has the lowest level of trust in the fbi's history. people trusted the fbi more when j. edgar hoover was running the place than when you, and you don't give straight answers and later a court deems not true and you won't criticize an obvious shakedown when it's directly in front of us and you're whitewashing the conduct. >> respectfully, congressman, in your home state of florida the number of people applying to come work for us is over 100%. >> we are deeply proud of them and they deserve better than you. >> the time has expired and the gentleman from d.c. is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair and director wray, thank you for continuing to serve with all of these attempts to sully your

name. they assume you've committed crimes and the fbi is our premiere law enforcement agency, and i support law enforcement. to attack the fbi is to attack law enforcement in general. a few days after mar-a-lago there was some individual that went after the cincinnati headquarters of the fbi. can you tell us a little bit about that and how you think that came about? >> so the incident that you're asking about was obviously deeply disturbing. we had an individual wearing a tactical vest armed with an ar-style rifle and a nail gun who attempted to forcibly enter and attack our cincinnati field office. a subsequent review of the subject's devices and online postings identified a pretty striking anti-fbi, anti-federal law enforcement hostility. he was calling on others to kill

federal law enforcement claiming that he felt he was fighting a -- in his words, a civil war and it's unfortunately part of a broader phenomenon that we have seen not just against the fbi, and this is important to add, but against law enforcement all across the country. not just against law enforcement, professionals themselves which is appalling enough, but calling for attacks against their families which is truly despicable. and that man eventually was captured and eliminated, was he not? >> yes. >> a few days later was the arizona fbi department subject of armed violence or not violence, but armed protesters? >> well, i know that our phoenix field office has had a number of very concerning security incidents where people attempted to attack or breach the facility. i can't remember the dates of

when that happened. >> all of this has happened kind of in the same sphere. it's been -- information has been put out on social media and just in general, members of the congress, questioning the fbi, questioning law enforcement in general and this has had a deleterious effect on the safety of fbi officials and others like justice. people involve in the prosecution of the former president and threats to them, doj personnel and there is something going on presently and is there an effort to look at how protect and defend law enforcement personnel threatened with violence? >> we did stand up a whole dedicated unit to focus on threats to fbi individuals, fbi employees and fbi facilities because of the uptick that we saw over that time period. >> the january 6th was beyond a

weaponization of government, it was a nuclearization of government against the government. i believe i heard that you said that you didn't have the prior notice or reason to believe that there would be such an event on january 6th, is that correct? >> we did not, to my knowledge, at least, have prior knowledge of an attempt of a violent overthrow and breach of the capitol building itself. certainly, we were concerned about and put out a number of products, intelligence products to partners and others of warning of the potential for violence more generally on that date. >> so there have been -- i think tucker carlson and members oft other side of the aisle that ray epps was a secret government agent helping encourage this crime so as to make the president look bad. do you have any knowledge of ray epps being a secret government agent?

>> no. i will say this notion that somehow the violence at the capit capitol on january 6th was somehow orchestrated by fbi agents is ludicrous to the brave men and women. >> i agree with you. the fbi has some of the most talented people in the nation and of the world and are concerned about safety. they tend to, as i understand it, lean republican. they do their job down the line and that's what they're supposed to do. i'm happy we have the fbi operating in memphis and joint units to protect our citizens and i thank you for your service to the united states. >> the gentleman yields back and the gentleman from california is recognized. >> director, i'll follow up from my colleague from memphis. how many individuals were either fbi employees or people that the

fbi had made contact with were in the january 6th entry of the capitol and surrounding area? >> i need to be careful where we have or have not used confidential sources. >> wases there one or more individuals that would fit that description on january 6th that were in and around the capitol? >> i believe there was a filing in one of the january 6th cases that can provide more information and i'll be happy to follow back up. >> i just want an answer if there was at least one or more. >> you would know if there was one individual who worked for the fbi who entered the capitol on that day. >> i can't speak to that here, but i'm happy to get the court filing. >> it's been two years and you have now come before us and the gentleman makes all kinds of insinuations and you nod your head yes and i ask you simply was there one or more and you won't answer that, so i'm going

to make the assumption that there was more than one, more than five, more than ten and that you're ducking the question because you don't want to answer for the fact that you had at least one and somehow missed understanding that some of the individuals were very dangerous and that there were others inciting individuals to enter the capitol after others broke windows. so i'm just going to move on because i think it is time to move on past january 6th. it just seems that the other side won't. you're a near cabinet-level individual. you enjoy a term in senate confirmation, do you feel comfortable speaking to other members either cabinet level or sub-cabinet level when appropriate to resolve problems within the government? >> absolutely. >> okay, and so when the fbi

censored the united states government, you would -- you wouldn't have to just take it down by calling meta or google, would you? >> i'm sorry. i'm not sure i'm following the question. >> are you familiar with the official verified russian language account of the united states, department of state that was taken down at your agency's request? >> it doesn't ring a bell as i sit here right now. >> well, now you have something to take back and look at. >> okay. >> because, in fact, in this bundle that sbu constantly was submitting to various agencies was, in fact, a russian language statement of government. >> literally, you took down the free speech of the department of state. >> i'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, but i would endeavor to provide more context at least as to sbu. >> yes.

>> so i believe what you may be referring to, but i'm not sure we're talking about the same thing is that when russia invaded ukraine, the security service of ukraine and sbu which is a longstanding good partner of the fbi asked us for help on a whole range of things and one of those things was to contact u.s. companies on their behalf because the russians, the invasion had cut off the ukrainians' communications. so we did pass through information from the sbu to social media. >> are you also familiar with the fact that president zelenskyy has had to clean house at the sbu? >> i know that there have been a number of personnel changes. >> okay. we'll follow up with this in more detail. the question i have for you is you are the premiere law enforcement operation and you are a former department of justice high-ranking executive

at all levels. would you agree that the job of the fbi is criminal investigation? >> it's criminal investigation and to protect the country from national security threats. those two things. >> so the idea that you take information and you have it taken down, use your authority and the leverage you have to have meta, google, facebook -- facebook being meta or twitter take down people's information on things like where covid came from, where do you find the national security interest in that? where do you find the interest in free speech of american citizens being taken down, and i repeat, free speech of american citizens. where do you have that authority? >> so we don't ask social media companies to censor information or suppress information when it

comes to national security threats. so what we do do is alert them when another intelligence agency gives us information about a foreign intelligence service being behind some account we will call social media companies' attention to that, but at the end of the day, we are very clear that it is up to the social media companies to decide whether to do something about it or not -- >> the suggestion that the most powerful law enforcement operation is not a suggestion. it is, in fact, effectively an order. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we are here today because maga republicans will do anything to protect donald trump, their savior, no matter how unfounded or dangerous it may be to do so. welcome to the legislative arm of the trump re-election campaign. a grand jury found probable cause that among other crime, trump illegally kept highly sensitive national security documents which could put our country and our sources in

danger if they got out of which photographs show trump kept those records in bathrooms, showers, closets and in the mar-a-lago ballroom. maga republicans are afraid that the justice system might hold trump accountable for his actions, so to protect him, republicans are trying to intimidate fbi officials and in case that does not work, republicans are trying their hardest to discredit the fbi in the eyes of the american public. when trump lost in 2020 they tried to make americans distrust their election systems, and now that the fbi and the justice department have sought to hold trump to the same standard any other american citizen would be held to, maga republicans are telling americans not to trust the fbi.

to protect trump, republicans are trying to distract us from the real work that the fbi does every day which is fighting violent criminals, child predators and fighting domestic terrorists and extremists so as to protect our democracy and our national security, and even worse, maga republicans are stirring up threats that pose a danger to the safety of fbi employees. it's past time that republicans realize the consequences of their words and put the good of this country over politics. director wray, i want to thank you for your service during a time of unprecedented travail. director ray, you were a partner in an international law firm before you took a pay cut of fbi director. isn't that correct? >> yes. that's something my wife reminds me of from time to time.

[ laughter ] >> but let me ask you this, sir. you took this office after trump fired the former fbi director jim comey, correct? >> yes, sir. did you contact the trump administration to offer yourself for this job or did the administration recruit you for the job? >> they contacted me and asked me if i would be willing to consider taking on the role. >> so trump hand picked you to be the fbi director? >> yes. >> and he expected you to do what he wanted you to do, correct? >> well, that i can't speak to. i can tell you the same thing i told him which is that i'm going to do this job by the book. >> he's unhappy with you now, isn't he? >> i'll let him speak for himself. >> well, i think a lot of his acolytes here reflect his intent

at this particular time. director wray, are you aware that the maga republicans have repeatedly called for the fbi to be defunded? >> i have heard some of that language. >> in fact, republicans on this very committee have said that your institution should be dismantled, isn't that correct? >> well, i think certain members have. >> and one member even tweeted, quote, defund and dismantle the fbi, end quote. another told fox news that, quote, republicans should defund the bureaucracy, end quote. and a third told the press that he thinks the fbi, quote, needs to be split up and moved out into pieces, end quote. those are direct quotes and only a small sample of what's out there. can you briefly describe for us what the effect would be on our national security and on our

domestic tranquility if the fbi were to be defunded or dismantled? >> certainly it would be disastrous for 38,000 hardworking career law enforcement professionals and their families, but more importantly, in many ways, it would hurt our great state and local law enforcement partners who depend on us every day to work with them on a whole slew of challenging threats. it would hurt the american people, neighborhoods and communities all across this country and the people we're protecting from cartels, violent, criminals, terrorists, cyber attacks and on and on. the people it would help would be those same cartels, foreign terrorists, chinese spies, hackers and so forth. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from colorado for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman. director wray, thank you. thank you for your work with the fbi and thank you for your

history of work in law enforcement. you started out as an ausa, and i'm getting this information from wikipedia, the great funnel of knowledge in the digital age, and i'm assuming it's true. you started as asa and nominated by former president bush at the department of justice and you were confirmed by a republican senate, if i am correct in that? >> yes. by unanimous voice vote. >> and you were then nominated by republican president donald trump to be the fbi director and again, confirmed by a republican senate for that position. >> yes, i think there were only five votes against me and they were all from democrats. >> according to wick peed why, you're still a registered republican, and i hope you don't change your party affiliation after this hearing is over, but i want to thank you.

i want to thank you for leading an agency that protects americans from foreign terrorists. an agency that protects americans from china and russia and cyber crime and public crime, organized crime, drug cartel, human traffickers and white-collar criminals and i want to thank you and the to be from protecting law-abiding americans from the evil that exists all around us. director wray, you know this, but worth mentioning again anyway. the fbi doesn't protect america because this is a beautiful country. it doesn't protect america just because of the citizens who live in this country. you and the fbi protect america because of the values that we hold, because of our constitutional republic, because this is a special place and the rest of the world knows just how special this place is. director wray, i'm concerned about fisa. i'm not concerneded about fisa in a partisan way, and frankly,

i am not in favor of defunding the fbi nor am i in favor of splitting the fbi or using it for the fbi director. i'm concerned about fisa because i'm concerned about what makes this place special and the threats to us and i would love to work with the fbi on how we can protect americans and at the same time protecting the civil liberties of americans and that area of fisa is what concerns me. i know you have gone to great lengths to try to work with fbi agents on how they access information under 702, and i know that at times it has been successful and at times it has not been successful, but the spirit of fisa and the spirit of the constitutional republic demands that the fbi culture shift and it shifts to a place where fbi agents understand that protecting americans civil

liberties, that protecting the privacy that we all enjoy in this country, even though we screw up and we still enjoy this privacy and in court, we have the highest burden of proof this world has ever known to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that has to be that information has to be gathered by the government in the legal -- in a legal way, and so i fear that we are going to over correct on fisa in congress, that we are going to take away some tools that are necessary because there is a trust factor here that's missing, and i'd love to know how we can draw that line in a way that assures the civil liberties. i agree with my colleague from california, and i don't often agree with folks from california and i agree with my colleague from california that it is essential that we not get geo-location information from the -- what i consider krim nahs

criminals at big tech and that we protect that information for americans. you as a law enforcement official should not know where i am nsecessarily unless you have probable cause to get that information. i am also concerned about the ability of law enforcement and particularly the fbi to access information. when i go on the internet and i search for a gun vault or i search for a holster, i don't want the government to know that i own a gun and i think i have the privacy right to make sure the government doesn't know that i own a gun or any other information that i search for on the internet unless you've got probable cause to make that search, and so i want to ask you a question in the last few seconds and that is how can you work on the culture in the fbi and help us reach that sweet spot on fisa? >> i thank you for that. certainly, we starting with the

first principles try to drive home every day to our entire workforce that our mission is to both protect the american people and uphold the constitution, and we have on the issue of fisa, clearly had failures in the past. i've been very plain about that and we've implemented a whole series of reforms and if you -- if you look at the reports that have started to come out from the fisa court, from odni and the justice department from others who have looked at the effect of our reremeforms, over over again they have shown significant improvement in compliance. we are talking about the most recent fisa court opinion finding 98% compliance and commending us for moving in the right direction. doj report found 99% compliance. our internal audit found a jump up to 96%. these are all separate reports looking at the impact of our reforms. a lot of the public commentary about our failures and let's be

clear, we have had problems, and those problems are unacceptable and i am determined with my leadership team to fix it, but those problems almost entirely pre-date those reforms even though some of them have just come out, recently and so we'll keep, working at this, this is not a one and done and i recognize that we need to work with congress on this issue and this is an important tool, as you know from your time as a prosecutor, this is an incredibly important tool protect american people from very serious foreign threats. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. director. i want to pick up on mr. buck by thanking you for your service to the country. >> you are being attacked and vilified by some of the members of this committee and others outside this committee because

the justice department and the fbi have had the audacity to investigate serious conduct by a former president, and i want a chance to recap how we got to where we are. during the last administration and for four years the justice department took the actions not unprecedented for the department that a former president -- a current president could not be indicted. i think that's a flawed matter as a constitutional principle and that was the lead of the council during the trump years that the president of the united states could not be indicted. my colleagues believe that similarly a former president cannot be indicted and that would effectively make a president above the law. there is one thing the founders would find more dangerous that

that is the failure to indict a former president when they have engaged in criminal conduct. the justice department, i believe, as representative lofgren, my fellow member of the january 6th committee asserted took a very long time to begin the investigation of donald trump and his involvement in the january 6th. i believe it began with urgency when it came to the foot soldiers who broke into the capitol and assaulted police officers that day. at least from what i can tell from the public record the activities of the president himself, some of which were a matter very much of public record such as his tape recorded conversation with the secretary of state in georgia in which he badgered the secretary to, quote, find 11,780 votes that don't exist. while that was the subject of the investigation by the local district attorney in fulton county, did not appear pto be te

subject of the investigation by the justice department. to me, that is inexplicable. this was never the kind of case in which you could roll up the foot soldiers on the higher ups because there were multiple lines of effort in this plot to overturn the election. i do think that the appointment of the special counsel has accelerated the investigation of the former president's misconduct, and i think that is a positive step for the department and for the country so we can get resolution to this. likewise, with mar-a-lago not withstanding the protests of my colleague, there were repeated, repeated requests by archives to get those documents back from the former president. and then when those were unsuccessful there was a grand jury subpoena that was administered and when that was unsuccessful and only when that was unsuccessful and there was evidence that the former president was still withholding highly classified materials did the fbi go to the step of the search warrant. that was more than a year and a

half after those initial requests. this was anything, but a rush to judgment in the mar-a-lago case. so i believe that the department, if anything, has exercised enormous caution. i would say too much caution in the january 6th commission -- committee's work and oversight to proceed against a former president when there are serious and credible allegations of criminal conduct. but i want to thank you for your stewardship during this incredibly difficult time. i don't think there's been a more difficult time for an fbi director, and not withstanding concerns i've expressed, not to go to your integrity and your commitment to the country and i want to thank you for that. let me ask you about a different topic although related to january 6th, as well. let me ask you broadly about am doestic violence extremism. i know they have voted down by

the republicans that we should oversee the increasingly dire threat of domestic violent extremism. one of your recent reports underscored the rise of this prevalent threat, and i would ask you if you would address it today. >> so the rise of domestic violent extremism is something that i and we have been identifying for quite some time. it goes back well before january 6th. in fact, a lot of people don't know this, but the joint terrorism task forces that we hear about so often were largely created in response to domestic terrorism, not foreign terrorism, but in my first few years as director we were identifying this issue more and more and that's why we elevated in the summer of 2019 racially motivated violent extremism to a national threat priority level, and we saw, i think, about a 40% increase in the number of domestic violent extremism

investigations all before anything to do with january 6th. obviously since then it has continued, but domestic violent extremism cuts across militia violent extremism, anarchist violent extremism, and environmental violent extremism and recently we've had violent extremism against pro-life facilities and we're investigating those and what they have in common are three thing, violence or threats of violence motivated by some ideology and it varies in violation of federal criminal law and that's the domestic violent extremism that i'm talking about when i've identified this phenomenon. >> chairman, can i return to the record two letters from weiss,

an attorney from delaware, concerning partiality in the investigation of the hunter biden case? >> without objection. >> director, what's the difference between a traditional catholic and a radical traditional catholic? >> i'm not an expert on the catholic orders. >> well, your fbi wrote a memo talking about radical traditional catholics. >> you're referring by the richmond product by a single field office when i found out about it was ashgsghast and ask for it to be removed. >> why won't you let us talk to the people who put it together? >> we, the congress and the american people have to wait until you do an interm review. it's not a criminal investigation, an internal review until we talk to the people who wrote this? >> when we finish it which will

be very soon and we will provide a briefing on what we found. >> we want to talk to the people wo wrote it. do you know how many catholics there are in america, director? >> no, sir. a lot. 60 million, what percentage are with the richmond office of the fbi. >> that is not something i will defend ores kus and i thought it was appalling and removed it. >> the copy you gave us, when can we have a cop they doesn't have the redactions so we can see what the american taxpayers were paying for to see their first amend the religious liberty rights attacked. provide new opportunities to mitigate extremist threat through outreach and to traditional catholic parishes and the development of sources with the placement and access to report on of worship. that's pretty fancy language for their trying to put infor mmant

in the parish and the church, that's what this memorandum and you won't let us talk to the people who did it. your response to that? >> i was waiting for the question. >> no, do you think priests should be informants inside the church, director? >> we do not recruit, open, or operate confidential human services to infiltrate, target, report on religious organizations. >> it sounds like you were trying to do it in rich montd, virginia. >> no, sir. no, sir. >> this didn't happen? you can assure us that that didn't happen. >> that product, to the best as we can tell result in any investigative action as a result of it. none. >> you know what the motivation for this was? why would they even think about doing this? do you know what the motivation was? >> i think that's what our internal review would find and i would rather wait to hear about what the results are -- >> i don't need an interm review. i can read the document. i assume you can do the same because it says right there on the same page.

richmond assesses extremist interest in cad ral traditional catholics likely to increase over the next 12 to 24 months in the run-up to the next general election. same paragraph, events in which traditional catholics might have common cause include legislation, judicial decisions in such areas as abortion rights, immigration, affirmative action and lgbtq protections. it's politics. that's the motivation. in the run-up to the next election and they talk about the border, affirmative action and abortion rights. it's total politics. i think it's interesting that affirmative -- we just got a decisions from a bunch of catholics who sit on the supreme court relative to affirmative action. politics was the total motivation here and that's what's scary. that's what i think is so frightening and why we -- how this happens, i don't know. five people signed off on it. five people including the chief division counsel at the richmond field office. i'd like to talk to this lawyer.

a lot of people in this room went to law school and of course, on the constitution talks about the first amendment. i find that really scary. again, when do you think we'll have a chance? how soon will you complete this internal investigation so we can talk to these folks who put this together? >> i expect us to be able to brief the committee on our internal review later this summer. >> that briefing include the names of the individuals who put it together attacking the americans' first amendment libet. >> we will provide you with the brief. >> what are you doing? >> -- more training, more things, that's the same thing you toldous fisa and while you have improve, 240,000 times the database was illegally searched and what are the things you are putting place? >> i put the fisa stuff to the side. -- >> you've told us the same thing and you fixed something any you haven't. >> i do not believe the number

that you just erck voeked on the fisa side is since the reforms. the fixes, as you call them. >> can we get an unredacted. >> post date -- >> director, can we get an unredacted copy? can we at least get an unredacted copy on this memorandum? >> will find out if there's more of the document that could be shared with you. we try to be very careful on what we redact and there is also a basis for it and let me go back to see ifhere more that we can provide and my instructions are to be sparingly in what we provide. >> i think it's quite rich that the guy who has accused you of lawlessness and weaponization is 400 days into violation of his own congressional subpoena over january 6th. quite rich to me that you're hearing all of these allegations from somebody who won't even respond to a lawful subpoena. but i want to talk more about your workforce because that's where you started. >> a couple of weeks ago, at the bureau, you had family day.

can you tell us what family day is? >> family day is an opportunity for employees from really all over the fbi that tends to be primarily from the nearby geographies because of the trip they have to make to bring families into fbi headquarters so they can see about the place their loved ones work and why mom or dad is spending so much time away from home. >> you see little kids at family da many, many. it's an opportunity for us to say thank you to the families and we talk a lot in law enforcement about sacrifice, but the reality is that law enforcement officers and professionals are sacrificing to do what they love. our families are sacrificing because of who they love. >> and what would you say in your experience is the number one worry of a little kid about a mom or dad who is a special agent out in the field? >> obviously, they're worried that their mom or dad won't come home at night because they've

been killed and that, in fact, has happened, unfortunately. >> in fort lauderdale, is that right? >> laura schwartzenberg and dan alson were killed in a child exploitation case. it was the single darkest day i've had in this job. >> want to turn your attention to an organization called marco polo, run by a former trump aide named garrett zeigler. over the past couple of weeks he has docs, the addresses of a former special agent connected to the hunter biden case. he has put up the dates of births and pictures of two current special agents who work for you. he has said the name, which i will not say, of an assistant u.s. attorney who worked on the hunt are biden case that she will answer for her crimes. he will focus everything on her, justice will be done, it's out of my hands, but she will answer. do these types of threats and docs concern you about threats

to your workforce and what it can mean? >> obviously, what we are most concerned about the actual acts of violence which have happened and we have discussed, but this kind of phenomenon on doxxing because the more information of law enforcement professionals that are out in the internet the more people who may be unstable or inclined to violence that are out there who can xhchoose to a on it and we're seeing that all too often. the number of officers across law enforcement killed in the line of duty has been up alarmingly over the last few years, and i know that because one of the things i committed to doing early in my tenure was every time an officer, anywhere in the country is shot and killed in the line of duty i was going to personally call that sheriff or that chief and on

behalf of the fbi express our support and condolences and relay that to the family, and i have done that now close to 400 times since i've been in this job. >> thank you for doing that. you not only do that. you send your sacs and your special agents in charge to funerals and i've seen that. chairman, i've counted in this hearing and we're only about an hour and a half in the use of the laptop 20 times. in the chairman's opening statement said that he's upset that the fbi has prevented more americans from learning more about a private citizen's laptop. that is bananas to me. you all are bringing up fisa every single question. you're essentially saying to the american people that you're guardians of personal security and privacy, but the 2020

election was determined because the fbi note -- no. because the fbi didn't let more americans see a private citizen's nonconsensual nudes. that you lost the election not because of your ideas about because of a private citizen's laptop wasn't out there? >> will you kwleeld? >> we should be a parties of ideas and non-consensual nudes and that is what the objection is here today. we should be talking about the mass shootings that occurred over the last ten days instead this hearing has turned into absolute chaos. i yield back. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. we bring up fisa, because it's up for re-authorization if you didn't know. i different bring up the laptop. >> whose time are you speaking to, chairman? point of order. whose time -- >> whose time are you speaking

on? >> not a point of order and i recognize the gentleman from arizona. >> thanks, mr. chairman. >> who is matthew braves? >> who is matthew graves? >> i believe matthew graves is the u.s. attorney in the district of columbia. >> that's the person i'm thinking of, too. >> he promised more individuals will be charged or indicted on january 6th. >> i have not heard that he said that. >> it seems arbitrary that the report is a quasi-quota system this he's put together of prosecutions and do you target quotas in alleged criminal conduct? >> certainly not quotas. that doesn't make any sense. goals is a little bit more of an ambiguous term. >> certainly not quotas. >> certainly not quotas. do you know if any of your personnel at the fbi is involved in the investigations promised

that will lead to indictments by the january 6th quota established by u.s. attorney graves? >> that doesn't sound familiar to me. >> okay. in june 2021, you told this committee that the january 6th had all sorts of weapons. do you remember being here for that committee and testifying that way? >> in general, yes. >> it has been reported that more than 40 fbi personnel agents and contractors were in the crowd on january 6th, is that number accurate? >> i don't know if that number is accurate. former capitol police chief stephenson reportedly has asserted that the protest crowd was filled with federal agents. are you aware of his assertion? >> i am not. >> would you agree with him that it was filled with federal agent on january 6th? >> i would really have to see more closely exactly what he said and get the full context to

be able to evaluate it. >> how many agents or human resources were present in the capitol complex and vicinity on january 6th. >> again, it's going to get confusing because it depends on when we deployed and responded to the breach that occurred. obviously there were federal agents -- >> sure. you're talking -- and you and i both know, we're talking different things here and please don't distract here because we're focusing on those who were there in an undercover capacity on january 6th. how many were there? >> i'm not sure i can give you that number as i sit here. i'm not sure there were undercover agents on scene. >> i find that kind of a remarkable statement, director. at this point, you don't know whether there were undercover federal agents, fbi agents in the crowd or in the capitol on january 6th? >> i say that because i want to be very careful.

there have been a number of court filings related to these topics and i want to make sure i stick within what's in -- >> i understand that, but i thought i heard you say you didn't know whether there were fbi agents or informants or human sources in the capitol or in the vicinity on january 6th. did i misunderstand you? i thought that's what you said. >> i referred very specifically to undercover agents. >> so are you acknowledging then there were undercover agents? >> as i sit here right now i don't believe there were undercover agents. >> any assets? >> did rowe have any assets present that day? in the crowd? >> when it calls to what you're calling assets and what we would call confidential human sources that's a place where again, i want to be careful as much as i said in response to an earlier question, there are court filings that i think speak to this that i'm happy to make sure we get to you assuming they're

not under seal and that can better answer the question than i can as i sit here right now. >> in the june 2021 committee hearing you told us that the fisa court approved minimization from seed you ares and query procedures did not find misconduct, closed quote. that's what you said. specifically, you said the fisa found no misconduct. three months later the inspector general found widespread problems raising serious questions about the fbi review process of applications including hundreds of examples with non-compliance with woods procedure, for example and we know that from december 2020 to november 2021 the fbi conducted 3.4 warrantless searches of fisa. 3.4 million, up nearly triple the amount of the previous year and it got worse as you were telling us there was nothing to worry about, but now your reforms have produced about --

reduced it down to 119,000, over 200,000 total, but 119,000 discreet americans. it doesn't seem like you've accomplished much there if you have 119,000 illegal searches inquiries under fisa. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the house judiciary committee is responsible for helping to ensure the rule of law. unfortunately, this chairman ignored a bipartisan congressional subpoena served upon him. actions of this chairman have undermined the credibility of all congressional committees in seeking information from witnesses and have undermined the rule of law. now director wray, thank you for your public service and for the service of the brave fbi agents. i'll ask you a series of basic questions to get the facts out to the american people about the justice.

roger stone was convicted in a federal court, correct? >> that's my recollection. trump donor elliott brady was convicted in a federal court, correct? >> also my recollection. the attorney general at the time for those convictions was bill barr. which president nominated bill barr for attorney general? >> president trump. >> trump's former lawyer michael cohen was convicted on two separate occasions on federal court, correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> cohen's second conviction was matthew whitaker. which president appointed matthew whitaker as acting attorney general? president biden. paul manafort was convicted in a federal court, correct? >> yes. >> trump's former deputy campaign manager mr. gaetz was convicted in a federal court, correct? >> that's my recollection. >> trump's campaign foreign policy adviser. >> we are listening to basically

the fbi director is on the hot seat. he's getting pelted request ques with questions from media censorship to the hunter biden investigation to internal memos regarding catholics in richmond and the fbi's role in why they haven't arrested someone in the january 6th bombing attempts that the republicans have been asking for more on the case. the republicans asked mostly about things like huntered by an and you're seeing the democrats talk to him about january 6, and it is very interesting to watch this. the democrats are being quite kind in their questions and the republicans are going on the attack especially about the fisa and the warrants there and whether or not those were legal and there has been some reporting by the general inspector that there were a lot

of problems there. >> the committee hearing on paper is an oversight hearing and the side of the judiciary committee and in reality you can see a lot of what has played out. democrats call it political theater and the republicans are holding criston wray's feet to the fire and essentially it's a political brawl. the fbi director just facing a barrage of personal and targeted attacks from republicans joining us to break this down, we have sara murray, alayna treene and josh campbell. can you give us a sense, sarah in listening to this, have we learned anything new here?

the conspiracy related claims to the extent of trying to be forthcoming with the committee when they're asking i lot of ongoing investigations that he's not in a position to talk about. one point that's interesting in that my colleague evan perez is flagging that the director wray did acknowledge them creating a new unit to deal with threats against fbi offices and fbi pers personnel in the wake of what we saw in the search at mar-a-lago and this is a big area of questioning and a big area of concern for republicans and who believed that the fbi went too far in joining the president's home. this wasn't a raid. this was a lawfully executed search when we had a search warrant and in fact, the agents >> absolutely. let me bring you in on this. you have not been covering this committee, but following this.

this is the first time that chris wray is before this committee. and they hit on my list is about eight different topics and investigations that republicans are trying to charge forward with. against the fbi. what have you heard here? >> i think it's very clear that republicans have been eager to grill wray on a series of topics for months now. and jim jordan, the chairman of the committee, has made it clear that fbi leadership is one of his top punching bags and that he really wants to get into whether the fbi has been overly politicized in recent years. that's what republicans claim and it's been weaponized against conservatives. some of the key things we heard is, one, about whether catholicss were being labeled as

extremists as part of what the fbi later withdrew and is defending. we heard wray defend that. we heard about school boards and whether parents, conservative parents in particular were ta targeted as part of an fbi strategy around some of their complaints with school boards. and again, as you both pointed out, censorship, whether the fbi has played a role. related to the story about hunter biden's laptop. these are the things that they have been investigating. even last year and last congress when they were in the minorty, they have been pulling together a the lot of information. so it's all led to this moment today with wray in front of them. and it's become very political. we have seen a lot of these hearings become political in the past, but director wray is a top

target. and we will see this become very hostile throughout the rest of the day. >> you want to bring in josh campbell. you know how the fbi operates. and talk about this issue of what they said was a memo that was written by an fbi agent in richmond, which suggested and radical catholic ideology. there was language that seemed they were they might put some folks in there to try to figure out what was going on. but that memo was taken down very quickly. can you give us a sense of how big of a deal, if you will, would one fbi agent's memo be to the entire bureau. >> so there's still a lot we don't know about that specific memo. the way this process works, field offices around the country, agents and naulss are responsible for knowing threats in their domain. they are responsible to ensure if there's a threat that they

identify it, they counter it. we know since the oklahoma city bombing, since 9/11, the fbi has been engaged in what's called looking for trip wires, people who are in a particular place that might be able to reach out to the fbi to say, look, i see something that's concerning here. one case in particular after the oklahoma city bombing, the fbi wanted to build contacts in places that sell fertilizer and precursors to explosives. it appears that the memo that the fbi director is not defending, he's saying that he was appalled by what he read there, it appear this was an effort by an analyst in the a office to set up an aublt to recruit sources in the space. so a lot we still don't know, but the director is i saying this is not something i support. if you look at the larger impact of this hearing that we're seeing today, i talked to people in the fbi all the time. they are fearful that the same attacks that they saw in 2016 and in 2020, it's going to be even worse coming up in the 2024 presidential election because there are things like that memo that you mentioned. real instances where the fbi has

done something questionable or pure wrong doing as indicated by inspectors general and the like. a lot of this is a political effort to discredit the fbi so that the results of their work specifically as it relates to donald trump, that raises doubt in the psyche of the american public. one thing we have been hearing throughout this hearing is republicans saying american sentiment of the fbi is in the tank. that is true. you look at polling data, the trust of the american people in the fbi has been on the down slope, largely along political lines. the question is you have to ask yourself why. what republicans are saying is some liberal kabul deep state out to get donald trump. that's resinating with people and could be the reason why the sentiment is the way it is. it doesn't mean it's truthful. >> josh campbell, great perspective, as always. thank you so much. the lingering question is how it stands as we go in this committee hearing is what do republicans want to do about it. st there's talk of defunding the

fbi. but there's republicans on that. ken buck made that clear. he wants to defund it. as we see with capitol hill hearings, it has many elements of politics throughout. what comes of it, we'll continue to follow that. before we wrap up today, we do want to make an important note. yesterday in a segment about transgender influencer dylan mulvaney, who was teached in bud lite's reacent campaign was mistakenly referred to i by the wrong pronoun. cnn age amess to honor individuals as identifying themselves and we apologize for that error. a lot of live news today. a lot of events. it does continue. thank you all so much for being here with us. i'm kate baldwin. this is "cnn news central." "inside politics" is up next. when i first started the company i was excited to empower people of all abilities.

you've made something that people find invaluable.e. it fuels you to keep making a better impact with your business. i don't have to think about the pathway to the ocean, i just know i'm going to be able to surf again. that's why we're here... to help make it happen. was also the first time your profits left you speechless. at the counter or on the go, save 20% with the lowest transaction fees and keep more of what you make. start saving today at godaddy.com

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ wherever you go. wherever you stay. all you need is one key. earn and use rewards across expedia, hotels.com, and vrbo.