it's a question of gathering the evidence and applying it under those tools. >> in response to questions from senators sass and graham earlier, you state the you fully expect russia to continue to be engaged in efforts to influence our elections and you expect them back in 2018 and in 2020. what more should we be doing both to defend our election infrastructure and our future elections against continuing russian interference and what more are you doing as the agency doing to help our allies in countries like france and germany that have upcoming elections where there's every reason to believe the russians are actively interfering there, as well. >> thank. i think two things we are doing both in the united states and with our allies is telling the people responsibility for protecting the election infrastructure in the united states everything we know about how the russians and others try to attack those systems how they might come at it, what ip addresses they might use, what phishing techniques they might

use and shared the same thing with our alis. one. two, to equip the american people and our allies to understand that this is going on. because a big part of what the russians did was pushing out false information, echoing it with these troll farms that they use. and i think one of the most important things we can do is tell the american voter this is going on. you should be skeptical. you should ask questions and understand the nature of the news that you're getting. and we've delivered that same message to our european colleagues and an interesting thing is happening. the marketplace of ideas is responding to this. because it's not a role for government. people are out there using the power of social media to push back against this kind of thing in france, in the netherlands, in germany and i hope it will happen here in the united states. where ordinary citizens will see this bogus stuff going on and push back. have good troll earps pushing back the other way so the marketplace of information is better educated, frankly.

>> it's an optimistic vision. i appreciate it and appreciate the work the fbi continues to do to push back anton strengthen our defenses but i think there's more to do. you certainly as you've testified before made a great deal of news just before our own election. i'm struck that you chose 0 make public statements about one investigation and not another. the investigation we now know that was on going into the trump campaign and the investigation on going into secretary clinton. i'm concerned about what the future practice will be. how has the approach taken with regard to the clinton investigation been memorialized? and have you modified in any way fbi or department procedures regarding disclosure of information concerning investigations particularly close to an election? >> we have not. and the reason for that is, everything that we did that i did, was in my view consistent with existing department of justice policy. that is, we don't confirm the existence of investigations

except in unusual circumstances. we don't talk about -- we don't talk about investigations that don't result in criminal charges unless there is a compelling public interest. so those principles it should still govern. we also whenever humanly possible avoid any action that might have an impact on an election. i still believe that be true an incredibly important guiding principle. frankly as i said earlier, i didn't think i had a choice. i couldn't find a door labeled no action. so those principles are incredibly important. the current investigation with respect to russia, we've confirmed it, the department of justice authorized me to confirm it exists. we're not going to say another word about it till we're done. then i hope it the department of justice will figure out if it doesn't result in charges what, if anything, will we say about it. >> i do think there was a third door available to you in late last year just before the election. and that was to confirm the existence of an ongoing investigation about the trump

campaign. which i think was of compelling interest and was an unusual circumstance. an activity by a known adversary to interfere in our election. had there been public notice that there was renewed investigation into both campaigns, i think the impact would have been different. would you agree? >> no, i thought a lot about that and my judgment was, a counter intelligence -- we have to separate two things. i thought it was very important to call out what the russians were trying to do with our election and i offered in august myself to be a voice for that in a public piece calling it out.obama administration didn't take advantage of that in august. they did it in october. i thought that was very foreign call out. that's a separate question from do you confirm the existence of a classified investigation that has just started to try and figure out, are there any connections between than russian activity and u.s. persons that started in late july. remember, the hillary clinton investigation we didn't confirm it existed until three months

after it started and it started publicly. so i thought the consistent principle would be we don't confirm the existence of certainly any investigation that involves a u.s. person but a classified investigation in its early stages. we don't know what we have, what is there. so my judgment was consistent with the principles i've always operated under. that was the right thing to do. separately i thought it was very important to call out and tell the american people the russians are trying to mess with your elections. >> well, i hope that in the future, that attempt to draw attention to russian interference or an election which you've testified you expect to continue will be effective. let me ask one last question if i might. there's a lot of ways the fbi helps state and local law enforcement. one i've been grateful for was the violence reduction network through which the fbi provided much needed an since to be wilmington police department, my hometown are we've had a dramatic spike in violence. i'm interested in hearing how you intend that the fbi will continue to assist local law enforcement in combating

unprecedented spikes in violent crime in a few of our communities such as wilmington where they've happened. >> thank you for that. the violence reduction network was piloted in wilmington and a small number of other places. we believe it works where the fbi brings to a fight that's primarily a state and local fight our technology, our intelligence expertise at figuring out how to connect dots and which of the bad guys we should focus on and our agents and their ability to make cases. and so we're trying to do what we've done in wilmington in cities around the country those seeing spikes in violence and the depressing fact is about half of america's biggest cities saw another rise in violence the first quarter of this year. and so we're trying to lean forward and do what we've done if wilmington in those places, as well. >> we woo appreciate your efforts to support local law enforcement. >> senator kennedy. >> morning, mr. director this afternoon now. assume for a second that i'm not

a united states senator and that i don't have a security clearance to look at classified information. if someone sends me classified information, and i know or should know it's classified information, and i read it, have i committed a crime? >> potentially. >> has the person who sent me the information committed a crime? >> potentially if they knew you didn't have appropriate clearance and a need to know. >> was there is classified information on former congressman we knower's computer? >> yes. >> who sent it to him? >> his then spouse huma abedin appears to have had a regular practice of forwarding e-mails to him for him i think to print out for her so she could then deliver them to the secretary of state. >> did former congressman we know err read the classified material? >> i don't know -- i don't think so. i think his -- i don't think

we've been able to interview him because he has pending it criminal problems of other sorts but my understanding is that his role would be to print them out as a matter of convenience. >> if he did read them, would he have committed a crime? >> potentially. >> would his spouse have committed a crime. >> again, potentially. it would depend upon a number of things. >> is there an investigation with respect to the two of them? >> there was. we completed it. >> why did you conclude neither of them committed a crime? >> because with with respect to ms. abedin in particular, we didn't have any indication she had a sense what she was doing was in violation of the law. >> couldn't prove any sort of criminal intent. really the central problem we had with the whole e-mail investigation was proving that people knew, the secretary and others knew that they were doing -- that they were communicating about classified information in a way that they shunts be and proving that they

had some sense that they were doing something unlawful. that was our burden and we weren't able to meet it. >> so she thought it was okay to accepted her husband the information? >> well, i think, i don't want to get too much into what she thought. we could not prove that the people sending the information either in that case or in the other case with the secretary were acting with nel kind of mens rea, with any kind of criminal intent. >> assume for a second again, i'm not a united states senator, i'm working for a presidential campaign. and i'm contacted by a russian agent. and he just wants to look, talk about the campaign in general. and strategy. am i committing a crime? >> harder to answer. one, i probably don't want to answer even in a hypothetical given the work that we're doing. >> all right. let me try it this way.

let's assume that i'm not a united states senator. i'm working for a presidential campaign. and i'm contacted by a russian agent who says, i've got some hacked e-mails here and i want to visit with you about. am i committing a crime? >> also, senator, i think i should resist answering that hypothetical. >> okay. can you explain to me not the law but just in your personal opinion, when interrogation techniques become torture? >> you mean not the law? >> that's right. >> there is a statute that defines torture in the united states and so that as a lawyer and as a member of law enforcement organization, that's where i would start, that the definition of torture is laid out in american statutes.

i'm not sure i understand what you mean beyond that. >> i'm just asking your personal opinion about what you think constitutes torture. where you personally would draw the line drawing on your substantial experience. >> i'd say in general any conduct that involves the intentional infliction of physical pain or discomfort in order to obtain information is in the colloquial sense torture. may not be under the statute which congress chose to define at a fairly high level but as a human being and an fbi director, i consider the infliction of physical pain and discomfort to be by and large goal equally torture. >> any kind of physical pain or discomfort? suppose you just serve someone bad food. >> well, again, tricky for us because the fbi is very careful never to inflict intentionally inflict physical pain or discomfort of any sort to try

and question somebody. >> i understand. >> so i'd say yeah, that's conduct you should stay way clear of. >> mr. director. >> it's also ineffective, frankly but that's a whole other deal. >> sure. do you think it is possible from a law enforcement perspective, to properly vet a nonamerican noncitizen i should say coming to the united states from a conflict area such as syria? >> it's difficult to do it perfectly. and i have concerns about the ability to vet people coming from areas where we have no relationship on the ground with the government there. and so i suppose it's possible to do it reasonably. there's a number of tools you could bring to bear. but there are always risks associated with that. >> how do you do it? you can't call the chamber of

commerce in syria. how do you do it? >> well, you, and we do it now. we query the holdings of the entire american intelligence community to see if any what we call selectors it, phone numbers, e-mails, addresses associated with that person have ever shown up anywhere in the world in our holdings. that's a pretty good way to do it. getting into the person's social media to see what they have there is another pretty good way to do it. the way we rely in most cases is the host government will have information about them and even where the host committee. >> i'm looking up my article here. go ahead. >> in iraq, we had a united states military presence for many years and collected a whole lot of biometrics so we can query that to see if the person's fingerprints ever showed up. >> stop you for one moment. how about -- >> similarly difficult. >> i yield back my 30 seconds, mr. chairman. >> thank you.

>> senator. >> thank you. you've been getting a lot of questions surrounding your decision to make certain statements about the investigation into secretary clinton's e-mails. and to many of us, you treated the investigation of the e-mail investigation or matter, whatever you want to call it, differently than how you treated the ongoing investigation of the trump campaign and the russian attempts to interfere with our elections. while you've, if i can understand correctly that there's a -- you felt free to speak about the clinton investigation because it had been completed when you had your press conference in july. >> correct. >> of 2016. and you do confirm that there's still an ongoing investigation of the trump campaign and their conduct with regard to russian efforts to undermine our

elections. >> we're conducting an investigation to understand whether there was any coordination between the russian efforts and anybody associated with the trump campaign. >> so since you've already confirmed that such an investigation is ongoing, can you tell us more about what constitutes that investigation? >> no. >> in july of 2016, when you announced that you were not going to be bringing criminal charges against secretary clinton because you did need to show intent and there was no intent discovered, you spoke for 15 minutes. not only did you say that you were not going to bring criminal charges against her, by the way, which you said at the end of your 15 minutes but you went on to chastise her saying that she had been extremely careless. >> i'm john king. this is inside pol fiction. we'll take you back to capitol hill but president trump meeting with mahmoud abbas. let's listen. >> thank you very much.

today, i'm pleased to welcome president abbas to the white house for his first visit to washington in quite awhile. almost 24 years ago, it was on these grounds that president abbas stood with a courageous peacemaker, then israeli prime minister yitzhak rabin. here at the white house, president abbas signed a declaration of principles. very important which laid the foundation for peace between the israelis and palestinians. the president and mr. president, you signed your name to the first israeli-palestinian peace agreement. you remember that well, right? and i want to support you in being the palestinian leader who signs his name to the final and

most important peace agreement that brings safety, stability, prosperity to both peoples and to the region. i'm committed to working with israel and the palestinians to reach an agreement, but any agreement cannot be imposed by the united states or by any other nation. the palestinians and israelis must work together to reach an agreement that allows both peoples to live, worship and thrive and prosper in peace. and i will do whatever is necessary to facilitate the agreement to mediate, to arbitrate anything they'd like to do, but i would love to be a mediator or an arbitrator or a facilitator and we will get this done. peace also means defeating isis and other terrorist groups. these groups are a threat to all people who cherish human life. i know president abbas has spoken out against isis and other terrorist groups.

and we must continue to build our partnership with the palestinian security forces to counter and defeat terrorism. i also applaud the palestinian authority's continued security coordination with israel. they get along unbelievably well. i had meetings and at these meetings, i was actually very impressed and somewhat surprised at how well they get along. they work together beautifully. but there could be no lasting peace unless the palestinian leaders speak in a unified voice against incitement to violate and violence and hate. there's such hatred, but hopefully, there won't be such hatred for very long. all children of god must be taught to value and respect human life and condemn all of

those who target the innocent. as part of our efforts to move forward toward peace today, we will also discuss my administration's effort to help unlocke the potential of the palestinian people through new economic opportunities. lastly, i want to note the positive on going partnership between the united states and the palestinians on a range of issues, private sector development and job creation, regional security, counter-terrorism, and the rule of law, all of which are essential to moving forward toward peace. i welcome president abbas here today as a demonstration of that partnership, that very special partnership that we all need to make it all work. and i look forward to welcoming him back as a great mark of progress and ultimately toward the signing of a document with the israelis and with israel

toward peace. we want to create peace between israel and the palestinians. we will get it done. we will be working so hard to get it done. it's been a long time. but we will be working diligently and i think there's a very, very good chance and i think you feel the same way. mr. president, thank you very much. [ speaking foreign language ] >> translator: mr. president, your excellency, i would like to thank you for these honorable invitation to come and meet with you and i look much forward to working with you in order to come to that deal to that

historical agreement, historic deal to bring about peace. >> translator: mr. president, our strategic option, our strategic choice is to bring about peace based on the vision of the two-state, a palestinian state with its capital of east jerusalem that lives in peace and stability with the state of israel based on the border of 1967.

>> translator: mr. president, for us to of bringing about a comprehensive and just peace based on the two-state solution, such matter would give a great impetus to the arab peace initiative and the other initiatives, international initiatives as well as it enables to fight and deter

terrorism and fight the criminal isis group isis that is totally innocent and has nothing to do with our noble religion. and that also, if we create peace that is just and comprehensive, that will also lead the arab and the islamic countries to have normal relations with israel based as stipulated in the previous arab summits the latest of which was the arab summit in jordan. >> translator: mr. president, we believe that we are capable and able to bringing about success

to our efforts because mr. president, you have the determination and you have the desire to see it become to truition and to become successful. and we, mr. president, are coming into a new opportunity and new horizon that would enable us to bring about peace. >> translator:. president, as far as the -- a permanent solution, we believe

that this is possible and able to be resolved. i am firmly believing that this is possibly we are able to resolve it, and in that, i also believe that we will be able to resolve the issue of the refugees and the issue of the prisoners. according to the international law, according to the terms of international law, the international legitimacy, and the various relevant references and terms of references in that regard. and based on what is stipulated in the previous treaties and agreements that no unilateral steps must be taken to get ahead of the agreement and discussing those issues.

>> translator: mr. president, it's about time for israel to end its occupation of our land. after 50 years. we are the only remaining people in the world that still live under occupation. we are aspiring and want to achieve our freedom, our dignity, and our right to self-determination, and we also want for israel to recognize the palestinian state just as the palestinian people recognize the state of israel.

>> translator: mr. president, i affirm to you that you are raising our youth, our children, our grandchildren on a culture of peace and we are endeavoring to bringing about security, freedom, and peace for our children to live like the other children in the world along with the israeli children in peace, freedom, and security. >> translator: mr. president, i

bring with me the message of the suffering of my people as well as their aspirations and hope. the hopes and aspiration of the palestinian people from the holy land, from that land where the three religions thrived and the jewish faith, the christian faith, and the muslim faith where they all coexist together to foster it in an environment of security, peace, and stability and love for all.

>> translator: mr. president, i believe that we are capable under your leadership and your stewardship to your courageous stewardship and your wisdom, we are, as well your great negotiating ability, i believe with the graves god and with all of your effort, we believe that we can become -- we can be partners, true partners to you to bring about a historic peace treaty under your stewardship to bring about peace. >> now, mr. president, with you, we have hope. >> thank you. thank you very much. so we're going to start a process. we've spoken top bebe netanyahu. we've spoken to many of the great israeli leaders.

we've spoken with many of your great representatives, many of them are here today for lunch with us. we'll start a process which hopefully will lead to peace. over the course of my lifetime, i've always heard that perhaps the toughest deal to make is the deal between the israelis and the palestinians. let's see if we can prove them wrong, okay? >> okay. >> good, thank you. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. thank you. >> president trump the palestinian authority president abbas at the white house, president abbas saying with you we have hope. press trump optimistic words trying to strike an israeli/palestinian peace plan. back up to capitol hill and james comey still testifying before the senate judiciary committee. >> i just worry, i don't want to answer that. that seems to me unfair speculation. we will follow the evidence. we'll try and find as much as we can and follow the evidence wherever it leads.

>> wouldn't there situation be ideal for the appointment of a special prosecutor, an independence counsel? in light of the fact that the attorney general has recused himself and so far as your answers indicate today, no one has been ruled out publicly in your on going investigation. >> i understand the reasons that you want to avoid ruling out anyone publicly but for exactly that reason, because of the appearance of a potential conflict of interest, isn't this situation absolutely crying out for a special prosecutor? >> that's a judgment for the deputy attorney general, the acting attorney general on this matter. and not something i should comment on. >> you had some experience in this kind of decision in 2003.

you admirably appointed a special prosecutor, patrick fitzgerald when the attorney general, then john ashcroft, rerecused himself from involvement in the investigation concerning whether the bush administration officials illegally disclosed the identity of an undercover cia official. are there any differences materially between that situation and this one so far as the reasons to appoint a special counsel? >> well, i think both situations as with all investigations that touch on people who have been actors in a political world involve considerations of actual conflict of interest and appearance of conflict of interest. and i'm not going to talk about the current situation and that situation, my judgment was that the credibility of the

investigation into the leak of the cia officer's identity would be best served by not having it ever seen by myself because i was a political appointee and appointing someone and giving him the authority to run it separate from the political leadership of the department of justice. that was my judgment in that circumstance. i don't know what judgment the acting attorney general will make. i'm sure he'll consider many of the same things. >> has he asked for your advice. >> i'm not going to say, senator. i wouldn't -- when i was, i didn't want people talking about their conversations with me. i'll do the same for him. >> so far as the investigation, the ongoing investigation into trump associates and their potential collusion with the russian meddling in our election will, will you be providing any updates to the american people? >> certainly not before the matter is concluded. and then depending upon how the matter is concluded, some

matters are concluded with criminal charges and then there's a public accounting and a charging document. other matters as was the case with the e-mail investigation end with no charges but some statement. others end with no statement. i don't know yet. obviously i would want to do that in close coordination with the department. >> will you make recommendations to presumably it would be the deputy attorney general or the special prosecutor if one is appointed as to whether criminal charges should be brought? >> i don't know in this case, in particular, but in general, we almost always do especially the highest profile matters. >> but you cannot yourself pursue criminal charges, correct? >> correct. >> i think that's important for the american people to understand. because it bears on the question of whether a special prosecutor ought to be appointed. the fbi may inspire great credibility and trust but the fbi cannot bring charges, neither can the intelligence committees do so nor can an independent commission, only the

deputy attorney general or a special prosecutor designated by him, correct? >> correct. >> let me close because i am running out of time. have you been questioned at all by the inspector general in connection with the inquiry that i understand is ongoing into a number of the topics that we've been discussing here? >> yes, i've been interviewed. the inspector general is inspecting me and looking at my conduct in the course of the e-mail investigation which i know this sounds like a crazy thing to say i encourage. i want that inspection because i want my story told because some of it is classified but also if i did something wrong, i want to hear that. i don't think i did, but yeah, i've been interviewed and i'm sure i'll be interviewed again. >> do you have any regrets or are there any things you would do differently in connection with either the comments you

made at the time you closed the investigation or when you then indicated to congress that you were in effect reopening it? >> yeah, the honest answer is no. i've asked myself that a million times. lordy has this been painful. the only thing i regret is answering the phone when they recruited me to be fbi director and i was living happily in connecticut. >> we would welcome you back to connecticut. >> i can't. i've gotten all kinds of rocks thrown at me. this has been really hard but i think i've done the right thing at each turn. i'm not on anybody's side. so hard for people to see that. look, i've asked that a million times, should you have done there, should you have done that. the honest answer i don't mean to seem arrogant, i wouldn't have done it differently. somehow i would have prayed away, wished i was on the shores of the connecticut sound but failing that, i don't have any regrets. >> i want to ask one last question unrelated to this

topic. on the issue of gun violence. would you agree that universal background collection would help with law enforcement and prevention of gun violence. >> the more able we are to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and spouse abusers, the better. the more information we have, the better for law enforcement perspective. >> i'll take that as a yes. thank you. >> call on senator tillis. i think we have one member that, if that member is going to come back for first round, then we have three or four, maybe five of us that want a second round. so i hope that people will get back here so we know exactly how many people we have out of courtesy to director comey. senator tillis. >> director comey, thank you for being here. i'm always impressed with your composure and your preparation. and i want to get to a couple of other things, maybe first, then if i have time come back to what

the hearing has been predominantly about. when you briefed us last year, i think that you said that there were some -- that there were ongoing investigations on homeland, homeland security potential terrorists either homegrown or foreign inspired investigations in every state. is that still the case. >> yes. >> can you give me roughly an idea of the number of investigations that is? >> yeah, it's just north of 1,000. >> just north of a thousand. >> yeah, that caseload has stayed about the same since we last talked about it, some have closed, some have opened. but about a thousand homegrown violent extremist investigations in the united states. >> at the time it, i asked asked to what extent you can discuss in this setting were people who are the target of those investigations person who's came in through various programs where questions about vetting have been raised as to whether or not they're accurate.

at the time, there were a dozen and a half i think you may have estimated. do you have any rough numbers about that. >> yeah, i do. if you -- we have about a thousand homegrown extremist investigations and probably another thousand or so that are, i should define my terms. homegrown violent extremists. we have no indication they're in touch. we have another group of people we see some contact with foreign terrorists. you take that 2,000 plus cases, about 300 of them are people who came to the united states as refugees. >> okay. to know what extent in all of those investigations, you mentioned earlier that there are probably about half of the various computing devices that you've accessed that you can't get into with any technology that the fbi has, which i assume is some of the most advanced available. to what extent is the access to that information relevant and these investigations of potential homeland threats?

>> it's a feature of all our work but especially concerning here because we're trying through lawful process to figure out are they consuming this poison on the internet and are they in touch with anybody. and so it's true in terrorism cases about half the devices we can't open. about 90 some percent of our subjects are using at least one encrypted app, as well that we can't. >> mr. director, just because of physical and technological constraints, half of the base of information you would like to harvest you can't get to. without 702, how much more of the remaining half would be harmed. >> well, the 702 actually addresses a different challenge. losing 702 would be disastrous. it would lose our window. >> it is relevant in these investigations. >> it is. >> that's what i mean. so half of the physical assets you can't already get access to. then there's the metadata and all the other information that would be instructive to these

investigations. by going dark, do we mean 100%? >> we're headed towards 100%. 702 is our window into the really bad guys overseas and if we close that -- i don't know why on earth we would close that window. >> we have thousands of investigations of potential homeland security threats evenly split by either people who have self-radicalized or some influenced, some who have come over in refugee programs that we will basic pull the rug out from under you in terms of being able to actively investigate them. >> it will certainly impair our ability to investigate them. folks often say why can't you get metadata. you can't convict somebody. >> you've got to the drill down. >> i want to go back to the investigation. and i just want to give you another opportunity to maybe finish by explaining the context that you were operating in. i want to create the context going back to when the investigation first began. it was already a part of media attention. i think on june 27th, the then

attorney general met with the spouse of someone who is subject to active investigation which was at the very least an unusual encounter which also spun up the media. and then i think it was july 5th that you made the statement that i think a few of the things you've said that i guess based on evidence you were gathering there was one component like removing a frame from a huge jigsaw puzzle and dumping pieces on the floor, something else that the media ties into. then you said there is evidence of potential violations of statutes regarding the handling of classified information. and you went on to say that under similar circumstances, a person who is engaged in these activities would likely be subject to security or administrative sanctions. i mean, that was the tough part of the statement that you made. but you went on to say that you didn't believe a reasonable minded prosecutor would bring a case even though there was evidence of potential

violations. and that you were expressing your view that the justice department hud not proceed. is that typical for you to go to a point and say i've gathered this information. there may be evidence of violations but we don't think nel reasonable prosecutor in the doj would pursue it, therefore we're going to recommend not pursuing. is that common? >> i've never heard of it. i never imagined ever until this circumstance. >> was there some logic in that at the time that you were making that decision based on the information that you were provided, was there the same sort of thought process that you're going through there to have it rise to that level that then led to your october 28th notification of congress that you had to look at other evidence that had been identified on anthony weiner's pc? what i'm trying to do is say it looks like you were trying to provide as much transparency and as much realtime information as you had. >> yeah. >> and then on november 6th, the

fbi apparently moved heaven and earth and got something done in a matter of days they thought was going to take beyond the election. but you were in that pressure cooker. i wanted to give au opportunity to glue together i think the decision for your actions on july 5th and how i think there's parallels between that and what you ultimately did on october the 28th and then november 6th. and i'll yield back the remaining time for the answer. >> and i -- i've lived my whole life caring about the credibility and the integrity of the criminal justice process, that the american people believe it to be and that it be in fact, fair, independent, and honest. and so what i struggled with in the spring of last year was, how do we credibly complete investigation of hillary clinton's e-mails if we conclude there's no case there. the normal way to do it would be to have the department of justice announce it. i struggled as we got closer to the ends of it with a number of

things had gone on is, some of which i can't talk about yet that made me worry that the department leadership could not credibly complete the investigation and decline prosecution without grievous damage to the american people's confidence in the justice system. and then the capper was and i'm not picking on the attorney general, loretta lynch but her meeting with president clinton on that airplane was the capper for me. i then said you know what? the department cannot by itself credibly end this. the best chance we have as a justice system is if i step away from them and tell the american people look, here's what the fbi did, here's what we found and think. that offered us the best chance of the american people believing in the system that it was done in a credible way. that was a hard call for me to make to call the attorney general that morning and say i'm about to do a press conference and not going to tell you what i'm going to say. i said i hope some day understand why i'm doing this.

i knew this would be disastrous for me personally but i thought it was the best way to protect the institutions we care about. having testified repeatedly under oath, this was done in a credible way, when the anthony weiner thing landed on october 27th and there was a huge, this is what people forget, new step to be taken, we may about finding the golden missing e-mails that would change this case, if i were not to the speak about that, it would be a disastrous catastrophic concealment. it was incredibly painful choice but not all that hard between very bad and catastrophic. i had to tell congress we were taking these additional steps. i prayed to find a third door. i couldn't find it. two actions, speak or conceal. i don't think many reasonable people would do it differently than i did. if you were standing there staring at that on october 2th, would you really conceal that. >> so i spoke. again, the design was to act

credibly, independently and honestly so the american people know the system's not rigged in any way. that's why i felt transparency was the best path. in july, then i wasn't seeking transparency in october. i sent that letter only to the chairs and rankings. did i know they were going to leak it? of course. i did make an announcement at that point. my amazing people moved heaven and earth to do what was impossible to get through the e-mails by working 24 hours a day and say honestly is, sir, we found tons of new stuff, doesn't change our view. i said are you sure? they said we're sure. we don't believe there's a case against hillary clinton. i said by god, i've got to tell congress that. i know i'll get a storm for that. i said to people, you may think we're idiots. we're honest people and made judgments trying to do the right thing. i believe even with hindsight we made the right decisions. i'm sorry for that long answer. >> director comey, we have seven

times six is 42 minutes. i hope you won't want to take a break. >> i'm made of stone. >> thank you. >> on march 6th, i wrote to you asking about the fbi's relationship with the author of the trump dossier, christopher steel. most of these questions have not been answered. so i'm going to ask them now. prior to the bureau launching the investigation of the alleged ties between the trump campaign and russia, did anyone from the fbi have interactions with mr. steel regarding the issue? >> that's not a question that i can answer in this forum. you know, i briefed you privately. if there's more necessary, i would be happy to do it privately. >> have you ever represented to a judge that the fbi had interaction with mr. steel whether by name or not regarding

alleged ties between the trump campaign and russia prior to the bureau launching its investigation of the matter? >> i have to give you the same answer, mr. chairman. >> this one i'm going to expect an answer on. do fbi policies, just the policies, allow it to pay an outside investigator for work another source is also paying him for, as well? want me to repeat it? do fbi policies allow it to pay an outside investigator for work that another source is also paying that investigator for? >> i don't know for sure as i sit here. possibly is my answer. but i'll get you a precise answer. >> in writing? >>. >> sure. >> okay. did the fbi provide any payments whatsoever to mr. steel related to the investigation of trump associates? >> i'm back to my first -- i can't answer in this forum.

>> was the fbi aware, was the fbi aware that mr. steel reportedly paid his sources who in turn paid their sub sources to make the claim in the dossier? >> same answer, sir. >> here's one you ought to be able to be answer. is it vital to know, is it vital to know whether or not sources have been paid in order to evaluate their credibility and if they have been paid, doesn't that information need to be disclosed if you're relying on that information in seeking approval for investigative authority? >> i think in general, yes. i think it is vital to know. >> the fbi and the justice department have provided me materially inconsistent answers in closed settings about its reported relationship with mr.

steel. will you commit to fully answering the questions from my march 6th and april 28th letter and providing all requested documents so that we can resolve those inconsistencies even if in a closed session being necessary? >> because as i sit here, i don't know all the questions that are in the letters. i don't want to answer that specifically. i commit to giving you all the information you need to address just that challenge. i don't believe there's any inconsistency. i think there's a misunderstanding but in a classified setting, i'll give you what you need. >> okay. i hope to show you those inconsistencies. >> i think i know what you're -- where the confusion is, but i think in a classified setting, we can straighten it out. >> question, next question. according to a complaint filed with the justice department, the company that oversaw dossier's creation was also working with a former russian intelligence

operative on a pro-russian lobbying prj at the same time the company fusion gps allegedly failed to register as a foreign agent for its work to undermine the act which is a law that lets the president punish russian officials who violate human rights. before i sent you a letter about this, were you aware of the complaint against fusion was acting as an unregistered agent for russian interests? >> it's not a question i can answer in this forum. >> you can't answer that? >> no, i can't. >> go on to something else. last week, the fbi filed a declaration in court pursuant to freedom of information act litigations. the fbi said that a grand jury issued subpoenas for secretary clinton's e-mails.

yet, you refused to tell this committee whether the fbi saw it or had been denied access to grand jury process from the justice department. so i think a very simple question, why does the fbi give more information to someone who phis a lawsuit than to an oversight committee in the congress. >> and that has happened to me several times. >> i'm not sure, senator, whether that's what happened here. but you're right. i refuse to confirm in our hearings as to whether we had used a grand jury and how. i think that's the right position. because i don't know it well enough, i don't think i can tell you -- i don't think i can distinguish the statements made in the foia case as i sit here. but yeah. >> just as a matter of proposition then, if i chuck grassley as a private citizen file a freedom of information act, and you give me more information than you'll give to senator chuck grassley, how do

you justify that? >> yeah, that's a good question. >> what do you mean it's a good question. >> how do you justify it. >> i can't as i sit here. >> ye gods. was the clinton investigation named operation midyear because it needed to be finished before the democratic national convention? if so, why the artificial deadline? if not, why was that the name? >> certainly not because it had to be finished by a particular date. there's an art and a science to how we come up with code names for cases. they assure me it's done randomly. sometimes i see ones that make me smile. i'm not sure. i can assure you it was called midyear exam was the name of the case. i can assure you the name was not select ford any nefarious purpose or because of any timing on the investigation. >> last question. when was the grand jury convened? was it before your first public statement about closing the

case? >> i'm still not in a position where i'm comfortable confirming whether and how we used a grand jury. in an open setting. i don't know enough about what was said in the foia case to know whether that makes my answer silly but i want to be so careful about talking about grand jury matters. i'm not going to answer that, sir. >> senator feinstein. >> thanks very much. mr. chairman. mr. director, first of all, thank you for your fortitude and going through there. appreciate it. in your testimony, you noted that the first half of the fiscal year, the fbi was unable to be access the content of more than 3,000 mobile devices. even though the fbi had the league authority to do so. i'm familiar with one of those, and that is the southern california terrorist attack which where 14 people were killed in san bernardino. of those 3,000 devices that you weren't able to access, can you

say how many of these were related to a counter-terrorism event? >> i don't know as i sit here, senator but we can get you that information. >> yeah, i'd really very much appreciate that. we had looked at legislation that would take into consideration events of national security and provide that devices. it must be some way, of even going before a judge and getting a court order, to be able to open a device. do you think that would work? >>. >> well, that would sure to my mind be a better place for us to be from a public safety perspective. but we aren't there now. >> in terms -- this week, the

british parliament's home affairs select committee released a report finding that social media platforms such as facebook, twitter, and youtube failed to remove extremist material posted by banned jihadists and neo-nazi groups even when that material was reported. the committee urged tech companies to pay for and publicize online content monitoring activities. and called on the british government to strengthen laws related to the publication of such material. last year, i worked with senators burr, rubio and nelson to introduce a bill to require tech companies to report terrorist activity on their platforms. to law enforcement. what do you advise the provision

we modeled it after an existing law which requires tech companies to notify authorities about cases of child pornography, but not not require companies to monitor any user, subscriber or customer. i plan to reintroduce the provision in separate legislation. so here are two questions. would the fbi benefit from knowing when technology companies see terrorists plotting and other illegal activity online? >> yes. >> would the fbi be willing to working with the judiciary committee going forward on this provision? >> yes, senator. i don't know it well enough to offer you a view, but we'd be happy to work with you on it. >> well, i was so struck when san bernardino happened, and you made overtures to allow that

device to be opened, and then the fbi had to spend $900,000 to hack it open. and as i subsequently learned of some of the reason for it, there were good reasons to get into that device. and the concern i have is that once people have been killed in a terrorist attack and there may be other dna, there may be other messages that lead an investigative agency to believe that there are others out there, isn't it to the -- for the protection of the public that one would want to be able to see if a device could be opened and i've had a very hard time. i've gone out, i've tried to talk to the tech companies. they're in my state. one facebook was very good and

understood the problem. but most do not. has the fbi ever talked with the tech companies about this need in particular? >> yes, senator. we've had a lot of conversations and as i saidyer, in my sense, they've been getting more productive because i think the tech companies have come to see the darkness a little bit more. my concern was privacy is really important but ha they didn't see the public safety cost. i think they're starting to see that better. and what nobody wants to have happen is something terrible happen in the united states. and it be connected to our inability to access information with lawful authority. that we ought to have the conversations before that happens and the companies more and more get that. i think over the last year and a half. and but it's vital. we weren't biking on apple in the san bernardino case. >> right. >> there were real reasons why we needed to get into that device. and that is t