discussion he mentioned the existence of the text messages, and that based on that he needed to ask me to return to the fbi. >> lots of people have text messages, mr. strzok. >> yes, sir. again, my impression, not stated by him, but my impression of that based on the appearance of those messages and in part of a desire by him to avoid even the appearance of any potential bias that he asked me to return but that's a question for him. >> but, he kept everyone else? >> sir, i dodge know about the staffing decisions made by director mueller after i departed. >> including 13 democrats. >> sir i don't know the affiliation of the people on his team. >> he was concerned enough from your text to remove you but you never felt concerned enough to remove yourself. >> that's correct.

>> mr. strzok, you'll get other questions here that relate to your transition from the investigation of miss clinton into the beginnings of this investigation into the trump campaign and the alleged collusion with the russian government. now, mr. strzok, the fbi is a creation of this body. congress created the fbi with its constitutional authority. today you are hereunder subpoena, i know you've come voluntarily in your opinion but you're under subpoena and also in exercise of congress's constitutional authority. which takes precedence fbi policy or the united states constitution? >> sir, always the united states constitution. my understanding is i am not hereunder subpoena, that i am here voluntarily. i understand a subpoena was issued for my prior closesed interview. >> a subpoena was issued, and service of which was accepted. >> that's not my understanding,

sir. >> in a supreme court case handed down just last year, the court reviewed whether statements made by a juror that indicated racial bias required the piercing of jury deliberation. justice kennedy wrote the opinion of the court racial bias held by a jury provided an yks sepgs to the rule to make sure our legal system can come close to the ever promise of equal treatment under the law that's so central to a functioning democracy. on several occasions you referenced all the texts and questions were simply personal opinions exchanged with a close confidant and no way reflected your intent to act on these opinions. if you made these statements it's hard no imagine you wouldn't be kicked off because your bias would undermine a functioning democracy. do you still hold personal

opinions even in the face of supreme court precedence should not have tainted your involvement on any investigation relating to secretary clinton or president trump? >> mr., chairman, i think you're mixing apples and oranges. i'm not an attorney. i'm not familiar with that supreme court ruling. but based on what you said protected category, things like race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, are protected matters that we may not -- the government and bylaw people may not be discriminated against based on their role one way or the other in any one of those coordination. that's separate and distinct from political belief or political opinion. that on the other hand, is encouraged, is protected by the first amendment. and this body under the hatch act, my understanding is, said and said -- >> no one stopped you from sending the text, mr. strzok, but the special counsel, mr. mueller, removed you from the investigation when he saw the

text. >> that's, true, sir. if i may go back to answering your question, if i may. in term of political speech that's radically different from any sort of protected category of race, gender and ethnicity or other categories. political speech, political thought is protected. the courts have recognized the constitution recognizes we all have political belief. so when it comes to the expression of that political belief, that is something that this body under the hatch act enewera e said it's encouraged. so i would tell you that no one in here -- it's an impossible definition to say people must not have political opinion. everyone does. of course, they do. the test is whether or not that is left behind when you're doing your job. to your question of whether or not i would express that in front of a jury, of course i wouldn't. that would be inappropriate. as to your question whether each

and every one of those jurors when they go home sitting backyard with a friend has a political opinion, my answer would be undoubtedly almost all of those jurors would. >> they are instructed when they leave the jury panel each day to not communicate with anyone regarding the matter that they are considering. so that's a very different thing. you are considering a matter and you are conducted texts of a very biassed manner that was totally inappropriate and when mr. mueller saw that he removed you. >> sir, i appreciate that concern. but what i'm telling you there's a vast difference in my mind between an action as a juror being instructed by a judge not to discuss the matters of a trial, compared to a citizen of the united states -- >> you don't suppose there's a reason why -- >> for discussing his -- >> so the chair recognizes the

gentleman from new york. >> thank you very much. let me begin by congratulating the witness on his completely correct statement of key first amendment law that people are entitled to political opinions. now, you sir, obviously expressed your political opinions as to mr. trump and hillary clinton and various others in text messages to lisa page. i did. >> and she to you. >> yes. >> these are private opinions. >> yes. >> that you did knot express public l. >> the inspector general found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors affected by bias or other improper considerations. they were based on the prosecutor's's september of the facts and law. that's correct that's the finding of the i.g., no? >> yes, sir. >> with respect to the russia

investigation, the i.g. said that he was disturbed by the appearance that investigated decisions might be impacted by bias but made no such findings and hadn't completed his investigation of the russia investigation, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, when people talk about the appearance, whether people on this panel or the inexperimenter general the appearance of bias created by those text messages, those text messages might create "today" pearance of bias if they are made public. >> that's correct. >> and they were not intended to be public? >> correct. >> they were communications between two private individuals? >> true. >> which are totally permitted. >> that's correct. >> now, fbi agents permitted to have political opinions? >> yes. >> and as a 22 year veteran of the fbi, could you tell us without naming names, were you

familiar with the fact, personn political opinions with respect to the presidential campaign? >> i was. >> were some of these people anti-trump? >> they were. >> were some of these people pro trump? >> yes. >> thank you. to your knowledge did any of the pro trump bias or anti-trump bias and personal opinions affect decisions and investigations by the fbi? >> not to my knowledge. >> okay. now, you mentioned the hatch act. >> yes. >> under the hatch act the fbi is prohed, is it not, from inquiring as to the political opinions of people it's hiring? >> i don't know the hatch act well enough to tell you. >> i'll say that's the case. the government may not under the hatch act inquire as to political opinions of people that it's hiring for a non-exempt position and to do so would be improper. i must say that i think that all of these inquiries about your

political opinions as revealed by these text messages are irrelevance and wrong unless it can be shown -- as it has not been shown, definitively not the case in the hillary investigation and not shown in the russia investigation that they affected any decisions in the investigation. let's leave it at that on that point. mr. strzok, what is the fbi's policy -- let me say one other thing. it is prudent, and i'll observe this because you said you couldn't answer. but it's obviously prudent of mr. mueller in finding these and hearing about these text messages to think that they might be subject to incorrect interpretations on publicity and in order to avoid the kind of attacks on this investigation that we are seeing from

republican members of this committee and from the administration, to ask you to leave that investigation having nothing to do with your competence or fairness in the investigation but simply to somewhat insulate that investigation from unfair attacks. would you think that might be a correct -- >> yes. >> thank you. mr. strzok, what is the fbi's policy with respect to its agents commenting publicly about an ongoing criminal investigation? >> we don't do pat this >> sorry? >> we don't do that. >> why is that policy in place? >> for a variety of reasons. one it's unfair to stub ject of that investigation. it can skew the conduct of that investigation, other witnesses, other future investigative avenues. it can skew potential jurors in the event a case is taken to prosecution. >> are you familiar with the inspector general's report on the fbi's handling of the clinton investigation? >> i am. >> in that report was highly

critical of director comey, of it not, for among other things departing from protocol and commenting about an ongoing investigation. it did say that. >> it was critic jl of him for doing that. some people said they don't agree with the decision of the charge of mrs. clinton. the departure from protocol or first at the par you're the com his opinion about her handling of various emails and so forth. having decided after she wasn't being charged his departing from protocol coming on that. wasn't that one of the deviation? >> yes, sir. >> has the fbi asked you to adhere to that policy of not commenting onion going criminal investigations namely the russia investigation, for example, today >> yes. >> how so? >> they instructed me, my

understanding is that general counsel for the fbi met with chairman goodlatte and his staff and came up with approved list of topics i might speak about and outside of that list that i was not to discuss anything having to do with ongoing investigations. >> i would simply observe that asking you or anybody else like mr. rod rosenstein to comment onion going investigations is against policy and liable to taint those investigations and to damage the reputations of people or even endanger the safety of informants as you have said. mr. strzok, you're an experienced counter intelligence official. can you explain why briefly because i think you touched on this, why the investigation to the russian government's attack on our elections and other critical infrastructure is important to our national security? >> i think it's extraordinarily important of what it represents. the selection of our nays's leader, the chief executive, the person who is charged with the

defers of the united states, national security of the united states, whether that's militarily or economic. there is no greater responsibility in the land. and the way we do that, the underpinning of what we are in america, the election, is the process by which we do that. so the idea that not only a foreign nation, but an advanced hostile foreign nation would insert themselves in that process to undermine the will of the united states people is terrible. >> is that why you thought it important to to prioritize in 2 and leave mr. wiener's laptop to someone else. >> the first reason i did it is the director told me to. he said it was a top priority. the second thing was yes clearly when you look at allocation of resources the russian investigations are much greater impact than a mishandling of

classified information investigation. >> the first reason the director told you to? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. how frequently does the fbi engaging counter intelligence investigation of foreign powers. >> all the time. >> so it is fair, is it fair to say we're in unprecedented territory? >> from my experience in the fbi, yes, sir. >> and, is it fair to say that our country faced and is possibly still phasing a grave threat from a hostile foreign power. >> it is. >> thank you. i think that is correct, mr. strzok. we know russia after successfully interfering with our last election is working to obstruct the upcoming elections in detroit.

we've been told this the russia government waegd a complex campaign to influence the 2016 election to the benefit of president trump. last week the senate intelligence committee on a bipartisan basis confirmed this assessment. and the director of national intelligence testified before the senate intelligence committee about a more urgent threat. there should be no doubt that russia's past efforts were successful and the u.s. mid-term elections is a potential target for russian operations. what is the majority's response? to launch an investigation into hillary clinton's e-mail and undermine robert mueller who is running a national security investigation. the republicans are usually taking aim at deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. just as they this assist on asking you guess about an ongoing investigation, questions you can't answer, the majority

insist on demanding the most sensitive information. they want copies of the scoping documents that lay out the special counsel's exact lines of inquiry. such disclosure would be dangerous and unprecedented. they mandatory the doj violate policies. this is incredibly inappropriate and dangerous and forced to ask ourselves why. why house republicans been so dismissive of russia' attacks on the runs? why are republicans so intent on destroying public confidence in the justice department? and in the special prosecutor, special counsel's investigation? why have they abandoned house rules to pick unnecessary fights with you, lisa page and deputy attorney general rod rosenstein? the obvious answer is because they are scared. because president trump is

scared. because special counsel's investigation is operating in a break neck pace and already produced five guilty pleas and charges. because accountability is coming. one way or another and they are scared and they are trying to undermine the investigation and to distract attention. now i must say the basis of many of these questions that here hearing today of mr. strzok by the majority, by the republicans is the 11th hour interview with mr. strzok. and i now call upon the majority to release that transcript in full today. this will show this is the entire joint investigation is at best a partisan distraction from more important matters but the witness before us today, mr. strzok testified not under confidentiality, not undbut in

for 11 hours nothing that prevents the majority from releasing that transcript. selected portions of that transcript have been leaked by members of the majority, misleading portions taken out of context, and i don't know if demand, but demand that that transcript be released in full so people can see it, see the testimony today and can make better judgments. and i ask the chairman now to order the release of that transcript. will the chairman do so? >> not today. >> will the chairman ever do so? >> you can direct your questions to the witness, that's your time to do that, not to discuss this. >> i will observe the chairman will not answer the question and this is part of the continuing evasion, and attempt at

obfuscation. >> will the gentlemen yield? >> no. because we know the pattern and the pattern is we're not releasing transcripts except parts that macon va the impression false or true that we want to create, convey. there's no legal reason why this transcript should not be released. there's only a partisan reason why this transcript should not be released. nova lid reason it should not be released. if there was a purpose to our inquiries, to our spending 11 hours, there's no reason they shouldn't be released. i'll yield now. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. it's customary in investigations to keep transcripts of private interviews until the conclusion of this investigation. this investigation hasn't concluded and it is very appropriate that the questions that were asked and the answers given are not shared with other

potential witnesses. >> reclaiming my time, i will observe that many of the same questions are being asked today number one but number two, given the fact that selected portions of the transcript have been leaked, i think that changes it. i'll yield. >> i was going to inquire, i've been trying to get the answer to this question, but to the extent that this transcript is available to all of us, i intend to release it. i can't find any prohibition that makes us unable to release it in our rules. we now have the same witness after 11 hours here in a public hearing so the notion we have to somehow keep this secret while pieces are being released is doing a disservice to the american people. i'm asking is there any reason this afternoon i can't release it? >> i'm not aware of any, but i have to look at the house rules and all. >> i thank the gentleman for

yielding. it is correct both members on the republican side and the democratic side have used quotations from the transcript for the purpose of interviewing in the hearing and that's a legitimate use of the transcript. >> i'm reclaiming my time. some members have used it for the purpose of talking to the news media and that may or may not be an appropriate use but be that as it may the transcript should be released. i yield back. i yield the gentleman from maryland. . it ask if it's legitimate within the rules of the house for members to release certain portions of the overall transcript very anything that prevents us from releasing the entire transcript? >> i'm unaware of anything that would, off the top of my head that would prevent a member from releasing the transcript, but that's off the top of my head. i wouldn't want to say that

definitively. >> mr. chair mapp, are you aware of anything that would preclude us from doing that? >> yes, the decision made by the chairman of the committee. we don't want portions -- >> i don't want chairman of the kmeeft to make decisions for me. is there a rule -- >> is that your preference i don't. >> this is a conduct of an investigation. the chair of the two committees are conducting that investigation. we'll decide when transcripts of private interviews will be released. no one on this side of the aisle has released it other than to ask a question in the hearing. >> reclaiming my time i'll observe that some members have released part of the transcript. being quoted in the media not for questions here. does the gentleman from rhode island still want time? >> i have a unanimous consent

request i ask this transcript be made a part of this record in its entirety. >> objection. >> objection is heard. >> the gentleman -- >> roll call vote. >> again, mr. chairman, this is of tremendous interest to the american people. there's an effort here to sort of characterize this witness's behavior much ado has been made of it. we had an 11 hour hearing in which this very same witness has testified. he's now testifying consistently before the american people. there seems to be no good reason other than a personal preference of some, apparently, that this transcript not be released. i would say to the chair mapp respectively if there's no prohibition the fact you prefer we not is insufficient to spear wade me. we intend to release this transcript unless someone presents us some rule under our house proceedings or this

committee that prevents us from doing that. >> reclaiming my time, i'll simply -- i want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from rhode island that i would agree with him. i think it would be a public service to release these transcripts. there's no good reason not to. and at this point i think i yield back the balance of my time. >> if so the chair wants to respond to the judge from rhode island. first of all, there was an agreement in the interview that it was private, confidential and that it would not be released. so that is not going take place under this set of circumstances. secondly, if the gentleman -- we're here investigating irregularities conducted in investigations by fbi. if the gentleman wants to

perpetuate that by creating irregularities here and releasing questions so that other potential future witnesses can read the question before they are asked, that is, in my opinion, exactly what many of the gentleman's side of the aisle has been about, attempting to disrupt this investigation and hearing process. >> reclaiming my time, mr. strzok -- >> mr. chairman, i object. >> would you object -- >> no. >> i would observe then that the minority -- the chairman says there was an agreement not, you know, on the conduct of that hearing. minority was not party to that agreement. there may have been an agreement between mr. gowdy and goodlatte but at no point were we asked -- >> stated on the record in the hearing. >> it was stated as a decision, as a fact. we were not asked, we agreed to

nothing because we were not asked. and we think that the transcript ought to be released for the reasons stated and that if the witness doesn't object i don't know why the majority should object. i yield. >> if the gentleman would yield, in earnest, i will be glad to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about releasing all relevant information. i think if we're talking about full transparency, let's talk about a fuel transparency. it's interesting we want to release one thing but yet somehow allowing peter strzok to suggest there's other things off the record. i'll work in earnest with my colleagues. >> i appreciate the gentleman, and let me simply say that we are not disrupting a legitimate investigation into the investigation. the republican investigation -- >> it is a release -- >> -- trying to disrupt the

investigation into the russian interference in our election by the special counsel. >> would the gentleman yield. >> i yield back? >> so now that the chairman and ranking member have had ample time to ask questions and i think that gentleman from new york has the record, we are going to move because we have 72 more members who have questions to ask to strict adherence to five minute rule and we'll begin with the judge from wisconsin. >> thank you very much. let me observe that, you know, there have been all kinds of complaints about leaking transcripts and things like that. one of the reasons we're here today is because there has been a flood of leaks out of the justice department about what is going on. barely a day goes by when you can't pick up a newspaper and find out it's rumored this, and rumored that and then we have a

witness from the fbi that comes up here and says oh, no we can't talk about that here to the coronary heart disease which has constitutional oversight responsibility because it's against our rules. well, i hope there would be a few prosecutions of people out of justice that have been leaking this stuff to the various news media. now, i want to get to looking at statutes. you look at rules, i've been looking at statutes. somehow along the line in the report on the conclusions of the clinton investigation the word "grows negligence" was changed to "extremely careless" in determining mrs. clinton's handseling of liquified information. now "gross negligence" would mean it would subject her to criminal liability. "extremely carelessness" would have the opposite effect. it would not. so i would like to ask you, mr.

strzok, a couple of questions about that. the original may 2nd draft of the statement that director comey was characterized mrs. clinton's actions as gross lly negligent, is that correct >> yes. >> are you ware was kpaenged to extremely careless in the eventual statement? >> yes. >> do you recall the june 6, 2016, meeting attend by you and mr. ribicki and miss moyer and lisa page to discuss the language of the statute on whether to use grossly negligent or something else in the draft statement? what was discussed at that meeting? >> sir, i don't remember that specific meeting. there are a variety of meetings with a bunch of people that included discussion of this concern. >> okay. did the alternative phrase extremely careless come up at

the meeting? >> it did at some point. i don't know if it was during that meeting or another one. >> whenever it happened who brought it up? >> my recollection someone within our office, one of the attorneys. >> up don't remember who did? >> no. it was a legal issue that one of the attorney brought up. >> okay. now immediately after that meeting, data shows you modified the draft statement on june 6th. is this when the phrase "grossly negligent" was changed to "extremely carelessness"? >> my recollection of working on the draft in my office with a grouch us and taking the inputs of five people. >> was it your computer that put the change in? >> based on my subsequent review i believe that to be true. >> okay. who has access to your computer? anybody besides you

>> no. my secretary had access to elements of it. >> why was the change made? you were at a meeting where the change would be made. >> my recollection -- i'm not an attorney. my recollection is that attorneys within the fbi had raised the concern that the use of gross negligence triggered a significant legal meaning. >> criminal. >> in a legal context grossly negligence is used in various statute, particularly the mishandseling statutes to talk about a criminal element of the criminal effects. so, sir, if i may quickly -- >> the change was hillary's get out of jail free card >> absolutely north sir. >> hillary hasn't been prosecuted, so if she wasn't grossly negligent but extremely careless then there's no

criminal standard. with grossly negligent there is. >> she received no get out of jail free card. we pursued the facts. >> she got a get out of the whus free card. >> i can tell you there's nothing further from the truth. >> trump won. that's the truth. >> what i would tell you with regard to that decision there was concern within the perspective, a legal definition of that term that people would draw an inference based on that use that it was necessarily talking about a particular subset of a statute. >> my time is just about up. that reads four pinocchios. >> may i respond? >> gentleman may respond. >> what i would tell you is that there was concern about the use of the word "grossly negligence intelligent" and whether director comey wanted to convey that in the sense of an element of a crime and when lawyers

looked at it whether they would interpret she did or did not commit a violation of a the particular statute. looking at the statute where it occur, both realized that that was not what he wanted to say and ultimately he made the decision to change that wording and convey what it was he did want to say and that all of those discussion were generated based on a legal discussion of the use of that term as a legal definition, not as an indicia of violation of any particular statute at all. >> the chair recognizes the g d gen gentle woman from california for five minutes. >> it would be easier to go back to the last question if you can indicate to your knowledge whether the evidence would have supported the use of gross negligence and apparently the decision made by the lawyers and

the fbi was that was not the case and, therefore, that term should not be used. i just want to talk at a more macro level about what's going on here. you know, one of the things i try to do is to imagine how i would feel if various things had been done or said about a member of my own party who was president. and how i would react, because i think it's important to try and understand that. and when you take a look at the text that you sent, i think you've acknowledged it would make people who were support's of trump uneasy about your intentions. and i think that was reflected in the inspector general's report and i think, obviously, that brought suspicion of you and the fbi among people who were trump supporters.

the fact that you also had highly critical texts of the attorney general eric holder, of governor martin o'malley, of simulator bernie sanders, i mean isn't really relevant. they were not, to the best of my knowledge, subject to an investigation. so, you know, it was important that the inspector general go in and take a look to find out for us, for this committee, and for the american people what really happened. and he did. he went in, he spent a lot of time, he interviewed many people and here was his conclusion. he did chastized you and you and i understand you accept that admonishment, but found that there was none of whatsoever of political bias in the decisions made in that investigation and a direct quote, we do not find documentary or testimony of

improper considerations were made. now, you know, to listen to some of my friends, you would think that the fbi, which i had always felt was made up of conservative law enforcement people had magically been transformed into a left wing organization. that's not my understanding and, in fact, if you take a look at the people in charge, you got mr. wray who was appointed by mr. trump who was not a democrat, mr. comey, who was appointed by mr. trump, he's not a democrat. i happen to know that robert mueller is not a democrat. so these are not political designates made by political operatives. they should be following the evidence. i just would like to note that if, you if you had wanted to harm and interfere with the

election of president trump, you could have leaked information that the investigation was ongoing. but none of that came out. as a matter of fact, we asked the leaders of the department of justice and fbi about whether there was an investigation of mr. trump prior to the election and we were told they could not comment on it, which was, in fact, the appropriate response. you should not comment on an ongoing investigation if you find something, you have an indictment, if you don't find sorry you say nothing. that's where mr. comey erred. he violated that policy and damaged the campaign of one of the candidates and the rest is history. so i just think that this hearing's extraordinary hearing, i've been here a member of congress for 24 years. this is the first time we've had this kind of event, a circus,

really, of trying to really investigate the investigators when that's already done. i would urge that we -- we make sure that the actions we take do not create further divisions in our country. you know, president trump tweeted a few months ago, quote, the top leadership and investigators of the fbi and the justice department have politicized the sacred investigative process in favor of democrats and against republicans, something which would have been unthinkable just a short time ago. is that tweet supported by the inspector general's report, mr. strzok? >> no. >> no, it is not. i would hope that those of us on the committee who believe in the rule of law, who understand that our country will be damaged if we allow political divisions to

attack our law enforcement agencies, to undercut investigations, that we will be harming our country in a way that our enemies, including russia hope we would do. that's why they interfered in our election, to cause us harm. to create division among the american people and among us here in the halls of government. so, i would ask that we take yes for an answer, that the inspector general did investigate this matter. he found out there wasn't political influence and we wait for the results of mr. mueller's investigation. i pray that we find that our president was not involved. that would being a great news for our country and if that's mr. mueller's finding, i will accept it. not investigate it. i hope that we can put our partisanship at the door, step back from the precipice that we're finding ourselves now and i would hope that this hearing,

which i think serves no good purpose for our country could be brought to an end. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan for five minutes. >> thank you. very quickly i would like to associate myself with the really outstanding opening statements made by chairman goodlatte and chairman gowdy which i think were two of the finest opening statements i've heard in my 30 years in congress and expressed my views completely. let me also say, mr. strzok, stubbornly will not admit want everybody knows is extreme bias. i find it amazing he can sit here and say that he was not biassed in a way that clearly colored and affected his investigations. if you don't agree with that, i want to read the words from mr. horowitz, the inspector general of the justice department who wrote that the clinton

investigation quote, was the way it was conducted quote, was inconsistent with type investigative strategy and gave rise to accusations of bias and preferential treatment, unquote. then i would guess that mr. strzok knows chris wickr who spent 24 years with the fbi. he wrote, he said the i.g. report presents jarring evidence of political bias by the fbi against republican procedural candidate donald trump but fails to add it all up to come to the inevitable conclusion political bias there was. this is like saying one plus one equals zero. mr. strzok, do you have any reason to think that mr. horowitz or mr. schweikert have

some kind of bias towards you >> i can't speak to mr. schweikert. >> a columnist for one of the capitol hill newspapers said the earth shattering finding by the inspector general confirms a citizens worst fears, high ranking government and an official conspired to affect the outcome of a u.s. presidential election. let me ask you this, mr. strzok. you know that judges who have even minimal bias are required to recuse themselves from a case. do you think that fbi agents have some sort of -- that they are special people who shouldn't be held to the same high

standards that judges are in deciding whether to recuse themselves? >> sir, i would absolutely say that fbi agents, judges, all are expected that whatever their personal beliefs, that they set those beliefs aside in the pursuit of the truth or application of the law. >> you don't believe that you were entitled to a lower standard -- >> i believe -- >> and used that -- >> i'm held to the highest standard and abided by that. >> but you told chairman goodlatte you didn't think you should have recused yourself in this case. >> sir, i would say that's entirely consistent. i believe that all of my personal opinions were never taken into account in anything that i did in an official act. i think that was appropriate. i think that's in keeping with the high standards of the fbi. >> well i think that since both the clinton and trump investigations have such tremendous political ramifications, the ethical thing

for to you do is recuse yourself and move on to other work. there was other work you could work on where you didn't express any bias. >> i disagree. i don't think it was necessary or required for me to recuse. i think every day with the clinton investigation, russian influence investigation, thousands ever other investigation, when i walked in the door the entirety of my action was dedicated to pursuing the facts wherever they lie. snoom times judges have defendants appear before them who after they've been found guilty they apologize, say they are sorry but trying to get to probation and yet many times people think thosy apologe apole more in hopes to get probation and regret they got caught than a sincere apology. do you feel that you should apologize in anyway to northwestern people for the

things that you have expressed, this extreme bias that you expressed? do you have any regret as to calling trump supporters, saying that they smelled and things of that nature >> sir, i think i expressed a couple of thing. one i don't agree with your character zbaig of my views as bias. what i clearly articulated and i can understand those concerns and i hope when you heard me in my opening statement when i talked about my regret to the people, the harm and hurt to the people i love and my family, when i talked the way these texts have been used against the fbi, when i respond to questions about using a turn of phrase about smelling when i should of used hearing or seeing, whatever the case may be, yes those were not directed towards any set people and i hope people do understand i sincerely regret that. >> gentleman's time has expired. chair recognizes the gentle woman from new york for five

minutes. >> mr. strzok, for months the republicans have increasingly used their congressional oversight authority to undermine special counsel mueller's investigation. they have even called for his investigation to be shut down. and why? it's a concerning national security and seems to be successful. the special counsel has now obtained five guilty pleas, and indicted 18 others. and included in these indictments and confessions and guilty pleas, michael flynn pled guilty to lying to the fbi. rick gates pled guilty to conspiring against our country. george papadopoulos pled guilty to making families statements to our country and the fbi. so i'm not exactly sure what the

republicans want to shut down. do they want to shut down the special counsel's upcoming trials against campaign manager paul manafort? one of these trials is scheduled to begin here in virginia in the eastern district of virginia later this summer. and related to it on february 22nd, a grand jury in virginia approved a set of 32 counts of tax, financial and bank frauds charges against mr. manafort and on february 16th, a federal grand jury in the district of columbia privately approved five other charges against mr. manafort and mr. gates, including and i quote, conspiracy against the united states, end quote. in this indictment that's coming forward, i would like to quote from it. it says the defendant paul manafort, together with others

including gates knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud the united states by impeding, impairing obstruction and defeating the lawful governmental functions of government agencies, namely department of justice and department of treasury and to commit offenses against the united states of america. end quote. now since this indictment, gates has pleaded guilty. and he's now cooperating. and included in his statement of offense, quote, manafort engaged in a variety of criminal schemes and gates is part of that work for manafort knowingly and intentionally conspired to assist manafort in criminal schemes, end quote. so, i would like to ask you, mr. strzok, to be clear.

mr. gates is swearing under oath that in his guilty plea that he conspired with mr. manafort in criminal activity. is that correct? from what i'm reading? >> ma'am, i'm not familiar with the statement fact, but i'll stipulate to what you're reading. >> okay. so in a few weeks, mr. manafort's trial date is set to begin. and the special counsel team of prosecutors will present their evidence and i cannot imagine how anyone in this body or in this country with the exception of mr. manafort and his co-conspirators would ever want in any way shape or form to halt this trial from going forward. can you think of any reason why anyone would want to halt this trial from going forward, mr. strzok? >> i'm not aware of any.

>> thank you. i yield to mr. cummings. >> i yield to the gentleman, mr. meadows. >> i thank the gentleman and ge gentlelady. in a spirit of transparency and i think we all want i would offer for the chairman's consideration releasing the transcripts we had in the 11th hour, breaking with two different conditions. one is that we have the opportunity to interview miss lisa page first, since those text messages were back and forth between two witnesses. the second that we can scrub that transcribed interview for any personal relevant information that might be embarrassing before we do that. with that, i'll yield back. >> if the gentlewoman will yield -- >> yes. >> thank you. the gentleman's -- the spirit of the gentleman's recommendation

is well taken, and we will definitely take that under advisement. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i yield. >> i also hope we would give the fbi the opportunity for red redaction for anything that would affect the nation's security. >> i'm going to thank him for trying to work these things out. full transparency. i think that's important. i think the american people and this committee would appreciate it. >> will the gentleman yield for a question? >> i yield. >> does the gentleman from north carolina's suggestion relate solely to the testimony of agent strzok, or would we apply that same process and same standard to the previously unreleased testimony of andrew mccabe, who was examined in a similar environment? >> i yield to the gentleman.

>> i think in the spirit of transparency, we need to look at all transcribed interviews to let the american people judge for themselves. i thank the gentleman for his question. i think that's consistent with my conversation with the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i'll yield my time to my friend and colleague from texas, mr. ratcliffe. >> i thank my colleague for yielding. agent strzok, president trump fired fbi director jim comey. that same day you and fbi lawyer lisa page exchanged quite a few texts on the topic. at 8:14 p.m. on that day, you texted miss page and said, quote, and we need to open the case we've been waiting on now while andy is acting, end quote. first, is that andy mccabe, the former deputy director of the fbi who has since been fired and criminally referred by the inspector general? >> it is. >> all right. and what case are you referring

to opening now that andy is the acting director of the fbi? >> sir, to get into that would relate to ongoing investigations, which consistent with the department's policy on ongoing investigations and based on the special counsel equity, i'm not authorized to discuss ongoing investigations. >> okay. let me see if i can give you a question you can answer. you sent four more texts to miss page. her first response to you at the bottom of that page you're looking at is, quote, we need to lock in -- then there's a black mark where someone's name has been redacted. we need to lock in "redacted" in a formal, chargeable way. soon. whose name has been blacked out? >> sir, i don't know. i'd need to see the original list or original text. >> you don't know, okay. well, i don't know either. here's what else i don't know. i don't know if the person whose name has been redacted is republican or democrat. i don't know if they're black or brown or white. i don't know their religious

beliefs. i don't know their sexual orientation. i don't know those things and i don't care. i do know that decisions about when and whether to open investigations and when and whether to charge people with crimes aren't supposed to depend on who's sitting in the director's chair or on political decisions or on the political agendas of fbi agents and lawyers. so if a trump-hating fbi agent and a trump-hating fbi lawyer who have talked about "f'ing" trump, stopping trump, impeaching trump, are within hours of trump firing their boss, if they talk about starting an investigation now that andy is acting and that some person needs to be locked in, in a formal, chargeable way soon, i know as a former u.s. attorney that, in fact, if that's what happened, i know whoever is the subject of that case that was opened now that andy is acting and whoever you and miss page talked about need needing to be locked in soon in a formal, chargeable way, they

would have had their civil liberties violated. they would have been desprooprif due process. my first question to you you wouldn't answer. my second question to you, you couldn't answer. let's go for a third question. on page 400 of the inspector general's report, someone tells the inspector general, quote, there's a bright line, a bright and inviolable line between what you think personally and believe and the conduct of your official business. who said that? >> i believe i did, sir. >> you did say that. and i heard you say similar things last week. i heard you say similar things today. you said it very clearly. you said it very unequivocally in your opening remarks that you never crossed that inviolable line in 26 years. earlier today in response to a question, you said, i took my personal belief out of every official action. so you're asking us to believe that when you say things like

"f" trump and stop trump and impeach trump, that those are just personal beliefs. and that when you say those things, you never cross that line, that bright inviolable line and allow it to impact your official conduct. >> sir, i'm asking you to believe and offering you evidence -- >> well, you have. you've made it crystal clear. >> there's been no active bias found anywhere. >> you have under oath been as clear as a bell on that. you've said it over and over again. because of that, i'm almost embarrassed to ask you this question. of the approximately 50,000 text messages that i've seen with your personal beliefs like "f" trump, stop trump, impeach trump, go ahead and confirm on the record that none of that occurred on an official fbi device or official fbi time. go ahead and do that. >> sir, many of them did. i would say of the 50,000, sir --

>> no, i'll give you a chance at the end. what you really meant to say was that when you said you never crossed that bright, inviolable line, what you meant to say was except for 50,000 times. except for hundreds of times of day where i went back and forth, expressing my personal opinions about "f'ing" trump and stopping trump and impeaching trump on official fbi phones on official fbi time. oe other than that, you never crossed that line. i'm sure there are 13,000 fbi agents out there that are beaming with pride at how clearly you've drawn that line. a r you starting to understand why some folks out there don't believe a word you say and why it's especially troubling that you of all people are at the center of the three highest profile investigations in recent times that involve president trump and that you were in charge of an investigation investigating, gathering evidence against donald trump, a subject that you hated.

you wanted to stop him, to impeach him. do you see why that might call into question everything you've touched on all of those investigations? chairman, i'm done with this witness, and i yield back. >> mr. chairman, if i can respond. >> briefly. >> sir, there are several questions, i'll answer them all briefly. >> there were several statements. i only heard one question. >> fair enough. i understand why might think these things because of the media. i'm glad to hear people are calling for the release of my private interview so people can judge for themselves, who i am, what i said, and the facts. not something that's been spun or misrepresented and some 10:00 talk show or other place. so absolutely i can understand that, and i'm glad the facts are coming out. second, sir, to your earlier point about -- i never, and i'm

unaware of any case being opened that represented some violation of civil liberties or a removal of due process rights. i have never done any activity, opened any case, with regard to that. when you look in the context of what had occurred, sir, during the time that director comey has been fired, the president said initially that had occurred because of a memorandum written by the deputy attorney general looking at his conduct in the clinton investigation, then days after pivoting and telling diplomats and lester holt that it was because of russia. we all were very concerned about from an investigative standpoint in the pace and events unfolding. >> i did say briefly. >> i appreciate that, mr. chairman. i'm wrapping up. >> pointed to your response, however, and in the interest of

full transparency and to mr. ratcliffe's point, will you authorize the release of all of the other text messages that have not been released to the congress to this point? >> sir, i would authorize the release of any work-related text messages that are out there. >> ah, but the question is what's work related and what is not? >> that's right, sir. i would not accept or agree to the release of non work-related text messages. >> even though your testimony is that you would never let your work interfere with your personal opinion. >> that is exactly my testimony. >> how are we going to know that unless we see those text messages? >> the inspector generally very carefully -- an independent body went exhaustively through that body and found there were no acts of bias, that there was nothing demonstrable. >> the inspector general works for an entirely different entity than the united states