will ditch the speech. ben cardin is standing in. >> senator schumer asked me. i'm honored to do it. it is an opportunity -- [inaudible] >> the gop is blasting harris for not attending saying it was a chance for her to demonstrate she is ready to lead on the world stage. >> dana: chad pergram, what a day it is here. busy day for chad. we found out at the end of this week congress goes into recess and not be back until september 9th. no more hearings. they get a lot of work done this week. >> bill: 2:00 netanyahu, 6:00 trump and 8:00 biden. >> dana: i'll see you on the five as well. "the faulkner focus" is next. >> harris: and we come in with breaking news. anti-israel protestors are

already out on the streets of washington, d.c. and we know that the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu's high stakes address to congress is coming up. they are in place and we have seen it all over the country, the jewish and israel hate in america. and they brought in a couple hundred from maybe different municipalities. i can tell you specifically 200 police officers from new york's finest. they are ready for whatever could pop off. we know that sometimes the protests can be raucous and violent. we don't know exactly who is in the crowd. we know some of them by the t-shirts they are wearing and the signage they hate jewish americans, hate israelis, they hate jews. at least 30 democrats will boycott the speech by the prime minister of israel today. and vice president kamala harris, who you know is the president of the senate, that's

part of her responsibilities, is not going to be there among the senators. she actually is on her way to indiana for a previously scheduled speech and i will put a fine point on this. the category of voter that the left is trying to win back that they've been losing to donald trump are black voters. she is speaking at a historically black sorority convention today at the indiana convention center. the gatherings of a sorority. politically she might not want to cancel that. we'll get into all of the politics and more coming up with republican congressman brian mast. keep watching for that. we're in a break right now from the hearing with f.b.i. director christopher wray and in that break we'll move some news. so we will cover a whole host of things. f.b.i. director christopher wray is on capitol hill. facing some tough questions already this morning about the

assassination attempt on former president trump. that hearing we're told will resume in the next few minutes. we'll bring you back live to that as soon as it starts up again. it comes one day after the united states secret service director kimberly cheatle, after refusing on monday to take any questions at all, quit. she resigned yesterday. over the security failures that led to the assassination attempt on trump and the killing, the murder, of a dad and a former fire chief corey comperatore. and two others wounded. so there she was on the hill testifying monday and admitted to failures but provided no answers. at multiple points she referred lawmakers to the f.b.i., which put christopher wray in a hotter seat than normal because those questions are going to come fast and furious. cheatle couldn't tell us about

the shooter on this point and she said you could or whatever the points were she kept pointing to the f.b.i. i'm harris faulkner and you are in "the faulkner focus." director wray was also dodging some questions. >> why doesn't the f.b.i. disclose to the american people all of the investigative detail and evidence that you are gathering as it is gathered? >> well, we have tried to be transparent with both congress and the american people as we are going along in the investigation. frankly unusually so for an ongoing investigation given the sheer nature of it. >> harris: chris swecker, former f.b.i. assistant director, great to have you. first of all your expertise. you have been following this on anything that wray has told us that is useful about the investigation into the attempted killing of former president trump. >> well yeah, first i think chris obviously knew what he was

walking into today. he had to avoid being cheatle 2.0. he is prepared to answer questions about the shooter and the shooting itself and all the attendant evidence and investigation around that. you can tell he is steering very clear of any questions about the secret service, their preparations, why they didn't do this or that. certainly he knows the answers to these questions but he doesn't -- he doesn't have the ticket on doing the after-action review and so he is going to -- you'll see throughout the rest of this questioning he will stay out of that. but these legislators need to do less pontificateing and more direct questions and they will get direct answers. >> harris: you have been watching some of the democratic leaders have been saying lawmakers have been asking questions about whether or not kimberly cheatle was really hired because she was a woman

and how -- it got really political saying that how even pointing anything out with her resume basically based on the fact that it could have been a dei hire going after republicans on that point. we want to know why a former president of the united states was nearly killed two saturdays ago. that is what we want to know. we want to know what you said. the secret service movements and preparations and decisions. you think christopher wray knows the answers to those. why do you think that? >> well, you can't avoid it in conducting the overall investigation of the shooter and they are talking to the same people. they are gathering the same evidence. and he can't help -- his investigators can't help but gather information about the rooftop. why nobody was on the rooftop, how the shooter got up there, his movements throughout before he went up on the rooftop and all the attendant action around

that. but he is judiciously avoiding that. let me address also you mentioned the pontiff indication. jerry nadler was immediately divisive. chris wray should have been it is bad on both sides of the aisle. he missed a good opportunity to play it down the middle. it's coming not just from the right part of the political spectrum from the left as well when it comes to the death of those police officers he mentioned. >> harris: i see the point you are pointing out. he could have said this is not political. somebody tried to kill a former united states of america president. he could have said that part. anyway he didn't. there is new dramatic footage that i want to watch with you together now, chris swecker and it comes from a rally goer which a lot of the information we're getting is from the people on

the ground who aren't with any kind of a service or law enforcement agency. that rally goer has video that seems to show chaos in the crowd during the assassination attempt on president trump. let's watch. [screaming and shouting] >> harris: all right. that was from -- look at that. he has a gun on the roof. if you are shouting that and there are cops around that is a threat. no genius to figure it up and you can see the guy. look at all the people with

cameras out. so you have plus senator chuck grassley released new shocking body camera footage that shows local law enforcement and a secret service agent on top of that roof after crooks was killed. watch this. >> this is the guy that -- >> yes, they sent the pictures out, this is him. >> got it. so -- we don't know. we are treating that as suspicious device. >> i believe the sniper that sent pictures inside this building. michelle, is greg in there? go to that window that's open and get greg. that's the sniper the sent the original pictures out.

>> harris: chris, i'm speechless. this makes that agency look inept, incompetent and down right dangerous. >> yeah. obviously from the beginning you could tell if you had any experience at all in tactical operations and safety protection sloppy advance work, sloppy perimeter work, sloppy communications because things could have been communicated to the secret service and they should have been and the secret service should have acted on it. that's a judgment problem and they should have had him off the stage. even if you can't take the

shooter out because you have shooting protocols, they should have got him off the stage and made sure they resolved the situation. what you saw on the roof they were trying to resolve whether that was the suspicious person or was there another person? they wanted to make sure the shooter was that suspicious person. >> harris: you know, that is a really weird thing to be looking at. if you have a threat in front of you you are worried about a threat you aren't sure about and can't take out the one you are sure about. if you look at the timeline. the president wasn't on the stage yet. this required decision making that wouldn't have put him on the stage. i've been asking that question since hour one in all of this. why was he even allowed to go onto that stage. these things would have predicated that be the case. they were the setup for that's an obvious decision. get him to a secure location

until we can figure out. as you point out could have been more than one person at this point. take out the one you do see and find the other one if you think there is another one. so first i have a question about the sloppy communications. what was all the texting with the pictures and the guys on the roof couldn't get it right after the fact? >> right. this day in age you can talk about a threat and describe the suspect but you can just send a picture. that's what they did. there should have been a command post. there was secret service and local law enforcement and state police as well. then you may not have the same communication channel but realtime pass the information as it comes on police radio. here is the secret service counterpart next to you. get the information out to the agents on the stage or wherever they are and use your good judgment. in this case they used terrible judgment. i heard kimberly cheatle saying he was a suspicious person, but

not a threat. doesn't matter. this guy was of obvious concern. they shouldn't have taken the risk of allowing him on the stage. as you point out there were several opportunities for intervention and judgment and sloppy communications just made it so they didn't take that intervening action. >> harris: or prevention. not even intervention, prevention. someone died in this. that wouldn't have had to happen, either if they had taken him out or down or whatever they had to do to get that guy. chris swecker, it is always great to get your expertise on these things and i appreciate your time. thank you. >> thank you, take care. >> harris: at any moment the f.b.i. director christopher wray will resume answering questions. we're in a break with the hearing with the judiciary in the house and bring it live when it resumes. former president donald trump is hitting the campaign trail in a very critical swing state, north carolina. by the way, i did some digging

today. they are early if not first in the line september 6th early voting in that state. this is a great place for him to be. he is there this evening. his first rally since biden dropped out of the race. trump campaign surrogate bruce level in "focus" next. (restaurant noise) ♪ [announcer] introducing allison's plaque psoriasis. she thinks her flaky, gray patches are all people see. otezla is the #1 prescribed pill to treat plaque psoriasis. over here! otezla can help you get clearer skin and reduce itching and flaking. with no routine blood tests required. doctors have been prescribing otezla for over a decade. otezla is also approved to treat psoriatic arthritis. don't use otezla if you're allergic to it. serious allergic reactions can happen. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting.

some people taking otezla had depression, suicidal thoughts or weight loss. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. ♪ [announcer] with clearer skin girls' day out is a good day out. live in the moment. ask your doctor about otezla. there's an old saying in the navy that the toughest job in the navy is a navy wife. and if you've made the deployments and you've been the wife at home, or you've been the spouse at home, you understand what i'm talking about. your spouse has earned the right to apply for a va home loan. the newday 100 loan allows you to borrow up to 100% of your home's value. so if you're in a situation where you need some help financially, give us a call.

while i am a paid actor, and this is not a real company, there is no way to fake how upwork can help your business. upwork is half the cost of our old recruiter and they have top-tier talent and everything from pr to project management because this is how we work now.

>> harris: the house judiciary committee called christopher wray, head of the f.b.i. to testify. that began about an hour ago, that hearing is in a short break. meanwhile i want to get to developing news stories until the testimony resumes. we'll take you back there live when it does. former president donald trump is back on the campaign trail in a very important swing state today, north carolina. he is set to speak at a rally at

about 6:00 p.m. this evening in charlotte. now remember, the democrats appear to have momentum at this point after anointing kamala harris to the position. some are calling it anointing. others a quick coronation. they voted one way for biden, delegates are there to support the candidate that they voted for, but now they have a new candidate because biden pulled out on sunday. would those voters have voted for kamala harris? we don't know. were they bothered to ask? we don't know what their feelings are. the dnc, democratic party, has decided for them that kamala harris is their nominee now. they haven't even had their convention where it all officially votes. a new poll shows donald trump is leading kamala harris by just one point. this is as close as it's ever been. former president trump is hitting the v.p. hard. watch. >> she is the same as biden but much more radical.

she is a radical left person. this country doesn't want a radical left person. far more radical than he is. she wants open borders, she wants things that nobody wants. i think she should be easier than biden because he was slightly more mainstream but not much. >> harris: new reports indicate the u.s. secret service is encouraging donald trump now to stop holding outdoor rallies. those massive outdoor rallies like the one in wildwood, new jersey. tens of thousands of people there. and they say it is following the attempt on his life in butler, pennsylvania on july 13th to keep him safe. bruce, a trump campaign surrogate, is in "focus" now. let's start there for a second. that and look, it may not be the secret service's role or intention. you know what it does do, it gives the other side an advantage. if you don't have trump out there showing the nation his backing and talking to people

and bringing them into the fold that gives kamala harris what? >> thanks for having me. i was privileged to travel early on in 15 in these packed out arenas and rallies and i want to shout out to the brave men and women in the secret service i was privileged to ride around in the motorcade, beast, air force one. i don't want to discount them that did a fantastic job protecting the president. so there is always a few bad apples. i want to say this, harris, it is really the base. you have to remember i want to say millions of people that he has been in front of since 2015 and yes, i'm sure they will change a lot of protocols. president trump, you saw how when he fell and how he rose up and he said fight, fight, fight, you know, that's real. that's not staged. that's in his core belief to

sacrifice everything in his business and everything for the american people. that shows stamina itself. he is not going to -- they will change protocols. we always do when we have mistakes and accidents in anything you do. you go back and retool the engine as you might say. i'm still very optimistic he will get out there and these arenas and pack them out and deliver his message to the american people asking for their vote. >> harris: i did dig down today and some of the reporting. he can do some outdoor events but if smaller they would prefer indoor arenas. we have stadiums in this country with roofs on them and you can get a lot of people in those, too. i'm sure they are gaming it out on the campaign. are you a surrogate for the campaign. what's the language around maybe a tweaking now and we heard a little bit of it about radical views, far left views about kamala harris but is there some language now that you are looking at that says we want to

point to this about her? >> you know, like the president said, she is part of the team with the biden camp. you win as a team, you lose as a team. every failed policy from the border, from the inflation, from visiting one time to the border. you are military brat like i am. i grew up in fort hood. a lot of friends and families in texas i talk to daily. 1300 pounds of fentanyl came across the border. listen, she can't run from that tenure of biden/harris what they have been through. no matter how she tries to pivot off that she is married. they had a wedding together. they are not divorced. so she has to own up to every failed policy that they have been through under the biden, yes harris campaign together. it will be hard to run from that. the great thing about president trump has a contrast of a very positive, powerful, you know, record that he can run on to run a strong contrast.

listen, the honeymoon is over as i call it the one-hit wonder when the polls went up a little bit. after that it's over. >> harris: we understand that the f.b.i. director christopher wray is back now and so we'll go back to the house judiciary hearing. i appreciate you being with me during this break from that hearing. we got to a lot and i'll bring you back when we can. thank you. now back to the hearing. >> to violence, that's what we have elections for. i want to also thank you and all of the f.b.i. for the work that you do and frankly the abuse. unwarranted abuse and criticism that have been directed to you by conspiracy theorists and others. it doesn't make your hard job any easier. i want you to know that many of us notice that and appreciate the work that you and your team are doing. let me just ask a couple of quick questions. first, many of us are interested in the motives of the shooter

here. when it's an assault on a political figure, you immediately assume there is a political motive. that may be the case here, we don't know yet. i was interested in what you are seeing on his phone. the press has reported he had pictures not only of mr. trump, but of mr. biden and various other members, political figures. can you discern, was there an element of mainly republicans, mainly democrats, was it all over the board? can you enlighten us about that? >> well, this is a place where it is particularly important for me to reiterate the caveat that i have included before because in this instance in particular we have a lot of legal process out for additional accounts and things like that that the shooter is associated with. so we're hoping to learn more and we are still exploiting a number of the digital devices.

i think it's fair to say that we do not yet have a clear picture of his motive. i think it is important for me to explain. i understand, of course, why everybody wants to know the answers to those questions. often in an investigation, from interviewing people that the subject was in close contact with, looking at the individual's social media accounts, messages, often things physical evidence in the person's residence you might see a manifesto, things like that, we aren't seeing that yet. but we are digging hard because it's one of the central questions for us. what i can say the shooter appears to have done a lot of searches of public figures in general. so far we're seeing news articles and things like that and the images that have been report evidence about really what we're talking about there are when you do a news search of an article, the image appears in

the cache as opposed to a search for that specific individual. but again, i really want to be clear that that's a place we're doing a lot of work right now and more to come on that. >> thank you for that clarification. we're interested also in the role of access to weapons when it comes to this terrible crime. the shooter used a semi automatic rifle. really a weapon of war that sadly has been used in mass shootings around the country, including in my own district. it seems to me the assault weapons ban that was once in place has to be a part of the national answer to curbing the epidemic of gun violence in america. i wonder if you could with your help, director wray, understand the investigation. it's my understanding the atf was able to trace the gun.

the gun's purchaser, using records from an out of business gun store, records that the government is required to collect. some of my colleagues have suggested that collection should stop. there have been efforts to digitize it which have been resisted. can you tell us about how the origin of this gun purchase was discovered and the technology used? >> what i can say is the -- we located a number of firearms associated with the shooter and his family. i think it was a total of 14 in the house. the weapon that he used for the attempted assassination was an ar still rifle that was purchased legally, that he it's

my understanding acquired -- i think bought actually from his father, who was the one who originally bought it. again legally. >> my time is expired. >> gentleman from california is recognized. >> director, i will try to ask questions that are answerer able, too. i think that has been done pretty well on both sides. you do the advance threat assessment and deliver that information as to the general threat and then specifics as to protected people to the secret service, is that correct? >> well, sort of. secret service does a threat assessment but they are doing it based on intelligence that they receive from a number of sources, including, of course, the f.b.i. we share whenever we have a threat information related to a particular individual or protectee, we share it with the secret service at a number of levels. >> so you are a participant but ultimately the responsibility for threat assessment as to

these individuals belongs to the secret service. >> the threat assessment for the individual belongs to the secret service but we're an important part of that. we share threat information if we have any. they get threat information from a variety of sources. >> and you get it from the same variety of sources. they have no sources that are excluded from the f.b.i., do they? >> i'm not aware of any that are excluded from the f.b.i. but they may receive information that comes directly to them that didn't come to us. >> okay. director, do you believe that former president trump was a high-risk threat under your assessment? >> i believe that former president trump, really, frankly, like any president or former president, is a very high profile figure and attracts a lot of unfortunately the kind of thing we're talking about. >> fair to scale not on a scale of one to million but on a scale of one to ten president trump's

risk was similar to a current president. very similar -- because he was the presumptive nominee and leading in the polls and so on that he was a high-risk by any standard, is that correct? >> certainly there is a reason why he has so much protection around him. >> okay. robert f. kennedy, jr., the son of assassinated senator and the nephew of an assassinated president. would you say he was also as a presidential candidate as significant risk? >> again, i think any presidential candidate raises some level of risk. it might vary from candidate to candidate. >> clearly a risk, okay. so in a nutshell, the day before this attack, president trump was documented not to have gotten on multiple occasions from the secret service what they asked for. the day after it looks like they are getting more. the day before rfk had been

denied by the president multiple times secret service protection. the day after he now has it. now my question is, is the actions of a 20-year-old with a lone gunman on the roof sufficient to change the risk assessment in your mind for president trump and rfk, or are we just realizing the threat that was always there and being more appropriate in patching it? i know that's a little vague. you have been at this for a long time. hindsight is 2020. is it fair to say that giving robert f. kennedy, jr. security, upping the security including drones overhead for the former president are all things that in hindsight should have been done the day before? >> well, let me try to answer your question this way. as i said, the assessments of the level of security to be

provided to individual protectees. what i would say to you is -- i've been saying for quite some time including in front of committees of this congress that we're in an elevated threat environment and have been for some time. that comes from a variety of quarters. it is a dangerous time to be a prominent public figure. >> in regards to that, the other side has spent a lot of time talking about what people on the right have said but there was an attempted assassination on a supreme court justice. we have had the highest ranking senator on the other side of this body saying that there were actions that they were accountable. we have had multiple members of congress in both house and senate berating the character of members of the supreme court as a result of their decisions made

sometimes 6-three, unanimous, whatever. are those comments, not any one of them but are those comments and the generation of that sort of oh, this guy is bad for democracy, this supreme court justice is a threat to democracy, is that the kind of thing that raises the threat level and would you caution against that? >> well, i do believe that we've seen an increase in threats of violence which that's the f.b.i.'s lane, not rhetoric no matter how heated it is, but violence and threats of violence. we've seen an uptick in threats about judges and a case we helped investigate involving a threat to a sitting supreme court justice. an attempt. and i think it is a reflection of a broader phenomenon that we're seeing in this country

where people again very passionate, i respect that, very angry, i respect that, but there is a right way and wrong way to express yourself when you are angry. and violence and threats of violence just can't be it. that's where we fit in. it's not my role as f.b.i. director to call out particular people's rhetoric. there is a place for that. but that's not my role as f.b.i. director but when it turns to violence and threats of violence, that has to be treated as unacceptable and that's the way we look at it. >> when the f.b.i. learned that iran was threatening president trump's life? >> i want to be a little bit careful here not talk about specific classified information but we have been for quite some time -- what's in the open record -- we for some time and i in particular for some time have been calling out the efforts by

the iranian government to attempt to retaliate for the killing of soleimani by going after current or former prominent u.s. officials. we've even had an indictment against it. and i think we need to recognize the brazenness of the iranian regime including right here in the united states and i expect we'll see more of it and i expect there will be more coming on that. i'm not aware of any threat information related to protectees that wasn't passed in a timely way. i can't get into specifics here. >> i just felt it was a question the committee needed to understand. sounds like you have known that for a long time and that information was conveyed to the secret service? >> any information related to threats against the former president, which again as we have talked about, happens all too often is something that we

have a whole process we routinely share with secret service in a number of levels and timely way and it has consistently been followed. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you for being here director wray. director wray, the f.b.i. is the independent law enforcement agency under the department of justice, is that correct? >> yes. >> and does the f.b.i. director currently report to anyone? >> well, you mean in a chain of command reporting structure kind of thing? yeah. the f.b.i. is part of the justice department. you would see the f.b.i. director and true for decades reports to the deputy foreign general who reports to the attorney general. reports in a communication sense. i report to any number of people. >> as opposed to a

micro management reporting system. >> correct. >> and you would take issue, would you not, with any proposal that would change or alter that chain of command and place you or place an f.b.i. director in the position of reporting directly to the president, would you not? you would oppose that? >> i don't think that would be a wise reporting structure. i think the structure that we've had for decades now makes sense. i think there is a difference between independence in a sort of organizational structure perspective and independence in the way you do the work. the f.b.i. is part of the justice department. >> reporting directly to the president would eliminate your independence, would it not?

>> i don't think it would help. >> you are familiar with project 2025, are you not? >> i've seen news reports about it. i'm not familiar with it. >> you are aware that it is a game plan for president trump's first 120 days in office, correct? >> i'm really not familiar with the details. i have seen reporting about it. >> it is. what he proposes to do is to force the f.b.i. director to appoint -- report directly to him. that's what he wants to do within the first 120 days. he also wants to eliminate the position of f.b.i. general counsel. that is also set forth in project 2025. would you recommend that >> i think the f.b.i.'s office of general counsel serves an important role in terms of advising our workforce. we have 38,000 people.

the idea of having an organization like ours, independent law enforcement agency like ours that doesn't have its own general counsel's office doesn't make sense to me. >> it would seem like any proposal that would force the director to report to the president and then there would be no legal counsel for the director of the f.b.i., that seems like it is an attempt to neuter the f.b.i. and render it accountable only to the president, isn't that correct? >> well let me put it this way. i recognize that the f.b.i. director and before me serves at the pleasure of the president. and that's part of our system. i was appointed by mr. trump. i respect that. i think that's a part of our structure.

but independence in terms of how we do our work is what matters to me. we need to be able to do our work in a way that is free from political interference. >> you wouldn't be able to do that by reporting everything you do to the president and getting his authority and approval before you take action, correct? >> i don't think that would be a wise approach. >> and then there is even a proposal to replace many of those 38,000 dedicated civil servants who work for the f.b.i., replace them with a maga group that has pledged its allegiance to donald trump. what danger would that bring to the f.b.i. if that were to happen? >> well again, i haven't read or reviewed this thing that you are referring to. >> assuming what i say is true. >> f.b.i. is made up of 38,000 dedicated career law enforcement professionals. it has no political appointees.

i don't think that should change. >> you don't want a partial of maga employees being employees of the f.b.i. >> we're coming up of 116 years of the f.b.i. and the way it's been for 116 years. >> it would be -- to take 38,000 maga loyalists and put them at the f.b.i. is frightening. that's what project 2025 proposes and glad to know you are not with that program and with that i yield back. >> was the shooter on the f.b.i.'s radar in any way prior to the assassination attempt? >> we did not have any information about the shooter. he was not in our holdings before the shooting. >> no communication in any chatrooms, no cis or confidential human sources. >> we have run a thorough search for the suspect and he was not

in them anywhere. >> any f.b.i. agents or informants present in butler? >> not to my knowledge. >> mr. jordan was talking to you about iran. were law enforcement resources diverted from the protection of the president trump to john bolton as a consequence of concern that mr. bolton might have been the target of iranian malign efforts? >> that's really a secret service decision. i don't know the answer to that. that's something they would know better. what i can tell you is that there are a number of individuals, you mentioned one, a specific case the iranians targeting for >> will you get the answer to us whether resources were diverted from trump to boulton? >> that will be part of the review by the inspector general. >> for dhs, right?

>> and outside panel -- that's an important point. the inspector general has fallen out of favor for the administration and pointing out the problems with the border. we're worried they're about to fire them which would be a bad idea now this role you have identified is so critical. be a bad idea to fire the i.g. for dhs during the pen den see of this? >> i don't think it would be a good idea. >> how often do you brief president biden? >> you mean on this case? >> in your role as f.b.i. director. >> i don't know that i could give you a number. >> weekly, monthly, daily? >> it is not at a regular cade en. there have been times when months at a time when i haven't and then times when several dailies apart i have. it's always with other people. >> the vice president, is she typically there? >> often has been.

>> so when did you notice his decline? >> in my interactions and my role all my interactions with the current president have been completely professional. >> right but the cognitive decline. i'm not saying he treated you unprofessionally. maybe not picking things up as quickly as he used to. >> i don't meet with him very often. i haven't observed that during my interactions with him. >> we have i had observed so evan the ranking member on this committee mr. schiff said he couldn't continue as a candidate. i was wondering who is running the country? if something bad happened, you would have to go brief president biden about it right now? god forbid. >> on any number of occasions i have oh he briefed the presidents. they've been uneventful and

unremarkable. >> i can imagine them being uneventful. but in the work with the vice president also present, you say there is more than half the time there is these briefings she is there, too. >> certainly there have been times when she was present, other times she hasn't. >> i take you at your word this is the most complicated threat environment you've observed in a long career in law enforcement and i'm kind of wondering with this assassination attempt. with invasion at our border, all the hamas let in that you have talked about and briefed about, is biden up to it? if he is not up to it, you are a guy who has been regularly briefing him, who has been in on this conspiracy to hide the real joe biden from all of us for years? it never occurred to you this guy wasn't up to it in all these briefings you did? >> as i said, my briefings with

the president have all been completely fine. >> were they between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. >> not anything of note in the area you are talking about. >> did you ever have to brief him before 10:00 a.m. or after 4:00 p.m. >> i certainly times i have briefed have included outside those hours. >> all right. i just, you know, i think the american people want to know how we got to this point with someone who is very -- so diminished his own party has put him out to pasture. since you had close proximity and the vice president had close proximity i'm wondering if you were being straight with all of us how things are going with him. >> you can count on me to be straight with you, sir. >> we'll see. >> firstly i would like to recognize unfortunate fact our colleague and my colleagues side-by-side for many years in this committee sheila jackson lee is no longer with us.

a great member, a force for america and her loss is felt greatly. secondly i would like to say to the f.b.i. director that there were some remarks made when you were introduced saying that people don't have great faith in the f.b.i. i have great faith in the f.b.i. and most of us on this side of the aisle do. we appreciate your work and appreciate your being here. some on the other side of the aisle have cast dispersions upon the f.b.i. and law enforcement. if they don't want to support law enforcement that's their business. i support law enforcement and the f.b.i. is the top rank of law enforcement. i thank you and all the people that work with you. secondly some questions about the f.b.i. maybe being weaponized. did president biden ever ask you to get involved in the case in florida where mr. gaetz was investigated for some sexual involvement with a 17-year-old girl. did the president or anybody in

the democratic party as mr. mccarthy suggested weaponizeed you and tried to get you involved in that case? >> no, sir. >> wanted the make sure of that. i read something about a ladder, he used a ladder to get on the roof in butler, pennsylvania and the ladder was found somewhere a distance away. is that true? >> so we do know that he purchased a ladder. i think if i recall correctly it was about a five foot tall type of ladder but importantly we did not find the ladder at the scene. so it is not clear that he used the ladder to get on top of the roof. we are still digging into all that. things related to the ladder and access to the roof. he have did buy a ladder but the ladder was not found at the scene. >> ladder didn't have any feet on it? it didn't walk off. thank you, sir, there have been

a lot of threats against public officials. mr. scalise shot and we saw gabby gifford shot and many of us have had death threats. the f.b.i. has been made aware of those to help protect us and i appreciate that greatly. we have also election workers and poll workers threatened. what is the f.b.i. doing with other law enforcement to make sure every voter can confidently and safely cast a ballot this year. >> when it comes to threats to election workers in particular, we participate in the election threats task force that d.o.j. set up. we also -- there have been quite a number already of arrests and convictions under that task force. we have got a number of investigations underway that involve all kinds of threats to election workers ranging from online threats to even some mailings that included fentanyl. so there have been a number of threats to election workers

after all, people who are putting in their own time for the good of the country to try to help us have a functioning democracy so the idea that they would be targeted with violence is just outrageous. we are sharing information with election officials about things to be on the lookout for. we have election crime coordinators in all 50 states. >> you will be prepared for election day. >> yes. >> jeffrey epstein in the news a lot lately about involvement with certain people high in politics involved. did the f.b.i. conduct the raid on his townhouse in new york when he was incarcerated in new york? there was a raid on his east side townhouse. >> i don't know about the raid. i know we executed a number of searches in the course of our fairly extensive investigation related to him. >> did you came across and have

within your possession at the f.b.i. tapes of him with other individuals that he might have taken people in compromising positions? >> i can see if there is we can provide and get back to you. >> if there were friends of his he posed for pictures with possibly in compromising positions the public has a right to see those. >> how we handle evidence recovered in a criminal investigation has all kinds of rules that apply to it. i recognize the intense public interest in the subject but we have to follow our rules. i am happy to follow up with my team. >> i appreciate your service and thank you for being here today. >> gentleman yields the last five? chair now recognizes the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you for being here. how many shots did the shooter fire? >> well, we know that he fired

at least eight because we recovered eight cartridges on the roof. >> all the cartridges and unspent bullets, have they been -- you know how many there are accounted for all of those? >> we believe we have. again, there was lots of work still ongoing but yes, we believe we have accounted. >> did the recovered cartridges match the chart's rifle. >> any recollection is yes. >> you conducted analysis that confirms that? >> well, we work with atf but yes, some of the work thebe divided up. >> how many shell casings were recovered from the location of the counter snipers? >> i couldn't hear the last part. >> there the counter sniper's location >> i don't have that information at my fingertips. >> did the blood and tissue

pattern of the shooter -- did it match the witnesses? >> i'm not sure i'm following the question. >> i assume you have interviewed the counter snipers and have that evidence and other witnesses describing the kill of the shooter. and i'm wondering if the blood and tissue and brain matter is consistent with the testimony that you are receiving? >> in terms of the manner of death? >> is the physical evidence consistent from the sniper? >> yeah, so the autopsy is being handled, as is not unusual, the state authorities. my understanding is thus far i don't think it is fully complete, which is not again totally unusual. but so far nothing remarkable on that front. >> that's from the body itself.

but from the scene where the shooter was found, is everything consistent with the testimony, the physical evidence at the scene, is that consistent with the testimony you're receiving and that you've heard so far? >> so far, yes. again ongoing investigation. >> were you able to determine whether the shooter took the gun up with him when he climbed up to the top of the roof or was it already placed there somewhere? >> so that is something that we're drilling into right now. we don't know the answer to that. i can tell you, that may be relevant to your question, i don't think this has been reported yet, that the weapon had a collapsible stock which could explain why it might have been less easy for people to observe. the first people to observe him with the weapon was when he was on the roof. we haven't found anybody with firsthand observation of him

with the weapon walking around beforehand. it doesn't mean he wasn't, obviously, but the collapsible stock is potentially a significant feature that might be relevant to that. >> did he have a scope? >> i believe so but as i sit here right now i don't remember. >> you mentioned about two hours before the incident that he had had a drone and he was using a drone. instead of me putting words in your mouth tell me how you discovered the drone and how you discovered the time and what -- how you discovered -- if you can describe what he would have been observing with the drone and how you determined that, please? >> this is something that's very much ongoing right now. we are going back and forth with our lab as they continue to do work on it. i would say the drone was in his car. as i said, we've been able to by exploiting the drone determine

its use and flight paths. there were no pictures or videos on the drone of the day of the rally, for example. but we have been able to reverse engineer the flight path of the drone from the day of the rally and that is how we know that for about 11 minutes around 3:50 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. in that range he was flying the drone. we have the flight path about 200 yards away from where former president trump would ultimately be speaking. and so that would have primarily given him a vantage point -- i don't know how to describe this. if the former president's podium is that way, the drone would be over here looking say 200 yards off this way looking back. it would have shown the shooter, we think, again we're still doing more work on this. i really want to qualify what

i'm saying. i'm trying to be transparent. we think it would have shown him kind of what would have been behind him. >> you say behind the shooter. >> almost like giving him a rearview mirror of the scene behind him except he wasn't flying it overhead while he was later back for the assassination. >> but he would have had with the drone he would have been able to also assess, the stage was already set. he would have been able to assess that angle with the rooftop as well forward and backward, i assume? >> certainly going towards the podium. we're still trying to figure out what he saw. we have to in effect because there is no recording of what he saw during those 11 minutes, our hypothesis at this point, experts think he would have been livestreaming it and trying to say okay, if this was the flight pattern, given these capabilities of the drone, what would you have seen, what could

you have seen for those one minutes? it wasn't over the stage or hub of the rally, 200 yards away. looks like it would have been looking the length of a football field or so more kind of >> how many separate times was the shooter on the premises? >> so, again with the caveat we continue to work on it. we believe the first time he traveled to the grounds was, i think, a week before. he spent roughly 20 minutes there. and he went to the grounds again on the morning of the event it appears for about 70 minutes, i think. but again, i would have to go back and look to be sure of that point. and then he came back in the