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

to get into that device and that is true in case after case after case which is why we have to figure out a way to optimize those two things, privacy and public safety. >> well, to be candid, my understanding about some of this was that the european community had special concerns about privacy and that some of the companies in our country were concerned, well they would lose business. that european concern is changing. i think what i read about the u.k., what i understand is happening in france and germany, increased sharing of intelligence, the realize is, i think, that they have very dangerous people in large numbers, possibly plotting at any given time to carry out an attack has had some palliable effect and there may be a change of view point.

so it would be very helpful if our law enforcement community could help us. and this is not to monitor, this is something that is very basic. if there is a piece of evidence that says, hey, there may be a cell, another individual out there, you have a chance of getting into that piece of evidence to see if that's true. >> with the judge's permission. >> with a judge's permission. that's correct. so i thank you for that. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator lee hasn't had first round so i have to go to senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you mr. comey for being here today and thanks for your service to our country. i want to talk about about something about electronic raised communication records include such things as browsing history, one's history of websites that one might have visited on the internet.

>> yes. >> would it be fair to say also that what one views, what pages one has visited might in some ways be indicative of what one is reading? >> potentially. right. even if you don't see where they went on the page, that they went to espn or fishing magazine gives you some indication of their interest, yes. >> individually and collective lirks you could find out a fair amount about a person, especially if you are able to review what they've been reading for a certain period of time? >> right. the only reason i'm hesitating is as i understand it, all we can get is the website visited not where they went on the page but it does give some indication of your interest, just like who you call gives you some indication of your interest. >> and where they went on the website is indicative of what they did on the website. if you could get that granular information about what sub-part. not just that they went to espn and they went to espn and read this or that article. >> right. my understanding is that we

can't with an nsl, we understand the statute, get that sub-content. we could get the web page visited but where they navigated within the website. that is -- i may be wrong about that, but i think that is how we are. >> within the existing confines of the law. >> correct. >> so those opposing that we change existing law to use a national security letter to go further as was suggested by one of my colleagues earlier today, that then would allow you to get this more granular information. >> no, i'm sorry. i may have screwed this up. as he understand the way hector was int -- intended to be used, it is limited to the top level website visit address. >> correct. >> so even if it changed the way we hope it will be, we don't get any deeper into what you looked at on a page. it is as if we were able to see what sporting goods store you called, we can't tell from the call record what you asked about. we could see what sporting pages

visited, but can't see where you went within that. >> based on the legislation that i've reviewed, it is not my recollection that that is the case. what i've been told is that it would not necessarily be the policy of the government to use it to go to that level of granularity. but that the language itself would allow is it, is that inconsistent with your understanding. >> it is. and my understanding is we're not looking for that authority. >> you don't want that authority. >> that is my understanding. we want the functional equivalent of the dialing information. where you -- the address you e-mailed to or the web page you went to. not where you went within it. >> even if you look at at the broad level of abstraction and if you are suggesting it would be used only at the domain name level. somebody went to espn and if you follow someone's browsing history, you could still find out a fair amount about that person, could you not. >> yes. and i keeping -- i say saying

this, but i admit it, as you could tell from their dialing history. >> and let's talk about section 402 of the foreign surveillance intelligence amendments act authorizes the surveillance, the use of u.s. signals surveillance equipment to obtain foreign intelligence information. the definition includes information that is directly related to national security. but it also includes, quote, information that is relevant to the foreign affairs of the united states, closed quote. regardless of whether that foreign affairs related information is relevant to a national security threat. to your knowledge, has the attorney general or has the dni ever used section 702 to target individuals abroad, in a situation unrelated to a national security threat. >> not that i'm aware of. i could be wrong, you but i don't think. so it is to counter terrorism

and espionage and counter con flitteration. >> and that is why it has used those things. does it -- to your knowledge, it doesn't currently use section 702 to target people abroad in instances unrelated to national security threats. >> i don't think so. like a diplomat, how someone feels about a particular foreign policy issue or something, i don't think so. >> so if the section were narrowed to exclude information relevant to foreign affairs but not relevant to a national security threat, would that mean that the government would be able to obtain the information it needs in order to protect national security? >> it would seem so logically. to me the value of 702 is exactly that. where the rubber hits the road. especially counter-terrorism and counter pre live -- proliferation.

>> and when section 702 is used, it is not metadata, this call was made from this number to this number. this is content. and so if -- if we were talking about two u.s. persons, two american citizens, if i were calling you, that is not something section 702 could collect but if it is me calling someone else and that person is not a u.s. person and that is an agent of a foreign government and if somebody has determined that communications involving that person might be connected to a national security investigation, there is a chance that that communication could be intercepted. not just the fact the call was made but the content of the call. >> correct. that is what we call incidental collection. >> and that incidental collection is then aggregated. you have data bases that store all of theings, so there are those that have had conversations that are out there in a data base.

can you search that data base involving specific persons without getting a warren? >> yes. >> and the fact that these communications were intercepted without any showing of the wrongdoing on the u.s. person or without showing that u.s. person had anything to do with the foreign -- with the national security investigation at issue, does that cause you concern that that could involve almost a back door way of going after communications by u.s. persons in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy? >> it doesn't cause me concern. but maybe because of the way -- what i can see from where i am, i understand the question, though. but it is true, whether it is 702 or other court authorized domestic surveillance in the united states, if we are covering a particular embassy of a foreign power, and americans call in and speak to them, we record that. because we're authorized to

collect the communications in and out of that embassy. and we store all of those in a data base. or we've lawfully collected thome even though the american called wasn't a target. same happens with 702. if you contact or call a terrorism or someone we are targeting overseas, you are an american and you have a conversation, even though you are not the target, that is collected and stored in a data base and what matters is how we treat that data and we protect it and don't use it willy-nilly and i don't know how we would operate otherwise. and that is -- i don't know how we would operate otherwise. i think what the american people want us to do is make sure we hold it to connect dots if it it turns out there is something bad in there but treat it like the information that it is, protect it and make sure it is handled in a responsible way. >> thank you mr. chairman. director, let me -- let me tell

you a story about a hundred years ago, literally, my italian grandparents and my irish grand parents faced discrimination because of their religion. now that discrimination wasn't violence, it was economic. this is not unusual in this country at that time. i like to think that's gone. i like to think of my grandparents, italian grandparents, irish grandparents the discrimination because of their race and religion is not here but now we see an alarming rise of hate crimes in minorities and yesterday this committee heard important testimony from the department of justice, from the international association of chiefs of police and our largest civil rights

organization that law enforcement and political leaders must send a message that toxic hateful rhetoric will not be tolerated and they must denounce bigotry whenever theyen count it. even as a child, i was taught that. we are never to discriminate against anybody because of their race or religion. but now what bothers me, let me show you this. on the campaign trail, president trump promises supporters a muslim ban. a campaign press release entitled, donald j. trump statement on preventing muslim immigration. it says he called for a total and complete shut down of muslims entering the united states. now i could understand that dumb things are said during a campaign. that as on his website today. that goes beyond being stupid. do you agree with me that

messages like that could cast suspicion on our muslim neighbors, can perpetuate division and hatred and if it does, does that make america less safe? >> senator, thank you. i'm not going to comment on the particular statement. but i do agree that a perception or a reality of hostility towards any community, would in this particular the muslim-american community, makes our jobs harder. because as i said in response to an earlier question, those good people don't want people engaging in acts of violence in the fame of their faith, or in their neighborhood. and so our interests are aligned but if anything gets in the way of that, it chills their openness to talk to us and to tell us what they see. it makes it harder for us to find those threats. so we've been spending a ton of time, you are right about the increase in hate crimes, we've seen the numbers start to go up in 2014 and climbing since then. to redouble our efforts to get

into those communities and show them our hearts and what we are like to encourage people not to fear contact with us. >> and director, comey, i don't ask this to make a political point, i ask this as a united states senator, i believe the united states senate can be and sometimes has been the conscious of the nation. we're a nation that adheres to our first amendment and we trust and allow to you practice any religion you want or none if you want. i worry, whether it is the muslim religion or any other, we have religions where people believe in it, they should not be condemned of actions of a few. i worry very much that the rhetoric and the hatred can bring about things that neither

you nor i ever want to see in this country. i think we'd agree on that. hate crimes, i don't care who it is against, against somebody because of their race or their religion, you, as a head of the fbi, any one of us have been prosecutors, we abhor all hate crimes. i believe you do. is that not correct? >> that is for sure. >> and i worry that we also give the impression that citizenship alone might be a reliable indicator of the terrorist threat posed by an individual to the united states. i think in the oklahoma city bombing, one of the greatest acts of terrorism in our country, done by an american citizen who served i believe

honorably in our military. so would you agree that citizenship alone is not a reliable indicator of a terrorist threat posed by an individual to the united states? >> correct. most of the people that i talked about that we have open cases on are american citizens. >> thank you. in fact, the department of homeland security, we've heard from them. they have an assessment from the office of intelligence analysis concludes that citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity. do you agree with that? >> yes. >> thank you. another matter, chairman grassley and i have worked to address concerns related to the fbi's hair and fiber analysis test that has been flawed, i

think we all accept the past, investigation began i believe in 2012 after three men were sconerat sconerated -- oex onerated here in washington, d.c. and in order to review more than 3000 cases, the fbi has reached out to officers who originally prosecuted the cases and i appreciate that. my main concern is that cases remain closed, if you don't find the transcript right away. i've asked you this question in writing. in any case where there is a missing transcript, will you commit to having fbi conduct in in-person visit to obtain whether there was information that was used and possibly faultily analysis by the fbi that might have brought about a conviction? >> i'm sorry, an in person visit -- >> well to the prosecutor's

office or whoever else might be involved, if you don't have a transcript, an in person visit to say, okay, what do your records show. do you -- did you use analysis that may have been faulty from the fbi in bringing about the conviction. >> i see. i don't know enough to react to that now and commit to it now. can i follow up with you to see how we're thinking about that. >> will you follow up in. >> i will. >> okay. thank you. >> senator layhe. senator whitehouse. >> thank you. a couple of quick matters for starters. did you give hillary clinton, quote, a free pass for any bad deeds. there was a tweet to that effect from the president. >> no. that was not my intention, certainly. >> well did you give her a free pass for many bad deeds, whatever your intention may have been. >> we have conducted a competent and honest independent investigation and closed it

while offering transparency to the american people. i believe what i said. there was not a prosecutable case there. >> the -- with respect to the question of prosecution for classified material, is the question of the consequences of the disclosure, i.e. the harm from the writ release or the secrecy of the material considered in a prosecuteive decision. >> in my decision, it is. >> because there was a great deal of material that while technically classified is widely known to the public and because of overclassification is a very significant problem within the executive branch, correct. >> correct. and doj preserved prosecution for the most serious matters. >> and that would have been evaluated in looking at secretary clinton's e-mails. >> yes. >> so although they were classified, they may not have caused any harm in terms of who

saw them? let me get specific to that. there are e-mails that were classified and cause no harm if they are disclosed. >> yes. that is the case. >> it has been disclosed and publicly reported that there was a two-day interval between the fbi interview of michael flynn related to his conversations with ambassador kislyak and then deputy attorney general report to white house counsel about those calls. did you participate in conversations related to this matter during that two-day interval, and what can you tell us about why that interval took two days? was there some standard operating procedure that needed to be vindicated, you think that could have flipped over to a conversation to the white house a good deal quicker than that once the agent's report came back from the interview. >> yeah, i don't know whether two days is right.

i think it might have been a day. i could have been wrong. it could be two days. and i did participate in conversations about that matter and i think i'll stop there. because i don't know the department's position on speaking about those communications. >> but as you sit here, you don't have any hesitation about that delay, about any -- it representing any kind of mischief or misconduct? >> no. and given your experience, you know how this works. an agent conducts an interview and write up a 302 and show it to their partner and get it right and produce the 302 and sometimes it is next day before it is finished. >> so the deputy, miss yates, would have seen the 302 and that process would have taken place by the time we went up to see white house counsel mcgahn. >> i think that is right, yes. >> and then on to the wiener laptop.

as i understand it, you were informed by agents in the fbi office that there was potentially related or relevant information in mr. wiener's laptop and on the basis of that information you sent a letter to the members of congress before whom you have committed to answer if there were any changes in the status of things. you also then authorized the agents to pursue a search warrant which then gave them access to the content, which allowed them to do the search that you then said came up with something so you could undo the letter and say we took a look and there is nothing there. go i have the -- do i have the order correctly there. >> they came to me and briefed me on the metadata and they seeked my approval for a search

warrant and a greed and authorized it and so did the department of justice and then they reviewed and i was making sure i get the numbers right. during the following week they reviewed 40,000 e-mails, i understated how many they reviewed and found 3000 were work related and came from blackberry back-ups and a bunch of other things and then 12 of them were classified. but we had seen them all before and so they finished that work and briefed me on it and say it doesn't change our view, and then i send the second letter. >> did any of those classified e-mails create national security damage in. >> that is a hard one to answer by definition, a classification is based on the security damage. >> with respect to our earlier conversation, the tons of stuff that is classified on the front of the new york times. >> i'm not away that any of the e-mails in the investigation got into the hands of people that were able to exploit them to damage our national security.

>> so let me offer you this hypothetical. they come to you and say the metadata shows that we have potential here information that could cause up to open the information and it could be as sensible at that moment to say how quickly could you get a search warrant and how quickly can we get an answer to that question because i made a promise to people in congress that i would get back to them with this information and if there is anything real here, you need to get on that pronto so that i could answer that question. so that the search warrant precedes the letter rather than the letter preceding the search warrant. particularly in light of the widely adhered to policy the department not to disclose ongoing investigative materials and the truly exceptional nature of disclosures. >> yeah. >> why not the search warrant

first. >> i press them very hard on that and found credible their responses that there was no way they could review the volume of information they saw on the laptop in the time remaining. >> except that they did. >> well they did. because our wizards at our operational technology division came up with a way to dedupe electronically that i understand wrote a custom software that will help us in a lot of other areas but the investigative team said we cannot finish this before the election so that -- to my mind, that then made the judgment appropriate, the one that i made, not waiting, waiting, waiting to make the disclosure. >> okay. and with just with respect to your response to secretary -- to senator tillis, we could talk about it some other time, my time is expired but left silence reviewed as consent, i have a different view of what took place. i don't doubt your honesty for a minute, but i do think there were significant mistakes made

through this process. >> in which -- in the e-mail case? >> yes. >> okay. >> in the hillary clinton e-mail case. >> yes. >> time has expired. >> thank you. senator. >> thank you to the ranking member and i admire your hanging in there and be made of stone, was it? >> sand stone, i think. >> i just want to clarify something, some of the answers that you gave me, for example, in response to director -- i asked you, would president trump's tax returns be material to such investigation, the russia investigation. and does the investigation have access to president trump's tax returns and some other questions

you answered, i can't say. and i would like to get a clarification on that. is it that you can't say or that you can't say in this setting? >> that i won't answer questions about the contours of the investigation as i sit here, i don't know whether i would do it in a closed setting either but for sure i don't want to answer questions about what we're looking at and how. >> okay. so i'll take that as at least in this setting you can't do that and maybe you can elsewhere. we're talk about some of the number of the -- the unusual number of individuals in important roles in the trump campaign or in his life. and are certain expected and often undisclosed ties to russia and i would like to focus on one of those individuals, roger

stone and his relation shim with guccifer 2.0. guccifer 2.0 is on online persona that the i.c. concluded was used by russian military intelligence to leak documents and e-mails stolen from the democratic national committee to wikileaks. the u.s. intelligence community, including the fbi, has since concluded that the russian government directed the breach and that russian military intelligence used guccifer 2.0 to ensure that the documents obtained were publicly released. so while guccifer has insisted that he or she is not russian, the intelligence community has concluded that the hacker has strong ties to moscow and was used by russian military intelligence to leak information about the clinton campaign and the democrats that was stolen by

russia. is that, director comey, a fair characteristize is yes. the guccifer 2.0 was an instrument of the russian intelligence. >> thank you. well, a few months back it was revealed that in august of last year, that is a couple of months before the 2016 election, roger stone, one of president trump's long-standing political mentors and at one time a formal campaign adviser exchanged a number of private messages with guccifer 2.0 vieh ya twitter an. stone has since insisted the relationship was totally innocuous. now in this series of messages, guccifer 2.0 and stone exchange a number of bizarre pleasantries and thanks mr. stone for writing about him and mr. stone expressed delight that the

twitter handle was reinstated after having been suspended but in one message guccifer writes to mr. stone, quote, i'm pleased to say that you are a great man, please tell me if i could help you anyhow, it would be a great pleasure to me. director comey, to me, this sounds like a offer from a russian intelligence operative to collaborate with a senior official on the trump campaign. is that a throw-away line or an offer to help stone in some respect, do we know whether any further communication between stone and guccifer took place? and if you can't say here or can't say in -- but you could say in another classified environment, could you make that distinction? >> yeah. i definitely cannot say here. i don't think i would say in a classified environment because it calls for questions about

what we're look at and how. >> okay. >> so but i definitely can't say here. >> well at the very least, stone's conversation with guccifer demonstrated, once again, that the trump campaign officials were communicating with russian operatives, what is less clear, however, is whether the trump campaign ever provided direction to russian operatives or was aware that specific actions were being carried out to influence the election. for example, it is been suggested that last year the russians used thousands of paid trolls, human trolls, we know this and bot nets to flood the international with fake news aimed at influencing the election and favoring president trump. i'm curious, whether such actions were part of a coordinated effort, is there any evidence that the trump campaign assisted or directed those efforts? >> that is something that i can't answer here. but i would refer you to back

what i said was the purpose of the investigation, whether there was any coordination or collusion between elements of the campaign and the russians. >> of course. and i would point out, too, that -- in a right before the pedesta e-mails came out, that roger stone said, it is soon time for pedesta's time in the barrel. and so i think there may be a little bit of a -- there, there. i only have 30 seconds so i'm going -- i want to say. this i know senator cordin isn't here. i think it is a shame that he said that hillary yesterday in

this forum blamed everyone but herself. she took a lot of blame on herself in that forum and i think she -- when she referenced what you did and 11 days before the election, which is a subject here, that -- and also the russian interference, i think she was only saying stuff that other people have said. i don't think she was saying anything that a lot, a lot of people also think had an effect on the election. so i just think it was a shame that -- that the senator from texas, i don't know if he meant to leave that out deliberately, but she did not blame everyone but herself. thank you, mr. chairman. >> so bry call on the know.

senator, there are two things i want to say. one is for what you promised senator cruz about a briefing on the garland situation. that you would include any of their staff of the committee in on that briefing as well. so we could have a committee briefing on it as well. at least at the staff level? would you do that? >> assuming they have the clearances for it, i don't think that is a problem at all. i'll do it. >> i guess that is obvious. the second thing is after we have two more people have second round, before they get done, i have to go and i want to thank you for being here. senator feinstein will close down the meeting. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i think under the previous orders, senator herona was ahead of you. >> mr. chairman, i'm happy to follow the senator. >> thank you. >> okay. >> thank you.

as mentioned earlier, director, in march president trump issued a revised refugee and visa ban executive order that suspended entry into the u.s. from six majority muslim countries. the suspicion was this suspension was largely premised on the claim that quote, more than 300 persons who enter the united states are subject of counter-terrorism investigations by the federal bureau of investigation, end quote. could you provide additional information on whether the persons under investigation are from the six countries subject to the suspension and are these persons exclusively from the six countries subject to the suspension, and if not, what other countries are represented among the population that is currently under investigation? >> i'm sure we can provide you. what i can tell you here is i think -- i think about a third of them are from the six

countries, so 300 -- about a third of them from the six countries. i think two-thirds ever tho-- o those were from iraq which was not included but i'll make sure my staff gets you the previce number. >> so iraq is the only other country that was not among the six targeted countries? >> i think that is right. obviously, as you ask it, i'm wondering whether i'm wrong. and so i'll get you the previce numbers. >> thank you. >> i think it was refugees, about 300. about a third from the six countries, about two thirds from iraq. that is my -- >> thank you. you could provide the information later. thank you very much. could you provide additional information on the percentage of the individuals who came to the us as children. >> i can check that. >> and could you provide additional information on the percentage of individuals who are radicalized after having been in our country for a long

period of time? however way you would describe it. >> that is a harder one because it is very hard to figure out when someone is radicalized and then when it happened. i'll ask my folks to think about what information we could get on you that. we'll do our best. >> yes. thank you. probably during the course of your investigation, you might be able to ascertain when they became radicalized. turning to the death threats against certain judges, we have it on administration that challenges federal judges to disagree with president trump's views, we've seen this in the campaign and during his presidency. following judge derek watson's ruling blocking the travel ban, who sits on the hawaii district court. the judge began receiving death threats. i understand that the u.s. marshals have primary responsibility for the production of federal judges but the fbi is poised to step in if necessary. is the fbi investigating the threats made against judge

watson? >> i believe we are. last week i visited the honolulu field office and got briefed on our work to assist the marshals in trying to understand the threats and protect the judge so i believe we are. >> and then in february, the three nine. >> circuit judges who ruled against the president's first travel ban receiving threats. is the fbi investigating those threats? >> i don't know that one for sure. i bet we are. but i can't answer with confidence as i sit here. >> so can we say that any time a federal judge is threatened that the fbi would likely be involved in investigating those threats? >> probably in most circumstances, the marshals have the primary responsibility and in my experience they very, very often ask us for assistance on our -- what information we have and our technical resources, they are pretty darn good but in most cases i think we offer assistance. >> and are the president's

continue to tax on the judicialary embolding the individuals to make these sorts of threats in an environment where some people might think that it is okay to issue these kinds of threats against a judge who disagree with the president? >> that is not something i think i can comment on. whenever people are directing threats at judges because their independence and insulation from influence whether fear or favor is at the core of the justice system em which is why we take them so seriously. >> yes. and so speaking of the independence of the not just the judiciary but i would like you to clarify the fbi's independence from the d.o.j. apparatus, could you conduct an investigation separate from the department of justice do do they have to disclose all investigations to the doj and get the attorney general's

concept. >> we work with the department of justice, whether it is the u.s. attorney's office on all of our investigations. and so we work with them and so in a legal sense we're not independent of the department of justice, we are spiritually culturally pretty independent group. and that is the way you would want it. but yeah, we work with the department of justice in all of our investigations. >> so if those at department of justice opposed a specific investigation, could they halt that fbi investigation? >> in theory, yes. >> has it happened? >> not in my experience. because it would be a big deal to tell the fbi to stop doing something without appropriate purpose. we're often times, they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and you ought to top investing resources in but i'm talking about a situation where we're told to stop something for a political reason. that would be a very big deal.

it has not happened in my experience. >> a number of us have called for had been dependent investigator or special prosecutor to investigate the russian efforts to underminor to interfere with our elections as well as the trump team's relationships with these russian efforts. and should the department of justice decide that there should be such an independent investigator or special prosecutor and you are already having an on going fbi investigation into these matters, how -- and the attorney general has recused himself, so -- so how would this proceed, when you have the department of justice conducting or assigning an independent or special prosecutor and then you are already doing an investigation? how would this work? >> our investigative team would just coordinate with a different set of prosecutors. it is as if a case was moved from one u.s. attorney's office to another. the investigative team just starts working with a different

set of assistant u.s. district attorneys. >> so the two investigations could proceed? but you would talk to each other, is that what you are describing? >> it is one investigation. in the strength of the justice system, the federal level of the united states, is the prosecutors and the agents work together on their investigations. and so the investigators would disengage with one prosecutor and hook up to another and just continue going. >> in so in the veinvestigation that you are doing on russian int interference and the trump team, are you coordinating with any u.s. attorney's office. >> two sets of prosecutors. may main justice and the eastern district of virginia u.s. attorney's office. >> so should the a.g. decide to go with a special prosecutor then you would end your engagement with the other two entities and work with the d.o.j. special prosecutor. >> potentially. or it could be that in some circumstances and an attorney

general appoints someone else to oversee it and you keep the career level prosecutor team and so to the prosecutors and agents there is no change except the boss is different. >> if i could just ask one more follow up. so has this happened before, where you are doing an investigation and they -- the attorney general points a -- appoints a special prosecutor to an investigation. >> it thought to what i thought was my last job ever in the government as the deputy attorney general and i appointed fat rick fitzgerald in chicago to oversee a very sensitive investigation involving allegations that bush administration officials outed a cia operative. and so what happened is the team of agents that had been working for -- up a chain that came to me was moved over and worked under patrick fitzgerald. so it happens. >> thank you. >> and last senator blumenthal. >> thank you, madam chair.

to take the an alg-- the analogi think we were toward the end of the dentist visit and fortunately there is no limited time that the last questioner can take. >> my dentist sometimes asks questions too. >> to pursue the line of questioning that senator horrona just finished, there is abund about precedent -- abundant precedent for appointment of a special prosecutor. >> yes. >> and that has happened frequently in the in the history of the department of justice and you mentioned one in your experience. also then zig knee appointed

[ inaudible ] archie bald cox [ inaudible ]. >> so this would not be a earth shaking seismic occurrence for a special prosecutor to be appointed. in fact, taking your record, which is one of dedication to the credibility and integrity of our criminal justice process and your families, i would think that at some point you might recommend that there be a special prosecutor, would that be appropriate at some point? >> it is possible. i know one of my predecessors, louie freed did with respect to chinese interference in an election so it is possible. >> and i take your convention that you don't want to talk about your conversations with the current deputy attorney general, but my hope is that you will, in fact, argue forcefully and vigorously for a special prosecutor and i think the

circumstances here are exactly parallel to the situation where you appointed patrick fitzgerald -- fitzpatrick and others where routinely special prosecutors have been appointed and i know that your recommendations may never be disclosed but i would urge that you do so. going back to the questions that you asked about your announcement initially that you were terminating the investigation of hillary clinton, you said that the matter was one of in tense public interest and therefore you were making additional comments about it. normally there would have been no comments, correct? >> correct.

>> and at most, you would have said, as you did just now, there was no prosecutable case, correct. >> correct. >> and you went beyond that statement and said that she had been extremely careless, i believe was the word that you used, which was an extraordinary comment. would you agree that the investigation of the trump campaign's potential involvement in the russian interference is also an investigation of in tense public interest. >> yes, i agree. >> in fact, there are probably very few investigations that will be done while you are fbi director that will be of more intense public interest and my question is, will you commit to explaining the results of the investigation at the time when

it is concluded? >> i won't commit to it, senator, but i do commit to apply the same principles and reasoning to it. i just don't know where we'll end up so i can't commit sitting here. >> but you will agree, that as the fbi director, you need to go beyond saying there is no prosecutable case or there is a prosecutable case. >> potentially. >> when i was u.s. attorney, many years ago, there was actually a rule in the department of justice that there could be no report on any grand jury matter or any investigation without permission of the attorney general or main justice. i don't know whether that rule till applies. but speaking more generally, do you think it is a good idea for prosecutors or yourself to be able to comment in some ways to

explain the results of an investigation? >> not in general, i don't. i think it is important that there be, as there has been for a long time, a recognized exception for the exceptional case. i referred to the irs alleged targeting investigation which was also of in tense public interest and then had someone prepare for me a chart. the department has done it infrequently but a dozen or more times in the last five, ten years. it ought to be reserved for those extraordinary cases but there are times when the public interest warrants it. >> with respect to the investigation, ongoing into the trump associates ties to the russian meddling, has the white house cooperated? >> with the investigation? >> correct. >> it is not something i'm going to comment on. >> have you had any requests for immunity from anyone potentially a target of that investigation in. >> i have to give you the same answer, senator.

>> would you tell this committee if there is a lack of cooperation on the part of white house? >> i won't commit to that. >> isn't won't commit to that. >> suspect therisn't there, aga reason to be a special prosecutor because who would you complain to, the deputy attorney general, if there were a lack of cooperation on the part of the trump white house? >> if there was a challenge with any investigation that i couldn't resolve at the working level, i would elevate it to the deputy attorney general, whoever was in charge of. >> but the deputy attorney general is appointed by the president. correct correct? >> correct. >> isn't that an inherent conflict of interest? >> it's a consideration but also the nature of the person in the role is also very important consideration. i think we're lucky to have somebody who thinks about the justice system the say way i do and pat fitzgerald does and the way you did.

>> let me ask you, again, to just clarify a question that senator hirono asked. the career prosecutors so far involved are in the national security division in main justice and the eastern district of virginia, united states attorney's office, correct? >> correct. >> but the decision about prosecuting would be made by their boss, i think is the word you used, correct? >> correct. >> and that would probably be right now the deputy attorney general, correct? >> correct. in a matter of complexity and significance, the ultimate decision in practice is almost always made at the highest level in the department which would be rod rosenstein. >> and let me ask one last question, unrelated. you were asked by senator leahy about targets of investigation. i think your comment was that there were more citizens currently under investigation

for potentially terrorist violence or extremist violence than noncitizens. is that correct? >> correct. >> in terms of sources of information, are there many noncitizens who have provided such information? >> yes. >> and are a large number of them undocumented residents of the united states? >> i don't know what percentage. i'm sure some significant percentage are. >> so, cooperation from is important and the fear of apprehension, of roundups, of mass detention, would be a significant deterrent for them, would it not? >> in theory, i don't know whether we've seen an impact in practice, though. i just don't know as i sit here. >> could you inquire or do some internal research to the extent it is possible and report back to us? >> sure.

>> thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you very much, senator. direct director, i think this concludes the hearing. let me thank you for your ability to last for many hours. it's very impressive. and let me also thank ladies and gentlemen in the audience, many of you have been here from the everywhere begin i very beginning. thank you for your attention and thank you for being respectful. it's very much appreciated. and the hearing is adjourned.

you can watch fbi director james comey's testimony today before the senate judiciary committee later on.

it will be available at our website. just go to c-span.org, type in james comey's name in the video library search box on the home page. the hearing will also repar the hearing will also repe-air later today on the c-span networks. and on c-span today, the house is debating a $1.1 trillion government spending bill to cover the remainder of the current fiscal year to september. live house coverage on our companion network, c-span. this news item from the hill concerning the house today, representatives fill upton and billy long saying today they will support the republicans' obamacare repeal and replace bill with the addition of a new amendment that upton drafted. the two republicans made the announcement at the white house after meeting with president trump. both previously opposed the bill backed by president trump and republican leaders. representative upton said a vote could be held as soon as thursday. again, that from the hill. politico writing this morning in manhattan for a women

for women international charity luncheon. hillary clinton once again pointed her finger at russian interference and fbi director james comey's influence as the proximate reasons for her defeat in her most extensive remarks on the topic. for the first time clinton publicly took on some of the blame. "i take absolute personal responsible," she said. "i was the candidate, i was the person on the ballot and i'm very aware of, you know, the challen challenge, the problems, the, you know, shortfalls that we had." she noted as she has to her friends and donors, "i was on the way to winning until a combination of james comey's letter on october 28th and russian wick kkileaks raised do in the people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off. i think compelling, persuasive."

again, that from politico today. after the first round of voting in france's presidential election, emmanuel macron and marine le pen of the national front party will face each other in a runoff on sunday. and this afternoon, a debate between the two provided by english language france 24 tv. live coverage starting at 2:55 eastern here on c-span3. now, though, a chance to watch today's senate judiciary committee hearing again with fbi director james comey testifying. beginning around 10:00 eastern time today.