Peter Strozk testimony at House committee hearing resumes as FBI agent faces more questions

[0:00] March 4th, 2016. [0:04] You want me to read this? [0:05] Yes, please. [0:05] Yes, sir. OMG, he's an idiot. [0:08] May 4th, 2016. [0:10] Now the pressure really starts to finish M.Y.E. [0:13] July 19th, 2016. [0:16] Hi, how was Trump other than a douche? Melania? [0:20] July 21st, 2016. [0:23] Trump is a disaster. I have no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be. [0:28] August 6th, 2016. [0:30] I don't believe I wrote this text, sir. [0:31] Okay, it's been attributed to you, so we'll go on to the next. [0:35] August 8th, 2016. [0:37] And I'll preface it by saying this for context. [0:41] Ms. Page said, not ever going to become president, right? Right? [0:47] No, no, he's not. We'll stop it. [0:50] Repeat that again. [0:51] No, no, he's not. We'll stop it. [0:53] August 15th, 2016. [0:56] I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office, [1:00] that there's no way he gets elected, but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. [1:04] It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40. [1:08] On October 20th, 2016. [1:11] I can't pull away what the, and I defer to the chairman whether or not... [1:15] You can just use one letter if you don't mind. [1:17] Why the F, what the F happened to our country, Lise? [1:20] Okay, read it again that way. [1:22] Sir, did you not, was it not intelligible? [1:24] I just want to hear it one more time. [1:25] You just want to hear it for me to repeat it? [1:27] Please. [1:27] Okay, sir. Sure. Happy to indulge you. [1:30] I can't pull away what the F happened to our country, Lise. [1:37] Why in the world do you believe that this committee should not ask for the record of similar text [1:45] from your private account to find out what else you might have said about insurance policies [1:51] or about the president of the United States or investigation? [1:54] That is a rhetorical question. You need not answer, and I yield back. [1:58] Mr. Chairman, may I nonetheless answer? [2:00] You may respond briefly, even though he said it was a rhetorical question. [2:03] I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. [2:05] Congressman, what I think is critical, and I'm glad you brought up a lot of these, [2:08] because I would like to make the point that... [2:10] I didn't bring them up. I just asked you to read your own words. [2:12] If I may, what is important is that these texts represent personal beliefs just like those [2:19] that you'd find on my personal phone. What these texts do not represent is any act, [2:24] any suggestion of an act, any consideration that we need to do this or not do this. [2:29] And furthermore, I would encourage you, as I believe I forget who I said this to earlier this morning, [2:36] you need to read these texts in the context of what was going on at the time. [2:40] So when I make the comment about Trump having no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be, [2:45] that came on the heels of a speech where then-candidate Trump said he didn't know whether or not [2:50] the United States should honor its commitment to mutual defense under NATO. [2:54] I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. That's not briefly. [2:59] Mr. Chairman, in light of these actual... [3:03] No, no, no, no, no, no. [3:03] Give him that opportunity. [3:04] Everyone will suspend. I told the gentleman he could answer briefly. [3:09] He has answered briefly. [3:10] He has not finished answering. [3:11] We will now turn to the gentlewoman from Washington, D.C., for her questions. [3:19] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [3:21] In order to allow this witness to continue, let me ask, [3:26] let me ask a question. [3:29] Mr. Stork, you are a senior or were a senior and experienced FBI staff person. [3:40] Is that not right? [3:41] I would consider myself a senior and experienced FBI staff person, yes. [3:45] Now, you had been involved in the Mueller investigation of the last election [3:52] involving Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump at the highest level. [4:01] Is that not the case? [4:03] If you mean by highest level that I had interactions with those cases with the director [4:08] and deputy director and senior staff of the Department of Justice, yes. [4:11] That's what I mean. [4:12] Now, we've been reading from your personal phone and your official phone. [4:24] Did it occur to you that your personal political messages, if they became public, [4:34] might be misinterpreted in light of your role in the investigation? [4:40] Congresswoman, to be very honest, I didn't anticipate that because I never thought these texts would [4:45] become public. [4:46] Well, even though they were, some of them were not on your personal phone. [4:50] Oh, correct. [4:51] Yes, that's correct. [4:53] So that means anything that's on your official phone, of course, belongs to the public. [5:00] So, I just want to establish that this confusion between your public and private phone is part [5:10] of our problem here today. [5:13] Now, as we hold this hearing, I just want to note for the record that President Trump is [5:21] on his way to a very controversial meeting with Vladimir Putin. [5:28] Let me ask you, sir, about a undisputed finding of the Intelligence Committee. [5:40] And by that, I mean the CIA, the NSA, the FBI. [5:45] These people do not usually speak in such absolute terms. [5:51] So, hear them. [5:51] We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at [6:01] the U.S. presidential election. [6:03] Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary [6:09] Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. [6:14] We further assess Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for [6:20] President-elect Trump. [6:22] Now, President-elect Trump, we have a high confidence in these judgments. [6:27] Are these conclusions familiar to you, sir? [6:30] They are. [6:30] Are you aware of any finding that undermines these conclusions of the three intelligence committees? [6:42] I am not. [6:43] The Senate committee on the other side of the Capitol, under the leadership of a Republican [6:53] chairman, Richard Burr, and not split in the way our own Intelligence Committee here in [7:00] the House has made a bipartisan finding affirming the Intelligence Committee's assessments. [7:08] And I want to quote just briefly from them that the three committees, the Intelligence Commission [7:18] assessment is a, quote, sound intelligence product. [7:23] Now, let me indicate something that I had not known before preparing for this hearing, that [7:30] they not only cited the usual context here in the United States, they quoted public Russian [7:39] leadership commentary, Russian media reports, all aligned with the body of our intelligence reporting. [7:50] Were you aware of the confluence of what the Russians were saying and what our own intelligence sources [8:01] are saying? [8:02] I believe I understand your question to be the, between the intelligence community sources [8:07] and methods and open source reporting, including those from Russia, yes, I was aware of the, [8:12] all those things that coming together at the same time. [8:14] Do you have any reason to believe that the Senate Intelligence Committee, or the NSA, or the CIA, [8:22] or the FBI, or the Office of the Division of Intelligence are on some kind of a, of an effort [8:32] to discredit President Donald Trump? [8:34] The general lady's time has expired, but you may answer the question. [8:37] No, not at all. [8:38] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [8:40] The general lady from the District of Columbia, the gentleman from Ohio is recognized. [8:43] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [8:44] Mr. Strzok, you were involved in investigating both the matter of Hillary Clinton's private [8:49] e-mail server and the so-called Russian collusion matter. [8:53] Is that correct? [8:54] That's correct. [8:55] And Ms. Page was also involved in both of those. [8:58] Is that correct? [8:59] She was not a member of the investigative team for either. [9:02] She was a senior staff member for Mr. McCabe, who I believe began. [9:08] But somebody you were communicating with on a fairly regular basis on these matters. [9:11] Yes, sir. [9:12] Thank you. [9:13] And you would agree, would you not, that both investigations were supposed to be fair [9:17] and unbiased? [9:18] Yes, and that they were. [9:19] Yet, you were both rooting for Hillary Clinton to win, and you both detested Donald Trump. [9:26] Did you not? [9:27] I think that's fair to say. [9:28] And in fact, as we've learned, you apparently found Donald Trump supporters detestable, too, [9:34] like those around Loudoun, Virginia, as we've already heard, whom you called ignorant blanks. [9:39] I'm not going to say that here. [9:42] And that you had visited a Southern Virginia Walmart and could smell the Trump support. [9:48] Now, I have to say, when I read those communications and when I hear them here, those between the two [9:54] of you, specifically what you had to say about Trump supporters, it reminded me of something [9:59] that Hillary Clinton had said about Trump supporters. [10:02] She found them, what did she call them, deplorables. [10:06] And I would submit that it was your and Hillary Clinton's smug view of Donald Trump's supporters [10:14] that was truly deportable. [10:16] Don't you think that the American people, when they're paying your salaries, when they're [10:21] paying for a fair and unbiased investigation by none other than the FBI, deserved a whole [10:26] lot better than what those comments I just referred to reflect? [10:31] Congressman, two things. [10:32] One, I absolutely regret the appearance of some of those texts and wish I would have said [10:37] or phrased or not said at all some of the things I did. [10:40] Two, I disagree completely with your attribution of my views of Trump supporters. [10:46] I never said that. [10:47] I expressed no such thing. [10:49] There are millions and millions and millions of Americans who I deeply respect and honor [10:53] who voted for Mr. Trump. [10:54] Let me reclaim my time here. [10:55] But I just want to correct a mistake. [10:56] Also, interestingly, you told Ms. Page, and I'll quote here, I loathe Congress. [11:01] And she agreed. [11:02] Now, you're probably in pretty good company there. [11:05] A survey I saw a while back about Congress found us less popular than root canals and head [11:10] lice and colonoscopies. [11:12] Although we did beat out playground bullies and the Ebola virus. [11:17] But this is not about us. [11:19] It's about you and whether or not the American people can have the confidence in the investigations [11:25] that you were involved in and whether you were fair and unbiased when you investigated both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. [11:32] Would you agree with that? [11:33] Sir, I appreciate that concern very much. [11:35] And let me explain a little bit about that comment. [11:37] I have the utmost respect for Congress for its role in oversight for its role in passing laws for any of the functions. [11:44] What I was stating in that comment was the efforts by some to turn legitimate oversight activity into unwarranted. [11:52] We appreciate it. [11:53] There's a lot of us up here. [11:54] There's a lot of us up here. [11:55] There's a lot of us up here. [11:56] There's a lot of us up here that don't like Congress particularly, too. [12:00] So I would, there's probably a lot of the American people, the vast majority would agree with you on that. [12:05] Mr. Strzok, you were removed from the Mueller investigation, correct? [12:10] Yes. [12:11] But for the most part, all the others that were there are still there, correct? [12:16] I can't speak to the current staff. [12:19] Well, let me tell you who they are. [12:21] Greg Andrews, who gave $1,000 to the Democrat running to hold the Senate seat previously held by Barack Obama. [12:28] And $2,600 to Democrat Senator Gillibrand and zero to the Trump campaign. [12:33] He's still there. [12:34] And Rush Atkinson, who donated to the Clinton campaign and zero to the Trump campaign. [12:38] He's still there. [12:39] And Kayleigh Freeney, who contributed to both the Obama presidential campaigns and Hillary Clinton's campaign and zero to the Trump campaign. [12:47] Still there. [12:48] And James Quarles, who contributed to the Democratic presidential campaigns of Dukakis and Gore and Kerry and Obama and Hillary Clinton. [12:55] Now, he did contribute to former Congressman Chaffetz and Allen, but he contributed $20,000 to the Democratic and Senate campaign committees and zero to the Trump campaigns. [13:04] I could go on, but I'm just about to run out of time. [13:11] Suffice it to say that nine of the 16 investigators still on the case gave to Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or to both, and none gave to Trump. [13:18] Now, shouldn't such a wide disparity in political support of one party over the other give the American people concern that even though you are off the Mueller team, [13:25] that the fairness and lack of bias that President Trump deserves and the fairness and lack of bias that President Trump deserves and the American people deserve just might be lacking here? [13:32] The gentleman is out of time, but the witness may answer the question. [13:37] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [13:38] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [13:39] Sir, what I'd tell you is this, and what I'd ask you to tell your constituents is this. [13:44] I have and had no idea what contributions were made by anybody staffing the special counsel's office. [13:51] What I can tell you and what I'd ask you to relay to your constituents is the men and women that I saw, who are off the Mueller team, who are off the Mueller team, who are off the Mueller team, that the fairness and lack of bias that President Trump deserves and the American people deserve just might be lacking here. [13:59] The gentleman is out of time, but the witness may answer the question. [14:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [14:04] Sir, what I'd tell you is this, and what I'd ask you to tell your constituents is this. [14:08] I have and had no idea what contributions were made by anybody staffing the special counsel's office. [14:13] Is the men and women that I saw, the attorneys, the agents, the analysts, were the most remarkable, bright, patriotic, hardworking people that I've ever had the honor of working with. [14:25] I want you to know, and whether people leave here believing me or not, I was absolutely and remained absolutely convinced that the efforts and the personnel who make up the offices of the special counsel are the best in America. [14:39] And I have complete faith and confidence that they will arrive at the truth and that they will do that well. [14:44] The gentleman from Ohio yields back. [14:46] The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized. [14:48] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [14:49] Mr. I don't know where to start. [14:52] If I could give you a Purple Heart, I would. [14:55] You deserve one. [14:57] This has been an attack on you in a way to attack Mr. Mueller and the investigation that is to get at Russia collusion involved in our election, which is what this committee should be looking at. [15:09] 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 competitor, our foe. [15:22] 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. [15:41] They tried to use assassination to try to influence the elections in Montenegro, what they have done in Ukraine with Crimea and the Donbass, what they have done in Georgia, what they have done in Moldova. [15:51] They are the bad guys. [15:53] And you have dedicated most of your life to working in counterintelligence. [15:57] One of your big cases, I think, was Donald Heathfield and Tracy Ann Foley. [16:01] Is that correct? [16:02] Yes, sir. [16:03] How many Russian folks did you expose and bring to justice? [16:08] That was a long, large investigation that a tremendous number of extraordinary people worked on. [16:14] There were ultimately, I believe, 10 roughly Russian illegals that were here, but that I started out in the early days and was honored to start out. [16:21] And again, that ran a decade. [16:23] And how many Russians were deported for that? [16:26] If memory serves, 10 or 11, but I'm not certain on that number. [16:29] Pretty good case that you worked on it. [16:31] Good job. [16:32] Did you work on Russia primarily when you were at the FBI in that area? [16:36] At that period, early on, yes. [16:38] 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? [16:49] Sir, I can speak to my experience as a national security professional in the FBI. [16:54] The Russians are a 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. [17:08] Their desire, the threat from NATO, trying to undermine the Western alliance, trying to minimize the role and influence and leadership of the United States around the world, attempting to minimize and undermine the extraordinary greatness of our democracy to make it seem pedestrian and nothing special and on par with their kleptocracy and near-dictatorship that they have to somehow make us seem less. [17:32] But that's my intelligence perspective. [17:38] I wouldn't presume to get into a foreign policy. [17:40] They engage occasionally in assassination? [17:41] They do. [17:42] Political rivals? [17:43] Yes. [17:44] An arrest of journalists for maybe talking and writing about things that the state doesn't believe in? [17:49] Yes. [17:50] It's not America. [17:51] Not at all. [17:52] Well, that's unfortunately what the Mueller investigation is looking into is Russian collusion to influence our election and to influence our politics. [18:00] 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. [18:11] I thank you for that. [18:12] It's astonishing to me that you would be put on trial as you have today. [18:15] At the beginning 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 in questions on the front page. [18:31] 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, [18:42] that there was no bias involved in the actions of you or others that were investigated. [18:47] There was found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations. [18:54] Rather, we determined they were based on the prosecutor's assessment of the facts, the law and past department practice. [18:59] With that as a fact, there's no reason for this hearing. [19:02] No reason at all. [19:03] But it puts it on the front page again and again and again. [19:07] And as you said earlier, the Russians are loving it because this is what they want. [19:12] This is what they want. [19:13] This is what they want. [19:14] You'd think it was Benghazi. [19:15] It was a never-ending television show from Congress that got nowhere except tried to influence the people that watch Fox News. [19:24] And that's what this is about. [19:25] And this is really unfortunate. [19:27] And as they say, you could put lipstick on a pig, but this is nothing but a ruse to try to get to the Mueller 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. [19:41] And they're biased because they just as Jack Nicholson said in the movie, a few good men, you can't handle the truth. [19:53] And the truth is, this is the most corrupt administration ever and it's going to be exposed by Robert Mueller. [19:58] Thank God. [19:59] I yield back and I thank you. [20:00] The gentleman from Tennessee yields back. [20:02] The gentleman from Ohio is recognized. [20:04] It's Jordan. [20:05] Thank you. [20:06] Thank you, Chairman. [20:07] Agent Strzok, did you provide any information to reporters, journalists, or media personalities about anything related to Trump-Russia investigation in 2016, 17, or 18? [20:16] No. [20:17] Did the press ever talk to you, Agent Strzok, about this issue? [20:23] Did they ever come to you? [20:24] The Trump-Russia collusion investigation? [20:28] No, sir. [20:29] Did the press ever come to you? [20:30] No, sir. [20:31] I'm asking first, did you talk to them? [20:32] I'm asking now, did they ever come to you about anything related to Trump-Russia investigation in 2016, 2017, or 2018? [20:38] I received a number of calls from various members of the media, particularly when I returned from the Office of Special Counsel. [20:47] Prior to going on the special counsel team, did you get any inquiries from the press that you took? [20:51] Not that I took. [20:52] I referred them to the Office of Public Affairs of the FBI. [20:55] Have you read the dossier? [20:56] I have. [20:57] Okay. [20:58] And you wrote about it, too, didn't you? [20:59] I don't know what you mean by writing about it. [21:02] We got an e-mail that you sent. [21:03] It should be presented there, or it should be in front of you there. [21:05] I want you to take a look at this. [21:06] This is an e-mail you wrote to Lisa Page, Bill Priestap, Jim Baker, Jim Rubicke, and CC Danny McCabe. [21:12] The subject line is, BuzzFeed is about to publish the dossier. [21:15] You familiar with this e-mail? [21:16] I am. [21:17] All right. [21:19] It says this. [21:20] Comparing now, the set is only identical to what McCain had. [21:25] Parentheses, it has differences from what was given to us by Korn and Simpson. [21:30] Did you write all that? [21:32] Congressman, let me answer it this way. [21:36] First, if I could address the chairman. [21:39] Over the break, I was authorized by the general counsel. [21:42] Hang on a second. [21:43] I just wanted my time stop if you could. [21:45] Are you addressing me or the chairman? [21:46] I'd like to address the chairman, because this is all going to come together in an answer. [21:51] Is there a question you want to direct me? [21:53] No, it's something. [21:54] I wanted to answer your question from earlier based on something I've been told by the FBI. [21:57] Wait, wait, wait. [21:58] I think I'm aware of what the FBI told you, and you and I will have another chance to talk about that. [22:03] But right now, the gentleman from Ohio controls the time. [22:06] You wrote this. [22:07] That was the question. [22:09] Wait, wait, wait. [22:10] Do you see the from line? [22:13] Do you see the from line? [22:14] Congressman, I do. [22:15] It says Peter Strzok. [22:16] And then it says to Lisa Page and a whole bunch of other key people at the FBI. [22:20] So did you write it? [22:21] I did write this. [22:22] All right. [22:23] Let me ask you a couple questions about it. [22:24] It has differences from what was given to us by Korn and Simpson. [22:26] Who's Korn? [22:27] Sir, to answer that question, and I would love to answer that question, and every part of [22:37] me, and you know why I'd want to answer that question, because you have this information. [22:40] Who's Simpson? [22:41] I have been, sir, if I may. [22:42] I cannot answer that question. [22:44] You wrote about it. [22:45] It's now public. [22:46] Who's Korn? [22:47] Who's Simpson? [22:48] Based on direction by the FBI, sir, I am not able to answer questions about ongoing investigative matters. [22:54] I just want to figure this out. [22:55] I want to figure this out, Agent Strzok. [22:57] You're referencing three copies of the dossier. [23:00] The BuzzFeed copy you have, the one John McCain's staff gave to you, and the one that you said you got from Korn and Simpson. [23:08] The one McCain gave to you and the one BuzzFeed has are identical in your words, but the Korn and Simpson one is different. [23:16] This is kind of important. [23:18] It is important, and I want to answer your question. [23:21] And here's the position that I'm in, Congressman. [23:24] I have been directed. [23:25] Let me ask you this. [23:26] Did you ever talk to him? [23:27] May I answer your question? [23:28] Mr. Chairman, may the witness be permitted to answer the question? [23:31] Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jordan repeatedly asked the question, doesn't let him answer it. [23:36] The gentleman from Ohio controls time. [23:38] I have been directed that I may state that I have read the dossier, that I read the dossier as it came in in parts and pieces. [23:51] You've already told me you read it. [23:53] I want to know who Korn and Simpson are. [23:55] And, sir, what I'm telling you is that I have been directed, I may not state, the various places where the FBI received that information. [24:01] Okay, let me ask you this. [24:02] I got that. [24:03] I know what you're saying. [24:04] I know what you're saying. [24:05] Did you ever communicate with David Korn? [24:06] No. [24:07] Did you ever communicate with Glenn Simpson? [24:09] No. [24:11] Did you ever communicate with Nellie Orr? [24:13] No. [24:14] Did you ever communicate with Bruce Orr? [24:15] Yes. [24:16] When did you communicate with Bruce Orr? [24:18] My recollection is somewhere between three, possibly three or four or five times in the late 2016, early 2017 timeframe. [24:28] What did you talk about? [24:29] We talked about investigative matters that Mr. Orr was involved in. [24:32] Did you talk about the investigation we're focused on here, Agent Strzok? [24:38] My direction from the FBI is that I may not answer that question. [24:45] I got it. [24:46] Let's go back to the email that you sent that you won't talk about. [24:49] Are there three copies of the dossier as evidenced by what you said in this email? [24:52] Sir, to be clear, I want to talk about this email. [24:55] I want nothing more than to answer your question because it would leave you sadly disappointed. [24:58] You can say that all you want, but you're not talking about it. [24:59] You're not answering my questions. [25:00] Are there three copies? [25:02] Three copies of what? [25:03] The McCain copy, the Buzzfeed copy, and the one that you got from Korn and Simpson. [25:06] Sir, the most I can say is we received a variety of copies of and different types of reports from Steve. [25:11] Let me ask you one other question. [25:13] Let me ask you one other question. [25:15] Glenn Simpson testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on August 22, 2017. [25:20] He was asked, did anyone from Fusion ever communicate with the FBI? [25:26] His response, no. [25:28] No one from Fusion ever spoke with the FBI. [25:31] So here's what I'm having trouble understanding. [25:33] If Glenn Simpson says no one ever spoke with the FBI, how is it that you got a copy of the dossier from Simpson? [25:40] Sir, I can tell you I never had contact with Fusion, with Mr. Simpson, with Mr. Korn. [25:49] And again, sir. [25:50] Chairman, regular order. [25:51] The gentleman will have a few more seconds since he was interrupted. [25:58] Well, I mean, this is the frustration that every single member of this committee feels is when, when Agent Strzok won't answer. [26:07] Well, more importantly, the American people feel when Agent Strzok won't answer fundamental questions like the guy he references in an email, Korn and Simpson, and won't tell me who they are. [26:16] This is unbelievable. [26:17] But that's where it's gotten to now. [26:19] And it's, it's as frustrating as it can get, Mr. Chairman. [26:22] I yield back. [26:23] Mr. Chairman, may I respond? [26:24] Briefly. [26:26] Sir, it is as frustrating to me as it is to you. [26:29] I can tell you, sir, that I would love. [26:31] You know what? [26:32] Agent Strzok. [26:33] Mr. Chairman, may the witness be permitted to answer. [26:36] If it's so frustrating, answer the question. [26:41] If you'll allow him to, I'm sure he will. [26:43] He has never answered the question. [26:45] Stop interrupting him. [26:46] We're about. [26:47] The gentleman, instruct the gentleman from Ohio to stop badgering and around to answer the question. [26:53] We're about to move on. [26:54] The gentleman from Ohio's time has expired. [26:56] And we're about to move on where Mr. Strzok can answer a question that he refused to answer earlier on advice of counsel. [27:04] And I'm going to yield to Mr. Gowdy for the purpose of doing that right now. [27:10] Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Gowdy starts, may I respond to Mr. Jordan? [27:13] Very briefly. [27:14] Very briefly, sir. [27:15] I would love to do that. [27:17] There is an appropriate time for oversight. [27:19] And as you well know, that is at the end of an investigation once it's concluded. [27:23] I am certain Congress will absolutely have the opportunity to look at any investigation once it's closed, ask all these questions. [27:30] And I would love to answer each and every one of your questions. [27:33] Mr. Strzok, we already know that answer from you and you have already been advised that you can answer the questions here. [27:40] Because guess what? [27:41] This is the United States Congress where you're testifying, not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. [27:46] Mr. Chairman, we should not, we cannot be asking about an ongoing investigation that is sabotaging an ongoing investigation by this committee. [27:54] And that's what he's not cooperating with and we should not do it. [27:57] It is not. [27:58] And he cannot be cooperating with that. [27:59] It is not. [28:00] These questions are table setting questions regarding the formation of this and he can answer those questions. [28:05] He cannot answer questions regarding an ongoing investigation. [28:07] He's been advised by the FBI that he can and so Mr. Gowdy. [28:09] He's been advised by the FBI that he cannot. [28:11] No, he's been advised that he can and Mr. Gowdy is going to again ask his question. [28:15] A gentleman from Ohio has asked for 15 seconds. [28:18] So, Agent Strzok, who's being square here? [28:23] Glenn Simpson says no one from Fusion spoke with the FBI. [28:26] You say in your email, we got a copy of the dossier from Simpson. [28:31] Mr. Chairman, regular order. [28:33] We will have regular order and we'll revisit that question. [28:36] Now the chair recognizes a gentleman from South Carolina. [28:39] Agent Strzok, between July 31st, 2016 and August 6th. [28:47] Mr. Chairman, regular order. [28:49] This is regular order. [28:50] The gentleman refused to answer the question earlier. [28:53] He has now been advised and I have been advised by the FBI that he may answer the question that was in order earlier. [28:59] And he's now going to answer the question. [29:01] Mr. Chairman, Republicans have controlled the time. [29:04] Now the time goes to the Democrats. [29:06] The gentleman will be recognized shortly. [29:09] Agent Strzok, between July 31st, 2016 and August 6th, 2016, how many witness interviews did you conduct as part of the Russia-Trump campaign alleged collusion investigation? [29:25] I don't recall and I'd have to check the case file. [29:28] We waited all that time for that answer? [29:31] Yes, sir. [29:32] That's eerily similar to what you said a couple hours ago. [29:36] Sir, I am telling you and I would reject the characterization that I refuse to answer anything. [29:43] I want to answer these questions. [29:45] I'm going by the direction that I receive from the FBI. [29:47] Well, I just asked you one. [29:48] I just asked you one. [29:49] And I'm looking for a number. [29:50] Sir, and my answer is- [29:51] I'm looking for a number. [29:52] I do not know without the opportunity to check the case file. [29:57] 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? [30:10] Sir, I remember that there were interviews conducted. [30:13] I do not know when they fell on a calendar to be able to tell you whether they were in any set of date or the other on something that was occurring in the context of a myriad other responsibilities. [30:23] When's the last time you looked at the file, Agent Strzok? [30:26] Probably going on a year. [30:30] For those of us who happened to look at it yesterday, would you disagree that the first interview took place on August the 11th? [30:38] I don't know, Congressman. [30:39] I cannot answer that. [30:40] Well, prior to July 31st, 2016, how many witness interviews did you conduct as part of the Russia-Trump campaign alleged collusion investigation? [30:50] None. [30:51] So none before July 31st, which would be none at the time you said what you said in that text on July 21st? [31:02] I don't understand the text you're referring to. [31:05] Point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is on our time? [31:07] Are you done? [31:08] Well, no. [31:09] There are two more questions he didn't. [31:10] Right. [31:11] He wouldn't answer. [31:12] The gentleman will continue. [31:13] Between May 17th. [31:14] Can you explain why he can continue in our time? [31:16] He can continue. [31:17] He's not on your time. [31:18] Not my personally, Democratic time. [31:19] It's on our time because he was advised earlier by the FBI that he could not answer the questions, [31:24] and now he's advised that he can. [31:26] So the questions will be asked and answered. [31:28] Between May 17th. [31:29] Parliamentary inquiry, what rules are we following that would dictate such an answer by you, Mr. Chairman? [31:35] We are following the rules of the committee. [31:38] Could you cite the rule? [31:39] No. [31:40] No? [31:41] Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry, this seems to be well. [31:45] Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry can continue, but when you do, and the FBI tells him he can't answer a question, and then they change their mind and says he can, we're going to take the time out to do that, and then we're going to continue. [32:00] Mr. Chairman, point of parliamentary inquiry. [32:03] The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized. [32:05] To make sure you have a right to know what the rules have at governing this hearing. [32:10] Can you share with us the secret rules that you are making up as you go along? [32:15] Agent Strock between May 17th, 2017 and May 18th, 2017, how many interviews did you conduct as part of the special counsel team? [32:25] i don't believe i conducted any between may 17 2017 and may 22nd 2017 how many witness interviews [32:38] did you conduct in that five-day period well so you just went back a year from 2018 to 2017 and [32:43] i don't know 2017 may 17 2017 may 22nd 2017 yeah i believe you may have said 18 but 17 i don't know [32:52] whether i did or not it's the 17 2017. fair enough and i don't recall well chairman i [32:59] appreciate you let me make that clear and and again the context when you would not answer it [33:05] was you used the word impeachment on may the 18th 2017 and you used the word impeachment on may the [33:14] 22nd 2017 and your testimony is you can't recall the single interview you would have done as part [33:21] of that investigation that was supposed to lead to impeachment and i think that line of questioning [33:26] i'm glad the fbi finally realized it albeit a couple hours too late when you are prejudging not [33:33] just a result but a punishment which is what impeachment is when you are prejudging the [33:39] conviction and the sentencing when you have not conducted a single solitary interview i'm sorry [33:46] agent struck but that is letting your bias impact your professional judgment mr chairman may i respond [33:53] briefly um sir so look i never prejudged anything not in this case not in any others and second for [34:01] what agent straut impeachment for what second of all mr chairman what are the rules here mr chairman [34:06] what are the rules gentlemen the gentleman will allow the whole new round of questions the question [34:11] and then we'll move on second he was given time to respond the notion at the time i was the deputy [34:20] assistant director i have section chiefs unit chiefs in the field supervisors agents people [34:25] who typically do interviews not me if something is notable or high level i might be involved but it [34:30] would be rare if never that i would typically get out there and conduct interviews first of all [34:35] second you mentioned the use of the word impeachment that was used in the context of my not knowing [34:41] what this would lead to i was not prejudging impeachment when i used that term it was saying [34:46] hey it might not fully it might lead all the way thank you something on the thank you agent struck [34:51] the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri mr clay thank you mr chairman and um special agent [35:01] struck i i just continue to be amazed that my colleagues in the majority are more interested in your [35:09] text messages than they are about the leader of the free world doing everything possible to undermine the [35:19] western alliance it just amazes me special agent struck as a counterintelligence specialist you know all too [35:28] well the pervasive constant and growing danger that the russian federation poses to this country our [35:39] allies and to democracy in general it is appalling that my colleagues in the majority continue to [35:48] re-litigate the 2016 election while the president does more damage in the western to the western alliance [36:00] than the sum total of all previous russian and soviet leaders could have dreamed of and it is remarkable [36:11] that mr trump accused our trusted ally germany of being and i quote totally under the control of russia i [36:23] would say that the president is half right someone is totally under control of russia but it's not [36:32] germany you know the president should look in the mirror and explain why virtually every decision he makes [36:42] and every word he utters weakens our key friends erodes our strategic alliances and strengthens our most [36:53] dangerous adversary mr strach can you offer an explanation as to why the president is so eager to [37:02] punish our allies and please vladimir putin sir i i wouldn't presume to do that no all right let's let me [37:12] move on to the meeting of july june the 9th 2016 in trump tower we have a series of emails in front of us [37:24] one from rob goldstein who told donald trump jr that the crown prosecutor of russia met with aris [37:35] agalarov this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the trump campaign with some official [37:42] documents and information that would incriminate hillary and her dealings with russia we want to [37:48] break away from this hearing for just a moment we want to take you to england where president trump [37:52] and the first lady have just arrived for black tie gala it's in blenheim palace which is near oxford [37:58] and it's where winston churchill was in fact born the current prime minister though theresa may is [38:02] hosting the event the president first lady are being greeted by royal guards and bands there's [38:08] been a great deal of security just throughout london in general also protests against mr trump's trip the [38:13] dinner is being held at this particular palace because it's actually the only palace in britain [38:18] that's not owned by the monarchy or the church you can actually visit it if you're in town well for [38:23] now we want to take you back to capitol hill to the peter struck hearing we'll have much more [38:27] on the president's visit to the united kingdom again not not relating it to any particular event i [38:33] i think the hypothetical would be enormously concerning because a hostile foreign power one [38:39] by definition of that hostility is their national interests are adverse to ours the the fact that [38:46] people would be meeting or attempting to work together implicates a variety of potential criminal [38:51] violations i think it would give concern about the the motivations and the actions of the people [38:57] involved and whether or not whose interest whether america's or that hostile foreign powers they were [39:03] truly working towards and when campaigns are given defensive counterintelligence briefings are they [39:11] generally instructed to report foreign interference attempts to the fbi that is typically part of a ci [39:19] defensive briefing yes i want to thank you so much for your responses and your patience and you know [39:27] today's hearing is a sorry display on the part of my republican colleagues who have put the defense [39:36] of the president over the ultimate responsibility we in congress have to protect our national [39:46] security all of you should be ashamed of yourself and mr chairman i yield back the chair recognizes the [39:54] gentleman from iowa mr king for five minutes thank you mr chairman uh to start this off i'd like to [40:00] yield a gentleman from south carolina for a brief presentation i thank the gentleman from iowa agent [40:05] struck do you have your text in front of you i do not um can you well let me read one to you and you tell me [40:11] whether or not you uh recall saying this on may the 18th 2017 who gives a i'll give you a hint starts with f [40:20] one more ad versus an investigation leading to guess what that last word is sorry recall the text it's [40:29] impeachment impeachment uh the day after muller was appointed how about on may the 22nd do you remember [40:37] that text do you have that one in front of you i do not well here let me see if this reflects your [40:43] recollection this is you in response to something lisa page sent you i'm torn i think no i'm more [40:51] replaceable than you are in this i'm the best for it but there are others who can do it okay you're [41:01] different and more unique this is yours plus leaving an sc having been an sc resulting in and guess what [41:12] that next word is i'm sure you've got it sir no well you wrote it are you asking me what yeah what is [41:18] what do you think i don't need to guess impeachment sir impeachment five days five days after muller has [41:25] been appointed special counsel and you're already talking about impeachment twice i thank the [41:34] gentleman from iowa mr chairman may i respond please the gentleman that's the conclusion of mr king's time [41:41] you make um struck him over here now to your to your left and i wanted to point out that um you've [41:48] repeatedly stated here before this committee that you separated out your personal beliefs from any action [41:53] that you took you'd agree with that i'm confident and uh as implausible as that sounds to us that we've [42:00] listened to a dogmatic defense of the implausible argument that no matter how biased you were no matter [42:06] how profane in that bias you were it didn't affect your judgment or your decisions now that's a tough [42:12] argument to make but i recall your response to mr duncan at tennessee on that topic and you said i don't agree [42:18] with the characterization of my views as biased do you hold with that position that your views are not [42:24] biased whether or not they colored your activities as an agent i believe they did not color them and i [42:31] believe they are not biased the derogatory texts that you delivered that have been before this committee [42:38] for the better part of this day don't reflect a bias they don't sir and why because not a single [42:44] representative of the ig has been able to demonstrate a single level not one indicating [42:49] box not one reclaiming my time it's one thing to say that you found a way to wall off your bias but [42:57] it's not possible to to take under oath and tell the american people in this committee that there's not [43:03] bias there's never ever there's the evidence of this bias is replete throughout this evidence that [43:08] that route these documents that we have let me take you another place um were you um were you involved [43:14] in the questioning of hillary clinton on july 2nd 2016. uh yes i was i'm pausing because i think [43:23] the second or third but if you represent the second is the second this second is the date that i believe [43:28] we worked with but in any case in that room how many agents were in that room uh three including myself [43:34] and uh were there any other uh representatives of the executive branch of government uh there were and who [43:38] were they uh five attorneys from the department of justice five yes sir five attorneys from the [43:44] department of justice and four then from the fbi no sir including yourself no sir a total of eight [43:50] people three three fbi five and then the people in the room with with hillary clinton were uh mills [43:58] secretary clinton one two three i believe four other attorneys four or five i see and um did you um [44:06] did you record any of that interview and could you tell me how long that took uh i we did not record [44:11] it my recollection is that it took several hours i don't recall the exact time uh-huh and then what [44:17] documents would you have that memorialize the interview uh an ft-302 is created based on the notes [44:22] taken by the participants in the interview and uh how many of those eight agents or officers were uh had [44:28] their their notes that took notes in that room uh i don't know i know the two i did i believe [44:35] some and i know the two agents did i don't recall about the doj attorneys i want to ask you to [44:40] reconstruct who were those agents uh there were two of the case agents assigned to the clinton [44:47] investigation and and what are their names sir fbi policy i expected that answer but i want to let [44:52] you know we must know who was in that room and we must have access to those notes because that's what [44:59] they used to compile the 302 report did you brief uh uh director comey on that 302 report uh let's see [45:07] two things going back to 302 it is relying on notes but it's also drafted based on the memories of the [45:11] agents participating in it notes and memory notes are not uh-huh but yes uh my recollection is i did [45:18] brief director comey on the results of that interview and and we will be asking for the specifics on [45:24] that data that you are knowledgeable of and i'd ask the chairman if uh you would be willing to issue a [45:29] subpoena for the text that mr struck testifies as are not work-related i believe there's a very [45:35] good chance they are work-related and the balance of this for the information on who was in the room [45:41] on that date when hillary clinton was interviewed which officers from the fbi which officers from the doj [45:48] and let's call them to this congress and get their testimony on what took place inside that room mr [45:53] chairman we will take your request under advisement the time of the gentleman has expired i told mr [45:57] struck he could briefly respond to mr gaudy's uh sir yes thank you and if i may just briefly to mr king [46:05] sir right um first i am asserting to you that my personal belief does not did not constitute bias [46:13] every american has political belief every single one and i would submit to you that the vast vast [46:19] majority of those people are not biased individuals so that is a comment i'd like to make to you by [46:24] your testimony i'm free from that allegation for myself for life mr mr chairman if i can respond to [46:31] you by mentions of the word impeachment if you look at the selective text that you've chosen and you [46:37] expand that look to others you will see that in no way did i prejudge that outcome in fact what [46:42] you've conspicuously admitted omitted rather is a statement i made expressing concern that i'm not [46:48] sure there's a big there there what that clearly demonstrates sir is i had prejudged nothing what it [46:55] clearly demonstrates was i was looking at one potential outcome being impeachment i was simultaneously [47:01] looking at the polar opposite outcome that there might be nothing that there might be no criminal [47:06] activity whatsoever and i think it's fair that you take text in the totality of the context in which [47:12] they are made the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia mr johnson for five minutes thank you [47:19] mr chairman uh mr strach you were uh or you are a special agent uh for the fbi how long uh going on 22 [47:29] years sir and you actually just over 20 sir you pretty much spent your professional career at the fbi [47:36] is that correct that's correct and the republicans on this committee seem to be obsessed with your text [47:41] messages but during your long career with the fbi you've accomplished quite a bit more than simply [47:48] leaving a text message trail is that correct i've had the privilege of working on an extraordinary number [47:54] of very great cases well you rose through the ranks of the fbi to at one point become chief of the counter [48:01] espionage section at the fbi is that correct yes and your career at the fbi culminated with your [48:08] appointment as the deputy assistant director of the counterintelligence division is that correct [48:14] well i certainly held that i would tell you i'm extraordinarily proud to have worked as a dad in [48:18] the human resources division as well and during your career in s counter espionage at the fbi did you [48:24] lead a counterintelligence operation that was called operation ghost stories i did not lead it i was one of [48:32] the many agents who started that investigation uh and a a pair of the subjects early on that i was [48:38] one of the case agents on you worked on it throughout the course of that 10-year investigation [48:43] no just at the beginning several years sir i see but you worked on many other uh counterintelligence [48:52] investigations at uh during your career at the fbi yes sir that's correct now operation ghost stories [48:58] was a multi-year counterintelligence investigation of a network of united states based russian spies [49:06] working as covert agents of russian intelligence uh the agency known as svr isn't that correct that's [49:14] correct and the target of that investigation was a group of covert svr agents who had assumed false [49:22] false identities and were living in the united states on long-term deep cover assignments correct that's [49:29] correct you've investigated uh a number of those kinds of uh counter or uh uh intelligence uh uh you've [49:38] presided over a number of those types of investigations during your time with the fbi is that correct i [49:44] i have yes and uh these russian agents have infiltrated uh uh uh america uh set up to uh be undercover [49:56] and um and then develop sources that they can use then to develop information and then funnel that [50:03] information back to russia isn't that correct uh yes to develop that information from from the united states [50:10] and other denied areas from within our government and as soon as you find one uh cell if you will of uh russian [50:19] uh spies take them down there are also other cells working throughout america isn't that correct [50:26] that's generally correct and it was your job to keep on top of that kind of activity yes you led a team [50:35] of uh fbi agents who uh did nothing other than counterintelligence investigations uh for the fbi is that [50:44] correct yes and you were successful in arresting and prosecuting numerous individuals for espionage [50:53] and other crimes against the united states of america isn't that correct me as part of a large number [50:58] of very competent talented folks yes and sir you've great you've gained a great deal of [51:05] intelligence about russian spying activities their methods and sources uh as they operate in the united [51:14] states and in other allied nations isn't that correct uh certainly true within the united states [51:20] and to a lesser extent overseas and you've used your skills to keep america safe i have sir it's my [51:27] proud my proud duty to have done so there's a lot more to your career than a few emails isn't that [51:35] correct and text messages absolutely sir so to boil it down to that is really a disservice to you [51:42] i think as opposed to the republicans here being so desperate to find a way to discredit the [51:49] muller investigation by discrediting you as a person i think rather than they doing that we should be [51:58] honoring you for the work that you have done over the last 22 years to keep this nation safe [52:05] and uh this hearing is a reckless abuse and misuse of congressional authority i'm looking forward [52:14] to republicans finishing the hell up with this damn peter struck text message investigation and with [52:20] that i'll yield back the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas mr gohmert for five minutes [52:30] that would be right here sir struck you said earlier in this hearing you were concerned about [52:38] a hostile foreign power affecting our election do you recall the intelligence community inspector [52:46] general chuck mcculloch have any investigation into an anomaly found on hillary clinton's emails [52:54] i do not well let me reflect refresh your recollection the intelligence community inspector general [53:02] chuck mcculloch sent his investigator frank rucker we've got along with an icig attorney jeannette [53:11] mcmillan to brief you and dean chapelle and two other fbi personnel that i won't name at this time [53:21] about an anomaly they had found on hillary clinton's emails that were going to and from the private [53:29] unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating now do you remember it i remember meeting [53:37] mr rucker on either one or two occasions i do not remember the specific content or discussions well i'll [53:43] help you with that too then mr rucker reported to those of you the four of you there in the presence [53:51] of the ic ig attorney that they had found this anomaly on hillary clinton's emails going through a private [54:01] server and when they had done the forensic analysis they found that her emails every [54:10] single one except for four over 30 000 of them were going to an address that was not on the [54:18] distribution list it was a compartmentalized bit of information that was sending it to an [54:25] unauthorized source do you recall that sir i don't well it went on to explain it and and you didn't say [54:35] anything no you thanked him you shook his hand but the problem was that it was going to an unauthorized [54:46] source that was a foreign entity unrelated to russia and from what you've said here you did nothing more [54:57] than nod and shake the man's hand when you didn't seem to be all that concerned about our national [55:06] integrity of our election when it was involving hillary clinton so the forensic examination was done by [55:19] the icig and they can document that but you were given that information and you did nothing with it [55:30] and one of the things i found most egregious with mr horowitz's testimony and by the way horowitz [55:38] got a call four times by someone wanting to brief him leaving messages telling him about this and he [55:46] never returned the call he had 500 pages of bias that he gave us and then he threw a bone to the [55:54] democrats and said but we can't find bias and let me tell you when you have text messages mr struck the [56:01] way you do saying the things you did you'd been better off coming in here and say look that was my [56:09] bias and you kind of get around to that a little bit when you say hey uh you know everybody's got [56:14] political views those are called biases and we all have them and you have come in here and said i had no [56:22] bias and you do it with a straight face and i watched you in the in the private testimony you gave [56:29] and i told some of the other guys he is really good he's lying he knows we know he's lying and he [56:36] could probably pass polygraph point it's amazing mr chairman oh this is my mr chairman i'm sorry [56:42] i used to be paused this point of order no the general of state is point of order a member of this [56:48] committee just asserted that this witness who is under oath and a former agent of the fbi lied there is no [56:53] evidence that i ask him to withdraw it i do not withdraw it he is not a member of congress [56:58] it's not a violation of the rule and just as you have been expressing bias through your members [57:05] about what a hero there's not a single person on this committee who has ever characterized the [57:09] gentleman from rhode island gentleman it's my time that's a gentleman from rhode island will [57:14] suspend him no the disgrace mr mr what this man has done the gentleman from texas will suspend for a [57:20] moment there is the disgrace and it won't be recaptured anytime soon because of the damage you've done to [57:28] the justice system and i've talked to fbi agents around the country you've embarrassed them you've [57:34] embarrassed yourself and i can't help but wonder when i see you looking there with a little smirk [57:40] how many times did you look so innocent into your wife's eye and lied to her about mr chairman this [57:48] is outrageous the gentleman controls the time i ask that the witness be permitted to respond [58:06] will be permitted during your investigation besides the one questioning you mentioned [58:16] before that or after that to this day point of order mr chairman point of order mr chairman the general [58:23] state is point of order it is i think against the rules of the house for a member of the committee to [58:30] be impugning the character of a witness it is you should ask questions to elicit the purpose of this [58:36] hearing is to elicit information you should ask questions to elicit information you should not be [58:40] impugning the character uh of the witness the gentleman is advised the rules of the house only [58:46] are directed to members of the house and the president united states therefore in other words it is okay [58:52] to impugn the character of witnesses in in any way whatsoever well listen i've heard many members [58:57] on your side of the aisle impugn character somebody who is covered by the rules of the house but the [59:02] gentleman the the the gentleman uh has 20 seconds left the clock will be turned back on and he can [59:11] complete his time and then the witness can respond so if you talk to hillary other than hillary clinton [59:17] other than the time she was examined in front of the witnesses no so after throwing away what you [59:25] have with all the bias you have you've never even gotten a thank you i yield back the gentleman may respond [59:31] sir well that's quite a set of statements mr chairman i did not finish with a question the gentleman there [59:39] was no question asked he's been given the opportunity to respond the gentleman will suspend the time of [59:45] the gentleman has expired and as i've indicated the rules of our hearings are if there is a question [59:51] asked during the time the witness may respond to the question after the time the witness is going [59:57] to be allowed to respond briefly that's a new rule sir first i assure you question under oath as i spoke [1:00:06] also during my interview a week or two ago i have always told the truth the fact that you would accuse [1:00:13] me otherwise the fact that you would question whether or not that was the sort of look i would engage [1:00:18] with and a family member who i have acknowledged hurting goes more to a discussion about your character [1:00:24] and what you stand for and what is going inside you it's to your credibility and you lost your [1:00:31] credibility you've lost your credibility while i doubt it plays well i'm not sure the gentleman from [1:00:40] texas will suspend the witness has had ample opportunity to express his feelings about that [1:00:45] and now the chair recognizes mr chairman there is a there's a discussion about the representatives first [1:00:51] uh assertion about what the icig said that i would like to respond to very briefly very briefly i have [1:00:57] no recollection of that conversation i can tell you i am not a computer forensic expert i can tell you [1:01:03] that every allegation that we had and icig was a great and close partner every allegation that we had [1:01:09] whether from them or anybody else was forwarded to experts who looked at it the scores and scores of [1:01:15] servers and blackberries and emails and everything we got were combed over carefully by the fbi's experts [1:01:20] to see if there's any indicia of injury but you don't recall going over those emails correct [1:01:26] much of what you're saying i have no idea what you're talking about and frankly and the witness will [1:01:31] suspend as well i do not know what you're talking about that you just can't let a witness go on [1:01:35] forever when the fact is you never did mr chairman about those correct regular order you didn't do [1:01:50] anything about it sir if there was a lead i gave it to the team unequivocally the gentleman there was [1:01:57] nothing along the lines that was not addressed well that would come out mr gomer you will suspend [1:02:03] mr deutsch i apologize i've been instructed by the ranking member that we're going committee to [1:02:09] committee so the next gentleman is going to be recognized the gentleman from virginia mr connelly [1:02:13] for five minutes wow um the american public might be forgiven for mistaking this so-called hearing [1:02:30] for a russian political show trial it's got all the trappings character assassination demagoguery [1:02:39] connecting dots that aren't meant to be connected generalizing from a isolated incident [1:02:45] uh cherry picking facts sometimes fabricating facts it's astounding it's a new low in the united [1:02:52] states congress what a shame but mr strozek you're under oath and my understanding is the big republican [1:03:01] beef in order to discredit you and discredit the fbi and thereby hopefully from their point of view [1:03:07] undermine the muller investigation hinges on the fact that you sent out some indiscreet personal emails [1:03:15] about your political views on the then pending 2016 election is that correct sir that's my understanding [1:03:22] all right so you're under oath i want you to say yes or no the following email character matters real [1:03:30] donald trump is obviously not going to win but he can still make an honorable move step aside [1:03:35] and let someone else try did you write that email i don't believe i did no you didn't republican [1:03:40] senator ben sassy wrote that email another unforgivable sin he should be here as well apparently [1:03:48] my wife julia and i we have a 15 year old daughter do you think i can look her in the eye and tell [1:03:53] her that i endorsed donald trump when he acts like this and his apology that was no apology [1:04:00] that was an apology for getting caught i can't tell the good people in my state that i endorsed a [1:04:04] person who acts like this was that you mr strozek no sir no it wasn't it was republican jason chaffetz [1:04:10] former chairman of my committee did you write the following for the good of the country and to give [1:04:15] the republicans a chance of defeating hillary clinton mr trump should step aside his defeat at this [1:04:21] point seems almost certain and four years of hillary clinton is not what's best for this country mr trump [1:04:26] should put the country first and do the right thing that's that's you certainly right no sir no [1:04:32] you're right it was republican member of congress mike coppin from colorado in light of these comments [1:04:38] donald trump should step aside and allow our party to replace him with mike pence or another appropriate [1:04:43] nominee i cannot in good conscience vote for donald trump and i would never vote for hillary clinton [1:04:49] that's yours no sir no that's republican barbara comstock of our home home state of virginia [1:04:54] all right well here's another one it's now clear donald trump is not fit to be president of the [1:04:59] united states and cannot defeat hillary clinton i believe he should step aside and allow governor [1:05:05] pence to lead the republican ticket you wrote that one no sir you didn't no you're right that's [1:05:10] republican bradley burn of alabama well how about this one donald trump's behavior makes him unacceptable [1:05:16] as a candidate for president and i won't vote for him as disappointed as i've been with his antics [1:05:22] throughout this campaign i thought supporting the nominee was the best thing for our country and our [1:05:26] party now it's abundantly clear that the best thing for our country and our party is for trump [1:05:31] to step aside and allow responsible respectable uh republicans to lead the ticket you wrote that one [1:05:39] no sir oh no that was republican martha robey of alabama well how about this one i respectfully ask [1:05:46] that you mr trump with all due respect step aside step down allow someone else to carry the banner [1:05:53] of principles you wrote that one no sir no you're right again that was republican senator mike lee of [1:05:59] utah so it sounds like when you were writing these emails in the heat of the campaign you had a lot [1:06:04] of good company on the republican side of the aisle and now you're an orphan i wonder what changed [1:06:13] but your opinion was hardly a striking one hardly unusual especially where you and i live northern virginia [1:06:20] is that correct yes sir so your sin of writing an email criticizing the candidate trump and predicting he [1:06:31] would lose was not an isolated kind of opinion is that correct uh no it was not to my knowledge and [1:06:38] and do you under oath confirm what the inspector general mr horowitz said there's no evidence your [1:06:46] personal opinion notwithstanding that in any way it tainted the ongoing criminal investigation led by [1:06:52] mr muller i do that's your testimony under oath yes i thank you and i'm so sorry for the treatment [1:06:58] you've received here today as a member of congress as a member of the oversight and government reform [1:07:02] committee i take no pleasure in watching the spectacle thank you mr strozak for being here the chair [1:07:10] recognizes the gentleman from texas mr poe for five minutes i thank the chairman and i take no pleasure in [1:07:16] the self pity that you have shown the rest of us the entire day i'm a former prosecutor i loved [1:07:23] being a prosecutor in the district attorney's office and i spent 22 years on the criminal bench [1:07:28] trying criminal cases saw about 25 000 felony cases and i saw a lot of people in law enforcement [1:07:40] but in our entire justice system from the beginning to the end of the justice system [1:07:46] people are involved in our justice system and those people whoever they are cannot be biased [1:07:54] one way or the other and it starts in a courtroom with the jury both lawyers spend a lot of time [1:08:02] including the court talking to jurors about whether they're biased why because people who are bias [1:08:09] or come across as bias they're out of here you can't serve on that jury you cannot be fair [1:08:15] we don't let judges serve on cases if they have a bias they are recused many times they just recuse [1:08:23] themselves they recognize there's a bias and we don't let people testify unless the bias when they [1:08:32] testify is allowed to be brought out in other words if a witness is testifying let's say you for example [1:08:38] both sides are entitled to bring out the bias for or against the uh about the witness that is against the [1:08:45] offender let's use in that case because in our justice system things must be fair and things must [1:08:53] look fair there must not be bias and there must not be a look of bias by anyone that's the way our system [1:09:04] works now in my opinion who had my opinion is not even better than anybody else's but i have seen a lot of [1:09:11] a lot of people over the years kind of in the people business judging people and i have heard your [1:09:19] statements today and it seems to me that your own words have shown your bias you say you're not biased [1:09:28] but we base things on evidence not based necessarily on words and your words to me prove your bias your [1:09:37] attitude proves your bias your arrogance proves your bias and i think you're protesting too much proves [1:09:43] your bias but be that as it may the scary part of that is not whether you're biased or not the scary [1:09:50] part of it is well what about other people in the fbi what about people we don't know about that have the [1:09:57] same attitude that you do about people who are being investigated by the fbi that is what is scary [1:10:08] because people out here the rest of us who don't get to work for the fbi or the justice department we are [1:10:17] concerned about our justice system doing the right thing for the right reason and making sure that our [1:10:24] justice system is just and part of the fairness and justice is that there isn't a bias for or against [1:10:33] anybody as they go through the system now based on what you said i don't think i would ever allow you [1:10:41] as a juror to be on a criminal case ever i don't know that the defense attorney or the prosecutor would [1:10:47] allow you to be on a jury because your words are what we hear your protesting just seems to make those words [1:10:58] more of a show of your bias the comment that you're going to stop him in an email or a text or something [1:11:07] that not only shows your bias that shows that you're going to act on your bias and you're going [1:11:13] to stop president trump that's the way it comes across the evidence comes across so can how do you [1:11:22] assure us that the attitude that you have shown us today of the text messages and all of these things that [1:11:30] we've been talking about uh how do we know that's not rampant throughout the fbi how do we know that [1:11:38] sir what i would answer to you can you just answer that question yeah how do we know that there's not [1:11:45] the fbi in this particular investigation or other investigations how do we know that sir the way you [1:11:52] do that is exactly what you suggested you look to the evidence you look to the actions of the men and [1:11:59] women of the fbi in the conduct of their cases you look to my actions in the conduct of the investigations [1:12:05] you have done with others a spectacular job of equating the word bias with personal political [1:12:12] belief and it's astounding how effective that's been but you know full well they are not the same [1:12:18] the fact of by reclaiming my time you'll have a chance to try to answer the other question that [1:12:24] you're trying to answer how do we know that the attitude that you have shown us to date whatever [1:12:31] you want to call it you know that mr cohen wants to make a saint out of you how do we know that the [1:12:36] attitude you have today is not the same attitude of the fbi as they're investigating other cases how do [1:12:42] we know that and ask that the witness time of the gentleman has expired and the gentleman may answer the [1:12:47] question hopefully without interruption sir the way you judge that is what i said you look at the evidence [1:12:54] you look at the acts what fbi agents and analysts and everybody else do you look at what i did you [1:13:02] look at what the inspector general concluded not only me but all the agents and assistant directors and [1:13:08] eads and dds and everybody involved in the investigation and you see that the evidence unequivocally [1:13:15] is there is no act of bias so this false assertion that you're making that political personal belief [1:13:23] must equal bias that somehow we've merged those two words together in the dictionary is one of the [1:13:28] triumphs of what's been going on recently that i cannot disagree with more a judge asks jurors [1:13:35] are you able to set aside your personal opinions and render a judgment based on the facts sir you know [1:13:41] that based on your extensive experience what i am telling you is that i and the other men and women [1:13:46] of the fbi every day take our personal beliefs and set those aside in vigorous pursuit of the truth [1:13:54] wherever it lies whatever it is and i don't believe you time has expired the chair now recognizes [1:14:01] the gentleman from florida mr deutch for five minutes uh i thank the chairman um let's be clear [1:14:06] about what's going on here we understand that president trump doesn't like this investigation [1:14:13] we understand that that's clear but what we've seen in this joint committee and in the judiciary [1:14:21] committee meeting just a couple weeks back with members of the house demeaning themselves by [1:14:30] asserting that the deputy attorney general sat there under oath and lied today repeated assertions [1:14:39] that mr struck is sitting before us under oath lying to us the efforts to impugn the credibility not just [1:14:49] of mr struck but of the entire fbi it's shameful truly shameful the depths to which some of my colleagues have [1:15:02] have uh plummeted in order to advance a narrative to support the president's opposition [1:15:10] to an investigation which is an investigation as mr struck pointed out and as too many of us seem to [1:15:17] have forgotten is an investigation into the russians efforts to destabilize the democracy of the united [1:15:26] states of america i wish that the attacks that have been leveled against mr struck the attacks on on rod [1:15:34] rosenstein the attacks on our fbi director i wish there was even a slight degree of that same [1:15:40] fervor directed against what the russians did in 2016 so that we could get to the bottom of that [1:15:49] and anticipate what they're trying to do this november and in 2020 now mr struck this is the inspector [1:15:58] general's report the number one finding in this inspector general's report is that the fbi should not [1:16:06] discuss ongoing criminal investigations that's what the ig said director comey did wrong the ig said he [1:16:13] shouldn't have done the ig went into great detail about the long-standing practice and the reasons [1:16:19] for that practice to protect the integrity of ongoing criminal investigations in this case [1:16:24] the investigation that i just referred to a direct attack by a foreign adversary but listening to my [1:16:30] republican colleagues it's almost as if they never read this report like you never bother to pick it up [1:16:36] or worse you read it you understand it but you don't care you're asking mr struck to do exactly what [1:16:46] the inspector general said not to do exactly mr struck if you answer these questions that you've been asked [1:16:54] about this investigation are you concerned that the inspector general could investigate you [1:17:00] and issue a report just like this one that says that you should never have done that [1:17:03] i certainly that's possible i'd be more worried about the impact on the ongoing investigation i [1:17:08] i understand it's a ridiculous position to put you in the inspector general explained in this nearly 600 [1:17:16] page report that the mistake director comey made was discussing the ongoing steps the fbi was taking [1:17:22] in the hillary clinton investigation here's what we've heard today we heard it from the chairman [1:17:27] we heard it from my colleagues you've got two choices you can ignore the fbi's policy [1:17:35] that has been put in place to protect these investigations i'm going to let you talk about [1:17:39] that in a second and answer the questions uh in which case maybe you trigger an ig report or you [1:17:50] don't answer those questions and maybe we hold you in contempt now can you just again since this has [1:17:59] been a really long day can you explain why it's important not to interfere with ongoing criminal matters [1:18:06] well there are a variety and i'm sure i won't come up with all the reasons but the first is [1:18:11] we do a lot of investigations where we never charge anybody and it's simply not fair to given the [1:18:16] investigative power we have to do something that would unnecessarily uh tarnish them or their image [1:18:21] two in the cases where we are investigating talking about it is going to screw up a bunch of things you [1:18:26] might want to do investigatively talking to witnesses talking to the subject and then finally you want [1:18:31] somebody to have a fair trial and if we're talking about it or putting our finger on the scale [1:18:35] it would just be horribly inappropriate and against what we stand for in the criminal justices [1:18:40] and the negative consequences on the outcome of that investigation that would be tremendous [1:18:46] would adversely impact potentially the ability to get a fair trial uh to conduct a competent [1:18:50] investigation to conduct one that arrived at the truth right mr struck i appreciate that last comment [1:18:57] and i would just urge my colleagues that in the in the midst of this uh apoplexy that seems to be [1:19:03] breaking out among so many of my colleagues that we remember that ultimately what we're really trying [1:19:07] to do here is get to the truth and the truth that we need to get to is exactly what a hostile foreign [1:19:13] adversary did to interfere with our democracy let's please keep that in mind as we move forward let's make [1:19:21] that the focus that's what the american people are expecting that's what they're counting on us to do [1:19:27] get out of the way let this investigation go forward let's get to the truth i yield back the balance of [1:19:33] my time the gentleman from pennsylvania mr marine is recognized five minutes thank you chairman mr [1:19:41] struck i have here and i'm sure you're familiar with it the ethics handbook uh department of justice [1:19:49] of which the fbi falls under yes and there are several paragraphs that i want to read to you first [1:19:57] one is general principles of ethical conduct continued employees shall endeavor to avoid any [1:20:03] actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth [1:20:11] whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been [1:20:17] violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with the knowledge of the [1:20:26] relevant facts next one is appearance of impropriety an employee shall endeavor to avoid any actions [1:20:33] creating the appearance that the employee is violating the law or the ethical standards set forth [1:20:42] in these guidelines furthermore it states for employees for whom a security clearance is required and [1:20:49] you do have a security clearance correct uh today i do yes you've had one for quite a while other than the [1:20:56] circumstances yes for performance of their official duties prohibited conduct and more may be grounds for [1:21:06] suspension or revocation of a clearance this could also result in adverse disciplinary action including [1:21:15] suspension or removal under the hatch act all federal employees may vote express opinions and make [1:21:25] political contributions under the hatch act active participation in partisan political activities by [1:21:31] federal employees is restricted and employees and now i want you to listen to this very carefully [1:21:39] serving in certain positions are more restricted than others i think you are a person that falls into that [1:21:48] category as well i am just actually disheartened about the situation that you are in and i say this with uh no prejudice [1:22:03] and i think you are your own worst enemy you have an answer for everything you have an attitude [1:22:13] that is very obvious today and you are the kind of witness that you and i as a prosecutor for 18 years a [1:22:23] district attorney and a u.s attorney would love to get on the stand and the reasonableness of the statements [1:22:34] that you made and i'm not going to get into the language but the repetitiveness of it where was your [1:22:39] judgment what were you not thinking when you were sending the emails and the statements that you made and [1:22:49] the comments in that of the people in virginia i would expect someone of your caliber to be way above [1:22:57] that you got carried away you got impressed with yourself and you're in a position that i'm sorry [1:23:08] that that's the case but if you are trying to draw a distinction a wide distinction between bias and [1:23:16] political opinion there's not the wide distinction that you are drawing at this point because i would [1:23:25] bet the farm that if you were sitting next to me as the investigating prosecutor and i was the prosecutor [1:23:31] and judge poe or another judge were handling the case whether it's civil or criminal we you and i would [1:23:37] be pointing out the biases that i see that you have exhibited here i just don't understand your judgment [1:23:49] based on your background and you maybe respond to that sir i i appreciate your comments and i appreciate [1:23:57] your concern the first thing i would tell you is i i i'm disappointed if you did not understand the [1:24:06] amount of regret that i expressed in my from the beginning of my opening statement to the to the [1:24:10] harm and damage that this has caused people i love i do i do understand that now sorry i do but [1:24:17] it's in hindsight and people like you and i that are here to protect the citizens we should be thinking [1:24:23] of this before congress congressman without question and i i would absolutely agree with you that there [1:24:29] are things that i regret in retrospect and i hope that comes across today i know a large portion of [1:24:34] today has been combative in a way that has nothing to do with my sense of regret and remorse i would draw [1:24:40] since you brought up the ethics manual i would note in that manual and further restricted employees [1:24:45] every fbi employee many doj employees other members of the intelligence community are restricted but [1:24:51] within that category if you read that manual citing the hatch act it says except for where otherwise [1:24:57] prohibited and that has to do with activities coordinating with the political party employees may not only [1:25:03] have political opinions but they are encouraged to express them i know well and publicly so sir well i [1:25:10] don't i don't draw any disagreement with you about bias where it occurs what i disagree with you and so [1:25:17] many people today is that political belief does not equate to bias and we always have to go to the [1:25:23] evidence if you can demonstrate evidence of acts of bias well then bias is there but in the absence of any [1:25:30] and truly the inspector general this committee any number of other people have looked and looked and [1:25:35] looked and not a single act tells me it didn't occur because really competent people have looked for it [1:25:42] and so beyond me telling you under oath that i know it didn't happen what it's important to realize [1:25:46] is it's not just me it's this entirety of folks looking at it it is the entirety of structure of the fbi [1:25:52] who is built not to do those things and not to allow it enough time of the gentleman has expired [1:25:59] the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois ms kelly for five minutes i know it's been a long day for [1:26:06] you so i will keep it simple some questions will be repetitive but if you could just say yes or no [1:26:11] in your time at the fbi have you ever investigated a member of the democratic party [1:26:15] uh yes did any of those investigations result in an indictment no not to my recollection have you ever [1:26:25] investigated anyone that identifies as independent or unaffiliated with either of the two major [1:26:31] political parties ma'am i don't know so you don't know if any of those resulted in well i i don't know [1:26:38] that i i know when i'm thinking the democratic party clearly secretary clinton was part of who we [1:26:42] looked at and she was very clearly part of the democratic party i don't tend to beyond that i'm not a [1:26:46] public corruption agent and political affiliation is not something we looked at but in your assessment [1:26:53] would your work history suggest a buy a suggest a bias by you toward any one political party no not [1:26:59] at all you investigated as you said secretary clinton for use of private emails yes she is a member of the [1:27:06] democratic party yes we know you have investigated a republican provided your participation in the [1:27:12] ongoing muller investigation and we know that that investigation has led to an indictment in fact [1:27:18] that has led to 19 indictments five guilty pleas and a host of charges filed against former campaign [1:27:24] and white house advisors to president trump as well as russian nationals and companies so is it fair to [1:27:30] say that you have investigated and indicted individuals from the political spectrum or you may not even [1:27:36] be aware yes ma'am we we don't look at that so i don't know but it's a fair assumption there have [1:27:41] been news reports that president trump's advisors ivanka trump jared kushner stephen miller and former [1:27:47] white house official stephen banner rents previous and gary cone all use private email to conduct [1:27:53] official business president trump is a republican correct yes so these individuals were our key [1:27:59] staffers for a republican president correct uh yes these individuals serve or served as senior advisors [1:28:06] to the president white house chief strategist white house chief of staff and director of the national [1:28:11] economic council it is safe to say that individuals in such high-ranking positions are exposed to [1:28:17] sensitive perhaps top secret materials yes to your knowledge has the fbi opened investigations against [1:28:24] their use of private emails for official white house business i'm going to answer that i can't answer [1:28:31] that based on if if they were ongoing it would be inappropriate for me to talk about okay i would like [1:28:36] to note that neither the house judiciary committee nor the house oversight and government reform committee [1:28:41] have open hearings on that issue and several of those individuals named continue to advise the [1:28:47] president of the president of the united states and receive a paycheck paid by our tax dollars also [1:28:53] i'd like to say when constituents call my office they are dems they are republicans they're independents [1:28:58] and they're not involved like all of us and if you ask them i am sure that they would say they receive [1:29:04] top-notch service from my office and i have my biases like everybody else like we've talked about [1:29:10] and listening to the conversation today i have to wonder about some of my republican colleagues not [1:29:16] everybody but since you apparently think that biases prevent people from doing their best job it [1:29:22] makes me wonder what happens when democrats call your office do you not give them the same service as [1:29:28] you give your republican constituents because that's what you keep applying implying over and over and over [1:29:34] i yield back the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina mr sanford for five minutes [1:29:45] uh i appreciate chairman and if i might i'm going to yield my time to my colleague from ohio [1:29:52] oh thank the gentleman for yielding agent struck i want to go back to this email you sent on january 10th [1:29:57] regarding the buzzfeed uh pending publishing of uh buzzfeed publishing of the dossier you have that in [1:30:03] front of you again i do okay my last round of questioning um you said you spoke with bruce orr [1:30:10] several times in the 2016 2017 time period is that accurate that's correct okay and at the time [1:30:17] you were working with mr orr did you know that he was meeting with representatives from fusion [1:30:22] including glenn simpson may i consult with counsel sir you sure can you could hold my time please sir [1:31:21] again i would like to answer your question and it's a short and easily answerable question but at [1:31:25] the direction of the fbi i cannot discuss the content of the the operational matters that i discussed [1:31:31] mr orr i appreciate that uh agent struck at the time you're meeting with bruce or did you know [1:31:36] that his wife nelly worked for fusion uh again i believe the same answer stand by sir again please [1:31:43] i'm sorry about the time sir again i'm sorry i would like to answer that question but at the direction [1:32:07] of the fbi because it relates to an ongoing operational matter i can't let's go back to the email [1:32:12] i just want to make sure i understand this it sounds like in your email you're saying comparing now [1:32:16] sounds like there are three copies but two different versions the set you are examining and referencing [1:32:22] to your colleagues you say is identical to what mccain had again referring to the dossier and then [1:32:28] you're saying the one from corn and simpson you won't tell me who those individuals are but that one is [1:32:33] different is that an accurate reading of your email sir it isn't and i think to give you the content [1:32:39] or the context of that comment i would have to [1:32:41] i have to tell you sir this is this is more frustrating for me than it is for you [1:32:48] i'm not because of because of to frame that to give you an accurate answer i would have to give you [1:32:54] the context of what was going on which includes details that i've been instructed by the fbi that [1:32:59] i may not provide well there's another uh email down below on the one you're looking at which talks [1:33:07] about buzzfeed has 16 of the reports looks like they have 16 of the i believe 17 sections that made [1:33:13] up the entire dossier is that an accurate reading there sir again it's not an accurate reading [1:33:19] i would tell you what the fbi has told me i may say in answer to the dossier is that well that's not [1:33:25] an accurate reading that's what it says buzzfeed has 16 of the reports well sir that that is a [1:33:29] literal reading but understanding what that means would it require me to provide information that is [1:33:34] beyond the scope of what the fbi has permitted me to tell you well we'd sure like to know i want to [1:33:38] refer you to um i don't know that you have this in front of you but this is the house [1:33:43] intelligence committee's report chapter six there's a footnote on page 113 and it says this [1:33:50] in late march 2017 daniel jones met with the fbi regarding pqg the pen quarter group which he [1:33:59] described as exposing foreign intelligence or foreign influence in western elections he told the [1:34:04] fbi that pqg was being funded by seven to ten wealthy donors located primarily in new york and [1:34:10] california who provided approximately 50 million dollars he further stated that pqg had secured the [1:34:17] services of steel his associate and fusion gps to continue exposing potential russian interference in [1:34:23] the 2016 u.s presidential election are you familiar with this meeting mr jones had with the fbi uh i'm [1:34:30] not and i don't know if that's accurate or not but i'm not aware i'm going from the intelligence report [1:34:35] that the uh majority issued from the house intelligence committee i'm not aware of that [1:34:41] meeting or who that is have you ever spoke with daniel jones no do you know mr jones at all i do not [1:34:47] all right i want to go back to um one more question i asked you the first round uh mr struck mr simpson [1:35:02] when he did testify in front of the senate uh judiciary committee was asked about fusion no one from fusion [1:35:10] ever spoke with the fbi is there any way that that contradicts what's in the email that i've been [1:35:15] referencing with you uh i don't know i can tell you i have not spoken to mr simpson not spoken mr [1:35:22] simpson i don't want to ask you that i asked you that the uh the first time all right i thank the uh [1:35:27] i thank the chairman and i thank the gentleman from south carolina from yuling i yield back to the [1:35:30] gentleman the chair would note that several of the questions asked by the gentleman were not answered [1:35:35] by the witness on the advice of uh his counsel and i presume through the fbi and uh we will note those [1:35:44] questions uh so that we can address them at a future time because i find it stunning that they [1:35:50] are not allowing you to answer those questions mr struck chair now recognizes the gentleman from uh [1:35:57] illinois mr gutierrez for five minutes thank you very much mr chairman uh the chairman started this [1:36:03] hearing by saying i wish this hearing wasn't necessary well sorry if i don't believe that [1:36:09] of course he wants this hearing and it isn't necessary now i think there are hearings that are [1:36:14] necessary and we see them every day there are 3 000 children separated from their moms and dads [1:36:21] and the government doesn't know where their moms and dads are and can't even bring them together [1:36:26] that seems like something the judiciary committee should be investigating we start a policy in this [1:36:31] country where we ban ban muslims from coming in and we make a test a religious test sounds to me like [1:36:39] something the judiciary committee should take up we have a president of the united states there are 16 [1:36:46] women who have come forward to say that the president of the united states has attacked them and what [1:36:52] does the committee do no hearings even one of the members of this committee had to resign in disgrace [1:36:57] because he asked one of his staffer for a million dollars if she would carry a baby for him do we [1:37:03] have any hearings on the state and the plight of women in the workplace in america no these are all [1:37:11] things and issues that are on the american people's minds but we don't want to talk about those issues [1:37:17] those should be issues that i believe are pertinent and should have hearings before this committee [1:37:22] but what we want to have hearings is to bring mr struck here so that we can regurgitate and continue [1:37:29] to say that he is lying and that he is biased and somehow he corrupted the investigation to the point [1:37:36] that we can't believe mr muller that we can't believe mr rosenstein that we can't believe the new fbi [1:37:42] director who was appointed by the current president of the united states and that we should abandon my [1:37:49] members on the other side if there are two people that are thrilled and excited today there are two [1:37:55] people the folks over at fox news and at the kremlin because they both worked on one thing electing [1:38:01] president trump president of the united states of america they've got to be overjoyed today at the [1:38:07] kremlin and they've got to be applauding and watch the newsreel tonight because a lot of this today is [1:38:13] simply what auditioning for fox news and of course at the clapping at the kremlin i never thought i would [1:38:20] see a time that the congress of the united states would do the work of destroying because what do we know [1:38:28] we know very clearly that our men and women of the intelligence community have unanimously stated and [1:38:36] this is unrefutable that the russians work to undermine our democracy and to elect donald trump [1:38:44] president of the united states and that is something that's irrefutable you can say what you want [1:38:49] about mr struck that's irrefutable and yet we do not investigate that how can we have such an attack [1:38:55] on our democracy and we don't investigate but we want to investigate mr struck so i want to ask you [1:39:01] mr struck because they've kept saying you have this bias when did you learn and how did you learn about the [1:39:07] investigation into the possible collusion between the donald trump campaign and russian influence in [1:39:14] our uh 2016 election uh sir i'm i'm limited to what director coming was authorized to say by the [1:39:20] department of justice but in late july so in late july and when did the public learn about the [1:39:27] investigation into uh russian collusion and donald trump's investigation i don't remember a specific [1:39:34] day but it was well into the following year it was after the election yes sir so what we're to believe [1:39:39] from our republican majority that you're so biased you're such a democrat that you can't hold [1:39:45] back from trying to destroy donald trump yet you never told anybody that there was an investigation [1:39:52] into donald trump's campaign and collusion with the russians you never told anybody about [1:39:55] that no sir you never talked to a reporter about that never but you had it in your hands [1:40:00] well maybe you didn't because you know in america so he could do almost anything but you did have [1:40:05] almost a magical bullet in your hand to derail the donald trump investigation and did you use it [1:40:11] no sir no you didn't right are there republicans at work at the fbi because it makes it sound like [1:40:18] you're all democrats i never heard that before but are there republicans yes sir okay what would be [1:40:23] interesting here is since you like to cherry pick the democrats that given money the fbi agents that give [1:40:30] money to democrats why don't you reveal the republican members of the fbi that give money to republicans [1:40:37] why don't you reveal the republican members of the fbi that are in and state very clearly when they apply [1:40:45] for a voter registration they apply as republicans they don't because that's not what this is about [1:40:51] what this is about is for the american public mr struck it's really not about you they want to damage [1:40:57] and destroy our democracy and one of the ways they do it is by taking an institution like the fbi and [1:41:02] destroying it and that i think is really regrettable okay kremlin another good day for you you [1:41:09] influenced the election you wanted donald trump to win you won that one and now you want to destroy [1:41:14] our institutions congratulations kremlin and congratulations to everybody that's helping them [1:41:18] the gentleman from illinois yields back the gentleman from tennessee dr de jarle is recognized thank you [1:41:24] mr chairman and i just have a couple of questions for you mr struck and i'd like to yield the balance of [1:41:29] my time uh to chairman gowdy but uh in light of the last round of questioning it's fair to say that you [1:41:35] wanted to stop president trump from being elected in your own words didn't you uh no sir that was my [1:41:41] expression that i had a preference uh not for candidate trump to be president but that i did not and would not [1:41:47] did i not hear you read your own text correctly that you would stop him you would stop it no sir [1:41:52] you misunderstood or misheard me i said that my sense and not recalling writing that text was that [1:41:57] the american populace wouldn't elect you don't like donald trump do you it's fair to say i'm not a fan [1:42:02] sir yeah and were you the only one who could have done the job you're doing are you the only one that [1:42:06] could have led this investigation in the fbi sir it was logical and given that i was number two in [1:42:11] counterintelligence that i would have a role in this investigation but no there are there are very qualified [1:42:15] folks in in the fbi dads there are not that many in my level in retrospect then should you have [1:42:20] recused yourself in this case absolutely not you don't like this man you didn't want to become [1:42:26] president you had several uh very disparaging text messages with your friend about this but yet you [1:42:30] didn't once think that maybe somebody else should take this case no sir and i'll tell you what there [1:42:35] are times i didn't particularly care for secretary clinton and i investigated that absolutely as [1:42:39] objectively and aggressively as i did any other investigation so no i don't think recusal was at all [1:42:44] merited okay well that's the one thing i've struggled with here today listening to your testimony [1:42:48] because i do think a man in your position and power and the respect you should have uh or that people [1:42:54] should have for you because of your position in the fbi that you would have stopped to think that maybe [1:42:58] there was somebody that could do a better job that didn't have such disdain uh for this president you [1:43:03] claim to be such a patriot but once he was elected you continued to do this and i think that you have to [1:43:08] accept that elections have consequences but i'll yield the balance of my time to our chairman the [1:43:13] gentleman yields uh agent struck now i'm confused because i thought on that august 8 2016 text that you [1:43:19] did not recall typing it and then you said that you recalled it was late at night and that somehow [1:43:26] mitigated the content of what you typed so do you recall it or was it late at night and what else do [1:43:32] you recall about the timing of that mr chairman i think my recollection statements have been consistent [1:43:37] across the board i don't remember typing it it was late at night my sense was i can tell you what [1:43:42] it was not it was not a suggestion that i or the fbi take any action well i'll tell you what instead of [1:43:48] us anyway instead of us musing about what you meant why don't we just go with what you said okay i would [1:43:55] actually rather go with what i did but that is at the end of the day that is we'll get to that we'll get [1:44:01] 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 [1:44:10] his candidacy right or or his election i don't think again not recalling writing it his candidacy [1:44:17] his election i'm not i don't recall writing it i'm not sure what it and what do you mean by stop stop [1:44:24] it again my sense looking at the context was that there was no way coming off the heels of insulting the [1:44:30] khan family that the american and all the other statements that had been made in the comparison [1:44:35] of genital size during a debate and everything else that there was no way that the american population [1:44:41] was going to elect this man so my sense was this is a off the cuff hey don't worry about it sort of [1:44:46] comment and if you look at the next day when i send a text saying hey what was that it's clear there [1:44:51] is no conspiracy there's no meeting of the minds there's no suggestion of actions it was merely a [1:44:57] one-off comment and of course it's about a week before you use the word we again in connection [1:45:02] with an insurance policy to make sure that he was not elected president and then we get to the day [1:45:09] mauler was appointed special counsel day after let's go through this one again see if it rings a bell with [1:45:15] you who gives uh a f one more ad an investigation leading to impeachment with a question mark why are you [1:45:27] talking about impeachment the day of special counsel's appointment well sir well i mean and while you're [1:45:34] thinking about that let me give you a few other options you could have said an investigation leading [1:45:40] into indictments against russians an investigation leading to better election security an investigation [1:45:49] leading into a robust response to what russia tried to do to our country but you didn't say any of [1:45:54] that agent struck you went straight to impeachment do you know how impeachment works i have a general [1:46:02] understanding how does it work uh sir my understanding is limited to that is uh something [1:46:07] done by the congress that there are articles of impeachment and the procedure by which that occurs [1:46:12] i am not next let me ask you this do you have to be a sitting office holder to be impeached [1:46:17] sir i i don't know the answer to that well i actually do and i will take note that you never [1:46:23] once used the word in connection with secretary clinton did you sir i i did not know you no you [1:46:30] did if you did we don't have it so that's an investigation where you didn't think about [1:46:36] mentioning it but the day muller was appointed rather than than punishing russia rather than [1:46:44] indicting russians rather than doing something about social media you went straight to impeachment wrong [1:46:53] that's incorrect sir well i'll tell you what i'm out of time and uh we'll revisit the issue may i [1:47:00] respond to your question sir you may when we revisit the issue oh you just asked a question answer the [1:47:06] question mr chairman the witness is permitted to answer the question briefly as the gentleman [1:47:10] in louisiana is recognized as the chairman has repeatedly said today the gentleman from louisiana [1:47:15] is the witness not going to be permitted to answer the question mr mr chairman i'm going to i'm going to [1:47:19] object to you're not permitting the witness to answer the question you asked him one moment while [1:47:27] i find out who's next on the democrat side mr chairman that is not the question sir you asked if i [1:47:34] went directly to impeachment rather than russia i would like to respond to that question that you asked [1:47:39] immediately we're going to come back to it but but if you're dying to respond to it now as long as you [1:47:45] do actually respond to the question yes sir my immediate concern was absolutely having to do with [1:47:52] russia and everything related to that my concern was what russia was doing on social media my concern [1:47:57] was what russian intelligence officers were doing in the united states my concern was what the government [1:48:02] of russia might or might not be doing with members of the trump campaign that it was great and robust [1:48:07] that's that was my response that's wonderful and trust me when i tell you that would have been a longer [1:48:12] text i get that it would have taken a lot longer for you to actually type that but you didn't regular [1:48:18] order mr chairman are you going to just pontificate for non-stop general ladies from michigan is [1:48:23] recognized thank you um mr struts during your 11-hour closed-door interview with our committee [1:48:37] republicans asked you more than 200 questions on the special counsels and the fbi investigation [1:48:45] of the trump russia collusion and interference with the 2016 election at one point you described [1:48:53] how the special counsel's investigation had and i quote credible allegation that the government [1:49:03] of russia had offered assistance to elements and matters of the trump team on the election is that [1:49:11] correct uh i believe so i don't have a copy of the transcript so i will and subsequently rep metals [1:49:18] followed up with this question he stated and i quote there was evidence that russia was trying to do it [1:49:26] there was no evidence the other way around do you recall that i don't remember that specific exchange [1:49:33] ma'am you told and i i'm going from the transcript you told rep metals that you understood his question [1:49:42] but could not answer in an unclassified setting it appears from your transcript sir that you interpreted [1:49:50] his question as quote whether or not there were any reciprocation of that by members of the trump team [1:50:00] and offering their assistance back to russia you later continue to explain and i'm quoting from your [1:50:10] transcript as whether or not there was information about whether elements of the trump campaign were [1:50:17] themselves engaging in that i can't answer that in an unclassified setting and furthermore i don't think [1:50:25] the fbi or special counsel would want me commenting on ongoing investigations so just to be clear the [1:50:34] question of whether the trump campaign was trying to collude with russia calls for a classified response [1:50:42] and a response that would involve information that's part of an ongoing investigation is that right yes [1:50:51] thank you i certainly would not want you to reveal any classified or sensitive information investigative [1:50:58] information in this setting we have repeatedly gone back and forth with that and i don't understand why [1:51:05] we have to repeat things repeatedly to such an intelligent group of people back in march chairman gowdy [1:51:14] stated on national tv and i quote and if you believe as we have found that there's no evidence to [1:51:22] collusion you should want special counsel muller to take all the time and have all the independence he [1:51:30] needs to do his job chairman gowdy also stated and i quote when you're innocent if the allegations of [1:51:38] collusions with the russians there's no evidence of that you are not innocent of that act like it if [1:51:46] president trump and his allies want us to believe that there's no collusion with russia and that's what [1:51:52] this is about i would suggest that they take chairman gowdy's recommendation and begin acting like it [1:52:00] and i yield back my turn gillay yields back gillman mightahoe is recognized thank you mr chairman uh [1:52:08] in your opening testimony today you stated that quote not once did my personal bias interfere with [1:52:14] my judgment there's no evidence of bias in my professional actions close quote okay let's explore that [1:52:21] statement for a second can you please define because i'm really confused can you define your what's [1:52:25] your definition of bias i think sir bias depends on the context in which you're talking about with regard to [1:52:31] political opinion uh that is allowing your beliefs to get in the way of the honest independent [1:52:39] pursuit of facts so allowing your your own beliefs to get away get in the way of of your actions of [1:52:45] your honest right of your honesty of the honest open please give me an example of situation when [1:52:50] bias would interfere with your aspect your your professional judgment uh it's difficult to answer a [1:52:57] hypothetical i'm not going to interview a witness i am going to destroy evidence i am going [1:53:01] going to prevent somebody from taking an investigative step i'm not it's a difficult has there ever been [1:53:08] a time when your uh professional uh actions or are you believe that you had bias that you needed to [1:53:16] move on from an investigation at any time no no uh has there been a time in your uh career that you [1:53:24] recused yourself from a professional action no okay so you'll be surprised what i actually believe that [1:53:31] the russians try to destabilize our our uh economy the our way of life our government i think they have [1:53:38] been doing it for a long time i'm curious if this is the first time that russia tried to interfere with [1:53:44] an american election i'm aware of times where they you know going back to the 60s and 70s where they planted [1:53:55] evidence where they were seeking to introduce items of information that were false in newspapers [1:54:03] i'm not aware of any direct outreach to members of a a presidential either the candidate or his [1:54:11] immediate team did they attempt to interfere in the 2012 elections uh i'm certain they did yes [1:54:17] yeah so do you recall when president obama telling russian president medvev that he would have [1:54:22] more flexibility to negotiate on issues like missile defense after the 2012 election i don't remember [1:54:28] that sir no he said that in in a hot mic uh why wasn't that investigated sir because uh one there [1:54:36] were no allegations to my knowledge again i was not in the position this is the president of the [1:54:40] united states telling the russian president that he was not going he was going to have more [1:54:44] flexibility and he was going to do certain things do you recall during the debates when president obama [1:54:50] objected to candidate romney that the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy book [1:54:56] the cold war is over do you remember that i i don't but i okay so you were not interested in russian [1:55:03] interference with our elections in 2012 but you were interested in russian interference in 2016. that's [1:55:09] not true sir and and you were not interested in the actions of a president who was saying [1:55:15] that that that russia was no longer uh a foreign power that we needed to be concerned about sir i [1:55:21] disagree with that statement well you you don't even recall those statements so i i don't know how you [1:55:25] can re disagree with them you're you're characterizing my interest in their interference and i can [1:55:31] respond to that if you'd like that's fine how can you assure the american people that you're not [1:55:35] lying today because one i as i said before i'm doing it under oath i'm telling you having spent 26 years [1:55:42] putting on a gun putting my life at risk for this country i am not lying to you right now you're [1:55:47] doing that sir if you don't want to take my word for it no no that's fine people i get people might be [1:55:51] hesitant yeah i would say look at the record okay look at everybody who's worked with me so let's [1:55:56] look at what the ig said and i absolutely confirm today you stated that you don't mean it when you [1:56:01] said trump supporters smell you did not really mean it when you said that used the word impeachment you [1:56:07] did not mean it when you said republicans were hillbillies you were not telling the truth uh in those [1:56:14] moments no i disagree with that sir i said i didn't mean it when i talked about people that you could smell [1:56:18] the support or hillbillies that was a a poor choice of words that i don't believe i i did not say i did [1:56:24] not believe impeachment my explanation for impeachment was very different my explanation for impeachment [1:56:29] was as i considered it that was on the far end of what might be occurring okay so what i also said was [1:56:34] the opposite i i understand but so finally democrats have made assertions today that are just not true [1:56:40] first that the ig found no bias in your actions this is not true the ig said quote we were deeply [1:56:47] troubled by text messages sent by stroke and page that potentially indicated or created the appearance [1:56:52] that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper consideration right and read what you [1:56:58] just said sir potentially create the appearance that says nothing about an act of bias it is a [1:57:05] hedged three adjective description about something which i can tell you doesn't exist moreover as we [1:57:11] describe in chapter nine in assessing strokes decision to prioritize the russia investigation over [1:57:17] following up on the mid-year related investigative lead discovered on the wiener laptop in october 2016 [1:57:23] these text messages led us to conclude that we did not have confidence that stroke's decisions [1:57:28] was free from bias yes sir so you did he there was no there was no decision that there was no bias [1:57:35] bias they just cannot find whether there was bias or not and the moreover they did not really mr chairman [1:57:42] regular order they did not investigate the russian investigation in the ig report so there's going to [1:57:48] be still pending mr chairman the gentleman is out of time and yields back the gentleman from new york mr [1:57:53] jefferson his question i didn't hear a question i don't agree with it he was asking me whether or not [1:58:00] the i whether i believe that the ig report indicated that there is an active bias or not and i was all [1:58:05] right they're afraid to hear you answer but i'd like to ask the witness be permitted to answer a question [1:58:09] may i respond sir sure sir i let's look at the facts of that laptop the facts of the laptop are within [1:58:16] hours literally less than four hours of learning of that laptop i assigned agents to go and check in [1:58:21] and figure out what to do mr chairman that wasn't the within and within a day they had done so so and [1:58:26] these were folks unrelated to the gentleman from idaho is yielded back if you want to give a short [1:58:32] response to a question he does not believe he asked you're welcome to do it but just keep it short [1:58:39] speak clearly into the mic to raise the mic please for you absolutely so sir i i would take issue i do [1:58:44] take issue with the ig's conclusion there uh the ig said something that they could not exclude the [1:58:49] possibility that it played a role and what i would point you and point them to are the facts and the facts of [1:58:54] these within hours of learning hours of learning of the wiener laptop i assigned very seasoned [1:59:00] supervisory agents and subordinate agents and analysts to follow up on that and within a day [1:59:04] of getting that information they had gotten in touch with new york determined that new york had not [1:59:09] completed the processing and that they were going to get back together when that occurred so the notion [1:59:14] that anything was backburned is belied by the facts that literally within 24 hours of learning of that [1:59:20] information i had assigned people who by the way had nothing to do with the russia investigations to [1:59:25] follow up on the matter all right you've been given a chance to answer the gentleman from new york [1:59:29] is recognized struck the investigation into possible trump russian collusion in the 2016 [1:59:35] election has resulted in 23 indictments correct i don't know the number but it's sizable it's [1:59:40] resulted in 18 individuals uh who have been indicted true again i don't know the numbers but um [1:59:46] three corporate entities have been indicted in connection with the trump russian collusion [1:59:51] investigation correct i'll accept your representation i don't know the investigation [1:59:55] has identified at least 75 different criminal acts correct uh again sir i haven't tallied them up [2:00:03] there have been five guilty pleas true uh i believe that's correct sir but i'm not certain trump's [2:00:10] campaign manager paul manaford has been charged with conspiracy to defraud the united states of america [2:00:15] correct uh he's been charged i don't know the specific uh crimes he's sitting in jail right [2:00:19] now as a result of alleged witness tampering correct yes sir trump's former national security [2:00:24] advisor michael flynn has pled guilty to lying to the fbi correct yes sir trump's deputy campaign [2:00:30] manager rick gates has been indicted for conspiracy to defraud the united states correct sir he's been [2:00:35] indicted i don't know the charges george papandopoulos a former trump campaign national [2:00:39] security advisor has pled guilty to lying to federal investigators about his contacts [2:00:44] with russian spies during the campaign true uh certainly with russians i don't know how to [2:00:49] characterize those russians okay now the fbi publicly disclosed information about the hillary [2:00:53] clinton email investigation 11 days prior to the election in 2016 true uh yes sir i believe that's [2:01:00] right but the fbi maintained confidentiality about the trump russia criminal investigation during the entire [2:01:07] duration of the trump presidential campaign correct yes sir so if you really wanted to stop donald [2:01:14] trump from becoming president you could have revealed the criminal investigation into the trump [2:01:20] campaign to the american people prior to the election true yes sir mr struck you know you are before [2:01:29] this committee for one reason to serve as a monumental distraction there is a criminal investigation [2:01:38] into the trump campaign and possible crimes related to the 2016 presidential election involving [2:01:45] collusion with russian spies to sell out our democracy and hijack the presidency my colleagues in [2:01:54] the cover-up caucus don't like that criminal investigation and therefore they need to identify [2:02:03] a villain mr struck tag you're it here's what's so ironic about that characterization vladimir putin is a [2:02:15] thug and a dictator who hijacked and interfered and attacked our democracy but apparently he doesn't meet the [2:02:26] republican villain test our so-called commander-in-chief continues to play footsie with him kim jong-un murders [2:02:38] his people and has threatened nuclear annihilation against american cities but apparently he doesn't meet [2:02:48] the republican villain test the republican villain test the administration continues to engage in fake [2:02:54] negotiations with him david duke and neo-nazis apparently for some don't meet the republican villain [2:03:06] test oh that's right i forgot there are fine people on both sides roy moore an alleged [2:03:19] serial pedophile apparently doesn't meet the republican villain villain test he was the nominee of your party [2:03:31] for a seat in the united states senate but we're supposed to believe that agent peter struck a former army [2:03:41] officer who has served the fbi with distinction yes made some mistakes is the gravest existential threat [2:03:49] to our democracy how dare you lecture us about villains when your party continues to turn a blind eye to that [2:04:00] parade of degenerates that i just listed this investigation is a joke it's a fraud this hearing is a kangaroo [2:04:12] court it is a three-wing circus it is not even meritorious of an investigation by ace ventura pet detective [2:04:24] let alone 75 members of the united states congress let's stop wasting taxpayer dollars [2:04:31] and get back to the business of the american people gentleman from new york yields back the [2:04:37] gentleman from georgia is recognized thank you mr chairman generally from north carolina is recognized [2:04:51] thank you mr chairman i would like to yield my time to you i'll thank you lady from north carolina [2:04:58] agent struck on march the 14th 2017 i think we're what a couple of months into the presidency see if [2:05:08] you uh can recall this text that you uh received finally two pages away from finishing atpm do you know [2:05:19] the president resides in the end what is atpm i believe it's a reference to the book all the president's men [2:05:25] all right do you recall how you replied uh generally i feigned surprise and uh said something to the [2:05:31] effect that we should be so lucky or fortunate no it was lucky um lucky in what way uh sir am i that he [2:05:40] would uh resign as president you wanted him to resign two months into his presidency sir my sense was uh in [2:05:48] a personal belief that i was not pleased with the direction and things that were being done with the [2:05:53] presidency i thought you trusted the american people i thought that was what you said in august of 2016 [2:05:59] that the american people would stop him and then they didn't stop him and here we are in march all [2:06:05] of a sudden not trusting the american people anymore sir what i utterly trust the american people what i [2:06:10] worry about is when the government of russia puts their fingers on the scale and causes the will of [2:06:15] the american people to be something other than america how many indictments have there been of americans [2:06:20] for collusion with russia sir i couldn't answer that question sure you could well when you worked [2:06:26] on the investigation first you you know full well sir collusion is not a crime i don't know where that [2:06:31] term came from but well you're right it's not it's not conspiracy coordination collusion a lot of people [2:06:38] use those words in the same way how about we say conspiracy how many americans have been indicted for [2:06:44] conspiring with russia to impact the 2016 election uh none to my knowledge yet and we'll be happy to [2:06:53] get mr nadler as a witness at next week's hearing if he wants to help you answer that so you wanted [2:07:01] president trump to resign two months into his presidency uh no sir i think i read that text as a snarky [2:07:08] comment about a book that was being read and a comment made it is a conversational text exchange it is not a [2:07:15] written expression of a desire for something to occur hey maybe i missed it well help me god [2:07:22] that we should be so lucky yes sir and i think you would accept as a very intelligent sophisticated [2:07:29] man that people frequently speak when they're texting or in conversation you'll say things that [2:07:33] are hyperbole or exaggerations are not literal because that's just the nature of the usually agent [2:07:39] struck not when i was supposed to be dispassionately neutrally investigating someone i i i actually did [2:07:46] not but let's go let's go we've already passed the who gives a f one more ad versus an investigation [2:07:54] leading to impeachment and i think we've already established that there is a school of thought that [2:08:00] you can be impeached even if you're not a current office holder you can be barred from holding office in [2:08:05] the future but you did not engage in any impeachment analysis in your other 2016 investigation with [2:08:11] secretary clinton you saved all of that for candidate trump so i want to go to another text you and i [2:08:20] both know the odds are nothing if i thought it was likely i'd be there no question now this is the day [2:08:28] after muller was appointed when you said be there are you talking about on his team yes sir i hesitate in [2:08:35] part because of my gut sense and concern there's no big there there so in addition to disappointing the [2:08:46] hell out of my democrat colleagues that someone who was investigating russian collusion didn't think [2:08:52] there was any there there why would you be concerned why would you not be ecstatic that there was no [2:09:00] collusion why the word concern sir i i don't know what i meant concern to me seems like there is a lot [2:09:08] going on and a lot presumptive that there may be something like impeachment but sir you got to pick [2:09:13] which one do you want i'm either convinced that there's impeachment or i'm convinced what you just [2:09:19] read that there's no there there and the reality sir if you look at it is the fact that i was looking [2:09:25] at this with an open mind and saying i don't know what actually is agent struck of all the universe of [2:09:31] options that's not the one i picked but of all the universe of options you looking at something with [2:09:37] an open mind is not the one i picked that's the obvious one to conclude from that email i'll tell [2:09:42] you the one that i picked the one i picked and it breaks my heart to say this about an agent for an [2:09:48] agency that i have tremendous respect for you as a counterintelligence officer had no interest in [2:09:55] participating in a counterintelligence investigation that was not going to lead to impeachment no that's [2:10:01] how i read it mr chairman if i thought it was like you are mr chairman you are assuming someone else's [2:10:09] chairman you're coming to conclusions on someone else's viewpoints in the hearing i allow the witness [2:10:14] to respond it's my time and the general aides not recognized i hesitate in part because of my gut [2:10:20] sense and concern there's no big there there sir man what were you concerned wasn't there [2:10:29] sir my concern was not knowing given these allegations what existed whether on the one hand [2:10:36] there was no criminal activity whatsoever towards the middle that there were individuals kind of [2:10:42] pursuing their own agendas for their own self-enrichment or on the far end that there might be an [2:10:47] impeachable offense why wouldn't you want to investigate i answered by answer your question [2:10:52] my question is why would you not want to investigate that sir i did want to investigate that that is not [2:10:57] what you're reading what you are reading is my trying to decide what i want to do with the course [2:11:03] of my career and whether to stay as a deputy assistant director in the counterintelligence division [2:11:08] where i have oversight of a wide variety of threats around the globe or whether i want to remove myself [2:11:14] and go work on something in the special counsel's office that is very specific that is going to [2:11:19] take but i don't know how long it was going to take for you sir but what to your point you're leaving [2:11:25] out one really important word agent struck this impeachment that was exactly regular order it's now [2:11:31] a minute and a half over does it miss sorry if we made that one on and on and on as long as the [2:11:36] quicker i can go the point of order i would tell you one big word of impeachment and add four big words [2:11:43] of no big there there and the reality is you know full well i said both and you know why i said both [2:11:50] why i did that and what i'm telling you under oath is that i did not know what existed i had prejudged [2:11:56] nothing that was all to be determined and that is a logical way for investigators [2:12:02] attorneys and starting with the political death penalty and impeachment is not the logical way [2:12:10] a neutral dispassionate you know point of order we're demanding equal time for every member of [2:12:14] this new jersey is right mr chairman mr chairman and if you can't control yourself how do you expect [2:12:20] this committee to control itself you've been out of control since you've been on this committee [2:12:26] why don't you leave it alone this is not benghazi the general lady from new jersey is recognized you're [2:12:34] recognized congresswoman you're recognized when she finishes well hallelujah first of all mr strozak i [2:12:42] want to thank you for your service secondly mr strozak i think you made a big mistake by putting those [2:12:48] text messages on your purse on your business phone because then you opened up your personal phone and [2:12:55] here we are talking about this mess when it really isn't important because the other thing that i know [2:13:00] mr strozak is that even if you do have biases you you did not influence the outcome of this investigation [2:13:10] the attorney the i the ig found that the outcome of this investigation was predicated upon evidence [2:13:17] and information the other thing i know is that no matter how much you disliked hillary and or donald trump [2:13:26] you didn't have anything to do with either one of them getting elected you have nothing to do with [2:13:33] the president of the united states disgracing this country every single solitary day when he embraces [2:13:41] our enemies and sucks up uh embraces our enemies and and is disrespectful to our allies you have nothing [2:13:51] to do with the fact that the president of the united states has declared higher tariffs [2:13:56] in the name of um security to this nation against our closest friend and neighbor canada but no one [2:14:04] on this side of the aisle has opened their mouth you have had nothing to do with the president enriching [2:14:12] himself with his emoluments and carving out opportunities for his daughter so that she's [2:14:19] not negatively impacted with her brands in china while this side of the aisle says nothing [2:14:25] you've had nothing to do with the fact that puerto rico is still underwater and without any kind of [2:14:32] electricity in so many places why this side of the aisle that's a part of the oversight committee [2:14:38] has forgotten what its mission is but nonetheless you have been here and you have tried to answer [2:14:45] their questions and i have never seen my colleagues so out of control so angry and so desperate to [2:14:53] protect the president that we all know is not fit to be president so i want to leave you this opportunity [2:15:02] is there any question on the table mr strozak that you've been asked that you'd like to clarify because [2:15:11] i can give you two minutes and 25 seconds to have your say uninterrupted congresswoman i deeply appreciate [2:15:22] that time i do want everybody's watching this and making up their own mind and what i would tell you [2:15:32] is one i'm sitting here telling you the truth and two independent of me i cannot express to you my love [2:15:43] of the fbi enough the men and women who make up that workforce their ethics their integrity are unmatched [2:15:52] anywhere in the world and i think that's important one because it is who we are two that none of them [2:16:01] would accept any of the behaviors that are being alleged any more than i would accept it in him [2:16:06] and three this entire exercise comes at a cost we are doing things that are going to in the future [2:16:15] tear down the underpinnings of what represent law and order in this country and there is not a [2:16:21] a robust thick wall there i think people don't appreciate how tenuous the balance of the rule [2:16:30] of law versus chaos is and when we as a people engage in activity where we take institutions wholesale [2:16:36] whether it's the fbi or the u.s intelligence community and compare them to nazis we destroy [2:16:43] things that one we may not see for years and years and years and once we break those down the amount of [2:16:48] time it takes to fix is going to be tenfold and i cannot stress enough that i ask all of you to [2:16:55] take deeply your responsibility to maintain our system of thank you mr truzak i just need to say in [2:17:03] closing if anybody should be pissed at the fbi because you all helped this unfit man become president [2:17:12] of united states by not revealing to the people that he was under investigation in his campaign [2:17:18] it should be me they should be applauding you kissing you and giving you all awards because [2:17:26] but for you we would have had a legitimate president elected i give back my time general [2:17:33] from new york is recognized for unanimous consent mr chairman as you are aware under house rules [2:17:38] minority members have the right to demand a day of hearings to allow witnesses to testify on the [2:17:43] subject of today's hearing as you also know during the course of today's hearing the majority [2:17:48] opposed representative swalwell's motion to subpoena steve bannon for testimony on behalf of the [2:17:53] minority members of both the judiciary and government reform committees i am delivering a letter to [2:17:57] chairman goodlett and chairman gowdy formally invoking our right to call a minority day of hearings [2:18:03] so that steve bannon may testify and i ask unanimous consent to insert a copy of that letter into the [2:18:08] hearing record without objection gentleman george is recognized thank you mr chairman mr truck i appreciate [2:18:13] you being here thank you and i will assure you i take this very seriously but also i want to as you [2:18:19] go in and look and there's been a lot of talks about text there's been a lot of talk about your bias [2:18:23] non-bias your opinions and your willingness to elaborate on that i have some questions that will [2:18:29] not require you to have to be elaborate or anything they're going to be simple straightforward [2:18:33] questions because as i've been looking through this and also talking to the current fbi director the [2:18:38] current deputy attorney general and reading through some things some things have popped up [2:18:41] that i think at least needs some clarification when was the last time you were subject to a polygraph [2:18:47] uh approximately two or three years ago two or three years ago to your knowledge have you ever [2:18:55] failed a polygraph or found to be out of scope uh i've never failed one i was out of scope uh prior to [2:19:02] my last polygraph when and that would have been at what time you said two to three years ago could you [2:19:07] be more specific uh sir i think we can cut to the chase i think there's an email that talks about people [2:19:11] being out of scope for a polygraph which generated my last polygraph oh don't worry we're going to [2:19:15] be cut to the chase sir so if so you want to go ahead and say january 2016 when you received a text [2:19:20] or an email correct uh sir if that's the date i'll stipulate to that i don't have those okay [2:19:24] we'll take that as a stipulation as an examiner ever accused you of attempting to use countermeasures [2:19:29] to during a polygraph examination not to my recollection no you received your email in january [2:19:34] as you've stated and you've uh stipulated to your polygraph was out of scope in january 2016. [2:19:39] to your knowledge how long was your polygraph out of scope sir i don't know i recall it's the [2:19:49] penultimate the second last polygraph i had was when i was a supervisor at washington field office [2:19:53] which would have occurred somewhere between 2008 and 2011. my understanding what out of scope means [2:19:59] for the fbi is that polygraphs have a kind of five-year span of uh effectiveness or or validity [2:20:07] we had several people we were trying to including me trying to get right into a particular uh [2:20:12] intelligence compartment they ran the names me and some others were out of scope uh which happens [2:20:17] because polygraphs are the line for polygraphs is longer than the north i understand i'm in the [2:20:23] military mr struck i understand the lines for polygraph i understand the delays in them all over [2:20:27] you happen to have a very secure job and a very one that is highly uh sensitive so the question is again [2:20:32] i would assume to answer your evasiveness you did not know how long you were out of scope is that [2:20:37] correct yes or no that's fair sir i was trying to recreate it by recollection but so yes or no do [2:20:41] you know how long you were out of scope i do not okay do you what was taken what steps were taken to [2:20:46] bring you into scope i went and had a polygraph okay when was then all right was this after the january 16 [2:20:52] letter that you received it would have been afterwards yes okay if you were out of scope the last time [2:20:57] when was the last time you class you accessed classified information um last night before [2:21:04] last preparing for this okay you currently you currently have what classification i have a top [2:21:10] secret clearance with some sci compartments okay during the time that you were out of scope did you [2:21:16] have access to sci yes sir are you aware that it is fbi procedure that a failure or out of scope polygraph [2:21:25] is a term does not terminate a top secret but however a failure of this would require you to be [2:21:30] read out of sci access although you could maintain your top secret this was a direct answer from a [2:21:37] question that i posed and was received within the last week were you aware that you should have been [2:21:43] read out of any sci information sure i believe i believe used the word failure which implies in my [2:21:50] mind a failed poly i am not and was not aware of the fact that an out of scope polygraph [2:21:55] required a read out of sci then the question then i i accept that mr struck but i want to [2:21:59] back to the question the answer came back from the from the fbi and justice itself that it was that [2:22:06] is the procedure so the next question i have is after the 26 18 you did your polygraph at what time [2:22:12] you said you were out of scope you were brought in by giving a polygraph when would that have been [2:22:16] again sir my recollection is the 2016 time frame but i'd after that email but i don't know when [2:22:21] within a month or two i think are you also aware in the publicly stated version of the ig report [2:22:26] that there has been some serious questions and issues concerning polygraph information and lack [2:22:30] of polygraph uh procedures at the department of justice and fbi that was brought out by the inspector [2:22:37] general i'm not i generally aware that there was a report but i'm not aware of the conclusions one of [2:22:43] the general concerns on this is that when you're out of scope and this is the answer coming back from [2:22:48] department of justice you should have been read out of sci my concern is is that during this time [2:22:54] frame you were involved in two very high profile what would have been or at least getting ready for [2:22:59] sci information in which you were not read out of this is a concern there's nothing else from that [2:23:04] question i have no further questions and i am finished and i yield back i think you misstated [2:23:08] the conclusion there sir i think you said that in the event of a failure it would require readout and [2:23:14] that's not the gentleman from georgia controls the time mr truck time's over mr chairman the time's [2:23:21] up may i respond sir there was no question to respond to the answer is from the department just [2:23:25] i read you the answer may i comment to what i believe is a misstatement briefly georgia sir from [2:23:31] your answer what i took that to be is in the event of a failure an individual should be read out [2:23:37] you are conflating that with a out of scope or failure it is not my understanding that out of scope [2:23:42] requires somebody to be read out it may be i'm not a security professional but you [2:23:47] you appear to so you're out of sleep right now with an answer that was received from department [2:23:52] of justice and that is an interesting answer that you just gave that you may have been out of sync [2:23:56] and the question now becomes is policies and procedures failed or not failed this is a serious [2:24:00] investigation which i do take seriously and if you were to be in read out you should have been read [2:24:04] out that is my final answer statement not a question not opposed i yield back the gentleman from rhode [2:24:10] island mr ciccellini is recognized and mr chairman i look forward to a couple of extra minutes as [2:24:15] each of my republican colleagues have had uh mr struck i'm serving on this committee representing the [2:24:20] state of rhode island has been one of the greatest honors of my life but the conduct of this committee [2:24:25] today has been for me tremendously sad embarrassing and really dangerous to our democracy i want to [2:24:33] apologize to you for the way you've been treated by this committee and for the american people who are [2:24:37] watching you ought not wonder why they've lost confidence in congress and are sick of the kind [2:24:43] of circus that they saw being conducted in this room today because rather than focusing on urgent [2:24:48] issues like family separation reasonable efforts to reduce gun violence in our communities considering [2:24:55] legislation to reform our broken immigration system passing legislation to reduce the cost of [2:25:00] prescription drugs addressing the inability of americans who fall behind in their student loans to [2:25:06] discharge that debt in bankruptcy or oversight of the many conflicts of interest and corruption in [2:25:11] this administration we're having yet another hearing on the hillary clinton emails what you should [2:25:18] understand mr struck is the reason my republican colleagues will not let you answer a question [2:25:24] is because they're not interested in your answers this is about promoting a narrative you are being you're a prop [2:25:31] so they can promote a narrative in an ongoing effort to distract from the serious investigation of the [2:25:37] special counsel that is closing in on the trump inner circle this is a campaign to undermine that work [2:25:45] and sadly they'll do whatever is necessary to do it in concert with the president attack the fbi [2:25:52] attack the department of justice undermine the rule of law and so your emails are a perfect foil for [2:25:58] this effort they're not interested in hearing your context in your explanation because it's not about [2:26:03] you it's about protecting the president my colleagues have acted more like they're on the defense team [2:26:08] for donald trump than exercising their very serious oversight responsibilities as members of these two [2:26:14] committees you know robert muller was praised to the heavens by everyone republican and democratic like [2:26:19] when he was appointed now he's a villain what's the only thing that's changed 19 indictments five guilty [2:26:27] please and the circles closing in so i accept your sworn testimony about the difference between bias [2:26:34] and the actions you took we don't have to take your word for it alone although i do the ig report of [2:26:40] 500 pages interviews review of documents comes to the same conclusions can we find the decisions made [2:26:47] were consistent with the analytic approach described above we found that these specific decisions were the [2:26:52] result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an investigation by the media agents and [2:26:56] prosecutors and that these judgments were all were reasonable so it's we don't we don't there's a big [2:27:01] analysis that was done lots of interviews 500 pages that's the same conclusion uh the same representation [2:27:07] you've made today but don't be frustrated because they're not interested in that this is about [2:27:11] promoting a narrative so we know of course mr struck that the president the intelligence communities [2:27:18] unequivocally conclude that russia interfered in our elections that it was directed by vladimir putin [2:27:26] and for the purposes of helping donald trump and hurting hilly crinton isn't that correct uh yes [2:27:31] sir do you have any reason to doubt the uh assessment of our intelligence agencies that made made with [2:27:36] high confidence no sir and thereafter the senate intelligence committee in a bipartisan way a [2:27:41] republican-led committee came to the same conclusion isn't that right yes sir and yet the president of [2:27:46] the united states and members of administration continue to deny that the russian government [2:27:50] interfered in our elections in fact just as recently as june 28th the president said russia continues to [2:27:55] say they had nothing to do with meddling in our elections yes sir and even secretary nielsen said [2:28:01] i do not believe that i've seen that conclusion that the specific intent was to help president [2:28:05] trump win i don't recall hearing that but and in addition to that you know about a trump tower meeting [2:28:11] where there was a discussion uh between members of the trump campaign and russian operatives correct [2:28:17] i i am aware of that and the president then sorry i would just i would not characterize it one way or [2:28:23] the other as russian operatives or not but i'm aware of them okay and in that meeting there was [2:28:27] a discussion about some dirt that the russians had on hillary clinton correct media reporting has [2:28:32] indicated that and the president then issued a statement in which he lied about that meeting and [2:28:36] said it was about an adoption discussion correct those statements have been made again i'm relying on [2:28:41] what's been reported in the media not fbi or special counsel so would you tell me mr struck in the time [2:28:46] that i have remaining what should we conclude what what what what raises eyebrows for you about [2:28:52] members of a presidential campaign meeting with a foreign adversary the united states to talk about [2:28:57] dirt from from their about their opponent and then lying about the the nature of that meeting what [2:29:03] what should we why should that concern the american people well sir i don't want to i don't want to [2:29:09] comment on any specific fact pattern or anything that relates to an ongoing investigation uh you know [2:29:14] i so i i hesitate and i don't want to do that in this context okay thank you mr mr chairman i'd just like to [2:29:19] note for the record we've had zero hearings on russian interference in the american presidential [2:29:25] election zero hearings in this committee about our efforts to secure our democracy and security [2:29:30] elections coming up in november we've had hundreds of hours devoted to hillary clinton's email this [2:29:35] committee has failed in its responsibilities to secure our elections which is a responsibility we have [2:29:40] to the american people and then when we finally have an opportunity to raise the issue instead we're [2:29:44] going to talk about hillary clinton's email shame on all i'm with the gentleman he's going to judge [2:29:49] you very harshly for this behavior you recognize the gentleman from florida mr desantis for five minutes [2:29:54] thank you mr chairman mr struck you've defended your actions said that you did not uh evince bias that [2:29:59] your actions were motivated by bias but the inspector general disagreed um when he asked you about the [2:30:05] insurance policy text the will stop it text you provided an explanation similar that you did today [2:30:11] um and he found your explanation to be unpersuasive and you you're aware of that correct i'm not aware [2:30:16] of that with regard to that text well he did he testified when we had him in here in june um in [2:30:22] response to my questioning he also said that your explanation for how you handled the anthony weiner [2:30:28] laptop you delayed you didn't take action initially um he said your your explanation for that and he did [2:30:34] note that in the report was not persuasive you're aware of that correct sir i'm aware of facts [2:30:39] rebutting that that he has rebutting that specific assertion well he testified to us that he was not [2:30:45] persuaded by your explanation for why you focused on the trump-russia collusion and you let the weiner [2:30:50] thing uh sit and then he testified in front of our committee that it was reasonable to infer that [2:30:56] your actions involving weiner's laptop the fact that you didn't pursue that aggressively that it is [2:31:03] reasonable to infer that it was because of the bias that you have vince in those text messages are you [2:31:08] aware of his testimony with that uh not specific to that but i'll accept your representation yes and [2:31:12] i think it's important to show while the ig report said the clinton charging decision was not necessarily [2:31:17] due to bias he said that the weiner is absolutely a fair game to infer that and then they're obviously [2:31:24] continuing to investigate the genesis of this russia uh interference case do you also know that rod [2:31:30] rosenstein on june 28th when he testified in front of this committee uh he said you were biased [2:31:37] are you aware of that in response to my questions yes he did and he also says that the bias that you [2:31:43] have vince it does undermine the integrity of your investigative actions and it causes the american [2:31:48] people to lose confidence in in the institution do you know he said that uh i don't and he's well he [2:31:54] did so i just the idea that there's no bias here is not i don't think your explanations have been [2:31:59] credible um and i think that if you acted so inappropriate so appropriately you know muller [2:32:06] removed you from the team you're now at human resources which is obviously a demotion um and [2:32:11] then you are now the sub one of the subjects of an ongoing ig investigation correct no sir you're not [2:32:17] your conduct is not being reviewed by by horowitz about what you did or did not do i'm unaware of [2:32:23] being a subject of any ongoing well i get i bet you your conduct is at issue there let me ask you [2:32:28] this um you opened up the counterintelligence investigation on 31 july was that because of [2:32:35] the george papadopoulos information sir i can't get into the the guidance that the fbi has provided me [2:32:42] about answers i can provide that gets into a level of detail that i can well that i've been directed not [2:32:47] to have answered some questions i mean i think this has been a little bit of convenience i mean you've [2:32:51] answered some questions about there was grave concerns and all this stuff about why you were [2:32:55] doing it you didn't do that um the dossier was the dossier a part of why you opened up the investigation [2:33:02] no but sir none of this has been convenience all of this has been based on what the department has [2:33:07] worked out with chairman goodlat about what is permitted not this is not a function so the dossier [2:33:12] was not part of it um that's important when did you learn the dossier was funded by hillary [2:33:17] clinton and the democratic party um i cannot i don't think that's an accurate representation in [2:33:22] the department or the fbi has directed me not to answer that question based on on right so hillary dnc [2:33:28] sent to perkins cooey who sent to fusion who paid you know i mean come on again it was a political [2:33:34] document i i the latter's close i'm not i cannot comment the fbi has directed me to not answer that [2:33:42] question would it be fair to say that dossier was what would you choose is it is it a political [2:33:47] document opposition research or is it legitimate intelligence sir i i would very much like to answer [2:33:52] that question okay i've been directed by the fbi that i may not get into that based on operational [2:33:57] requirements or equities so here's the issue i think we have we see the bias that you did your [2:34:03] explanations for why you said what you did you know really aren't credible we're trying to get to the [2:34:08] genesis of why open up a counterintelligence investigation against the opposing party's [2:34:12] campaign i'm with you about focusing on russia and holding them accountable but you tried to rope [2:34:18] in the other party's nominee there was also also a lot of bias and then we can't get any answers to [2:34:23] the questions of what the genesis of any of this was and let me finish may 18th chairman gaudi mentioned [2:34:30] you say look there's my concerns that there's no big there there so this had been going on for at least [2:34:35] 10 months i think it was going on before july 31st and there you are muller's appointed and you can't [2:34:41] even identify any reason to suspect that there was collusion between trump's campaign and russia there [2:34:46] was no big there there after 10 months so that's the concern is that somebody like you who said we'll [2:34:53] stop him who said we needed insurance policy that you let that bias you wanted there to be something [2:34:58] there you wanted it to be true and that i think influenced your actions you can prove us wrong by [2:35:04] providing us the information i'd like the information on any type of informants pre july 31st i like the [2:35:11] information on what you use to open up the counterintelligence investigate i want to know whether [2:35:15] that was any foreign intelligence involved there was whether was funneled through the state department [2:35:19] these are all questions that if we just put those out and answer them then a lot of us would be able to [2:35:25] then make make i think american people can make a judgment i'm going over my time uh i yield back [2:35:30] mr chairman the gentleman has expired question briefly sir uh two things you asked why i couldn't [2:35:37] explain why a case would be open i don't think that's accurate if you look at director comey's [2:35:41] statement when the department of justice had authorized him to say that the fbi had opened a case into [2:35:46] allegations that the government of russia had made an offer uh of assistance in the potential [2:35:52] involvement of members of the trump campaign i cannot envision a scenario where that would not be a [2:35:59] reasonable predication to open an investigation well if it's papadopoulos that's not quite what they [2:36:04] what they had i mean you didn't quite get there i know comey may have said that but you didn't quite [2:36:08] get there so if it's papadopoulos that's weak i think the characterization was uh that it was a [2:36:14] credible source of information stands on its own i don't think anybody in this committee would argue [2:36:18] that one it wasn't appropriate to open that and two that it wasn't absolutely we have questions about [2:36:24] whether it was appropriate because we don't know the underlying information and we read in the new [2:36:28] york times from leaks that it was just because papadopoulos said at a bar time of the gentleman [2:36:33] has expired that's the reason trying to respond regular order regular order the chair recognizes [2:36:39] the gentleman mr chairman there is i was not there's a second element of a question the gentleman very [2:36:44] no you raised the question about whether or not i agreed with the inspector general that i had [2:36:52] acted in any way that was biased you you you had an opportunity to answer that earlier i i did not [2:36:57] to this gentleman from illinois mr krishnamoorthy is recognized for five minutes thank you mr chair [2:37:05] thank you mr strook uh mr strook on july 3rd your lawyer mr goleman made the following statement to [2:37:11] chris cuomo on cnn regarding you his client on fox news they talk about him as the center of this anti-trump [2:37:18] cabal that was determined to throw the election against trump none of this has a shred of truth do you [2:37:24] agree with this statement sir i do and in a june 19th op-ed in usa today your lawyer said regarding [2:37:31] the russia investigation what we call the russia collusion investigation that you and your team [2:37:37] quote unquote went out of their way to prevent leaks and actively ensured that news reports [2:37:44] did not overplay the seriousness of the investigation is that true sir yes now tell us why it's so important [2:37:51] to prevent leaks from the fbi to journalists or to others leaks are terrible uh they they undercut [2:37:59] things in a variety of ways they can upend investigations they can lead to incorrect [2:38:04] assumptions they can let witnesses subjects know that they're being investigated they can lead to wild [2:38:09] speculation destruction of evidence any number of really bad disclosure classified information any [2:38:15] number of really bad adverse things got it the doj ig's report has this to say about your involvement in [2:38:23] the decision to inform congress about the wiener laptop quote unquote struck explained that the [2:38:29] decision to seek a search warrant for the wiener laptop was known to many people beyond the mid-year [2:38:36] team and this raised a concern that this information could leak is this statement from the ig's report true [2:38:44] yes now could you unpack that for us a little bit first of all um you said according to the ig's report [2:38:53] that the search warrant for the wiener laptop was known to many people beyond the mid-year team [2:38:59] could you explain whether any of those people would be in the new york field office uh so the investment [2:39:06] my recollection is that the investigation of um the crimes against children case uh mr wiener was handled [2:39:12] out of the new york field office by the southern district of new york or or maybe the eastern [2:39:16] district i think it was sdny and so uh the people to whom you're referring included people in the new [2:39:22] york field office correct that's correct and you had concerns about their actions if director comey did [2:39:28] not inform congress about this uh wiener laptop i did not have concerns about new york my concerns were [2:39:35] were just general that the more people who are aware of something the greater chance that it [2:39:40] uh leaks out somehow but those concerns were not specific in my mind to new york okay um let me ask [2:39:48] you about this um in a report in that same report attorney general loretta lynch recalls a conversation [2:39:56] with then director comey in the final days of the 2016 election quote unquote he referring to comey said [2:40:03] it's clear to me that there's a cadre of senior people in new york who have a deep and visceral hatred of [2:40:09] secretary clinton and he said it is quote unquote deep were you aware of this uh of this concern i was [2:40:16] aware of the certainly some of the press reporting and some people expressing that concern yes was one [2:40:22] of those people uh uh director comey uh a person having that concern yes yes could you explain to [2:40:30] me a little bit about that and how that uh in your view affected um the revelation of the uh warrant for [2:40:39] wiener's laptop uh i you'd have to ask director comey that i think the there there was discussion i [2:40:46] remember and particularly some of it was in the context of reporting from uh mr giuliani and others [2:40:52] talking about connections to new york but again i don't want to scapegoat new york because a lot of [2:40:57] people were aware of it and there were concerns just about the number of folks but uh with regard to mr [2:41:02] comey my recollection is that he was aware of those concerns but i was not privy to discussions he had with [2:41:08] any of the attorney general or other other concerns you might have had outside of my presence or [2:41:12] conversation now with regard to mr giuliani on october 25th then trump campaign advisor rudy giuliani [2:41:19] promised a quote unquote pretty big surprise coming up in the campaign on october 28th giuliani claimed to be [2:41:27] in contact with former agents and a quote unquote few active agents who obviously don't want to identify [2:41:33] themselves um let me make sure i have this right there was a concern that there is a deep and visceral [2:41:39] hatred towards secretary clinton in the new york field office at the same time mr giuliani says that he's [2:41:45] having uh contacts with agents um active agents um what is can you give us your take on this and your [2:41:53] comments on this particular issue i recall that comment i recall it uh craig caused me a lot of concern [2:41:59] uh you know and why why did it cause you concern because while it's certainly possible that mr giuliani [2:42:05] is exaggerating or engaging in some sort of uh puffery the reality is that also given the things that [2:42:14] were going on giving timing that the laptop was there and he was talking about that in the context of [2:42:19] a big surprise it caused me great concern that he had information uh about that in other words that [2:42:25] not have had that he should not have had correct through a leak through an unauthorized disclosure [2:42:32] sure leak yes thank you sir the uh members are advised that there are floor votes on the floor of the [2:42:40] house four votes mr struck you probably have a good 45 minutes to all right uh members are advised that [2:42:56] this will be the last one so if you want to head to the floor for votes but uh the chair recognizes the [2:43:00] gentleman from kentucky mr massey mr chairman i yield my five minutes to the gentleman from ohio mr jordan [2:43:07] sir i can't hear you just a couple questions um agent struck in earlier round you said you never [2:43:18] talked to glenn simpson right correct and you never talked to nelly or correct and you wouldn't say [2:43:26] whether you knew if nelly or worked for fusion is that correct my understanding from my direction above the [2:43:32] fbi's i'm not permitted to answer that question okay but you did say you talked with bruce or fellow [2:43:38] department of justice employee and nelly orr's husband yes but it is common knowledge that nelly [2:43:44] or worked for fusion in the summer of 2016 is that right i don't know if it's common knowledge or not [2:43:50] it's been in all kinds of reports it is not kinds of press reports all right you met with uh bruce or in [2:43:56] in 2016 and 2017 so the time period that we're focused on to the best of my recollection yes all right [2:44:02] and you won't tell me what you guys talked about uh sir i can tell you we talked about operational [2:44:06] matters that he was involved in but the fbi's directed me not to give you not to specifically [2:44:11] you can't you can't get into specifics and details did bruce or give you any documents sir same answer [2:44:17] uh it's i would like to answer that question but the fbi's directed me not to get into you can't [2:44:23] my understanding is mr chairman the discussions we've had with the fbi he's allowed to tell us those [2:44:29] kind of pieces of information i'm not asking what the documents were i'm just asking did bruce or [2:44:34] ever hand you documents i understand full well what your question is sir and i would love to answer [2:44:37] it my understanding from the fbi is when it comes to operational details including whether or not we [2:44:42] collected evidence or didn't that i'm not permitted to answer that i would sir i would love to answer [2:44:47] that question all all these i mean you understand where i'm where i'm coming from right agent struck [2:44:52] sir i understand your frustration and and what i'm here to tell you is i think the answers would [2:44:56] you understand you understand yeah you understand we got an email from you briefing everybody on the [2:45:02] team all the key players rebicki baker page mafa pre-step and andy mccabe and in that email you say [2:45:12] the dossier that you are now looking at the buzzfeed is printing has differences from the one given to us [2:45:19] by corn and simpson earlier today i asked you who corn and simpson is and you wouldn't answer that it's [2:45:24] kind of funny to me because yesterday david corn tweeted out he's the corn in your email so the guy [2:45:31] himself identified himself we all know it's david corn and then the other name is simpson so you you [2:45:36] have this and we're wondering how the dossier got to or if more importantly if the dossier got to the fbi [2:45:43] through media sources not just through christopher steel and of course we know nelly or worked for [2:45:49] the guy you're mentioning glenn simpson she worked for him the whole time you've never had conversations [2:45:57] with her but you did have a lot of important conversations on operational matters and ongoing [2:46:02] investigations with her husband bruce or who's also happened to be reassigned at the department of [2:46:08] justice and i'm just one and you've said that well you won't answer the question whether mr or has [2:46:14] given you documents or not so i'm just wondering if that was the route was that the route the dossier went [2:46:20] glenn simpson to nelly or to her husband and then to you sir i that's my frustration i understand your [2:46:28] question i understand your frustration i understand the absurdity of something produced that you're [2:46:34] reading that i've been directed not to answer questions about the best i can more importantly [2:46:39] like to answer you and i'm afraid it's an answer that would both reassure you and disappoint you well [2:46:44] we're going to be asking i think mr chairman it's okay with you we're going to be asking the fbi and [2:46:48] the department of justice to give us those documents that may or may not have been exchanged between [2:46:53] mr or and agent struck i think that's something this committee would like to have and see what [2:46:59] those uh if in fact there were documents what the heck they were i got a minute i'll yield it to [2:47:05] sir you're going to love this and it's going to upset the vote i have been instructed that the fbi has [2:47:09] now told me that i can answer questions about the receipt of the document so i will defer mr chairman if [2:47:15] you would like to well how can you hear that or take your vote the gentleman may proceed with his [2:47:20] questions and you may answer before may i may i confer with council briefly to see if this is [2:47:25] completely unbounded or if there are any limitations on what i may say well i got a lot of questions i've [2:47:32] asked all day long let's ask the one you've been told you can answer all right so let's hear the answer [2:47:35] to this one which question sir the one that's on the table about the documents sir the documents we [2:47:41] received from a different source uh in the initial batch in mid-september wait wait wait no no no i'm [2:47:47] not understanding you said you got go back did you get documents from bruce orr uh yes at some point [2:47:54] we received material from mr or you got documents from bruce or and what were those documents uh we [2:47:59] received documents from mr or not me excuse me sir i can maybe make it simpler agent struck was it the [2:48:15] dossier sir what i am authorized to tell you in response to a question did you receive any documents [2:48:22] from bruce or the fbi has directed me that i may say i did not eat not me the fbi received documents [2:48:31] and material from mr or did you i i appreciate that i appreciate that but you did not from mr or no [2:48:37] okay but the fbi did get documents from bruce orr yes sir did they get the dossier from bruce or [2:48:42] uh my direction from the fbi as i may tell you the fbi received material from mr or is that this [2:48:52] congressman i am this is amazing this is amazing so i'm elio rated as you are nelly or works for [2:48:58] fusion works for glenn simpson and she's giving documents regular order please let us bring the [2:49:04] director of the fbi to answer those questions the gentleman cannot answer well he asked and answered [2:49:10] the american people asked and answered he cannot answer the gentleman let's have director general [2:49:15] the the regular order i understand mr chairman regular order the fbi has now instructed mr [2:49:21] struck that he can answer additional questions and he and mr uh agent struck but i asked about [2:49:26] the question time to get the answers to those questions that earlier was sorted and getting fbi approved [2:49:31] has the fbi also given you permission to say if glenn simpson is the name that you use when in the [2:49:37] email where you say simpson i don't believe they have given me guidance my most recent understanding [2:49:43] of my guidance from the fbi is in response to the question of whether the fbi received documents from [2:49:49] has the fbi or the answer is that yes we did has the fbi given you has the fbi given you information [2:49:55] to tell me whether you knew nelly or worked for fusion at the time you were meeting with her husband [2:50:01] sir to my knowledge the fbi has not directed me to or allow me to respond to that all right i yield [2:50:07] back thank you the committee will stand in recess until immediately after this series of votes hi [2:50:18] everyone i'm elen kihana in new york you've been listening to lawmakers grill peter struck on capitol [2:50:22] hill struck is the fbi agent who sent anti-trump texts while texts while he was taking part in [2:50:29] election-related investigations in 2016. struck has denied that his personal bias impacted his work [2:50:36] but republican lawmakers have begged to disagree this has been a marathon hearing that started just [2:50:42] after 10 a.m eastern time in all struck has faced roughly six hours of questioning we will unpack [2:50:49] this hearing in just a moment but we begin tonight's red and blue with president trump [2:50:54] reaffirming the u-s commitment to nato after a tense summit