adhere to strict standards of conduct and exemplify the fbi's core competency. the ig found that the use of official devices to send messages enter mixing work related discussions and political commentary demonstrated poor judgment and gross lack of professionalism. the powers of government are drawn from the people's consent. the executive branch draws its law enforcement powers not only from that concept, but the trust to wield such power. mr. chairman, we heard a lot about ethics, patriotism and service today. we are all accountable for our actions. i am mindful of the words of christ in luke, you shall know a tree by its trut, from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. i yield back my time to you, mr. chairman. >> and the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs, is recognized. >> mr. strzok, you worked as a criminal investigator for at least 20 years, is that correct?

>> national security investigator, primarily -- >> you're familiar with criminal investigations? >> yes, sir. >> you understand as you're aggregating evidence, you're looking to see if there's an act of a crime. >> yes. >> you have to demonstrate the mental state if you bring a case forward, intentional, knowingly, reckless? >> almost always, yes. >> and you would agree that short of some statement against interest, most of the time the cup payab culpable mental state -- >> i hate to generalize. >> trust me, it is. because short of someone making a statement against interest, you've got to prove that the

intended not only the -- every element of the offense, or knowingly did that offense. that has to be proved. and off times by circumstantial evidence, which by the way, there's a jury instruction that goes forward that says there's no qualitative difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. dwrou you would agree with that statement? >> sir, i'm not an attorney. >> you've been in court many times, right? you sure sound like an attorney sometimes. there's a jury instruction that -- >> if you are representing to me that's accurate, i will accept that. >> and then this morning, you said -- this has been a theme in i don't know how many times you said it, but i wrote down the one wrote, you said my text messages are not indicative of bias. do you still hold to that position? >> i do. >> now, as we go forward here, when the fbi is trying to put

together circumstantial evidence of a culpable mental state, they're looking at things such as text messages, communications between people for whatever reason. you would agree with that? >> i would, yeah. >> oh that indicates someone's mental state, that you are going to say, beyond a reasonable doubt we can demonstrate either intentional or knowing by this cumulation of circumstantial evidence, right? s >> rephrase the question, sir, please. >> this is not hard. when you're trying to prove culpable mental state, most of it is coming from circumstantial evidence, unless you have a confession. so you're taking a cumulation of various pieces of evidence and saying this adds up to intentional or knowingly, right? >> agreed. >> so one of the things that's been made evident here is that

your statements and your communications with ms. page, it wasn't a one-off. it wasn't two, it wasn't three. this is a whole series. it's a whole series that goes on not for a day or a week. this goes on for a long period of time. is that not true? >> it is true. >> yeah. and so when people begin to say, was there bias on the part of peter strzok, they're not saying oh, gee, just on august 8. they're going through a whole cumulation and aggregation of various statements that you made. and that ms. page made, as well. so that leads us to the ig's statement. when the inspector general comes in, i said look, you said regarding mr. strzok and ms. page, you didn't find documentary testimony, evidence that they had improper considerations, including political bias directly affecting.

i said, that's directly affecting, because they -- you said they weren't the sole decision makers. i said did they indirectly affect it? you said, yeah. why? because he said you were the lead investigator. the lead investigate effort of the hillary clinton investigation. you were the liaison, if you will. you were the flow of information from the investigative team. i sketched a diagram how this works, as you were describing it earlier today. you were the gate keeper of information. lisa page was providing counsel to andrew mccabe. on the russia investigation, you were the head guy. now we have a cumulation of biased information that indicates some kind of mental state of bias. and at the other end of this, you're the head guy on these. that's what the inspector

general said. under oath, in testimony, not too many weeks ago. >> sir, mr. chairman, if i may respond. >> there's no question before you. >> i want to correct some inaccurate things you said. >> i didn't say anything inaccurate. >> the witness needs to answer -- >> you're out of order. >> when aspersions cast on the witness -- >> there's no aspersions cast. [ multiple speakers ] >> everyone will suspend, and the time of the gentleman has expired and the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. >> sir, may i respond to the gentleman -- >> no, you may not. the gentleman from wisconsin has the time. >> mr. chairman, you have said throughout this hearing that at the conclusion of the questioning, the witness would be permitted to respond. >> but there's no question directed to him. >> that's not true, mr. chairman. >> it is true. >> he has a response he would like to give to the committee. you said throughout the day that was the procedure.

>> the gentleman is completely out of order. >> no, mr. chairman, you're out of order. >> the time belongs to the gentleman from wisconsin. >> mr. chairman, you indicated -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> i beg of you to allow the gentleman to explain conflicts in representation that have been made by various persons on the panel. >> the gentleman from wisconsin may proceed. >> it seems to me on advice of counsel, a lot of the things we want to find out today we're not going to find out. but i want to touch on the milieu in which you operate in the fbi. when i look at this area of washington, d.c., donald trump rap on the promise to drain the swamp. when i look at the areas which you and other people that work for the government live, i see

almost a monolithic mind-set that can be illustrated in the election results in the area, given the country as a whole is almost half for the candidate that wanted to drain the swamp and half for the candidate who didn't. you look at the district of columbia, 4% for donald trump. prince george can county, 8%, arlington, virginia, 17%. alexandria, 18%. i mean, things that -- in wisconsin, 72 counties, normally, we're a 50-50 state. there's not one county in which you have that -- everybody voting together. so i want to dig into about the milieu in which you hang around with. at the time where mr. mccabe, two i believe was ms. page's boss, at the time his wife ran for congress, or maybe it was a state elected position, you referred to people who lived in

the county just beyond washington, d.c. a little bit more normal, still a democratic county. you referred to them as this county, loudoun county as being gentryified, but it's still largely ignorant hill billies. it doesn't surprise me that people in this swamp would refer to people, once you get a couple of hours away from washington, as ignorant hill billies. it wouldn't surprise me if someone got ahold of e-mails and people were saying that at the newsroom in msnbc. it wouldn't surprise me if they were saying it at the department of education. it disappointing me a little bit that they were saying it in the fbi. but i'm going to ask you, in the areas which people you congregate in your business, you obviously talked about politics. how many people did you run into say in the washington office

here who are overtly supporting president trump? >> when you say in the office, sir, a couple of things, and you may not have been here this morning. i do not view the people of loudoun county as ignorant hilly -- hill billies. i regret that statement. but -- when you say the office, i don't understand what you mean by around the office. >> people you work with daily -- >> i don't tend to know who they support, sir. >> well, it's apparent in the e-mails that you exchanged with ms. page. not only with regard to her conditions, but obviously mccabe's were very political in nature, you must have some general opinions. you were not shy about sharing your political opinions.

>> right. my sense is that the fbi, including me, is a very conservative organization. they believe in law and order and a strong national defense. >> i'm going to say -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> i'm sorry, sir? >> in the areas which i worked in the past prior to getting involved in politics, i can tell you where people have an opinion on these issues. you are not shy about talking about politics. i want to know in the social circles that you hang around with, including at work, do you ever run into people who would have voted for president trump? >> yes. >> people who you know? >> yes. >> would you guess in the fbi -- like we said, we rattled off the people voting for president trump in the surrounding counties, everaoverall, less th in 6. could you comment on your comment about the largely

ignorant hill billies, and a lot of people think like you in this swamp. probably a lot of lobbyists feel that way. congressional staffers. could you comment in general on the political viewpoint of the people who work in the washington office with you? >> the jennifer specktigeneral , most fbi agents tend to be strongly conservative -- >> in washington, d.c. >> strongly conservative, strongly law and order, strongly national defense, up until the current date, very strongly republican. >> the chair recognizing the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> mr. strzok, you've been on the hotseat for a number of hours. i just wanted to give you -- first, thank you for being here

and thank you for trying to answer the questions to the best of your ability. but i wanted to give you 45 seconds to respond to any of the comments that have been made that you feel like you haven't been given the opportunity to respond to. >> i appreciate that. two things. one, with regard to the ig and what they found, to be clear, the ig report found no active bias by me or anybody in the fbi, period. and he said in his testimony, my understanding is the same. two, the ig found, and stated in the report that i was the most aggressive people in pursuing the hillary clinton investigation, going after secretary clinton. so those facts are indisputable. they're written down. there's no two ways to spin out of those. and i don't want to take your time, but the insurance policy text that's come up before, that text represented a debate on information that we had received from an extraordinarily sensitive source and method and

typically when manage is that sensitive and you take action on it, you put it at risk. every poll is saying candidate trump is likely not to win. every republican was saying that. some people said as a result of that, let's not risk this source. let's go slow. what i'm saying is we're the fbi. we need to do our job. we need to go investigate. while it isn't likely according to all the poll sfsters that candidate trump is elected, we need to make sure we are protecting america. we need to response by investigate these actions, because if candidate trump is elected, there might be people we need to investigate that might be nominated for security positions. everybody in america would want to know that.

candidate trump would want to know that. >> thank you so much. i got sworn in july 11, 2017. so i am one of the most fresh new members of congress. it was about a year ago yesterday. and i was excited to be on the oversight committee, because i believe that congress has a responsibility to be a check on the executive branch. but that's when it's being honest in its purpose. i don't believe our committees, led by the majority, has been honest in its purpose. if they had been, it would be treating requests by the minority with as much importance as they're owned. so i have a question, it's a rhetorical question. why is it that the house oversight committee and judiciary committee refused to

issue a single subpoena from the trump administration on any topic other than this one? they don't believe and they don't care to discover the truth. they are using this process to throw more red meat to the base to turn it out for the midterms and to protect a president that has no moral authority to lead this country. so it is kind of embarrassing. i've been watching this farce and this circus for the last five hours, and i wonder to myself, you know, what are people thinking that there's grown men and women shouting over each other, insulting each other. they try to dress it up by saying the gentleman from north carolina, the gentle lady from california, but it's all a farce. we asked for subpoenas for a variety of issues. the commerce department was holding documents on citizenship

questions. the justice department was holding documents on politicized hiring allegations for immigration judges. the department of homeland security and justice department was holding documents on gag orders against whistleblowers. the white house was withholding information on chartered flights. but they have never issued a subpoena except on this, and the american people should ask why, why, why? and the reason is, because they're not interested in finding the truth, or making sure that we hold this administration accountable. it's all for tossing re ining ro their base. we should never talk ill about anybody in any particular part of our country. but this president has lowered that standard. he questions immigrants, he questions the allegiance of judges, the fbi, and that in my

opinion is insulting. and i think we need to grow up, and show that the american people that we're here to act as responsible branch of government. and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida mr. rutherford for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. strzok, when i hear you talk about your passion for america, i believe you. i can see that passion. when you talk about your love for the fbi, i see it. i believe it. when you talk about your faith in the american electorate, i believe that. now, what concerns me is you said that you didn't trust the elections, to quote you, you didn't trust the elections after russia put their finger on the scales. remember saying that earlier?

>> i don't believe that's exactly what i said, sir. i think i said something slightly different, but i recall that exchange. >> but that was the meaning, and i don't think -- >> i don't think that was the meaning, sir. the meaning was i was concerned that russia was attempting to do that. >> you specifically said russia has put their fingers on the scales. >> i don't recall what i said specifically. >> you can find it later, but i wrote it down. >> i would be happy -- >> what i want to ask you is, do you think that justifies then you, mr. mccabe, and lisa page, to correct that wrong that you perceived was done by the fbi? >> that never happened and would not happen. >> let me ask you, the ig's report that i have right here, you said political bias did not impact your professional

actions. you said that earlier in this meeting, as well. let me give you a little background. in a text message august 15th, and this was discussed earlier, you wrote to lisa page, i want to believe the path you threw out in andy's office that there's no way he gets elected. but i'm afraid we can't take that risk. it's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40. you certainly remember that. you heard it a lot. was there anyone else in that meeting? >> i'm sure there was. i don't remember who. >> so you don't remember who all -- >> there were an inordinate number of meetings. i don't remember who was there. i could look at my notes -- >> at least two of those people that were in that meeting are no longer working for the fbi. >> i don't know that mr. mccabe was there. he was in the office, my

recollection of that meeting is we had had a briefing to the director. sometimes after briefings like that, the director will stay behind with his senior staff and if we have other matters to discuss, we'll go down to the director's office. >> but mr. mccabe is no longer working at the fbi, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> how about lisa page? >> she is not. >> anybody else in that meeting that no longer works for the fbi? >> possibly mr. baker. >> okay. did you present the original fisa application? >> no. sir, when -- i assume you're talking about the fisa application on carter page. >> right. >> i did not. >> were you in the courtroom? >> no.

>> okay. and do you -- and there were three renewals, correct? >> sir, i'm not certain i can discuss that without divulging classified information and i don't know that i've been given clearance by the fbi to discuss that. >> mr. rosenstein was here and admitted that he signed the third renewal. >> i would defer to his statement, sir. >> he signed that third renewal, but amazingly to me, mr. strzok, apparently because of the information that was in that renewal, he would not admit that he actually read the document. do you know of any falsehood, any half truths, any misinformation that was in that third renewal that would

preclude him from being able to say he red it, assigned it and approved itsome >> i have no information about the deputy attorney and what he did or didn't do or why he didn't or didn't do anything. >> you said that political bias didn't affect your work, but the fbi and doj were bothed admonisd for misconduct, right? >> i was not involved in that investigation. >> the former -- >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the witness can answer the question. >> you know that they're undergoing training right now for political bias at the fbi, is that correct? >> i understand that was a recommendation in the ig report. >> the time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. strzok, despite your s a es-

on page 424 of the ig's report, he said that we refer this information to the fbi for its handling and consideration of whether the messages sent by the five employees, of whom you're one, violates the fbi's office code of conduct. are you under review by the fbi office of professional responsibility? >> yes, sir. >> in january of 2014, the ig sent out a letter and eindicate he received two sworn declarations from one intelligence community element, containing classified information determined by the intelligence community.

were you aware of this letter? >> i don't recall it now, but i may have known it at the time. we had a team from 20 to 60 people, so -- >> i understand that you can't know anything, and i get it. and i also want you to understand, and i'm not going to be necessarily in attack mode, because i want to get some answers. >> absolutely. >> this is a very, very serious problem that's raised by this letter, what it's confidential, secret, top secret. but certainly a special access program. you're former military, so you can understand the danger that this could pose for our men and women in harm's way. >> yes, sir. >> this was january. and then -- again, on march 4th, you sent a text saying hillary should win 100 million to

nothing. may 4th, you said the pressure really starts. at one point was the memo changed from gross negligence to extremely careless. >> i'm not going to -- >> i'm not asking you or a date. >> i can't give you a break of what occurred before. >> and i autopunderstand, but i in may. what it appears here, donald trump had just won the primary. it was obvious that he was going to be the republican nominee. and i believe you when you say you're a patriot. i can see how you and your colleagues concluded it's the best interest to change it from process negligence to extremely careless because you couldn't come prehe believed a president

trump or the danger that -- something happened to change this from gross negligence to k extremely careless. >> i can tell you what happened. >> the inspector general said it was changed because it is not in the code. the espionage act doesn't have anything in the criteria for extremely careless. so i give you credit for your patriotism, i mean, our history is replete with people that made decisions that they thought were the right decisions at the time but they got outside the lines and the text messages and the fact that clearly there's a bias. and i get it. we all have biases. it's what we do with them. it's how we act on them, how we're able to compartmentalize these things that determine the

course of things, the course of history. i want to tell you, i appreciate the fact that you sought forgiveness from your family and you realized you have damaged severely the reputation of the fbi. but we're here about you and what you did. i literally sat here and i mean this sincerely, prayed for you and your family. because i can't imagine what your family is feeling, going through this. and i'm not going to question your integrity, but i will say this to you, and i hope this is constructive and you take it as constructive. as i watched your body language and facial expressions, it's almost as though you've enjoyed this. this is a competition for you. in many respects, even now. and i don't think -- i'm not going to say your problem is a lack of integrity, i think it's a problem with hubris. i think you need to take that

into account how you handle this going forward. because it makes it more difficult for us to give you the benefit of the doubt. >> the time of the gentleman has retired. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman -- >> the gentleman may briefly respond. >> no, sir. i appreciate your prayers. ky tell you when you look at what happened in the investigation, everything was done by the book. you can assure yourself and your constituents and everybody you're talking to, when you look at both investigations, notwithstanding, when you look at the investigation, what does men and women did, everything was done right and by the book. i share your concerned about the nature of the classified information. >> i want you to understand -- >> the gentleman's time has

expired. [ overlapping speakers ] >> parliamentary inquiry, mr. chairman. the witness has attempted to answer the gentleman's question -- >> and he was allowed to. >> mr. chairman, just a moment, please. on a question that's been asked over and over again about the gross mismanagement and negligence issue. and the witness was not allowed at that time to give the clarification. i think the -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> the gentle woman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, agent strzok, for being here. i have found your testimony today frankly to be quite remarkable.

in its disingenuousness. and you have shown a disturbing degree of denialism about your actions and the impact of those actions. i think we would all agree that everyone does have personal viewpoints. that is very true. but agent strzok, there is a very big difference between someone expressing his or her political views generally, and someone leading an fbi investigation, making highly negative and explosive comments about the actual target of that investigation. would you agree? that's a yes or no. >> rephrase the question. >> you have an awesome talent for filibustering. i'll just say again, you were one of the lead investigators, and you made highly negative and explosive comments about the actual target of an investigation. that is distinctly different from an individual expressing his or her political views. you are in a position that you

needed to be at a higher level of standard and you failed to reach that. your assertion that your statements do not constitute bias is, well, absurd. the facts are this -- the fbi inspector general testified before this very body that you did, indeed, exhibit bias. and further in his report, he detailed numerous examples of investigative steps that were not "by the book" as you just testified. what i find stunning is someone in your role with the responsibilities that you have engaged in such grossly unprofessionally, unacceptable, and unethical behavior. and truly ironic, did i hear you say you're in a senior position for the hr division for the fbi? >> yes, ma'am. >> that's very iconic. you were in a superrivisory rol at the fbi. suppose a direct report was

sending messages that you were spending about an investigation that they were working on, what action would you takesome >> if it was personal preponderance about a political matter, that's their business. i would caution them doing that on a government device. that is separate and distinct from an individual that was not a political candidate, that was -- that did not have the pro-tensi protection attached to it. >> suppose you found out a direct report was having an extramarital affair, what action would you take? >> if it was somebody in their chain of command, i would tell them and report that. if it was otherwise permitted in our regulations, i would talk to them and say hey, look, this

is -- i'm aware of this and you need to be aware and just take into consideration what you're doing and the appearance of it. >> so obviously, you understand the gravity of the transgressions, engaging in the kind of behavior that you've been engaging in, especially with the extramarital affair. it opens up an agent to exploitation and even black hail, given the fact that you hold a high left security clearance. did you ever discuss your relationship with ms. page with hr? >> they were well aware of it by -- >> when did they become aware of it. >> when it was ved very publmad by the media. but i never, ever could have been blackmailed or coerced by the nature of that relationship. [ overlapping speakers ]

>> did you ever advise mr. mueller of your relationship with ms. page? >> i did not. >> why? >> it didn't strike me as relevant. >> you have a lot to learn about human resources. i mean, wow. it is absolutely relevant. there should have been conversations -- i find it interesting there was no discussion that the two of you should. both be together on that investigation. mr. strzok, no reasonable person could not be concerned about your actions in this investigation. no reasonable person could not be concerned about this situation involving yourself. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for your testimony and your service. it's been a long day. and i admire your resume.

i came from a similar background. i went to a catholic high school and catholic college. i remember them saying the members of yale and harvard make the laws, but graduates of holy grail enforce the laws. i must say i'm discouraged today to have listened to much of this hearing. on many levels. i'm discouraged because i consider many of the people on the other side of the aisle as good friends. this must have been what it was like sitting through the mccarthy hearings. having said that, i am troubled by the fact that someone in your

background did what you did. but we both believe in redemption, so i think you have acted in that way today. i want to ask you just a comment and a question specifically for one case. there's been a consistent conspiracy theory about hillary clinton e-mail investigation and one of your former colleagues, the executive director for the fbi's national security branch. he left the fbi because he was upset that there was a bias in the clinton case, so the conspiracy they are cysts say and going "sideways," or nowhere by design. so he responds in testimony in front of our committee on june 21, and said that these allegations were completely false, nonsense. he said totally inaccurate. this is all nonsense. almost the whole thing is nonsense. i would have to read it again to say that. but from what i recall, i didn't

leave because i was disgruntled but because i was broke. i loved every minute i had in the fbi. one bad day in 25 years and that was on 9/11. and i think it was a bad day for a lot of people. he further said explaining the clinton case "i fully recognized at the gate that it was a political bombshell that we, meaning the fbi, were an apolitical organization. so i had the referral, we were going to open up the case and wait to put together a team and conduct a thorough, down the middle investigation, which is what we did. he said about director comey,

he's a straight ahead guy. and you know if the evidence existed, he would have pushed it for prosecution. and then about you he said, "there was no indication that he exhibited any bias while he was conducting the investigation, while he was working for me. he went 110 miles an hour and we were always looking for new ways to uncover evidence. so i had no information that he even would politically lean the way some of these text messages show he leaped. at no point in time did he exhibit anything that would provide some indication of some of those things that were put out to the media. any comments on your former colleague's comments? >> i deeply appreciate them. he's an extraordinary agent with a heart of gold. i appreciate them.

>> so just in closing, just curious, i really want to reiterate, you are a nonpartisan in your comments and criticisms, which i think is fair. my dad used to be a state superior court in massachusetts. one of my siblings put a bumper sticker on his car and he went ballistic. there was no question he was a committed republican, but he was concerned about the perception. so is there any one thick that you can encapsulate what the bureau could learn? >> sir, there is. my belief is these texts should never be public, and they were made public. and i deeply refret the apeer-- the appearance, and the way that

manifest itself out. at the end of the day, we're judged on our actions, but i would also say i take some confident when i look at my actions in the workplace, that they are the proper. that they are correct. that they were done for the right reasons and done in the right way. so when i get ups and downs in this experience, i look at that record of work. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. strzok, you were the lead investigator in the clinton e-mail investigation. were there ever any searches for e-mails with the clinton e-mail.com route on the data government warehouse that would have held data collected through 702 or other fisa?

>> i would have to think about that. were there any searches -- >> the ig report talks about devices and servers that were searched. were there never searches done on the warehouse system that would have data pursuant -- >> you're referring to any fbi data system? >> correct. >> yes, sir, i believe there were. anything found on those? >> no. -- ultimately did not do so.

further more, unnamed fbi attorney one said review of those materials was necessary to complete mid year, and even started to draft a memo about it. and per the ig, you thought revealing those e-mails would have been a logical, investigative step. who stopped it? >> i don't know. my understanding was it was outside the bureau that was stopped. >> did you object to that? >> i disagreed. i wanted to search it. we're getting close to classified information. >> did you send an e-mail or a memo to that effect? >> i don't recall what that discussion was. i remember talking about doing it and wanting to do it. >> did you know if any other nongovernment doj officials have reviewed the classified material

in this case? >> i don't know. dz any nondoj personnel communicate with anyone about this classified material? >> sir, i can't answer that question without providing or -- >> do you know if anybody on the team agreed with anyone at the white house about such classified material as it related to the mid year? >> i don't know. >> who had the most influence on mid year investigator's beliefs that this was not necessary? >> sir, those are two different questions. there's an investigative question, which i the leader of the team, which included the senior investigators, had a desire to do something. and then there's a decision at a much higher level and a different organizational spot well above -- >> this was all happening in may of 2016. was there a rush to wrap this up? >> this was not all happening in may of 2016.

>> according to the ig report, this was all coming out in may of 2016. >> my recollection is that this was broader than that. >> on page 9, it said investigators learned late in their review that the fbi considered seeking access to highly classified materials. >> that's when i ig learned about it. sir, i don't remember specifically when this came up. i could not tell you. >> you were the lead investigator. >> i was. >> during mid year exams, did investigators find any e-mails between secretary clinton and president obama, including e-mails that would have used l alias aliases? >> yes. >> any of them contain classified information? >> i don't believe so, but i would have to characterize that.

>> between secretary clinton and president obama. >> i don't know. >> they found evidence that you advocated for more aggressive procedu procedures. i can think of some high profile examples where federal agents can't use this. who had the authority to decide not to use compulsory process. >> i'm sure the ig didn't lose the phrase kid gloves. >> anyone outside the team suggest anything? >> there was a constant deb whi -- debate between the agents and

constantly. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> to my recollection, there's no one exerting pressure one way or the other. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. strzok, hillary clinton has said publicly that fbi director james comey cost her the election. do you share hishg's opinion? >> i don't know. i've read a lot of pollsters, but i don't know. >> it's an important question, because you think about hillary clinton making a statement like this about the fbi and the director, as well as statements president trump has made about the fbi, and those are the two leaders of each part dwri in the last account shalleck shu-- are

there any recordings of the interviews? >> no, sir. >> so none of the interviews were recorded? >> i would need to review the case file, but i don't believe anywhere. >> was that normal for an investigation of that size? >> yes. >> did you consult with james comey before he was going to go forward with the fact that it wasdom ed that hillary chinltton has had -- >> i was present at meetings where that decision was discussed. >> do you think that was the right decision? >> sir, that's always a difficult question. for all of us, it was a 50-49

decision. >> did ms. page consult with james comey before making the decision to go forward? >> i don't know that she did. >> do you think that james comey liked out the -- in a text message from you to ms. page you mentioned insurance policy. what did you mean by having an insurance policy in case president trump was looking like he would win the election. the insurance policy was merely an analogy, you do something when something isn't likely to happen. you're probably not going to die before you're 40, but you have insurance any way. what we had before was was an allegation that something significant, that members of the trump campaign may have been

working in cooperation with the russians and some were saying, look, this source of information that's so sensitive, so vulnerable, we shouldn't put it in danger. all the pollsters, everybody in the world saying it's not likely president trump will be elected. don't worry about it. we can let this lie. i had a different view. i said, you know what, it doesn't matter whether he will be elected we need to do our job. we're the fbi. we need to aggressively review the allegations. >> do you think james comey leaked out about the re-opening of the hillary e-mail investigation because he needed a quote insurance policy to cover his back for predetermining that hillary clinton was innocent in the e-mail investigation before it ever enbegan?

>> i don't think director comey leaked anything that i'm aware of with regard to the clinton investigation. i certainly do not think he, i, or anybody else viewed any investigation or any step in the sense of what you're saying we needed to do something to prevent any particular action at all. >> with respect to the clear bias of donald trump in your text messages and your clear prejudice against the trump voters. by the way, i'm one of those hillbillies from appalachia, that you reference in your text, you were in a supervisory role at the fbi. what would you do if you found a text from a subordinate of yours that exhibited the same type of bias that you had towards a group of people that were key witnesses or key whatever to the investigation? how would you handle that scenario? >> sir, if i found a text from a subordinate expressing a political opinion, one, i don't

think i'd see it, and, two, i'd think it was entirely appropriate. if your question was the text was the target of an investigation that's an entirely different matter i'd bring that subordinate in and counsel him. those are apples and oranges. >> i agree this is a bad day for the fbi. we have an overwhelming majority of fbi agents and intelligence agents all across the united states and across the world. it's unfortunate, when reading the inspector general's report and sitting here reading your testimony and watching the reaction from some of your colleagues behind you with rolling their eyes and frowning face, it's just very discouraging as a member of congress that we've tried this hard to get information. the american people want to know. this russia investigation has been going on for a long time. many believe that it is a witch

hunt. it needs to wrap up. but from what we've heard today, there are a lot of problems with your credibility as the lead agent in the entire russia investigation. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> does the gentle woman from texas, before we close, we will now be closing, does the gentle woman from texas desire to make any closing remarks? >> mr. chairman, thank you fewer indulgence. this has been a long day. first, let me thank the federal bureau of investigation and the agents i worked with on my years of service on the judiciary and home security, the after math of 9/11, i had the lack of distinguished position to be in the united states congress, during 9/11, and certainly in the af matt of the investigation, let me thank the fbi, mr. stzok, for their service. let me quickly say this, and then conclude my remarks. i want it to be clear that

general flynn, in his offense, asked the russian ambassador to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the united states had imposed against russia. following, a whistle-blower then said he referred this to mr. flynn, that the sanctions would be quote ripped up to allow money to start flowing to one of flynn's business projects. did you have anything to do with any comments by general flynn. >> this is not for asking questions, miss jackson. >> i will leave that on the record, mr. chairman. i thought it would be good to clarify it because i've asked others. let me finish my remarks. in the concluding comments, mr. stzok, again, i believe this hearing, in its long period of time, showed mow bias in the decisions regarding the final report on hillary clinton's e-mails. she was vindicated. nothing changes the russian

interference in our elections of 2016. unfortunately, no questions were asked by the republicans about the russian interference. the gop, in many instances, would not let you, mr. stzok, answer the questions. finally, the hearing did not give the american people, i think, the important answers that they needed, that is how will we secure our elections in 2018? that unfortunately plays into putin's hands. it also did not respond or did not answer, what do you do when white house officials have not gotten their own security clearance? and finally, let me be very clear, when our country was attacked, i want to make sure the fbi and not the kgb shows up. we need to do a better job of answering the concerns of children snatched away from their parents, the violation of voting rights, the need end gun violence and many other issues.

but today, you stood the test of time, at least you've admitted fault, and certainly admitted that you would have wanted to do things in a better way, as i've gleaned from your testimony. but it cannot take away your service in the united states military and your service to the fbi and your willingness to offer, if you will, your deference and your concern about the continuation of the fbi in its service to this nation. mr. chairman, i hope the judiciary committee and oversight chairman, i believe, is not present, but in any event, that we will take up the issues that the american people desire, and that we will solve problems, which are important to the democracy, security and the values of this nation. i thank you, mr. chairman and i yield back. >> i thank the gentle woman. many members on the other side of the aisle have attempted to denigrate this investigation,

and in particular this hearing today. one going so far as to calling it stupid. this investigation and hearing aren't just about reviewing the 2016 election, however important that is, this is a much bigger matter. our investigation and this hearing goes to a larger global and existential issue of equality under the law. so, for my democratic colleagues to call this review stupid denigrates the importance of our founding principles and the core of a system of justice. i venture to guess that most americans don't view equality under the law and fair and unbiased investigations as stupid. mr. stzok, this has been a lengthy hearing, so thank you for your time today. it has been extraordinarily frustrating, though, in trying to get answers to many important questions. i understand that you have refused to answer many questions on advice of the fbi. you've also said that you cannot answer questions on advice of

counsel because they could disrupt the ongoing mueller investigation. we are presented with a situation where you have not answered questions from congress under the cover of the fbi and special counsel mueller. neither the fbi nor the special counsel is mentioned in the constitution, congress is, and we have a constitutional right to have answers to the many questions that have been posed to you. while you have consistently referred to the fbi as the ultimate arbiter who is preventing you from answering questions today, the fbi director reports to the deputy attorney general. the fbi is a component of the department of justice. so at the end of the day, deputy attorney general rosenstein, who has oversight over the federal bureau of investigation and the mueller investigation is where the buck stops. we now consider the department on the line, in addition to the fbi, for failing to permit you to answer questions that don't even go to the substance of any

investigation, but have focused on your involvement in the process of those investigations. this is unacceptable. congress has been blocked today from conducting its constitutional oversight duty and more importantly, the american people have not received answers on why our chief law enforcement agencies and agents and lawyers operating within them permitted improper bias to permeate through three of the most important investigations in our nation's history. the constitution's construct of congressional oversight over the executive branch has been severely undermined today. we will resist attempts to prevent us from getting to the facts. this is not over and you as well as future witnesses are on notice that full answers are expected promptly. with that, this hearing is adjourned.

>> that was house judiciary committee chairman wrapping up, 10 hours without interruption and all eyes and no shortage of heat have been focused on that hearing room and one individual, fbi peter stzok pulled from the investigation last august over e-mails he had with lisa page. he was grilled all day. and unfolding as high drama and democrats reviewing it as a come comedy at best, a farce, they say, because he has testified behind doors. joining us after what has been quite a long day. >> reporter: yeah. very contentious remarkable hearing. something we have not seen on capitol hill, outburst