thank you very much mr. chairman 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 and it isn't necessary now I think there are hearings that are necessary and 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 even bring them together that seems like something the Judiciary Committee should be investigating we start a policy in this country where we ban ban Muslims from coming in and we make a test of religious tests sounds to me like something judiciary committee should take up we have a President of the United States there are 16 women who have come forward to say that the President of the United States has attacked them and what does his committee do no hearings even one of the members of this committee had to resign and disgraced because he asked one of his staffer 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 but 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 but what we want to have hearings is too big mr. struck here so that we can regurgitate and continue to say that he is lying and that he is biased and somehow he corrupted the investigation to the point that we can't believe mr. Muller that we can't believe mr. Rosenstein that we can't believe the new FBI director who was appointed by the current President of the United States and that we should abandon my members on the other side if there are two people that are thrilled and excited today there are two people the folks over at Fox News and at the Kremlin because they both worked on one thing electing president Trump President of the United States of America they've got to be overjoyed today at the Kremlin and they've got to be applauding and watch the newsreel tonight because a lot of this today is simply what auditioning 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 unanimously stated and this is unreviewable that the Russians work to undermine our democracy and to elect Donald Trump President of the United States and that is something that's irrefutable you can say what you want about miss truck that's irrefutable and yet we do not investigate that how can we have such an attack on our democracy and we don't investigate but we want to investigate mr. struck so I want to ask you mr. struck because they've kept saying you have 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 our 2016 election sir I'm limited to what director Comey was authorized to say by the Department of Justice but in late July so in late July and when did the public learned about the investigation into Russian collusion and Donna Tropes investigation Eider McDavid who's well into the following year it was after the election yes sir so what we're to believe from my Republican majority that you're so biased you're such a Democrat that you can't hold back from trying to destroy Donald Trump yet you never told anybody that there was an investigation into Donald Trump's campaign in collusion with the Russians you never told anybody about that no sir you never talked to a reporter about that never but you had it in your hands well maybe you didn't because you know in America so you could do almost anything but you did have almost a magical bullet in your hand to derail the Donald Trump investigation and did you use it no sir no you didn't right are there Republicans at work at the FBI because it makes it sound like you're all Democrats I never heard that before but other Republicans yes sir okay it would be interesting here is since you like to cherry-pick the Democrats that given money the FBI agents that give money to Democrats why don't you reveal the Republican members of the FBI that give money to Republicans why don't you reveal the Republican members of the FBI that are in and state very clearly when they apply for a voter registration they play as Republicans they don't because that's not what this is about what this is about is for the American public mr. struck it's really not about you they want to damage and destroy our democracy and one of the ways they do it is by taking an institution like the FBI and destroying it and that I think is really regrettable ok Kremlin another good day for you you influence the election you want to Donald Trump to win you won that one and now you want to destroy our institutions congratulations Kremlin and congratulations to everybody that's helping them gentleman from Illinois yields back the gentleman from Tennessee dr. Desjarlais is recognized Thank You mr. chairman and I just have a couple of questions for you mr. struck and I'd like to yield the balance of my time to chairman Gowdy but in light of the last round of question it's fair to say that you wanted to stop President Trump from being elected in your own words didn't you no sir that was my expression that I had a preference not for candidate Trump to be present but that I did not and would not did I not hear you read your own text correctly that you would stop him you would stop it no sir you misunderstood or misheard me I said that my sense and not recalling writing that text was that the American populace wouldn't elect you don't like Donald Trump do you if fair to say I'm not a fan sir yeah and were you the only one who could have done the job you're doing are you the only one that could have led this investigation in the FBI sir it was logical and given that I was number two in counterintelligence that I would have a role in this investigation but no there are there are very qualified folks in in the FBI da DS they're not that many a Mylo in retrospect then should you have recused yourself in this case absolutely not you don't like this man you didn't want him to become president you had several very disparaging text messages with your friend about this but yet you didn't once think that maybe somebody else should take this case no sir and I'll tell you about third times I didn't particularly care for Secretary Clinton and I investigated that absolutely as objectively and aggressively as I did any other investigation so no I don't think recusal was it all merited okay well that's the one thing I've struggled with here today listening to your testimony because I do think a man in your position and power and the respect you should have or that people should have for you because of your position in the FBI that you would have stopped to think that maybe there was somebody that could do a better job that didn't have such disdain for this president you claim to be such a patriot but once he was elected you continued to do this and I think that you have to accept that elections have consequences but I'll yield the balance of my time to our Chairman the gentleman yields agent struck now I'm confused because I thought on that August 8 2016 text that you did not recall typing it and then you said that you recalled it was late at night and that somehow mitigated the content of what you typed so do you recall it or was it late at night and what else do you recall about the timing of that mr. Chairman I think my recollection statements have been consistent across the board I don't remember typing it it was late at night my sense was I can tell you what it was not it was not a suggestion that I or the FBI take any action well instead of us anyway instead of us musing about what you meant why don't we just go with what you said okay I would actually you rather go with what I did well that is at the end okay that is we'll get to that we'll get to that in a second I promise you no no he's not we'll stop it and I think you've agreed that it was in his candidacy right or his election I don't think again not recalling writing it his candidacy his election I'm not I don't recall writing it I'm not sure what it and what you may bus stop stop it again my sense looking at the context was that there was no way coming off the heels of insulting the Khan family that the American and all the other statements that had been made in the comparison a genital sighs during a debate and everything else that there was no way that the American population was going to elect this man so my sense was this is a off-the-cuff hey don't worry about it sort of comment and if you look at the next day when I send a text saying hey what was that it's clear there is no conspiracy there's no meeting of the minds there's no suggestion of actions it was merely a one-off comment and of course there's about a week before you use the word we again in connection with an insurance policy to make sure that he was not elected president and then we get to the day Mahler was appointed special counsel day after let's go through this one again see if it rings a bell with you who gives up a f-1 more ad an investigation leading to a Pietschmann with a question mark why are you talking about impeachment the day of special counsels appointment well sir why meet you and while you're thinking about that let me give you a few other options you could have said an investigation leading into 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 any of that agent struck you went straight to impeachment do you know how impeachment works I have a general understanding as it works if sir my understanding is limited to that is something done by the Congress that there are articles of impeachment and the procedure by which that occurs I am not next let me ask you this do you have to be a sitting office holder to be impeached sir I don't know the answer to that well I actually do and I will take note that you never once used the word in connection with Secretary Clinton did you sir I I did not no no you did if you did we don't have it so that's an investigation where you didn't think about mentioning it but the day Mahler was appointed rather than then punishing Russia rather than in dining Russians rather than doing something about social media you went straight to impeachment wrong that's incorrect sir well I'll tell you what and we'll revisit the issue may I respond to your question sir you may when we revisit the issue chairman the witness is permitted to answer the question briefly as the gentleman in Louisiana is recognized as the chairman has repeatedly said today the gentleman from Louisiana the witness not be permitted to answer the question mr. chairman now I'm gonna I'm gonna object to your not permitting the witness to answer the question you asked him one moment while I find out who's next on the Democrat side mr. chairman that is not the question sir you asked if I went directly to impeachment rather than Russia I would like to respond to that question that you asked immediate we're gonna come back to it but respond to it now as long as you do actually respond to the question yes sir my immediate concern was absolutely having to do with Russia and everything related to that my concern was what Russia was doing on social media my concern was what Russian intelligence officers were doing in the United States my concern was what the government of Russia might or might not be doing with members of the Trump campaign that is great and robust that's that was my response it's wonderful and trust me when I tell you that would have been a longer text I get that it would have taken a lot longer for you to actually type that but you didn't regular order what are you gonna just pontificate for a non-stop general mission is recognized thank you this is charts during your 11 hour closed-door interview with our committee Republicans asked you more than 200 questions on the special councils and the FBI investigation of the Trump Russia collusion and interference with the 2016 election at one point you described how the special counsels 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 don't have a copy of the transcript so I went li rep meadows followed up with this question he stated 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 man you told and I I'm going from the transcript no she told ret medals that you understood this question but 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 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 will 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 a response that would involve information as 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's no evidence to collusion you should want special counsel Muller 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 at the allegations collusions with the Russians there's 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's no collusion with Russia and that's what this is about I would suggest that they take chairman gaudi's recommendation and begin acting like it and I yield back my time Julie yields back Jim admirers 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's no evidence of bias in my professional actions close quote okay let's explore that statement for a second can you please define because I'm really confused can you define your what's your definition of bias I think sir bias depends on the context in which you're talking about with regard to political opinion that is allowing your beliefs to get in the way of the honest independent pursuit of facts so allowing your your own beliefs to get or get in the way of your actions your honest right your honor please give me an example of situation when bias would interfere with your aspect your professional judgement it's difficult I answer hypothetical I'm not going to interview a witness I am going to destroy evidence I am going to prevent somebody from taking an investigative step I'm not it's a difficult is there ever been a time when your professional actions or you believe 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 recused yourself from a professional action no okay so you'll be surprised what I actually believe that the Russians tried to the stabiliser our economy the our way of life our government I think they have been doing it for a long time I'm curious if this is the first time that Russia tried to interfere with an American election I'm aware of times were they you know going back to the 60s and 70s with a planted evidence where they were seeking to introduce items of information that were false in newspapers I'm not aware of any direct outreach to members of a presidential either the candidate or his media team did they attempt to interfere in the 2012 elections I'm certainly did yes so do you recall when President Obama telling Russian medvedev that he would have more flexibility to negotiate only issues like missile defense after the 2012 election I don't remember that certainly he said that in in a hot mic why wasn't that investigated sir because I won there were no allegations to my knowledge again I was not in the position the President of the United States telling the Russian president that he was not going to he was gonna have more flexibility and he was gonna do do certain things do you recall during the debates when President Obama objected 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 don't but I okay so you were not interested in Russian interference with our elections in 2012 but you were interested in Russian interference in 2016 the such answer and and you were not interested in the actions of a president who was saying that that that Russia was no longer a foreign power that we needed to be concerned about I disagree with that statement well you you don't even recall those statements so I don't know how you can reach disagree with them you were you're characterizing my interest in their interference and I can respond to that that's fine how can you assure the American people that you're not lying today because one I said before I'm doing it under oath I'm telling you having spent 26 years putting on a gun putting my life at risk for this country I am not lying to you right now you're doing there if you don't want to take my word for other people I get people might be hesitant yeah I would say look at the record okay look at everybody who's worked with me IG said and they absolutely confirm that you stated that you don't mean it when you said Trump supporters smell you did not really mean it when you said that use the word impeachment you did not mean it when you said Republicans we're hillbillies you were not telling the truth in those moments no I disagree with that sir I said I didn't mean him when I talked about people that you could smell the support or hillbillies that was a poor choice of words that I don't believe I did not you say I did not believe impeachment my explanation for impeachment was very different my explanation of impeachment was as I considered it that was on the far end of what might be occurring okay so it was the opposite I understand but so finally the Democrats have made assertion city that are just not true first that the IG found no bias in your actions this is not true the AG said quote we were deeply troubled by text messages sent by stroke and page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper consideration write and read what you just said sir potentially create the appearance that says nothing about an active bias it is a a hedged three adjective description about something which I can tell you doesn't exist moreover as we described in Chapter nine in assessing strokes decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on the mid-year related investigative lead discovered on the weiner laptop in October 2016 these text messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that structure decisions was free from bias yes sir so you did he there was no there was no decision that there was no bias they just cannot find whether there was bias or not and the moreover they do not mr. chairman regular order they did not investigate the Russian investigation in the IG report so there's gonna be still pending mr. chairman gentlemen is out of time and yields back the gentleman from mr. jeffris question I didn't hear a question miss I don't agree with it he was asking me whether or not the I whether I believe that the IG report indicated that there is an active bias or not notice all right they're afraid to hear you answer but I'd like to ask the witness be permitted to answer a question may I respond sir sure sir I let's look at the facts of that laptop the facts of the laptop are within hours literally less than four hours of learning of that laptop I signed agents to go and check in and figure out what's it mr. chairman that was in the quiff in and within a day they had done so so and these were folks unrelated to gentleman from Idaho has yielded back if you want to give a short response to a question he does not believe he asked you're welcome to do it but just keep it short sir speak clearly into the mic to raise the mic please for you yeah absolutely so sir I would take issue I do take issue with the IG s conclusion there the IG said something that they could not exclude the possibility that it played a role in what I would point you and point them to of the facts and the facts of these within hours of learning hours of learning of the Weiner laptop I assigned very seasoned supervisory agents and subordinate agents and analysts to follow up on that and within a day of getting that information they had gotten in touch with New York determined that New York had not completed the processing and if they were going to get back together when that occurred so the notion that anything was back-burnered is bolide 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 investigations to follow up on the matter sorry you've been given a chance Senate resume with New York is recognized mr. struck the investigation into possible Trump Russian collusion in the 2016 election has resulted in 23 indictments correct I don't know the number but it's sizable it's resulted in 18 individuals who have been indicted true again I don't know the numbers put all three corporate entities have been indicted in connection with the Trump Russian collusion investigation correct I'll accept your representation I don't know the investigation has identified at least 75 different criminal acts correct again sir I haven't tallied them up there have been five guilty pleas true I believe that's correct sir but I'm not certain Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort has been charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States of America correct he's been charged at under the specific crimes he's sitting in jail right now as a result of alleged witness tampering correct yes sir Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn has pled guilty to lying to the FBI correct yes sir Trump's deputy campaign manager Rick Gates has been indicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States correct a serious been indicted I don't know the charges George papadopolis a former Trump campaign national security adviser has pled guilty to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with Russian spies during the campaign true certainly with Russians I don't know how to characterize those Russians okay now the FBI publicly disclosed information about the Hillary Clinton email investigation 11 days prior to the election in 2016 true yes sir I believe that's but the FBI maintain confidentiality about the Trump Russia criminal investigation during the entire duration of the Trump presidential campaign correct yes sir so if you really wanted to stop Donald Trump from becoming president you could have revealed the criminal investigation into the Trump campaign to the American people prior to the election true yes sir mr. struck you know you are before this committee for one reason to serve as a monumental distraction there was a criminal investigation into the 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 don't like that criminal investigation and therefore they need to identify a villain mr. struck tag you're it his what's so ironic about that characterization Vladimir Putin is a thug and a dictator who hijacked and interfered and attacked our democracy but apparently he doesn't 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 doesn't meet the Republican villain test the administration continues to engage in fake negotiations with him David Duke and neo-nazis apparently for some don't meet the Republican villain tests oh that's right I forgot there are fine people on both ROI more an alleged serial pedophile apparently doesn't meet the Republican villain test he was the nominee of your party for a seat in the United States Senate but we're supposed to believe that agent Peter struck 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 degenerate that I just listed this investigation is a joke it's 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 Jim manure eels back the German from Georgia is recognized Oh Thank You mr. chairman gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized Thank You mr. chairman I would like to yield my time to you I thank Julie from North Carolina agents struck on March the 14th 2017 I think we're what a couple of months into the presidency see if you can recall 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 believe it's a reference to the book all the president's men all right do you recall how you replied generally I feigned surprise and said something to the fact that we should be so lucky or fortunate no it was lucky lucky in what way sir my that he would resign as president you wanted him to resign two months into his presidency sir my sense was in a personal belief that I was not pleased with the direction and things that were being done with the presidency I thought you trusted the American people I thought that was what you said in August of 2016 that the American people would stop him and they didn't stop him and March all of a sudden not trusting the American people anymore sir what i cut ur ly trust the american people what i worry about is when the government of russia puts their fingers on the scale and causes the will of the mind to be said they're better than America like how many indictments have there been of Americans for collusion with Russia sir I couldn't answer that question sure you could well when your donation first you you know phone well sir collusion is not a crime I don't know where that term came from but well you're right it's not it's 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 yet and we'll be happy to get mr. Nadler as a witness at next week's hearing if he wants to help you answer that so you wanted President Trump to resign two months into his presence no sir I think I read that text as a snarky comment about a book that was being read and a comment made it is a conversational text exchange it is not a riddle Walton of a desire for something to occur but hey maybe I missed it will it help me God that we should be so lucky yes sir and I think you would accept is a very intelligent sophisticated man that people frequently speak when they're texting or in conversation you'll say things that are hyperbole or exaggerations are not literal because that's just the nature of the we usually agents draught not when I was supposed to be dis passionately neutrally investigating someone I actually did not but let's go let's go we've already passed the who gives f one more ad versus an investigation leading to impeachment and I think we've already established that there is a school of thought that you can be impeached even if you're 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 with Secretary Clinton you saved all of that for candidate Trump so I want to go to another text you and I both know the odds are nothing if I thought it was likely I'd be there no question now this is the day after Muller was appointed when you said be there are you talking about on his team yes sir I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big there there so in addition to disappointing the hell out of my Democrat colleagues that someone who is investigating Russian collusion didn't think there was any there there why would you be concerned why would you not be ecstatic that there was no collusion why the word concerned sir I don't know what I mean concerned to me seems like there is a lot going on and a lot presumptive that there may be something like impeachment but so you got a pic which one do you want I'm either convinced that there's impeachment arm convinced what you just read that there's 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 don't know actually is agent struck of all the universe of options that's not the one I picked but all the universe of options you looking at something with an open mind is not the one I pick that's the obvious one to conclude from that email I'll tell you the one that I picked the one 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 and participating in a counterintelligence investigation that was not going to lead to impeachment no that's how I read it mr. fireman it was Lyman you are assuming someone else's report chairman you come into conclusions on someone else's viewpoints in hearing father it's my time and the general aides not recognized I hesitated in part because of my gut sense and concerned there's no big there there sir man what are you concern wasn't 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 individuals kind of pursuing their own agendas for their own self enrichment or on the far end that there might be an impeachable offense what would you answer my answer your question well my question is why would you not want to investigate that sir I did want to investigate that that is not what you're reading what you're reading is my trying to decide what I want to do with the course of my career and whether to stay is a Deputy Assistant Director in the 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 but I don't know how long who's going to take where you go sir but what to your parents you're leaving out one really important word agent struck this is each meant regular order now a minute and a half of impeachment and add four big words of no big they're there and the reality is you know full well 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 deterrent and that is a logical way for investigators attorneys and guarding a prolific political death penalty and impeachment is not the law took away a neutral dispatch you know how do you expect this committee to control itself you've been out of control since you've been on this committee why don't you leave it alone this is not Benghazi the gentlelady from New Jersey is recognized we are recognize congressman you're recognized when she finishes well first of all mr. Stroh Zack I want to thank you for your service secondly mr. Stroh Zack I think you made a big mistake by putting those text messages on your purse on your business phone because then you opened up your personal phone and here we are talking about this mess when it really isn't important because the other thing that I know mr. Stroh Zack is that even if you do have biases you you did not influence the outcome of this investigation the attorney ID IG found that the outcome of this investigation was predicated upon evidence and information the other thing I know is that no matter how much you disliked Hillary and or Donald Trump you didn't 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 and is disrespectful to our allies you have nothing to do with the fact that the President of the United States has declared higher tariffs 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 enriching himself with his emoluments and carving out opportunities for his daughter so that she's not negatively impacted with her brands in China while this side of the aisle says nothing you've had nothing to do with the fact that Puerto Rico is still underwater and without any kind of electricity in so many places why this side of the aisle that's the part of the Oversight Committee has forgotten what its mission is but nonetheless you have been here and you have tried to answer their questions and I have never seen my colleague 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. stroszek that you've been asked that you would like to clarify because I can give you two minutes and 25 seconds to have your say uninterrupted congresswoman I deeply appreciate that time I do want everybody's watching this and making up their own mind and what I would tell you is one I'm 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 work force their ethics their integrity are unmatched anywhere in the world and I think that's 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 in the future tear down the underpinnings of what represent law and order in this country and there is not a robust thick wall there I think people don't appreciate how tenuous the balance of the rule of law versus chaos is and when we as a people engage in activity where we take institution wholesale whether it's the FBI or the US intelligence community and compare them the 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 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 oh thank you mrs. Atkins I just need to say in closing if anybody should be pissed at the FBI because you all helped this unfit man become president of 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 our yield back my time general of New York is recognized for unanimous consent mr. chairman as you're aware under house rules minority members have the right to demand the day of hearings to allow witnesses to testify in the subject of today's hearing as you also know during the course of today's hearing the majority opposed representative sois Wells motion to subpoena Steve Bannon for testimony on behalf of the minority members of both the judiciary and Government Reform committees I am delivering a letter to chairman Goodlatte and chairman Gowdy formally invoking our right to call them in the RT day of hearings so that Steve Bannon may testify and I ask unanimous consent to insert a copy of that letter into the hearing record without objection gentlemen Georgia is recognized Thank You mr. chairman mr. oak I appreciate you being here thank you and I will assure you I take this very seriously but also all on as you go in and look in there's been a lot of talks about text there's been a lot of talk about your bias non-biased your opinions and your willingness to elaborate on that I have some questions it will not require you to have to be elaborate or anything they're gonna be simple straightforward questions because as I've been looking through this and also talking to the current FBI director of the current Deputy Attorney General in reading through some things some things have popped up that I think at least needs some clarification when was the last time you were subject to a polygraph approximately two or three years ago two or three years ago to your knowledge have you ever failed a polygraph or found to be out of scope I've never found one I was out of scope prior to my last polygraph when was and that would have been at what time you said two to three years ago could you be more specific sir I think we can cut to the chase I think there's an email that talks about people being out of scope for a polygraph which generated my last polygraph oh don't worry we're gonna be cut to the chase right so so you want to go ahead and say January 2016 when you received a text or an email correct sir if that's the date I'll stipulate to that I don't have the top guy we'll take that as a stipulation as an examiner ever accused you of attempting to use countermeasures to during a polygraph examination not to my recollection no you received your email in January as you state and you've stipulated to your polygraph was out of scope in January 2016 to your knowledge how long was your polygraph out of scope sir I don't know I recall it's the penultimate the second last polygraph I had was when I was a supervisor at Washington field office which would have occurred somewhere between 2008 in 2011 my understanding what out of scope means for the FBI is that polygraphs have a kind of five year span of effectiveness or validity we had several people we were trying - including me trying to get read into a particular intelligence compartment they ran the names me and some others were out of scope which happens because polygraphs are the line for polygraphs is longer than the understand I'm a military mr. struck I understand the lines for polygraph I understand the delays in them all over you happen to help a very secure job in a very one that is highly sensitive so the question is again I would assume to answer your evasive nasirov scope is that correct yes or no this fair sir I was trying to recreate it by recollection but no yes or no do you know how long you were out of scope do not okay do you what was taken what steps were taken to bring you into scope I went and had a polygraph okay when was then all right was this after the January 16 letter that you received it would have been afterwards yes ma'am if you were out of scope the last time when was the last time you clacks s classified information last night before last preparing for this Thank You currently you currently have what classification I have a top secret clearance with some sei compartments okay during the time that you were out of scope did you have access to s CI yes sir are you aware that it is FBI procedure there failure or out of scope polygraph these determine does not terminate a top secret but however a failure of this would require you to be read out of s CI access although you could maintain your top secret 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 SC eye information sure I believe Roger Scott I believe used the word failure which implies in my mind a failed poly I am not and was not aware of the fact that an out of scope polygraph required a read out of s CI then the question then I accept that mr. struck but I want that back to the question this answer came back from that from the FBI and justice itself that it was that is the procedure so the core next question I have is after the 2618 you did your polygraph at what time you said you were out of scope you were brought in by giving a polygraph when without a bin again sir my recollection is the 2016 timeframe but I'd sure that email but I don't know when within a month or two I think are you also wearing the publicly stated version of IG report that there has been some 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'm not generally aware that there was a report but I'm not aware of the conclusions one of the general concerns on this is it when you're out of scope and this is the answer coming back from Department Justice you should have been read out of s CI my concern is is it during this timeframe you were involved in two very high-profile what would have been or at least getting ready for s CI information in which you were not read out of this is a concern there's nothing else from that question I have no further questions and I'm finishing I yield back I think you miss stated the conclusion there sir I think you said that its failure is wrought required and that's attract the gentleman from Georgia controls a time miss truck times over mr. chairman the times up may I respond sir there was no question to respond to the answer he is from the department just I read you the answer may I come in to what I believe is a misstatement briefly sir from your answer what I took that to be is in the event of a failure an individual should be read out you are conflating that with a out of scope or failure it is not my understanding that out of scope requires somebody to be read out it may be I'm not a security professional but you you appear to you know you're out of seat right now with an answer that we received from Department of Justice and that is an interesting answer that you just gave that you may have been out of saying in the question now becomes is policies and procedures failed or not fail this is a serious investigation which I do take seriously and if you were to being read out you should have been read out that is my final answer statement not a question not opposed I yield back the gentleman from Rhode Island mr. Cicilline is recognized mr. Jim I look forward to a couple of extra minutes as each of my Republican colleagues have had mr. struck I'm serving on this committee representing the state renowned has 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 you've been treated by this committee and for the American people are watching you ought not wonder why they've lost confidence in Congress and are sick of the kind of circus that they saw being conducted in this room today because 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 in bankruptcy or oversight of the many conflicts of interest and corruption in this administration we're having yet another hearing on the Hillary Clinton emails what you should understand mr. struck is the reason my Republican colleagues will not let you answer a question is because they're not interested in your answers this is about promoting an era you are being you're a prop so 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 Trump inner circle this is a campaign to undermine that work and sadly build whatever is necessary to do it in concert with the president attack the FBI attacked the Department of Justice undermine the rule of law and so your emails are a perfect foil for this effort they're not interested in hearing your context in your explosion because it's not about you it's about protecting the president my colleagues have acted more like their on the defense team for Donald Trump then exercising their very serious oversight responsibilities as members of these two committees you know robert muller was praised to the heavens by everyone republican and democratic like when he was appointed now he's a villain what's the only thing that's changed nineteen indictments five guilty pleas and the circles closing in so I accept your sworn testimony about the difference between bias and the actions you took we don't have to take your word for the lone although I do the IG report of 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 were the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation by the media agents and prosecutors and that these judgments were all or reasonable so it's we don't there's a big analysis that was done lots of injuries 500 pages that's the same conclusion the same representation you made say but don't be frustrated on interested in that this is about promoting a narrative so we know of course mr. struck that the president the intelligence community's unequivocally conclude that Russia interfered in our elections that it was directed by Vladimir Putin and for the purposes of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton isn't that correct yes sir do you have any reason to a doubt the assessment of our intelligence agencies that may have made with high confidence no sir and thereafter the Senate Intelligence Committee in a bipartisan way a Republican LED committee came to the same conclusion isn't that right yes sir and yet the President of the United States and members of administration continued to deny that the Russian government interfered in our elections in fact just as recently as June 28th the president said Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with meddling in our elections yes sir and even secretary nielsen said I do not believe that I've seen that conclusion that the specific intent was to help president Trump win I don't recall hearing that good and in addition to that you know about a Trump Tower meeting where there was a discussion between members of the Trump campaign and Russian operatives correct I am aware of that and the president sorry I would just I would not characterize it one way or the other is Russian operatives or not but I'm aware of him okay and in that meeting there was a discussion about some dirt that the Russians had on Hillary Clinton correct media reporting has indicated that and the president then issued a statement in which he lied about that meeting and said it was about an adoption discussion correct those statements have been made again I'm relying on what's been reported in the media not FBI or Special Counsel would you tell me mr. striking the time that I have remaining what should we conclude what what what raises eyebrows few about members of a presidential campaign meeting with a foreign aversive the United States to talk about dirt from from their opponent and then lying about the nature of that meeting what what should we why should that concern the American people sir I don't want to I don't want to comment on any specific fact pattern or anything that relates to an ongoing investigation you know I so I I hesitate and I don't want to do that in this context okay thank you mister mr. chairman I just like to know for the record we've had zero hearings on Russian interference in the American presidential election zero hearings in this committee about our efforts to secure our democracy and secure the elections coming up in November we've had hundreds of hours devoted to Hillary Clinton's email this committee has failed in its responsibilities to secure our elections which is a responsible we have to the American people and then when we finally have an opportunity to raise the issue instead we're gonna talk about Hillary Clinton's email shame of the gentleman who very harshly for this behavior I reckon when I you the gentleman from Florida mr. DeSantis for five minutes Thank You mr. chairman mr. struck you've defended your actions said that you did not events bias that your actions were motivated by bias but the Inspector General disagreed when he asked you about the insurance policy text the will stop at text you provided an explanation similar that you did today and he found your explanation to be unpersuasive and you you are aware of that correct I'm not aware of that with regard to that text well he did he testified when we had him in here on June in response to my questioning he also said that your explanation for how you handled the Anthony Weiner laptop you delayed you didn't take action initially um he said your your explanation for that and he did note that in the report was not persuasive you're aware of that correct sir I'm aware of fax rebutting that that he has rebutting that specific assertion well he testified to us that he was not persuaded by your explanation for why you focused on the Trump Russia collusion and you let the Weiner thing sit and then he testified in front of our committee that it was reasonable to infer that your actions involving weiners laptop the fact that you didn't pursue that aggressively that it is reasonable to infer that it was because of the bias that you events in those text messages are you aware of his testimony with that not specific to that but I'll accept your representation yes and I think it's important to show while the IG report said the Clinton charging decision was not necessarily due to bias he said that the Weiner is absolutely a fair game to infer that and then they're obviously continuing to investigate the genesis of this Russia interference case do you also know that rod Rosenstein on June 28th when he testified in front of this committee he said you were biased are you aware of that I'm in response to my questions yes he did and he also says that the bias that you events it does undermine the integrity of your investigative actions and it causes the American people lose confidence in the institution do you know he said that I don't and he's well he did so I just the idea that there's no bias here is not I don't think your explanations have been credible and I think that if you acted so inappropriately you know Muller removed you from the team you're now at human resource which is obviously a demotion and then you are now the subbed one of the subjects of an ongoing IG investigation correct no sir you're not your conduct is not being reviewed by by Horowitz about what you did or did not do it aware of being a subject of any ongoing Wow I get you your conduct as at issue there let me ask you this you opened up the counterintelligence investigation on 31 July was that because of the George papadopolis information sir I can't get into the the guidance that the FBI has provided me about answers I can provide that gets into a level of detail that I can't well that I've been directed now the answered some questions I mean I think this has been a little bit of convenience I mean you've answered some questions about there was grave concerns and all this stuff about why you were doing it you didn't do that the dossier was the dossier a part of why you opened up the investigation no but sir none of this has been convenience all of cases based on what the department has worked out with chairman Goodlatte about what is permitted not per se not a function because the dossier was not part of it that's important when did you learn that dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party I cannot I don't think that's an accurate representation in the department or the FBI's directed me not to answer that question based on right so Hillary DNC sent a perkins cuy who sent a fusion who paid you know I mean come on medical document I the latter's closer I'm not comment I has directed me to not answer that good the dossier was what would you choose is it is it a political document opposition research or is it legitimate intelligence sir I I would very much like to answer that question okay I've been directed by the FBI that I may not get into that based on operational requirements or equities so here's the issue I think we have we see the bias that you did your explanations for why you said what you did you know really aren't credible we're trying to get to the genesis of why open up a counterintelligence investigation against the opposing parties campaign I'm with you about focusing on Russia and holding them accountable but you tried to rope in the other party's nominee there was also also a lot of bias and then we can't get any answer to the questions of what the genesis of any of this was CN Lemmy's finish may 18th chairman Gowdy mentioned you say look there my concerns that there's no big there there so this had been going on for at least ten months I think it was going on before July 31st and there you are Muller's appointed and you can't even identify any reason to suspect that there was collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia there was no big there there after ten months so that's the concern is that somebody like you who said we'll stop him who said we need an insurance policy that you let that bias you wanted there to be something there you wanted it to be true in that I think influence your actions you can prove us wrong by providing us the information I'd like the information on any type of informants a pre July 31st I like the information on what you use to open up the counterintelligence investigate I want to know whether that was any foreign intelligence involved there was whether it was funneled through the State Department these are all questions that if we just put those out and answer them then a lot of us would be able to then make make I think American people can make a judgment I'm going over my time I yield back mr. chairman has expired Russian briefly sir two things you asked why I couldn't explain why a case would be open I don't think that's accurate if you look at director Comey statement when the Department of Justice had authorized him to say that the FBI had opened a case into allegations that the Government of Russia had made an offer of assistance in the potential involvement of members of the Trump campaign I cannot envision the scenario where that would not be a reasonable predication to open an investigation appleís that's not quite what they what they had he didn't quite get there I know come he may have said that but you didn't quite get there so if it's a Papadopoulos that's a week I think the characterization was that it was a credible source of information stands on its own I don't think anybody in this committee would argue that one it wasn't appropriate talk open that and to that it wasn't absolutely we have predictions about whether it was appropriate because we don't know the underlying information and we read in The New York Times from leaks that it was jus because Papadopoulos said at a bar I'm a the gentleman has expired the reason I'm to respond regular order regular order and it's chair recognizes there's a gentleman mr. chairman there is I was not there's the second element of a question to do very no I you raised the question about whether or not I agreed with the inspector general that I had acted in any way that was biased you you may have had an opportunity answer that or gentleman from Illinois mr. Krishnamoorthy is recognized for five minutes Thank You mr. chair Thank You mr. struck mr. stroke on July 3rd your lawyer mr. Goldman made the following statement to Chris Cuomo on CNN regarding you his client on Fox News they talk about him as the center of this anti Trump cabal that was determined to throw the election against Trump none of this has a shred of truth do you agree with this statement sir I do and in a June 19th op-ed in USA Today your lawyer said regarding the Russia investigation what we call the Russia collusion 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 sir yes now tell us why it's so important to prevent leaks from the FBI to journalists or to others leaks are terrible they they undercut things in a variety of ways they can upend investigations they can lead to incorrect assumptions they can let witnesses subjects know that they're being investigated they can lead the wild speculation destruction of evidence any number really bad just disclosure of classified information any number of really bad adverse things got it the DOJ AG's report has this to say about your involvement in the decision to inform Congress about the Weiner laptop quote-unquote struck explained that the decision to seek a search warrant for the Weiner laptop was known to many people beyond the mid year team and this raised a concern that this information could leak is this statement from the IG report true yes now could you unpack that for us a little bit first you said according to the IGS report that the search warrant for the wiener laptop was known to many people beyond the mid-year team could you explain whether any of those people would be in the New York field office so the investment my recollection is that the investigation of the crimes against Rowland case mr. Wiener was handled out of the New York field office by the Southern Miss New York or maybe the Eastern District I think it was st and why and so the people to whom you are referring included people in the New York field office correct that's correct and you had concerns about their actions if director Comey did not inform Congress about this weiner laptop I did not have concerns about New York my concerns were were just general that the more people who are aware of something the greater chance that it leaks out somehow but those concerns were not specific in my mind to New York okay let me ask you about this in a report in that same report Attorney General Loretta Lynch recalls a conversation with then director Comey in the final days of the 2016 election quote-unquote he referring to Comey said it's clear to me that there's a cadre of senior people in New York who have a deep and misro hatred of see Secretary Clinton and he said it is quote unquote deep were you aware of this of this concern I was aware of the certainly some of the press reporting and some people expressing their concern yes was one of those people I director Comey a person having that concern yes yes can you explain to me a little bit about that and how that in your view affected the revelation of the warrant for weiners laptop I you'd have to ask director Comey that I think the there there was discussion I remember and particularly some of it was in the context of reporting from mr. Giuliani and others talking about connections to New York but again I don't 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 those concerns but I was not privy to discussions he had with the Attorney General or other other concerns you might have had outside of my presence or conversation now with regard to mr. Giuliani on October 25th then Trump campaign advisor Rudy Giuliani promised a quote unquote pretty big surprise coming up in the campaign on October 28th Giuliani claimed to be in contact with former agents and a quote unquote few active agents who obviously don't want to identify themselves let me make sure I have this right there was a concern that there is a deep and visceral hatred toward Secretary Clinton in the New York field office at the same time mr. Giuliani says that he's having contacts with agents active agents what is can you give us your take on this and your comments on this particular issue I recall that comment I recall it caused me a lot of concern I you know and why why did it cause you concern because well it's certainly possible that mr. Giuliani is exaggerating or engaging in some sort of puffery the reality is that also given the things that were going on giving timing that the laptop was there and he was talking about that in the context of a big surprise it caused me great concern that he had information about that and nothing were did not have had that he should not have had correct through a leak through an unauthorized disclosure sure leak yes thank you sir the members are advised that there are floor votes on the floor of the house for votes mr. struck you probably have a good 45 minutes to all right members are advised that this will be the last one so if you want to head to the floor for votes but the chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky mr. Massey mr. Chairman I yield my five minutes to the gentleman from Ohio mr. Jordan sir I came here just a couple questions aegeon struck in earlier round you said you never talked to Glenn Simpson and the right correct and you never talked to Nellie or correct and you wouldn't say whether you knew if Nellie or worked for fusion my understanding from my direction above the FBI's I'm not permitted to answer that question okay but you did say you talked with Bruce or fellow Department of Justice employee and Nellie or some husband but it is common knowledge that Nellie or worked for fusion in the summer of 2016 is that right I don't know if it's common knowledge or not it's been in all kinds of report it is now pensions absolutely press reports all right you met with Bruce or in 2016 and 2017 so the time very that we're focused on to the best of my recollection yes all right and you won't tell me what you guys talked about sir I can tell you we talked about operational matters that he was involved in but the FBI's directed me not to give you not to get into specifics and details did Bruce or give you any documents sir same answer it's I would like to answer that question but the FBI's directed me not to get into you can't my understanding is mr. chairman the discussions we've had with the FBI he's allowed to tell us those kind of pieces of information I'm not asking what the documents were I'm just asking did Bruce or ever hand you documents I understand full well what your question is sir and I would love to answer it my understanding from the FBI is when it comes to operational details including whether or not we collected evidence or didn't that I'm not permitted to answer that I would sir I would love to answer that question all the use I mean you understand where I'm where I'm coming from right agent strike sir I understand your frustration and and what I'm here to tell you is I think the answers would you understand easy yeah you understand we got an email from you brief and everybody on the team all the key players rebecky baker page maava pree step and andy mccabe and in that email you say the dossier that you are now looking at the BuzzFeed is printing has differences from the one given to us by Korn and Simpson earlier today I asked you who Korn and Simpson is you wouldn't answer that it's kind of funny to me because yesterday David corn tweeted out he's the corn in your email so the guy himself's identified himself we all know it's David corn and then the other name is Simpson so you you have this and we're wondering how the dossier got to or if more importantly if the dossier got to the FBI through media sources not just through Christopher steel and of course we know Nellie or worked for the guy you're mentioning Glenn Simpson she worked for him the whole time you've never had conversations with her but you did have a lot of important conversations on operational matters and ongoing investigations with her husband Bruce or whose also happened to be reassigned at the Department of Justice and I'm just one and you've said that well you won't answer the question whether mr. Orr has given you documents or not so I'm just wondering if that was the route was that the route the dossier went Glenn Simpson Tinelli or to her husband and then to you sir I asked my frustration I understand your question I understand your frustration I understand the absurdity of something produced that you're reading that I've been directed not to answer questions about the best I can more importantly like to answer you and I'm afraid to it's an answer that would both reassure you and disappoint you well we're gonna be asking I think mr. chairman it's okay with you we're going to be asking the FBI and the Department of Justice to give us those documents that may or may not have been exchanged between mr. Orr and agent struck I think that's something this committee would like to have and see what those uh if in fact there were documents what the heck they were I got a minute I'll you know sir you're gonna love this and it's going to upset the vote I have been instructed that the FBI is now told me that I can answer questions about the receipt of the documents so I will defer miss Perriman if you would like to well how can you add or thank you both gentlemen may proceed with his questions and you may answer before May I Mac confer with counsel briefly to see if this is completely unbounded or if there are any limitations on what am I say well I've got a lot of questions I've asked all day long that let's ask the one you've been told you can answer all right so let's hear the answer to this one which question sir the one that's on the table about the documents sir the documents we received from a different source in the initial batch in mid-september everybody no no no I understand it you said you got go back did you get documents from Bruce or yes at some point we received material from mr. you got documents from Bruce or and what were those documents we received documents from mr. or not me excuse me sir I can maybe make it simpler pages truck was it the dossier sir what I am authorized to tell you in response to a question did you receive any documents from Bruce or the FBI has directed me that I may say I did not eat not me the FBI received documents in material from mr. Orr did you I appreciate that I appreciate that but you did not from mr. Orr no okay but the FBI did get documents from Bruce or yes sir did they get the dossier from Bruce or my direction from the FBI is I may tell you the FBI received material from this this is amazing this is amazing so I'm a Leo ah rated as you are Nelly or works for fusion works for Glenn Simpson and she's giving documents regular orders let us bring a director of the FBI to answer those questions a gentleman cannot answer well you asked and answered you're a competing stand answer cannot answer the general map director you know the regular order in understand mr. chairman regular order the FBI has now instructed mr. struck that he can answer additional questions and he and mr. agent struck time to get the answers to those questions the FBI approved has the FBI also given you permission to say if Glenn Simpson is the name that you use when in the email where you say Simpson I don't believe they have given me guidance my most recent understanding of my guidance from the FBI is to in response to the question of whether the FBI received documents from as the effort or the answer is that yes we did as the FBI given you information to tell me whether you knew Nelly or worked for fusion at the time you were meeting with her husband sir to my knowledge the FBI has not directed me to or allow 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
