this afternoon. >> thank the gentleman for recognizing himself. mr. strzok, i want to follow up on a couple of the questions that chairman gowdy asked. your e-mails, they appeared to come to a conclusion on the clinton case long before you had interviewed many witnesses, including clinton herself. you also appear to have been pining for the impeachment of president trump at the very beginning of the russia case. does the fbi normally make such decisions on whether to recommend prosecution or exoneration so far ahead of all the facts coming to light? >> typically, sir, the doj makes prosecution decisions in cases. >> do they normally make such decisions whether to recommend prosecution far ahead of the

facts coming to light? >> sir, i don't think any decisions -- my experience is the final decision is never made until the conclusion of the case. i think it is fair to say that in the conduct of investigations, particularly very large investigations, a lot of folks working on it, my experience is there comes a time, if you're worth your salt in the conduct of that investigation, an agent, attorneys, the sign of that will have a good idea before the case is concluded that there may or may not be demonstrable crimes. >> let me ask you this then. how many other cases on which you have worked do you recall opining on the disposition of the case months ahead of interviewing multiple witnesses? >> i remember quite a few cases where i or agents would discuss the prospects of the outcome of the case with prosecutors as the case was going on. from the beginning of the case, talking about what crimes may or may not have been relevant, as the case proceeded to identify which elements may or may not be strong or demonstrable, as well as towards the end when we're trying to shore up evidence that may or may not be there.

>> let me ask you this about that. in regard to those cases, was it normal behavior on your part to chat with colleagues in the manner you did on the russia case about how much you despise the very person you're investigating? or complimenting the person you're investigating in the clinton case? is that typical? >> sir, i would draw a distinction between commenting on case-related matters versus discussion of personal beliefs. those are very different matters than saying this person as a witness was not credible or this person as a target or a subject did or didn't do anything. >> you completely separate out what your personal opinion is from what you discussed with others in investigations? >> i am telling you, sir, i separated out my personal belief from -- >> but you did not do that with regard to attorney page, who is also involved in the investigation. >> i disagree with that. i separated out my personal

beliefs from any action i took officially as an fbi agent every day. >> you recognize how your vitriol against president trump makes it appear you could never approach the case in a fair-minded manner? >> sir, of course i appreciate that. i understand -- >> an attack that hits home for me. on august 26th, 2016, you texted ms. page, quote, just went to a southern virginia walmart. i could smell the trump support. and smell is in capital letters. all capital letters. what does trump support smell like, mr. strzok? >> sir, that's an expression of speech. i clearly wasn't smelling one thing or the other. what i was commenting on -- >> what does it mean? >> what i meant by that was living in northern virginia, having traveled 150 miles south within the same state, i was

struck by the extraordinary difference in the expression of political opinion and belief amongst the community there from where i live. >> you describe that as smell in capital letters. >> sir, that was a quick choice of words. >> all right, so earlier -- okay, so earlier, you had texted ms. page that another part of virginia, louden county, which is i think in northern virginia, is, quote, still ignorant hillbillies, end quote. is that what you meant? >> not at all. >> trump supporters are ignorant hillbillies in. >> not at all. >> what did you mean by that? >> i'm a proud fairfax resident. there's a competition between fairfax and louden. the second thing i would tell you is in no way did i or do i believe any resident of louden county or southern virginia or anywhere else in the nation is/are any of those things. that was a flippant -- >> you understand the

implications of this text when my constituents in virginia read it? >> i do, sir. and i would ask you to tell them that that was, in some cases, certainly unfortunate use of words that in no way do i believe those things. >> you and ms. page used personal phones and accounts to communicate. have you turned over those communications to the inspector general? >> no, sir. >> why not? >> working with my attorney, the inspector general and i arranged an agreement where i would go through my personal accounts and identify any material that was relevant to fbi business and turn it over. it was reviewed. there was none, and my understanding is the inspector general is satisfied with that action. >> we know from texts that you and ms. page would transition to i-message and gmail. who determined that messages were only personal in nature and not business related, especially

since you just testified at length that a number of the communications you have made on government communications devices were personal in nature? >> sir, the broad, broad context of what i used personal e-mail and phones for was personal communication. for those things that were work related, almost universally, that material was translated into fbi systems. certainly if there was anything that was of record or would constitute needing to be there, it was provided. but i made that decision. >> so let me ask you this. when did attorney general lynch know that charges would not be brought against former secretary of state clinton? >> i can't answer that question, sir. that's something you would have to ask her. >> do you know whether it was prior to lynch's announcement that she would defer to career prosecutors and director comey on whether to prosecute? >> sir, i don't know. >> why would lisa page text that lynch's decision was a, quote, real profile in courage since

she knows no charges will be brought, end quote. >> that's a question you would have to ask heifer. >> so how did you take that statement when she texted it to you? >> the way i took it is we had for many months working with a team, a team of career attorneys and department of justice, attorneys in the eastern district of virginia, a team of agents from the fbi had been working intensively on this case. we had gone through mountains of evidence. tons of interviews. and we were looking at the various statutes that might apply to any sort of criminal conduct. and i think we were, as we surveyed that, as the attorneys looked at it, saw a number of very fatal areas where elements of the crime were lacking. our ability to demonstrate elements of a crime. do i think we had begun to arrive at a sense it was going to be difficult if not impossible to identify any statute where we could satisfy

those elements of a crime. my assumption certainly is that from the department of justice's perspective, those attorneys were briefing their supervisors who were briefing their supervisors who were ultimately briefing the attorney general, and the deputy attorney general and she would have the same sense that it was a difficult if not impossible proposition to conclude that there were viable charges to be brought against secretary clinton. >> mr. strzok, did you ever believe these texts would become public? >> i did not. >> given that, you felt free to express your true feelings, didn't you? >> i suppose yes. it's a difficult question to answer. >> mr. strzok, former director comey played judge, jury, and exonerator in the hillary clinton investigation. in your experience at the fbi, have you ever seen the fbi director make the decision on whether to prosecute for the department of justice?

>> mr. chairman, i would not agree with that characterization of director comey. and in answer to your question, i have not seen it before. >> all right. was that appropriate what he did? hold a news conference and publicly announce the decision that was supposed to have been made by the department of justice? >> sir, that was his decision. >> was it appropriate in your opinion? >> sir, i don't think it's for me to say. >> it is for you to say. what's your opinion? >> i understand the variety of factors -- well, i understand some of the factors that went into director comey's decision to make the announcement. i can tell you that decision was not made lightly at all. i can tell you my experience in that decision. >> you're not aware of any precedent for that? >> i am not. >> mr. strzok, in a footnote, 197 of the inspector general's report, it is noted that, quote, supervision of the russia investigation was briefly transitioned from strzok to another counterintelligence division, d.a.d., in early 2017.

why were you transitioned from the russia investigation in early 2017? >> sir, let me see if i can answer that question without getting into operational detail. the investigation was brought. what russia was doing against our country encompassed a variety of things. there were actors in the cyberarena. actors by their agents and their intelligence services. there were actions by subjects of investigation that are currently ongoing. the prospect of how the fbi would investigate that was a multi-tiered effort. and so some of those efforts that traditionally fell into line with that other d.a.d. and their span and scope of responsibility were moved to their -- to their supervision. >> so the footnote goes on to state that, quote, however, a.d. preseptold us that fbi leadership decided to keep strzok involved in the russia investigation and he was therefore reassigned back to it.

do you know who in, quote, fbi leadership, end quote, decided to keep you involved in the russia investigation? >> i do not. >> could it have been deputy director mccabe? >> sir, possibly. i do not know. >> when were you assigned back to the russia investigation, and when you were reassigned back to the russia investigation, were you still in a supervisory role? >> sir, i would answer that question, again, i don't -- i don't entirely -- my recollection does not comport with the statement from a.d. prestep. there were elements of the investigation that stayed under subordinate leaders and subordinate unit chiefs down the line. there were elements of it that were transferred to a different d.a.d. and remained with that d.a.d. my recollection is different from a.d. preseps. >> did you ever consider recusing yourself since you had such personal disdain for the person you were investigating? >> i did not. >> yet others did require that

ultimately. >> sir, i would not characterize the decision to the same set of considerations. >> you don't think it was the bias expressed in your text messages that caused mr. mueller to remove you from the investigation? >> i do not think that there were -- that bias was expressed in those text messages. i cannot speak to why director mueller chose to remove me from the investigation, but i can tell you that those text messages are not indicative of bias. >> mr. mueller never told you why you were being removed? >> my recollection of the discussion is he mentioned the existence of the text messages and that based on that, he needed to ask me to return to the fbi. >> a lot of people have text messages, mr. strzok. >> yes, sir. and again, my impression, not stated by him, but my impression was based on the appearance of those messages, and in part of a desire by him to avoid even the

appearance of any potential bias, that he asked me to return. that's a question for him. >> but he kept everyone else. >> sir, i don't know the staffing sdizs that were made by director mueller after i departed. >> including 13 democrats. >> sir i don't know the aff affiliation of the people on the team. >> but he was concerned enough about your texts to remove you, but you never felt concerned enough to remove yourself? >> that's correct. >> mr. strzok, you're going to get asked other questions here that relate to your transition from the investigation of ms. clinton into the beginnings of this investigation into the trump campaign and the alleged collusion with the russian government. now, mr. strzok, the fbi is a creation of this body.

congress created the fbi with its constitutional authority. today, you are here under subpoena. i know you have come voluntarily, but you're also under subpoena. also, an exercise of congress' constitutional authority. which takes precedence, fbi policy or the united states constitution? >> sir, always the united states constitution. my understanding is i am not here under subpoena, that i am here voluntarily. i understand a spoona was issued for my prior closed interview but not for this session today. >> a subpoena was issued, and service of which was accepted. >> that's not my understanding, sir. >> in a supreme court case handed down just last year, the court reviewed whether statements made by a juror that indicated racial bias requires a piercing of jury deliberation. justice kennedy wrote, the opinion of the court holding that racial bias exuded by a juror provided an exception to the rule that jury deliberations must remain confidential because

it is necessary, quote, to insure that our legal system remains capable of coming ever closer to the promise of equal treatment under the law that is so central to a functioning democracy. on several occasions, you have referenced that all of the texts and the questions were simply personal opinions exchanged with a close confidauntd and in no way reflected your intent to act on your opinion. yet, if you made these statements while on a jury, it's hard to imagine you would not be kicked off immediately because of the risk that your bias would undermine a functioning democracy. do you still hold that personal opinions, even in the face of supreme court precedence, should not have tainted your involvement on any investigation relating to secretary clinton or president trump? >> mr. chairman, i think you're mixing apples and oranges. i'm not an attorney, and i'm not familiar with that supreme court ruling. but based on what you said, protected categories, things like race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion,

are protected matters that we may not, the government and by law people may not be discriminated against based on their role one way or another in any of those categories. that's entirely separate and distinct from political belief or political opinion. that on the other hand is encouraged, is protected by the first amendment, and this body under the hatch act, my understanding is that is recognized -- >> no one stopped you from sending the texts, mr. strzok. but the special counsel, mr. mueller, removed you from the investigation when he saw the texts. >> that's true, sir. he did. let me go back to answering your question, if i may. in terms of political speech, that is radically different from any sort of protected category of race, gender, and ethnicity or other categories. political speech, political thought is protected. the courts have recognized and the constitution recognizes we all have political beliefs.

and so when it comes to the expression of that political belief, that is something that this body under the hatch act enumerated the categories of what was prohibited and expressly stated if it is not prohibited, then it is expressly encouraged. so i would tell you that no one in here, it's an impossible definition to say people must not have political opinions. everyone does. of course, they do. the test is whether or not that is left behind when you're doing your job. to your question of whether or not i would express that in front of a jury, of course i wouldn't. that would be inappropriate. as to your question of whether each and every one of those jurors when they go home and they're sitting in their backyard with their friend has a political opinion, my answer would be undoubtedly, almost if not all of those jurors would. >> but they're instructed when they leave the jury panel each day to not communicate with anyone regarding the matter that they are considering.

so that is a very different thing. you were considering a matter and you were conducting acts of a very biased, salacious manner that was totally inappropriate, and when mr. mueller saw that, he removed you. >> sir, i appreciate that concern. but what i'm telling you is there is a vast difference in my mind between an action as a juror being instructed by a judge not to discuss the matters of a trial compared to a citizen of the united states -- >> you don't suppose there's a reason why that is done. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. >> thank you. let me begin by congratulated the witness on his completely correct statements of key first amendment law, that people are entitled to political opinions. now, you, sir, obviously expressed your political opinions as to mr. trump and

hillary clinton and various others in text messages to lisa page. >> i did. >> and she to you. >> yes. >> and these are private political opinions. >> yes. >> which you did not express publicly? >> correct. >> and inspector general found with respect to the investigation to hillary, quote, we found no evidence at the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper consideration. rather we based on the fact, the law, and past practice. that's correct according to the ig, no? >> yes, sir. >> with respect to the russia investigation, the ig said that he was disturbed by the appearance that investigative decisions might be impacted by bias, but made no such findings and hadn't completed his investigation of the russia investigation, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, when people talk about the appearance, whether people

on this panel or the inspector general, the appearance of bias created by those text messages, those text messages might create the appearance of bias only if they're public. is that not correct? >> that's correct. >> otherwise, there would be no appearance. >> that's correct. >> and they were not intended to bow public, were there? >> correct. >> communications between two private individuals. >> true. >> which are totally permitted. >> that's correct. >> fbi agents permitted to have political opinions? >> yes. >> and as a 22-year veteran of the fibi, could you tell us without naming names, were you familiar with other fbi personnel having political opinions with respect to the presidential campaign? >> i was. >> were some of these people anti-trump? >> they were. >> and were some of these people pro-trump? >> yes. >> thank you. >> and to your knowledge, did any of the pro-trump bias or anti-trump bias and personal

opinions affect decisions and investigations by the fbi? >> not to my knowledge. >> okay. now, you mentioned the hatch act. >> yes. >> under the hatch act, the fbi is prohibited, is it not, from inquiring into the political opinions of people it is hiring? >> i don't know the hatch act well enough to tell you that. >> i'll say that is the case. the government may not under the hatch act inquire as to the political opinions of people it is hiring for a non-exempt position. and to do so would be improper. and i must say that i think that all of these inquiries about your political opinions as revealed by these text messages are irrelevant and wrong unless it can be shown, as it has not been shown, as was found definitively not to be the case in the hillary investigation, and has not been shown in the russia investigation, that they affected any decisions in the

investigation. let's leave it at that on that point. mr. strzok, what is the fbi's -- what is the fbi's policy -- oh, let me say one other thing. it is -- i observe this because you said you couldn't answer. but it's obviously prudent of mr. mueller in finding these texts and hearing about all these text messages to think that they might be subject to incorrect interpretations and publicity and in order to avoid the kind of attacks on this investigation that we are seeing from republican members of this committee and from the administration, to ask you to leave that investigation, having nothing to do with your competence or fairness in the investigation, but simply to somewhat insulate that investigation from unfair attacks. would you think that might be a correct -- >> yes. >> thank you. now, mr. strzok, what is the

fbi's policy with respect to an agent commenting publicly about an ongoing investigation. >> we don't do that. >> sorry? >> we do thought do that. >> why is that policy in place? >> for a variety of reasons. one, i think it is inherently unfair to the subject of that investigation. it can tend to skew the conduct of the investigation. other witnesses, other future investigative avenues. it can skew potential jurors in the event that a case is taken to prosecution. i can pick any number of reasons why we don't do that. >> thank you. are you familiar with the inspector general's report on the fbi's handling of the clinton investigation. >> i am. >> in that report was highly critical of director comey, was it not, for among other things departing from protocol and commenting publicly about an ongoing investigation? >> it did say that, yes. >> critical of him. >> yes. >> and for doing that. and although some people have said that they don't agree with the decision not to charge mrs. clinton, in fact, the departure

from protocol was -- the first departure from protocol, i should say, was director comey commenting on his opinion about her handling of various e-mails and so forth, having decided after she wasn't being charged, his departing from protocol was publicly commenting on it. was that not one of the deviations from protocol cited by the report. >> by the report, yes, sir. >> has the fbi asked you to adhere to the policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations today? >> yes. >> how so? >> they instructed me, my understanding is that general counsel to the fbi met with chairman goodlatte and his staff and came up with an approved list of topics i may speak about. outside of that list that i was not to discuss anything having to do with ongoing investigations. >> i will simply observe that asking you or anybody else like mr. rosenstein to comment on

ongoing criminal investigations is against policy and is libel to taint those investigations and to damage the reputations of people or even endanger the safety of informants as you have said. mr. strzok, you're an experienced counterintelligence official. can you explain why briefly, because i think you touched on this in mr. cummings' questions, why the investigations into the russian government's attack on our elections and other critical infrastructure is important to our national security? >> it's extraordinarily important because of what it represents. the selection of our nation's leader, of the chief executive, of the person who is charged with the defense of the united states, national security of the united states, whether that's militarily or economic, there is no greater responsibility in the land. and the way we do that, the underpinning of what we are in america, the election, is the process by which we do that. so the idea that not only a foreign nation, but an advanced hostile foreign nation would be inserting themselves

clandestinely in that process to undermine the will of the united states is terrible. >> thank you. and is that why you thought it important to prioritize, and i think it was in october of 2016, the russia investigation and leave mr. wiener's laptop to someone else? you asked to look into it. >> the first reason i did it because the director told me to. it's a top priority, and the second thing was, yes, when you look at the allocation of resources based on threats to national security, the russia investigation was a much greater impact than a mishandling of classified information investigation. >> the first reason is the director told you to? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. how frequently does the fbi engage in counterintelligence operations against foreign powers? >> every day, all the time. >> yes, sir. >> how frequently does the fbi investigate a possible conspiracy between a possible president and a campaign and a

hostile power? >> first time i could remember in my lifetime. >> is it fair to say we're in unprecedented territory? >> speaking from my experience, it's fair. >> speaking from your experience. >> from my experience in the fbi. >> yes. >> yes, sir. >> and is it fair to say that our country faced and is still possibly facing a grave threat from a hostile foreign power? >> it is. >> thank you. i think that is correct, mr. strzok. we know that russia after successfully interfering with our last election is actively working to disrupt the upcoming elections in 2018. we're told this by all of our intelligence agencies, all of whom still stand by their 2017 assessment that the russian government waged a complax campaign to impact the cammain to the benefit of president trump. last week, the senate intelligence committee on a bipartisan basis confirmed this and the director of national intelligence testified before the committee about an even more urgent threat. quote, there should be no doubt

that russia perceived its past efforts were successful and viewed the 2018 midterm elections as a potential target for russian meddling. what is the response to this problem? to launch an investigation into hillary clinton's e-mails and do as much as they can to undermine special counsel robert mueller, who is running perhaps the most consequential national security investigation of this generation. between you and mrs. page, the republicans are usually taking aim at deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. just as they insist on asking you questions about an ongoing investigation, questions you cannot answer, the majority is demanding some of the most sensitive information in the deputy attorney general's possession, documents he could not provide for the same reason. they want copies of the scoping documents that lay out the special counsel's exact lines of inquiry. such a disclosure would be dangerous and unprecedented. republicans are in effect demanding the doj violate the very policies the inspector

general criticized the department for violating in 2016. this is incredibly inappropriate and dangerous, and we're forced to ask ourselves why. why are the house republicans so dismissive of russia's attacks on the united states? why are republicans so intent on destroying public confidence in the justice department? and in the special prosecutor -- special counsel's investigation? why have they abandoned house rules? it's totally unnecessary fights with you, with lisa page, and deputy attorney general rosenstein. the obvious answer is because they're scared. because president trump is scared. because the special counsel's investigation is operating at a break neck pace and has already produced five guilty pleas and criminal charges against 23 individuals and entities. because accountability is coming. one way or another, and they are scared and they are trying to undermine the investigation and to distract attention.

now, i must say the basis of many of these questions that we're hearing today of mr. strzok by the majority, by the republicans, is the 11th hour to do with mr. strzok. i call upon the majority to release that transcript in full today. this will show that the entire joint investigation is at best a partisan distraction from more important matters, but the witnesses before us today, mr. strzok, testified, not under confidentiality, but not under the confidentiality rules but in private for 11 hours. there's nothing that prevents the majority from releasing that transcript. selected portions of the transcript have been leaked by members of the majority, misleading portions taken out of conte context. and i don't know if demand is inright word, but demand as far as i can, that that transcript be released in full so people

can see it, can see the testimony today. and they can make better judgments. i ask the chairman now to order the release of that transcript. >> care to do so? >> not today. >> will the chairman ever do so? >> you can direct your questions to the witness. that's your time to do that and not to discuss this. >> i will observe that the chairman will not answer the question and this is part of the continuing evasion. and attempt at obfuscation. >> will the gentleman yield? >> not at the moment. when i finish the sentence. because we know the pattern. and the pattern is, we're not releasing transcripts except parts of them that may create -- that may convey the impression, false or true, that we want to create, convey. there's no legal reason why this transcript should not be released.

there's no -- only a partisan reason why this transcript should not be released. there's no valid reason why it shad not be released. if there was a purpose to our inquiries, to our spending 11 hours, there's prr no reason they shouldn't be released. i'll yield now. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and i would say it is very customary in investigations to keep transcripts of private interviews until the conclusion of the investigation. this investigation certainly hasn't concluded. and it is very appropriate that the questions that were asked and the answers given are not shared. >> reclaiming. >> with other potential witnesses. >> reclaiming my time. i will observe that many of the same questions are being asked today, number one, but number two, given the fact that selective portions of the transcript have been leaked, i think that changes it. i'll yield. >> i was just going to inquire. i have been trying to get the

answer to this question, but to the extent that this transcript is available to all of us, i intend to release it. i can't find any prohibition that makes us unable to release it in our rules. we now have the same witness after 11 hours here in a public hearing, so the notion that we have to somehow keep this secret or pieces that are being released, you're doing a real disservice to the american people. is there any reason this afternoon i can't just release it as a member of the committee. >> would the ranking member yield? >> one second. >> i'm not aware of any, but i have to look at the house rules and all. i will yield. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. it is correct that both members on the republican side and the democratic side have used quotations from the transcript for the purpose of the hearing, and that is a legitimate use of the transcript. >> reclaiming my time. >> some members have mostly used it for the purpose of talking to the news media, and that may be or may not be an appropriate

use. be that as it may, the transcript should be released. i will the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> i would like to ask the ranking member, if it's legitimate within the rules of the committee and house of representatives or members release certain portions of the overall transcript, is there anything that would prevent us from releasing the entire transcript? >> i'm unaware of anything that -- off the top of my head, that would prevent a member from releasing the transcript, but that's off the top of my head. i wouldn't want to say that definitively. >> mr. chairman, are you aware of anything to preclude us from doing that? >> yeah, the decision is made from the chairman of the committee. before i yield back, let me say -- >> mr. chairman. could you clarify that. i'm not atwar the chairman of incommittee makes decisions for me. is there a rule that precludes

me from releasing the cran transcript. >> this is a investigation, the chair of two committees are conducting that investigation. we will decide when transcripts of private interviews are released. no one on this side hof the aisle has released it other than to base questions on the hearing. >> reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time, i will observe that some members have released parts of the transcript by being quoted in the media, not for questions here. the gentleman from rhode island still wants the time? >> i would ask unanimous consent tat the transcript of this witness be made an official part of the record in its entirety. >> i object. >> objection is heard. >> the gentleman -- >> i yield to theientalman. >> again, mr. chairman, i think this is of tremendous interest to the american people. there's an effort here to sort of characterize this witness's

behavior, much ado has been made of it. we had an 11-hour hearing in which the same winlz testified. he's now testifying consistently before the american people. there seems to me no good reason other than a personal preference that this not be released. i would say, if there is no prohibition, the fact you would prefer we not is insufficient to persuade me and i think mr. raskin, and we attend to release this, unless someone presents us with some rule under our house proceedings or this committee that prevents us from doing it. we'll give you untile 5:00 to do that. unless it will be released. >> reclaiming my time. i'll simply -- i want to associate myself with the remarks of gentleman from rhode island. i would agree with him. i think it would be a public service to release these. that's why i demanded they be released. no good reason not to. and at this point, i think i'll

yield back the balance of my time. >> inso, the chair wants to respond to the gentleman from rhode island. first of all, first of all, there was an agreement in the interview that it was private, confidential, and that it would not be released. so that is not going to take place under this set of circumstances. secondly, if the gentleman -- we're here investigating irregularities conducted in investigations by the fbi. if the gentleman wants to perpetuate that by creating irregularities here and releasing questions so that other potential future witnesses can read the questions before they're asked, that is in my opinion exactly what many on the gentleman's side of the aisle have been all about, attempting to disrupt this investigation and this hearing process. >> reclaim.

reclaiming my time. mr. strzok -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> reclaiming my time. >> mr. chairman, i object. >> release of the transcript of that hearing? >> no, i would not object. >> thank you. i will observe, then, that the minority, the chairman says there was an agreement, you know, on the conduct of that hearing. minority was not party to that agreement. may have been an agreement between mr. gowdy and mr. goodlatte but at no point were we asked. >> stated on the record. >> stated as a decision, as a fact. we were not asked. we agreed to nothing because we were not asked. and we think that the transcript were to be released for the reasons stated and if the witness doesn't object, i don't know why the majority should object. i yield to mr. meadows. >> if the gentleman will yield, in earnest, i will be glad to work with my colleagues on the

other side of aisle about releasing all relevant information. if we're talking about full transparency, let's talk about full transparency in a variety of other things. it's interesting we want to release one thing but yet we're somehow allowing peter strzok to suggest that there's a whole lot of things that are off the record. but i will work in earnest with my colleagues. >> i appreciate the gentleman, and let me simply say that we are not disrupting a legitimate investigation into the investigation. the republican investigation -- >> but it is a release of information -- >> trying to disrupt the investigation into the russian interference in our election by the special counsel. >> will the gentleman yield? >> peter strzok, who helped lead fbi investigations into hillary clinton's e-mail use and potential coordination between russia and donald trump's campaign, told lawmakers today his work has never been tainted by politics and that the hearing

represents a victory for russian president vladimir putin. it was the first time he had spoken publicly since being removed from special counsel robert mueller's team following the discovery of derogatory text messages last year. you can watch the entire hearing tonight on c-span or live on c-span.org and with the free c-span radio act. and steven mnuchin testified today before the house financial services committee on the state of the international financial system. watch this hearing tonight starting at 10:00 p.m. eastern. >> this weekend, on american history tv, on c-span3, saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, university of connecticut professor on the reconstruction era after the civil war. and at 10:00, on reel america, the 1918 silent french film dedicated to america's efforts

in world war i. sunday at 2:00 p.m. eastern, the national world war ii museum symposium marking the 20th anniversary of the film "saving private ryan." and then on american artifacts at 6:00 p.m., the u.s. army heritage and education center annual living history event. featuring french world war i soldiers. watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> fbi official peter strzok, who was removed from the special counsel's investigation of russian involvement in the 2016 u.s. election testified before joint hearing of two house committees responsible for fbi and justice department oversight. live coverage of this ongoing hearing is now on c-span2, here on c-span3, we'll show you some of today's hearing from earlier.