maria: i'll toss it over to stuart this is a shot of the air force one we're waiting for the president and first lady to depart as they arrive in the uk. stuart up next. stuart: thanks so much we're dying to see the president arrive in britain and good morning maria, good morning everyone. sure looks like a victory lap for president trump as he leaves the nato summit and the market likes it stocks up big time today. i'll start with the president and here is what he had to say. number one, nato countries have agreed to speed up their increases in defense spending. he could withdraw america from nato, but it doesn't need to because they are paying up. next one. putin is a competitor, not an enemy. election meddling will come up

at the putin summit. now, the president is heading to britain. he said those people, the brits, like me a lot, and he closed his press conference saying, "i am a very stable genius." >> [laughter] stuart: okay, there appears to be some give from europe and little take. investors like it. look at this, a big gain for stocks right at the opening bell this morning the dow is up approximately 200 points it looks like another quick bounce back from the trade- related sell-off of yesterday. we've seen this before. the message surely is buy the dip and make money. i've got one more story that will play big today. peter strzok testifies, the fbi agent. he will be asked about that infamous text exchange. here it is. lisa page, trump's not ever going to become president, right strzok, no, no he won't. we will stop him. we want to know, what did he do to stop him? see? we opened the show without reference to the world cup.

how long will that last? >> [laughter] stuart: varney & company is about to begin. >> all right, let's refer to the left-hand side of your screen that's air force one that has landed actually is outside of london. he's about to emerge and walk him down the carriageway there. we're waiting for the president to emerge. he's going to set foot in britain. he's actually very close to central london that's where all of the demonstrations are going to be. he's removed from them. that's where that balloon will be flying over britain's capitol that balloon with the president in diapers really makes me mad but nonetheless the president won't see that. he's at stanford airport. he comes down the ramp momentarily and then he heads to a reception which is closed to the press. ashley: he stays at the

ambassador's house tonight in central london and then tomorrow it's off to meet with checkers and prime minister theresa may. it's outside of london, about 4n probably the highlight for mr. trump is tea with the queen at windsor castle. after that he's off to scotland. stuart: i didn't know he was staying in central london. ashley: that residence is like 10-acres and it's real protected so you can't get close to it. stuart: as we wait for the president to emerge you'll see him when he emerges from there it looks like it's in it meant let me just show you the market real real fast if i may because we're going to have a nice, solid upside move with the dow when we open this market. look at that we're going to be up 200 points plus. that's a very significant gain. similar story for the s&p, same story for the nasdac and on the upside across-the-board. this is in direct contrast from yesterday's big dip on the trade

news. scott martin is with us, come on in, please, scott. we're bouncing back. we called it. if you'd bought the dip yesterday, you would have been making money today. are you on board with buying dip s? >> [laughter] yes, i'm on board with buying dips. in fact, the great thing about this year, even though, you know , this year depending upon your favorite index, stuart has not really been that spectacular as far as total returns. there's been a lot of dips. there was that big dip in february. there's a dip later in march. there was a dip recently that you mentioned so at an investor we've talked a lot about this on the show, stuart. if you have cash on the side lines and you feel you've missed out on these companies that we own that we love so dear ly the apple, google, microsoft, netflix, when those pull back on days like yesterday and like the other times i mentioned, you need to take that cash and put it to work. stuart: i've got a feeling that this trade dispute, the whole trade situation which upsets the markets periodically, i think that is a very very long term

prospect. you may well get some trade headlines that produce a dip, but over the long term, hold on a second. the president is emerging with the first lady. he waves to the crowd. i'm not sure there's a very big crowd there and he comes down the steps. he is about to set foot in england as part of his, he's going to be there for about two or three days. he descends the steps. he goes to a reception, closed to the press although you never know when you're going to get a sound bite of some sort. ashley: you never know. stuart: from the president that will be at the brand new american embassy in london. that's the reception there. again, we may get some kind of statement from him as he arrives there, but you really can't tell , but if president trump sees a camera and a microphone, he will respond. ashley: [laughter] stuart: interesting enough. i'm sorry, whose that? >> that is woody johnson. stuart: ambassador to britain.

ashley: and very long time friend of donald trump and their sons are great friends too. stuart: it's a pleasant reception as he sets foot in england for the first time in some time. okay as we're watching the president arrive i want to bring in our next guest and i can't believe this. he wants congress to deal with trade. his name is tim phillips by the way that was the man on camera a moment ago, believe it or not he's with americans for prosperity. now this is very interesting mr. phillips. wait a second before you get your tencents worth in, i get mine in. you want congress to take charge of trade negotiations? congress couldn't get rid of obamacare, they couldn't legislate on immigration and you think somehow or other it's a great thing if we let congress take care of trade? >> we want prosperity, stuart. stuart: we've got it. >> you rightly point out on this show that the president's policies deserve a lot of credit for the economic prosperity, people's lives improving no question about that, but stu, you and i both know, that this

protectionism, these tariffs risk undermining the very prosperity that the president has worked very hard to help achieve in this country. that's what we're trying to stop here. stuart: but the negotiating tactic. they give us leverage, and they could be withdrawn. they are leverage for us to get our way in the world. we've not had our way so far. these huge trade agreements have worked against america's interests and now he's going to set the record straight, and you want to give this to congress? >> it's bad for the country, stuart, but its been good for the country and lowered consumer prices, trade agreements give americans on fixed income greater purchasing power because it lowers the cost of every day items we buy at wal-mart and target and the dollar general. stuart: yes and that's what gets us and there will be more trade and fewer tariffs if the president is allowed to use the leverage he's got. we saw that in the 1930s. stuart: it's temporary, really.

>> and they get rid of them in a couple of days? stuart: no he hasn't. no such thing. he has prop used to put america first and foremost, our interest first and foremost was to have trading partners, our rivals, china and the europeans, get their act together, and lower their tariffs. what's wrong with that? >> putting america first doesn't mean you raise prices on american consumers for the goods they need every day to make it, and it doesn't mean you hurt american businesses by making the products they need more expensive and shutting off foreign markets. that's not prosperity. stuart: close your eyes for just 30 seconds. >> all right stuart: try to imagine a trade negotiation involving the house of representatives, and united states senate. all those special interests, the farmers, the lawyers, the manufactures, the drug companies they all come piling in demanding their whatever it is, in the trade negotiation. it would be a total mess. a total shambles, and you know it. >> the president has to work

with congress. that's how the constitution works. i know maybe it's a little more convenient to say let's let one person do it. that guy is doing a great job on so many areas. i'm telling you on trade it's going to undermine this prosperity that you report on every day. it's going to hurt us. it's hurting american. protectionism is not tough on china or mexico. stuart: do you like what he's done with nato? he goes over there and says you better start paying more for your defense. and oh, here he comes we're going to watch out for mr. trump and they turn around and say yes we will speed up our increases. >> it's common sense to say that. stuart: he did it by exercising his power and his leverage. and that's what i want to see him do over trade too. >> he's hurting american consumers and businesses with his protectionism. you saw bmw come out in my home state the other day, south carolina and say you know, maybe we've got to move more production overseas. that's not helpful to american workers in south carolina. soybean farmers, i was in wisconsin, iowa a few days ago. they're hurting because of these

policies. stuart: why do you make the assumption that all of these sanctions and all of these tariffs will stay forever? why do you assume that? >> they're on right now. stuart: why do you assume they will always be there? >> the american families and businesses is not a good negotiating tool and do you really trust that government is going to be able to pick and even someone whose doing a good job in many areas of the economy , do you really trust they're going to sit in washington and look at a $20 trillion economy and go we're going to pick this particular industry. stuart: yes, i trust trump over and above congress. don't you? >> i trust him to be able to do a lot of things. he's doing a lot of things especially getting rid of regulation and red tape but i'm telling you this trade is miss guided and you know free-trade is better for americans than having the protection of the tariffs. stuart: your son is the guy who goes to campuses and exposed the nonsense on our college campuses today, and you're his father?

ashley: [laughter] stuart: that was definitely not fair. >> i take it back. >> we appreciate and respect the tax cuts and getting rid of the regulation and red tape and so much of this administration by the way congress played a role in those tax cuts and you and i were talking together during that entire battle. they did some good things on tax cuts and tax reform, right? do you agree with that? stuart: give my best to your son okay? >> you got it. stuart: you're okay. all right, now where are we now in terms of your money? as the president arrives in great britain the dow is up 200 points at the opening bell big gain for the s&p and same for the nasdac. wal-mart and here is an interesting story. wal-mart patenting new surveillance technology that lets them listen into their employee's conversations. they say that it makes the check out process more efficient but clearly some employees are worried about privacy. president trump, he held a big news conference right before he left brussels. he says he will confront putin about russian meddling in the

election. you'll hear what he has to say and the president arriving in the uk for the second leg of his european trip he's going to get a frosty reception in london. lots of protests planned including that baby trump balloon flying over the skies there. i say britain needs us, that's america, more than we, america need them. ashley: [laughter] stuart: i'll prove it to you after this. and now for the rings. (♪) i'm a four-year-old ring bearer with a bad habit of swallowing stuff. still won't eat my broccoli, though. and if you don't have the right overage, you could be paying for that pricey love band yourself. so get an allstate agent, and be better protected from mayhem. like me. can a ring bearer get a snack around here?

>> ♪ ♪ stuart: that was almost irresistible, yes england did almost have it all, but they lost in the semi-finals so they're out, so i've got to tell you, i'm going to cheer for croatia. ashley: absolutely to be honest they were a better team, they were terrific and we were supposed to make the quarter

finals all in all a great tournament to the uk, the french are a great team though but i'm pulling for the u.s. to be in the next world cup. liz: guess who picked croatia a month ago and they make fun of me all the time. >> [laughter] stuart: you picked croatia? liz: yes, i did ashley can attest to that. ashley: yes. stuart: tell me why fox did not make, [laughter] tell me why fox didn't make money broadcasting the world cup liz: no u.s. team. stuart: that's it. ashley: no italy too. liz: so the average was about a third fewer viewers down about 32% and telemundo lost about 2% too the spanish language rights so fox bid on the soccer rights back in 2011 so it's not translating to u.s. viewing if you don't have the home team. stuart: what a shame, because it really was a terrific world cup tournament. and i think it'll be really good if a very small company like, country rather, like croatia, wins it all. ashley: 4 million people in

croatia. stuart: i'd love to see it i'm cheering for them. liz: the other thing too was the times of the games were bad for the u.s.. stuart: that's true. okay, president trump landed in london, and you just saw it he's there for a four-day visit and he'll hold trade talks and with theresa may the prime minister. and now former aid to lady thatc her. like it or not, nile, in my opinion, the brits need us, america, more than we, america, need them. what do you say? >> yeah, well i think, you know the special relationship of course is important to both sides of the atlantic but in this age of brexit, britain needs big friends on the world stage and there's no bigger friend than the united states and i think that president trump is a big backer of brexit is going to be bringing with him a sense of hope and optimism actually at a time of increasing sort of gloom here in the uk not just over the football but also over the state of the brexit

negotiations and theresa may's very weak need checkers proposal last friday which prompted two cabinet resignations here in london and so i do think that president trump's visit is very very important not just symbolically but this is a man who really demonstrates a tremendous belief in the u.s. / uk special relationship a belief in sovereignty and self- determination which is what brexit is all about and he is the biggest friend that the united kingdom has today and i do think that britain needs friends like president trump. stuart: what do you think are the chances of a bilateral deal on trade? the u.s. and britain? in both country's interest. >> yes, absolutely. in fact the discussions between the u.s. and the uk for a bilateral free-trade agreement are already very advanced. there's a u.s. /uk working group , liam fox, the international trade here in london is doing a fantastic job working very closely with wilbur

ross, steven mnuchin and other key u.s. officials and as steven mnuchin said actually, the davos summit earlier this year, britain would be at the front of the queue for a u.s. /uk free-trade deal a slapdown for what president obama said here in london when he said britain would be at the back so there's tremendous political momentum on both sides and i think it would be a great deal that will advance further the tremendous economic relationship between the u.s. and the uk, the biggest and the fifth larn its economies in the world. stuart: a wonderful thing. nile, before you go real fast, what is it more dangerous to wear in london right now. a mega hat or a croatian jersey? >> [laughter] well that's a good question but you know i think that although this was a very sad defeat for england and the world cup but the reality is i think most english fans are rooting for koa asia against france, of course the old eternal enemy and i'll be rooting for croatia myself, as we said in the world cup final on sunday.

stuart: always a pleasure, nile. thanks for joining us. >> thanks very much stuart. stuart: next case, elon musk first builds a mini submarine to save the trapped boys in thailand and now he wants to solve flint, michigan's water crisis. we're on the story after this. ♪

a hotel can make or break a trip. and at expedia, we don't think you should be rushed into booking one. that's why we created expedia's add-on advantage. now after booking your flight, you unlock discounts on select hotels right until the day you leave. ♪ add-on advantage. discounted hotel rates when you add on to your trip. only when you book with expedia.

if you're approaching 65, now's the time to get your ducks in a row.

to learn about medicare, and the options you have. you see, medicare doesn't cover everything - only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so if 65 is around the corner, think about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. so don't wait. call to request your free decision guide. and gather the information now to help you choose a plan later. these types of plans let you pick any doctor or hospital that takes medicare patients. and there's a range of plans to choose from, depending on you needs and your budget. so if you're turning 65 soon, call now and get started. because the time to think about tomorrow...is today. go long.

stuart: tesla's musk, first built a submarine for the thai cave rescue that was never used and now he's taking on the flint , michigan water crisis what is he doing here? liz: well he's on twitter accepting twitter challenges. somebody said what about the flint water crisis and he said i will supply water filters help get water filters into those flint homes that are still facing led in their water. the question is, you know, he has put a high bar saying we will be cash flow positive for the third quarter. you know, profits are still a final frontier for tesla and he's also stepped into the puerto rico hurricane crisis so it's a distraction. stuart: he interferes, not interferes but he offers his help in thailand, in flint, michigan, in puerto rico. i think his company needs hip. ashley: well a major shareholder is saying stop going on this rants, focus what we want is peace and execution. which i think says it all. stuart: yeah, i mean -- liz: and the stock is up 40% from the low but that's because of his momentum due to his

promises, right? his pt barnum. stuart: he himself wants to be the focus of the news. he wants to be making to solve all the problems. ashley: now and in the future. liz: it feels good. it's a nice gesture, a lovely gesture but it's about tesla's bottom line right now and they're in the fight of their lives. they may need another capital raise even though he says he doesn't need one. stuart: you're right again and actually right now i believe he's in china isn't he? ashley: he is. stuart: building the factory in shanghai. got that. look at this, please when the opening bell rings and we start trading we'll be up 200 points for the dow jones industrial average. yesterday, at this time, we were down 200 points. had you bought that dip, today you'd be looking pretty good. we'll tell you how the market opens, after this. napoleon is duping us! all around louisiana...

you're a nincompoop! (phone ping) gentlemen, i have just received word! the louisiana purchase, is complete! instant purchase notifications from capital one. so you won't miss a purchase large, small, or very large. technology this helpful...could make history. what's in your wallet? [music playing] (ceo) the employee of the year, anna. . . audi will cover your first month's lease payment on select models during summer of audi sales event.

♪ stuart: we've got 40 seconds to go before we open this market. this is direct opposite what we were saying yesterday at precisely this time. we opened the show, wednesday morning, said we'll be down 200 points. down 200, right there at opening bell. this morning it's thursday. we'll be up 200 points. or thereabouts at the opening bell, about 15 seconds from now.

we'll talk a lot today about buying the dip. we've seen dips for individual stocks and certainly the whole market. [opening bell rings] the next day we bounce back again. you're looking at much better profits, expanding economy. 9:30 on thursday morning. we're up and running. up 102. up 113. up 139. up 140. there you have it, up 141 point. all the dow stocks opened higher. we're up almost 2/3 of a percent. let me check the s&p, sew what a broader indicator is doing. it is up half a percentage point, 13 point that is. how about the nasdaq? that intrigues me. ashley: how about the nasdaq? stuart: how about the nasdaq. technology doing pretty well. individual stocks. let me go through a couple of them. better profits at

delta air lines. they're squeezing in passengers. they're up 2.3%. i'm a little guy. ashley: when was last time you flew commercial? stuart: stop it. quiet on the set. quiet on the set. the singapore-based ship maker broadcom, wants to buy the company known as ca, formerly computer associatessed. broadcom is down 15% on that. ca is up 17%. this offer comes four months after president trump blocked broadcom's hostile bid for qualcomm. amazon right from the opening bell, hit another all-time high. they don't report their profits until two weeks from today. by the way, i'm just being told, microsoft has opened at an all-time high. look at everyone smile. joining us, elizabeth

macdonald. ashley webster, scott martin. welcome back kristina partsinevelos. the bounceback, we called it. time for a victory lap. are you taking a victory lap, scott martin? did you tell people buy the dip of yesterday, make some money? >> not just yesterday, stuart, but on other dips we talked about the year. this such ward trending market. improving economy. very good earnings situation. it is my opinion good pour rin policy pretty -- good foreign policy spread across the world. stuart: kristina partsinevelos, i will not ask you for a stock market forecast but look back and say would buying the dip make sense? >> of course. with apple going down. a lot of upside, markets going higher. a lot of economists at some of the talks i've been too lately, 2020, we're seeing a downward

trend. stuart: a long way away. >> of course. liz: watch the cautious outlook for the earnings season that hit caterpillar's stock, even though caterpillar every quarter 20 years it has been giving cautious outlook. stuart: overall, what i'm read something increase of 20% or thereabouts across the board for profits which is remarkable. liz: remarkable. ashley: that is huge. liz: to ashley's point, tech has been up part of s&p 500, up five straight quarters. >> pepsi, mentioned here you go, first one to come to q2, still trade not playing a big role. stuart: we'll take it. we have a story about a former apple engineer arrested on the way to china. he was charged with stealing apple's autonomous car. liz: details are shocking. he was a hardware engineer, seen on closed-circuit apple tv,

security cameras walking out with boxes, computer keyboard, taking engineering schematics, secret designs for what apple is doing with the robot cars. he claimed he was going back to china on paternity leave for family reasons. no, he was going to work for another company in china, same car, a car company in china. this is textbook example what china does, has been doing for years with engineers here on hb 1 visas, coming in, taking company secrets here in the united states and going to work for chinese companies. >> you would think he would be smarter. literally air dropped some of files on his wife's laptop. stuart: he was chairman, now he resigned after report, he used a racial slur on a conference call. deal with this quickly. liz: doing role playing to avoid racially charged mishaps in the

future. in conference call, colonel sanders called blacks the "n-word," but sanders never faced backlash. on the conference call people used to drag african-americans behind their trucks until they died. those are racially charged things he said, he since resigned as chairman of the board. the company lost $90 million in market value because of this. stuart: it bounced back. liz: he is still on the board, not chair. stuart: look at big board, five minutes in. we're up 160 points. we're now up 160, that is 2/3 of 1%. big tech is where the action usually is. action on the upside this morning. facebook at 204. amazon, 1768, all-time high. apple, 190. alphabet, 1179. microsoft reaching 103, up a buck. that is all-time high for microsoft i do believe. how about the price of oil? we keep saying it is near a four-year high.

it's not. $70 per barrel, down again after a big drop yesterday. how about the price of gas? the price of regular averages now $2.88 per gallon. left-hand side of your screen, that is marine one, carrying president trump of course. it has landed in london, after, that is bill shine by the way coming off the marine one right there. part of the staff that is with the president on his visit to london, britain, i should say, which has just begun. he landed at stanstead airport outside of london. ashley: that is the grounds of the u.s. ambassador's residents. ten-acres in regents park. plenty of spaces to lan your chopper as they say. >> he is heading to the palace later today. stuart: later on. reception first. no press allowed. we're not expecting much to come out. liz: what would be amazing president said a newbie lateral

deal with the uk, you will be at the front of the line, as opposed to what president obama said being back at the queue. ashley: that's right. stuart: i made mistake. the helicopter you saw is forward copter. the helicopter carrying our president is next one. ashley: marine ii. stuart: i mistook it for marine i. got it. staying on oil. $70 per barrel. why? because the saudis are raising production, and that has lowered cost of crude significantly. scott, would you still be in vesting in oil companies and pipeline companies with this decline we have now? >> pipelines, yes, stuart. we need infrastructure. we have thousands of wells ready to be pumped but we don't have pipelines to bring oil out of there. but i don't believe anything when it comes to the saudis and their predictions as far as comes to production on oil prices or what not, they have

totally blown those prediction out of the water. if you look at us, almp, that is etf we talked about on the show. 8% plus dividend. coming out of a three-year bear market. they're tapping thousands of wells ready to produce, i think amlp benefit. stuart: amlp, 8% that is very good news. here is a story we've been following, not many others have, disney placing a bet on esports. what's this all about? ashley: they will put money into it. commodititicss draws tremendous amount of interest, but viewers, they can sell out stadiums. staples center is sold out for gaming. talking about egaming at some point being in the olympics. stuart: stop. ashley: i kid you not? >> is that warranted? they're not physically moving.

maybe if you take esports, literally movements with "pokemon go," i can understand. ashley: get out of your seat. >> sitting there, i do not see that as olympic sport, do you? stuart: i agree with you. chess is not a sport. liz: bowling is. stuart: why are you laughing? why are you laughing? >> i played chess in high school. i thought that was a sport. i got a letter for it in high school. stuart: he got a letter for it. >> pretty much my argument. stuart: i'm totally lost. on your screen, electronic arts, up nearly 2 bucks. activation blizzard up 1.35%. esports is hot. they're filling stadiums. some of these youngsters who play on these teams, they make millions of dollars. >> there is huge list put out. stuart: gigantic stuff. >> no women. stuart: netflix, got to get to that please. ubs downgrading the stock, says

the good news is all priced in. the stock is down 3 bucks. what do you say to this, scott, there i think in chicago? that where you are? >> chi-town. we love netflix. we owned netflix for some time. a lot of haters try to enter into netflix to knock the price down only see it rise more. couple things going on with netflix. international growth is off the charts. don't forget, friend, raising prices on services subtly but people paying for them. original content they're delivering better than it has ever been. i love netflix. i think 500 is absolutely in the cards next few months. stuart: wow, recommendations from scott this morning, amlp, netflix, he says, it is going to 500 bucks a share. time's up, scott martin, kristina partsinevelos, thanks for joining us. got it. where are we? we opened up 100, now 150.

that is .6% gain. microsoft hit all-time high at opening bell. it may move jobs overseas because of our immigration policies. we'll explain that one. moments from now peter strzok will testify before congress. we've seen the opening statement. we'll have it at the top of the hour. he gets grilled over the anti-trump text messages he exchanged with his fbi lover. more "varney" after this. at fidelity, our online u.s. equity trades are just $4.95. so no matter what you trade, or where you trade, you'll only pay $4.95. fidelity. open an account today.

you'll only pay $4.95. with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com the nation's largest senior-living referral service. for the past five years, i've spoken with hundreds of families and visited senior-care communities around the country. and i've got to tell you, today's senior-living communities are better than ever. these days, there are amazing amenities, like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools,

public cafes, bars, and bistros, even pet-care services. and nobody understands your options like the advisers at a place for mom. these are local, expert advisers that will partner with you to find the perfect place and determine the right level of care, whether that's just a helping hand or full-time memory care. best of all, it's a free service. there is never any cost to you. senior living has never been better, and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. call today. a place for mom -- you know your family, we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. stuart: been open almost 15 minutes. 134 points, up one half of 1%. macy's in the news, hackers accessed customer credit card information. tell me about it, nicole.

>> macy's owns bloomingdale's. period of two months where your information of your card was taken of customer profiles. they have blocked certain accounts. you should get an email of of course they are saying you should remain vigilant. shouldn't we all remain vigilant all the time. here is what hackers did not get, the cvv numbers appear on the back of the cards or social security numbers. no word how many names and people were breached. it was during a period of april 26th to june 12th. i always said, cash is king. i never been a fan of e payments and cards but you can't live any other way. even landlords want epayments now. now another cybersecurity breach. stuart: oh, the modern era. >> i know. i know. stuart: thanks, nicole. look at microsoft! i do own a thin sliver of that company, very slim. what is this, emac, moving jobs overseas because of immigration?

liz: brad smith, he is the president, saying two things at risk could force us to lose hundreds of our workers, two programs are this. the spouses of h1b visas i think that is how you take it, they can not take on paid work. trump administration looking to do that to tighten those restrictions there. also tighten requirements for foreign students who are sent here to get work visas. microsoft says you know what, if these come down, we may need to move jobs overseas. not saying they will now, but just saying they may. stuart: all right. stock's up. record high, 103 for microsoft. just minutes from now the anti-trump fbi agent peter strzok will be getting grilled on capitol hill. fox news contributor charlie hurt, "washington times" opinion editor is with us now. charlie, what do you think, at the end of this day, what will this testimony add to our knowledge of what went on in the investigations? >> hopefully he will answer some of the questions about what he

meant when he vowed to stop president trump and what he meant when he talked about the needing an insurance policy just in case trump did get elected, even though he assured his lover that, trump would never possibly get elected. those are the questions that i'm going to be most interested in getting answers to. because based on the written testimony and based on what we've heard so far, it doesn't sound very likely we'll actually get straight answers to those questions. stuart: i'm more interested in when did the investigation ever the trump campaign start? why did it start? why intelligence tools did they use? who were the informants? what kind of discussions took place at fbi headquarters about investigating a presidential campaign? i don't think they will be answering those questions today, but i want them answered. >> what is even more alarming about that is, you're right, those are far more important questions. those are questions that the fbi

itself ought to be answering. stuart: yeah. >> the fbi, the people still gainfully employed at the fbi at the highest levels should be answering those questions and they're not and i think it's so interesting that peter strzok, you know, even today, is still blaming congress for doing its constitutional responsety of oversight. he is blaming them for tearing america apart when actually they're doing their job. they're doing what they are supposed to be doing. what is really terrifying here, even, put strzok aside, the top levels of the fbi, they're still blowing off congress, they're still saying somehow this is all congress' fault, congress is doing what it is supposed to be doing. stuart: charles, you probably can't see it, on left-hand side of the screen, we have video of peter strzok arriving in the testimony room, this was moments ago. by the way, charlie, as you know, president trump meets russia's president vladmir putin, comes up monday next

week. the president says election meddling will be on the agenda. listen to what the president had to say . >> our allies and our ad very says are overseas -- adversaries overseas. he is not afraid to confront people. no doubt he will confront putin forcefully as he likes to

confront our allies. stuart: that is the understatement of the decade. took a confrontation. my goodness me. i wouldn't want to be on receiving end of a trump barrage so to speak. >> you really wouldn't. we count want to be. stuart: charlie, thanks for joining us, sir. see you real soon. check out the big board. come back down a little bit. we were up 200. now we're up 120 points. that is half a percentage point. now this, a happily-married couple considering getting a divorce. why? they want to qualify for medicare so they can afford treatments for their sick daughter. we have the story for you after this. touch shows how we really feel. but does psoriasis ever get in the way?

embrace the chance of 100% clear skin with taltz. up to 90% of those with moderate to severe psoriasis had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. most people were still clearer after one year. with taltz, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. ready for a chance at 100% clear skin? ask your doctor about taltz. when you combine ancestry's with its historical records... you could learn you're from ireland donegal, ireland and your ancestor was a fisherman. with blue eyes. just like you. begin your journey at ancestry.com at crowne plaza, we know business travel isn't just business. there's this.

a bit of this. why not? your hotel should make it easy to do all the things you do. which is what we do. crowne plaza. we're all business, mostly.

stuart: we were up 200, that was 20 minutes ago. now we're up 137. all-time highs for amazon and for microsoft. amazon at 1768. microsoft reached $103 per share. switches gears, a couple happily married, considers divorce in order to qualify for medicaid. if they do that, they better qualify for aid for their very sick, six-year-old daughter.

dr. marc siegel, how did this happen? >> this is hard rent everying story. the father, mr. gray, makes $40,000 a year. he is hard-working. falls into a gap where he doesn't qualify for medicaid for the family, just above where he would qualify. the child has a genetic condition, stuart, which is actually somewhat treatable. she may end up with some social skills and some quality of life. it is not one of those situations where there is no quality of life. they ned a lot of care. with his health insurance he has to pay $15,000 out-of-pocket. he is saying let's get divorced, even though they love each other. she qualifies for medicaid. that is tragic story. one of those gaps. stuart: i can understand why a man would do that. why a couple would do that. because, your first priority is getting treatment for your very sick daughter, who is 6 years old. you would move heaven and earth to get the treatment that little girl needs.

i would. i would do it. >> a, i agree with you. b, this points out how medicaid has some resources across the board. it is not just medicaid. we're busy paying for some things with our government sponsored insurance that a child like this ends up getting neglected, falls into the gap. this kid needs the care. it has to be provided by the government. stuart: there is no easy answer. the drugs required by the 6-year-old are very, very expensive. >> and the care. stuart: that's right. >> the 6-year-old has flaccid muscles, has growth problems. hasn't lex wall development problems but again has social skills. there is quality of life. could have heart and bladder problems. there is a lost meld care. stuart: what would be your solution, if a solution exists, what is it? >> a, i would like health insurance to be geared more towards specific patient, in this case the child, instead of one size fits all under

obamacare. b, i would like medicaid to cover a situation like this, which it does in expansion states, texas not being one of them. if we go to medicaid expansion across the board, i like work requirements for able-bodied people we're seeing from the administrator. that i like a lot. medicaid would expansion would cover this. i would like the work requirements for able-bodied people. stuart: what a situation. >> my heart goes out to the family. you have to get a divorce being happy over this? stuart: that is the administrative way of doing it. >> that is the government. stuart: doc siegel, you're all right. moments from now the fbi agent at center of the russia and clinton investigations will testify before congress. here is the question. where would peter strzok be if hillary had won? i'll deal with that in my take after this.

the center of the clinton and russia investigations. the question will be centered on his political bias which was revealed on his text to fbi lover, lisa page. put the texts aside for just one moment. agent strzok has the answers to far more important questions. why was the russia probe started in the first place? what solid evidence did the fbi had that suggested candidate trump had colluded to rig the election? what intelligence tools did the fbi use? who were the informants? was the legal basis for a presidential campaign? what ethical discussions took place within the fbi about spying on a presidential campaign? did president obama know what was going on? by the way, where are the pro-trump texts? we've been flooded with hate trump messages.

did anyone suggest he got a fair shake? there was a growing belief obama supporters protected hillary and deliberately undermined and destabilized the trump presidency. people are losing faith in the political honesty of their government. we need the truth. i'll close with the text that the dominate today's hearing, august 2016. lisa page, trump's not going to become president, right? right? >> peter strzok, no, no, he won't. we will stop it. if hillary had won, we would never have seen that text. if hillary had won, peter strzok would be king of the hill. but hillary lost and peter strzok is on the stand. second hour of "varney & co." is about to begin. now, we do know what

peter strzok is about to say in his opening statement and ash has it. >> we do. a, regret it all happened and perhaps an excuse. anyway, let's take a look at exactly some of the statements we've gotten ahead of time. let's begin. i testify today with significant regret recognizing that my texts have created confusion and caused pain for people i love. certain private messages of mine have provided ammunition for misguided attacks, he says, against the fbi. he says as an institution i love deeply and served proudly for more than 20 years. he goes onto say -- but then he goes onto say --

he also says that he was aware that there were suggestions there were russian interference. he said if i really wanted to derail donald trump, i would have leaked those, and i never did. >> the key point is, though, he says he did not take action based on his personal antipathy. >> that's his line today. >> quick, to ashley's point. here's what he said. he's going to have to answer questions, i have a sense of unfinished business, i was unleashed by the clinton e-mail case. we need to fix it. they need to stop trump and got excited calling the russia probe an investigation leading to impeachment. that was within three days of the russia-mueller probe being announced and before he joined that team. that's the lay of the land he has to answer to. stuart: we're going to bring

you the highlights what's going on in the testimonial room right there. when they get started, you will be hearing exactly what's being said. meanwhile, it's thursday, 10:00 eastern time. that means it's time to tell you the latest on mortgage rates. >> 30-year fixed, 4.53. slight uptick from 4.52 last week. higher than the 4% rate a year ago. home sales treading water because the median price is at an all-time high of $264,000. stuart: let's not repeat it. >> repeat what? stuart: back in my day, i bought my first house with a 12.5% mortgage rate. >> a steal. 16%. maybe it was my credit rating. i don't know. >> i say you should have waited. stuart: before peter strzok gets started. dow industrials are up 167 points as we speak. now check the big tech names. more action there. we've heard this so many times before.

we've got amazon at an all-time high. one analyst boosted his or her target price for amazon, they think it's going to go to $2,000 a share. previously they thought 1800. 2,000 now. microsoft hit an all-time high. microsoft and apple are the two biggest gainers of all the dow 30 stocks. cat pillar and boeing, bouncing back. sell-off yesterday because of fears of trade. bounce back today. buying the dip, sometimes makes economic sense. netflix on the downside. a downgrade from ubs. keep in mind, a downgrade from buy to neutral. it wasn't a downgrade all the way to sell. netflix is down five bucks 4, $12 a share. oil back to $70 a barrel as we speak. saudi arabia raising production and that is lowering the cost of crude. it had been at a four-year

high. now back to 70 bucks per barrel. stocks bouncing back after the sell-off. market watcher gary kaltbaum is with us this morning it. occurs to me, gary, that the whole strategy of buying each and every trade-related dip makes you money. would you do that? would you tell our viewers buy the next dip on trade? >> negatory. we have to wait two months from now, if we put into the $200 billion of tariffs, that will respect the areas. on a daily basis, i see boeing up 7, down 7, up 7, not easy to play the areas. i'm staying away from them right now. stuart: you're talking about traders, and i don't know whether you're a trader or not but most of our viewers not traders. they buy a stock and hold for a significant period of time. >> right. stuart: the big earnings reports coming up starting tomorrow with the banks, going

on for a couple of weeks. expected to be very, very good. we're going to get a report showing economic growth rate pretty close to 4%. so for our viewers, would you say buy some stock now because we're probably going to go up through the summer. what do you say? >> i have the same stance i've had for five months. half the market is bullish. the other half of market you avoid, and i can tell you very simply, the nasdaq, the nasdaq 100, big cap and mid cap technology stock area is just on fire. and i actually think it's going to continue. big money continues to roll in, you see it again today, whether it be in amazon or netflix or facebook or things like that. that's where the money is flowing. i would continue to void emerging markets, many other countries, industrials are acting poorly. even the financials are comatose because of the spreads between the two-year and the ten-year. that doesn't help at all as far

as their lending. definitively a split tape. stick with nasdaq and nasdaq 100 for now. stuart: got it, gary kaltbaum. thank you very much, sir. let's go to capitol hill, peter strzok, the fbi agent at the center of the russia investigation. he's facing questions from congress today. hearing is about to get gavelled to order. joining us former assistant fbi director in new york william gavin. many have lost confidence in the objectivity of the fbi. will today's hearing restore any confidence in that objectivity? >> stuart, i really believe that, perhaps, as people drop back and look at what the fbi has done recently, just recently, that is the terrorists they've stopped in this country, the thousands of children they've rescued from sexual abuse, the ms-13 gangs, the thousands of numbers they helped put in jail. i think that projects the best

picture of the bureau. stuart: of course it does, it does, it does, no question about it. but peter strzok is on the stand today and he's not talking about rescuing children. he's talking about whether or not there was a cabal within the fbi and the justice department which protected hillary and undermined president trump. we want some answers on this. >> there's no doubt that you absolutely right. i think that mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa that peter strzok is going to try and fool and babble the american public with today is absurd. the one part i disagree with is that he made -- his political opinions didn't enter into the decision-making process. i think that's nonsense. this man has broken the promise of the fbi to we, the people, and he has to be held accountable for it, and it's

not just peter strzok, we have to look beneath that as well. but this is a horrible set of circumstances, and he has to answer for what he has done. this nonsense that he's going to try to tell everybody, i have deep regret. stop it. you wouldn't have done it in the beginning if you thought you were going to regret it or you thought you were going to be found out. that's what's so pathetic about his lame excuse. stuart: sir, i have enormous respect for the fbi, i suspect the morale within the fbi is really on the downside to put it mildly because of what happened during the election two years ago. how is morale standing? how can you get it back? >> you know, i still have contact with a lot of the people within the fbi. morale is what it is. they're walking beyond this. they fully understand the taint that strzok, mccabe, page and comey put on this fbi. the horrible thing that happened, all happened at the

top of the group of people that comey stuck up for. he has backed away from the whole thing. i didn't know they were writing the notes and what not. you know what? he's the captain of the ship, he should have known what was going on. he made the fatal mistake when he made the prosecutive opinion as the head of investigative agency way back when he excused hillary clinton of her wrongdoing. this is where this whole thing started. stuart, there is no excuse, but i think the fine people, the 99.9% of the fine men and women of the fbi in there every single day doing what the american public expect of them. and while they're not embarrassed, they wished this didn't happen. they have as much respect for the rule of law as they've always had, and they'll go on with that. stuart: bill gavin, thank you for joining us sir, and thank you for your service all those years in the fbi. bill, you are all right. >> my pleasure. stuart: coming up, we're on the peter strzok hearing.

it's about to start on capitol hill. the real drama will start when the q&a gets under way. we'll bring you the fireworks if and when they occur. president trump came out swinging at nato telling germany we are protecting you from the russians but you send billions of dollars to the russians for energy. i think he's got a point. former shell oil president with us later this hour on that subject. england will not be going to the world cup final, but i will root for croatia. see who brian kilmeade is rooting for? you're watching the second hour of "varney & co." and now for the rings... i'm a four-year-old ring bearer with a bad habit of swallowing stuff. and if you don't have the right coverage, you could be paying for that pricey love band yourself. so get an allstate agent, and be better protected from mayhem. like me. ♪ you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage,

booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia.

. stuart: the peter strzok hearing is about to part. we're going to cover it, of course. real drama starts when the q&a gets under way. we're expecting a few fireworks, maybe. we'll bring it to you, of course. check the big board, here's

how your money is doing thursday morning. pretty good. up 150 points for the dow industrials. delta, the airline doing fairly well, better profits there. the stock is up only 40 odd cents at $50 a share. papa johns, founder resigning as chairman after a report he used a racial slur on a conference call. what a bounce back there. the founder goes and the stock bounces back by 11%. got it. retailers, they're calling the president's latest $200 billion worth of possible tariffs on china products. they call it reckless. the retailer say it will hurt families, hurt workers and here is the quote from the national retail federation. the threat to the u.s. economy is less about a question of if, and more about when and how bad? joining us now is the national retail federation president, his name is matt shay. used to coming on the program and taking a victory lap because he wins everything in

washington. i'm going to take issue with you. you're assuming there is a negative effect on the american economy if these tariffs are imposed and if they stick. there's no reason to assume that. these tariffs are a threat from our president. they are leverage from our present to do a trade deal in the long run. go ahead, take me on. >> stuart, i'd like to agree with you, our job is to assume the worst. in this case, we've got to assume the tariffs are not just negotiating for they're going to take effect. history tells you, you go back to president obama and tires, president bush and steel, president nixon and oil, all the way back to smoot holly and you know history that tariffs don't work and never worked. i'm glad you are very confident, you know more than we do these are just a negotiating tool. stuart: i don't know any more than you do but you read what's going on, and i don't think you've got any reason to assume

that the tariffs will all be imposed and they will stay forever. you can't assume that. it's a negotiating tactic. >> i'd like to believe it. i'd like to believe it. but i've got to go along with speaker ryan and chairman hatch and chairman brady and senator flake and senator corker and the 88 members of the senate who yesterday voted to insert themselves into debate, make sure congress has a say. stuart: matt, that's the last thing you want. they couldn't get rid of obamacare, and you want to put them in charge of complicated trade negotiations? >> and stuart, we spent an entire year talking about the benefits of tax reform last year. tax reform encouraged investment, encouraged consumption, made us competitive, it helped working class families, and tariffs will discourage consumption, discourage investment. they'll hurt american families. they're the wrong way to go. we've got to assume the worst and ensure that the president

and the administration understand the risk. stuart: when you're doing a trade negotiation, you want somebody who is taking in the national interest. america's national interest. and that's president trump. you turn this over to congress and you're introducing all kinds of special interests into the mix, who all want to grind their ax. it would take years and years and years to get anything out of this congress. you know it. >> my support for what happened in the congress yesterday and our support for this measure is simply to demonstrate the level of concern. i'm not suggesting we want congress negotiating trade deals, i agree with you on that. it does not make sense, however, to threaten the economy with the tariffs, and you see what's happening. the volatility in the market is up today but down yesterday. people are focused on corporate earnings right now. a very tight labor market, we're in an inflationary environment already with the tax cuts, if you dump tariffs on top of, that american

families pay the price. that's the wrong way to go. we ought to focus on the things that work. bring the chinese to the table. bring our nafta partners and eu partners if you think that's a way to get to the table, that's fine. let's stop fooling warned tariff talks. stuart: i believe they are at the table with china -- >> are they? stuart: with europe. yes! they are talking about this. >> i don't think we should let our frustration or animus with the chinese blind us to the negative consequences of tariffs. american families are going to pay the price. that's why vice president pence is in the heartland trying to make sure everyone understands we're going to take care of you. i hope he's right. people are concerned about this. i know our members are very concerned. stuart: i know you are. and you're a fine special interest representative. that's not a pejorative. >> i wish i could agree with you, we'd both be wrong. i can't do that. stuart: thank you, matt, appreciate it. >> stuart, thanks.

we're taking care of the peter strzok hearing which is now happening on capitol hill. chairman goodlatte is speaking at this moment. i believe he's opening, offering his opening statement we're waiting for the q&a. when that happens, you might get some fireworks, that's where the interest is, and that's what we will bring you. copd makes it hard to breathe. so to breathe better, i go with anoro. ♪ go your own way copd tries to say, "go this way." i say, "i'll go my own way, with anoro." ♪ go your own way once-daily anoro

contains two medicines called bronchodilators that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. anoro is not for asthma. it contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. the risk is unknown in copd. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder, or urinary problems. these may worsen with anoro. call your doctor if you have worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain while taking anoro. ask your doctor about anoro. ♪ go your own way get your first prescription free at anoro.com.

get your first streaming "must see tv" lhas never been easier. paying for things is a breeze. and getting into new places is even simpler. with xfinity mobile saving money is effortless too.

it's the only network that combines america's largest most reliable 4g lte with the most wifi hotspots and it can be included with xfinity internet. which could save you hundreds of dollars a year. it's a new kind of network designed to save you money. click, call or visit a store today. . stuart: stocks up, gold up three bucks, $1247 per ounce. president trump is now in britain, so is blake burman reporting live for us from

london. tell us, blake, what is the president's schedule for today? reporter: hey there, stuart, president trump will be in the uk for the next four days. first official events begin this afternoon, he'll be here friday, saturday and sunday before he leaves for finland. the president set to head to a gala, a dinner with the british prime minister theresa may. those two will meet tomorrow as well at checkers, there will be a press availability we're told. still uncertain if that is a full-blown press conference type of event like we saw earlier today in brussels. then after that, the president and first lady will head to windsor castle. there, they will sit down and meet with the queen. saturday he heads to scotland for down time, possibly golf at one of his golf courses there, turn bury, and the president will depart for finland sunday, meets with vladimir putin.

the president will not be specifically in this area, in the middle of it all, in the city center. there are expected to be massive protests beginning tomorrow. piccadilly street, i'm sure you are familiar with next to kensington palace, that is going to be shut down -- buckingham palace on the other side of me. streets closed down, they're going to keep the president away from the scene and he will have the official event. stuart: and i will guarantee that you will not be wearing a maga hat in central london any time soon. watch out for the american accent, too. >> we have security. stuart: back to you later. all right, england breaking my -- didn't break my heart, a little disappointing. they're out of the world cup. i'm going to root for croatia, the team that beat them. i'm rooting for them in the final on sunday. brian kilmeade is coming up on the show, see who he's going to

support? he's next. nah. not gonna happen.

that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] hmm. the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do.

a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind. call for a free kohler nightlight toilet seat with consultation, or visit kohlerwalkinbath.com for more info. when it comes to travel, i sweat the details. late checkout... ...down-alternative pillows... ...and of course, price. tripadvisor helps you book a... ...hotel without breaking a sweat. because we now instantly... ...search over 200 booking sites ...to find you the lowest price... ...on the hotel you want. don't sweat your booking. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices. yes or no? do you want the same tools and seamless experience across web and tablet? do you want $4.95 commissions for stocks, $0.50 options contracts? $1.50 futures contracts? what about a dedicated service team of trading specialists? did you say yes?

good, then it's time for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. looks like we have a couple seconds left. let's do some card twirling twirling cards e*trade. the original place to invest online. . stuart: now we're back up 200 points higher. big tech, where is it this morning? the radio listeners i'll read it. facebook at 205. amazon, 1779. apple 190. alphabet, 1189 and microsoft,

103.46. amazon and microsoft, record highs. to politics, very high ranking democrat linda sanchez wants to overhaul the leadership. speaking to reporters, she said this -- . joining us now, fox news contributor, karl rove. linda sanchez is objecting to the age of democratic leadership, nancy pelosi, et cetera. but i'm not aware of younger second tier talent. i don't know those names, do you. >> she's the youngest member of the democratic leadership. she's made in the beginning of the last congressional session opening moves to try and climb up the ladder, so to speak, and put herself on the wrong side of nancy pelosi before, and been isolated. so congresswoman sanchez is

talking about herself as well as others, and hoping that something will happen in january, win or lose, that causes the people above her in the chain to move aside and let her move up. stuart: in the democrat leadership, is it age or policy that the younger people object to, and are the younger people trying to drag the party further to the left? i realize you're a republican but commenting on the democrats, so go, have at it. >> look, really good question. first of all, remember the democrats operate more on seniority than do the republicans, for example, the republicans limit the number of years that you can be the committee, a committee chair, and that causes a lot more turnover as a result of that. we've got a number of republican committee chairs retiring this year. why? because they've been committee chairs and unlikely to be a committee chair again. lamar smith, a friend of mine from texas, the chairman of three committees. not likely to get a fourth. he's retiring.

democrats don't have the rules. on most committees in the house, the ranking democrat member is older than the republican chairman of the committee. your question was about the democrats. inside the democrats there are two groups. a group of let's call them midwesterners who say in order to win and maintain control of the house, we have to be able to fit the districts, that means we need to tolerate people who have different views on guns and abortion who who might be more moderate. others say the problem with the democratic leadership is too old and not far enough left, the resistance faction, it's going to be interesting to see after the election what happens among democrats? what's the mix of new members following people like tim ryan and seth molten in the former group. make certain we represent our districts and have a more diverse democratic party and those who represent sort of the left wing of the party, gaining victories in recent primaries;

namely, the one in new york where the third ranking democrat in the house or fourth ranking democrat in the house was knocked off, congressman crowley, in the democratic primary there. stuart: my bet is if the democrats do not retake the house, there will be a full-scale mass movement to the left. >> absolutely. absolutely. absolutely. stuart: real fast, brett kavanaugh, i associate -- i think of him as an establishment republican. forgive me for saying that, that's the way i look at the man, and i think you are a republican, an establishment republican. i'm not being pejorative here -- >> yes, you are, yes, you are, yes, you are. brett kavanaugh is a strong conservative. he's a friend of mine. we worked together in the white house. i have enormous respect for his intellectual abilities and record on the court is one of strong, proper, appropriate conservative judicial decisions limiting the power of the judiciary and expanding the

power of elected representatives. i think he'll be a marvelous justice. stuart: are you taking issue with me because i said that maybe you're an establishment republican? >> i have no idea what an establishment republican is, with all due respect. i think it is a pejorative term tossed out by people not in the leadership to castigate those who are in the leadership. and i'm a fox news contributor, "wall street journal" columnist and an activist, a volunteer activist with a super pac. how i ended up being, quote, an establishment republican is beyond me. i join you in pulling for croatia mainly because they beat the russians and not because they beat the three lines. i was hopeful england would make it. i'm going to be with croatia when they face the vive lefrance. stuart: how can i possibly support the french in a battle of any kind.

i support croatia because i love to see the small nation of four million people win it all. karl, i'm sorry i said anything about the establishment republicans, i take it all back. you're all right. see you soon. >> thank you, stuart. stuart: joining us now on the radio, brian kilmeade. brian, welcome to the show. before you say anything, let me start, croatia beat england, croatia plays france in the final. i'm rooting for croatia. why? because i'd love to see a small country win it all, and b, they were the better team yesterday. what say you? >> not in the first half. england brought the lead early, and after they got the goal, croatia was like a new team. they had a series of things happen, you thought they were going to get another goal. england tightened it up. this team played three straight overtime games, this is the scene england is going to

overtake them but they didn't. i want to see england get there. you invented the sport. you haven't been there since 1966. you were then just breaking into fox news -- [laughter] >> and wanted to see you get to the finals and see france and england like the old days when you had the 100 years war, this time it would be double overtime game. it's not going to happen. but france comes in favored. i say they win 2-0. stuart: you said france wins 2-0. i'm not going to be stupid and try to make some kind of forecast. but watch out. it could be a very, very good game. and watch mbappe who looks like he's the next pele. i say this is the best world cup. how about you? >> the problem with the world cup, it's on when i'm working, and we're on the air when this is on. you got two games happening, catching one in the afternoon, the other thing that happens in the afternoon.

we're adults and we have things to do in the afternoon. that's my problem. i wish they would have made it 7:00 eastern time, i could have seen more. one thing i loved about it, the russians get to the quarters. that goes to show you that the americans, if they get their act together, russia was 70th in the world, we could get there. got to get hot with the right keeper. the one thing about americans. we can use our hands. [ laughter ] >> that was a good one-liner, brian. before you leave us -- >> i'm leaving? i just got here! [laughter]. stuart: i'm hot under the collar about this. our embassy, america's embassy in london put out that warning saying our citizens, americans who happening to over there should keep a low profile. i think that is a flat-out insult to america. what do you say? >> no question. but is it accurate? should they? if you're a husband and wife walking down the street in london, should you not wear your american flag shirt? you tell me.

you walk down the streets, someone going to take a swing at you, if you wore a donald trump hat. actually that could happen in new york city. i think what the president said that was so interesting, he said, yeah, i think the people of england like me, especially the rural people, the people outside the major cities, much like in america. when it comes to immigration, they see eye-to-eye the way italy, hungary, austria, now germany and france do about their borders. so we think that maybe the president kind of led the way there. stuart: what do you think is more dangerous to wear in london right now? a maga hat or a croatian jersey? >> i don't think there's any question, a maga hat. i think the cities have a problem with trump. you know what? he doesn't care. he's got his own golf club to go to where he gets a tee time because his name is donald trump and it's on the driveway. he doesn't care, he's going to go to scotland, hang out for two days and go to helsinki

because it's time to meet vladimir putin. after having just a normal, ho-hum meeting in brussels with nato. not much going on with this president. stuart: do you play golf, brian? >> no, i've been asked not to. [ laughter ] >> i was going to ask you what, other than your game, what's your handicap. it doesn't really matter. kilmeade, see you soon, thank you very much, sir? >> i thought we were on the first name basis, i'll take the last name. >> a very sensitive guy. very sensitive. dow is up 177 points. very strong gain today. complete reversal from yesterday. 24,8 is where we are. president trump called out russia and germany on twitter. here it is, what good is nato if germany is paying russia billions of dollars for gas and energy? why are there only 5 out of 29

countries that met their commitment? the u.s. is paying for europe's protection then loses billions on trade. must pay 2% of gdp immediately, not by 2025. joining us shell oil president john hofmeister. john, i got to tell you that since the president tweeted that, he's now saying, and the nato members are saying they're going to speed up their contributions for defense in nato. if looks to me like president trump kind of won a battle there. what do you say? >> i think he did. i think it's about time that the nato members pay their own way, and i admire the president for having stood up to them and said this is a minimum must do. and at the same time, i think nato is important for the purpose of keeping the europeans in a row. that's been a long battle to keep the europeans in a row. stuart: i just like to see our

president take a strong, firm line, especially with germany. they don't defend themselves, they don't spend much money on their own defense. they do a lot of trade with russia. give russia billions for energy and they have a huge trade surplus with us. it seems like we've been on the losing end of the deal with germany for a long, long time. this is the first president who's going to do something about it. am i being too strong here? >> well, you're talking to somebody whose name is hofmeister. i have a little german heritage in me. at the same time, i think that germany has had a very good ride over the last, say, 30, 40 years, in terms of playing both sides against the middle, in other words, germany is in the middle, taking care of germany. they play russia, play the u.s., they come out ahead and they're very good at it. if you've done business with the german companies, they're good at it, too. they know how to play the game

extremely well. my hat's off to the german business model because it works and works for the germans very well. stuart: oil is your area. tell me about opec and the saudis. as i understand it, the saudis have just opened up the spigots again, pump 4,000 barrels a day extra. look at that. the price of oil is back to 69 bucks a barrel. saudis have real influence, don't they? >> they do, it's temporary. global demand will continue to increase, it may increase 1.5% per year. stuart: that's huge. that's big, john, that's huge. >> that's right. that's a million and a half barrels a day. and the decline rate of so many opec countries means that the saudis are going to try to hold it together for opec. but they're not going to be able to, stuart. so they may do 500,000 extra today, a year from now, two years from now, held back on investments just like every

other major oil company during the 2014, 2015 period. while they have been able to rush half a million barrels forward, i don't see them rush anything more than that, any time soon. stuart: if you're right and demand for oil goes up 1.5% per year in the next few years, that is a very strong indicator of a very strong global economy. that's what you're really saying here. >> that's right, and i'm very grateful for the kind of economic leadership that we're seeing from a multiple of countries, including the united states, because that's what takes us out of poverty. that's what brings prosperity to more than just the well to do, and isn't that the end game for most nations to try to do that, and oil will remain the center of economic capability and economic development for decades to come. stuart: well said, john, john hofmeister, former president of

shell. we appreciate you being with us. okay. we're still obviously following the peter strzok hearing on capitol hill. at the moment, you've got opening statements from i think four ranking -- elijah cummings is speaking at the moment. he's the last one. >> robert goodlatte, the house judiciary chair, tough words, he said the following to colleagues across the aisle on the democrat side. imagine if you were under investigation, put yourself in trump's seat. imagine if candidate obama or hillary clinton faced words from an fbi agent who is supposed to be about fidelity, integrity and bravery. imagine the investigator hated you, disparaged you in manner and ways, other workers on your case who hated you, denigrated your supporters and made crucial decisions on your case and said to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, imagine if you were the target of these comments.

f trump, trump is a disaster. just went to a virginia walmart, i could smell the trump support. we'll stop, it meaning his candidacy for the presidency. he's asking them is this what the fbi should be about? put yourself in trump's shoes. that's what he's saying, very sharp edge. a withering opening statement from the house judiciary chair, bob goodlatte. stuart: on the other side of the coin, the democrats on the committee now make their opening statements, elijah cummings is saying robert mueller secured five guilty pleas, that's an argument in favor for the democrats that there was something going in the trump campaign. >> yeah. stuart: and i think another democrat was talking about how it was really just a conspiracy theory, cooked up by someone. a conspiracy theory. >> all right, so yes, he's gotten the muller activities are separate from the bias problem. listen, what happens with an fbi official is they put their lives on the line. they sacrifice a lot in service of this country. the problem is it tips over, they become, and i talked to a

lot of fbi agents about it. don't like seeing other agents. they feel they are law unto themselves, that's when the bias comes in. that's the problem when they let emotions get in the way of what should be objective position of the federal law enforcement officer. stuart: can you imagine if hillary clinton had won the election? >> we wouldn't have known any of this, would we? it would have been buried. interesting, apparently there was trump campaign aides in the hearing with signs saying guilty. stuart: really? >> yep. stuart: wait, they were trump campaign aides. >> in this hearing, holding signs that say guilty. stuart: who's guilty? >> strzok. stuart: strzok was guilty. >> waiting to hear from peter strzok. stuart: that's unusual, you don't hear of interference or eruption of hearings from the right. almost always the left. >> and some members say we want those out and apparently chairman goodlatte said no.

>> i'm not sure on other side of the aisle. stuart: wait a second. peter strzok, let's take it please. >> so help you god. thank you, let the record show the witness answered in the affirmative. mr. peter strzok is a deputy assistant director of the human resources division of the fbi. mr. strzok has worked at the fbi for approximately 22 years, prior to his current assignment, he was a deputy assistant director in the counterintelligence division. it was his assignment in that division that brings him before the committees today as we continue our investigation. you're written statement will be enter into the record in its entirety and ask you summarize your testimony in five minutes to help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on the table and the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red, five minutes have expired. mr. strzok, you may begin.

>> chairman goodlatte and gowdy, ranking members nadler and cummings. thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committees again, this time in an open hearing. i testify today with significant regret, recognizing that my texts have created confusion and caused pain for people i love. certain private messages of mine provided ammunition for misguided attacks against the fbi, an institution they love deeply and have served proudly for over 20 years. i'm eager to answer your questions, but let me first address this much-discussed texts. like many people, i had an expressed personal political opinions during an extraordinary presidential election. many contained expressions of concern for the security of our country. opinions that were not always expressed in terms i'm proud of. but having worked in national security for two decades and proudly served in the u.s. army, those opinions were

expressed out of deep patriotism and an unyielding belief in our great american democracy. at times, my criticism was blunt, but despite how it's been characterized, it was not limited to one person or to one party. i criticized various countries and politicians, including secretary clinton, senator sanders, then-candidate trump and others. but let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath, not once in my 26 years of defending our nation did my personal opinions impact any official action i took. this is true for the clinton e-mail investigation, for the investigation into russian interference and for every other investigation i've worked on. it is not who i am, and it is not something i would ever do. period. i understand that my sworn testimony will not be enough

for some people, after all, americans are skeptical of anything coming out of washington, but the fact is, after months of investigations, there's simply no evidence of bias in my professional actions. there is, however, one extraordinarily important piece of evidence supporting my integrity, the integrity of the fbi and our lack of bias. in the summer of 2016, i was one of a handful of people who knew the details of russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the trump campaign. this information had the potential to derail and quite possibly defeat mr. trump, but the thought of expressing that or exposing that information never crossed my mind. that's what fbi agents do every single day, and that's why i'm so proud of the bureau, and i am particularly proud of the work that i and many others did on the clinton e-mail

investigation. our charge was to investigate it competently, honestly and independently and that's exactly what happened. i'm also proud of our work on the russian interference investigation. this is an investigation into a direct attack by a foreign adversary, and it is no less so simply because it was launched against our democratic process rather than against the military base. this is something that all americans, of all political persuasions, should be alarmed by. in the summer of 2016, we had an urgent need to protect the integrity of an american presidential election from a hostile, foreign power determined to weaken and divide the united states of america. this investigation is not politically motivated. it is not a witch-hunt. it is not a hoax. i expect that during this hearing, i'll be asked about that ongoing investigation, where the fbi has directed me

not to answer, i will abide by the fbi's instructions, but let me be clear, this is not because i don't want to answer your questions, if i were permitted to answer, i would, and the answers would doubtless be disappointing to the questioners and undermine the conspiracy narrative being told about the russia investigation. i understand we're living in a political era which insults and insinuation often drown out honesty and integrity, but the honest truth is that russian interference in our elections constitutes a grave attack on our democracy. most disturbingly, it has been wildly successful, showing this court in our nation and shaking faith in our institutions. i have the utmote respect for congress' oversight role but strongly believe today's hearing is just another victory notch in putin's belt and milestone in our enemy's campaign to tear america apart. as someone who loves this

country and cherishes its ideals, it is profoundly painful to watch and even worse to play a part in. mr. chairman, i welcome your questions. >> we will now proceed under the five-minute rule with questions, i'll begin by recognizing the chairman of the oversight and government reform committee, mr. gowdy. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the fbi into potential russia collusion with the trump campaign began on july 31, 2016. you drafted the originating document. you approved the originating document. you were the point of contact on the originating document and the fbi represented to congress that nothing from an investigative standpoint with respect to russian collusion and the trump campaign began before july 31, 2016. but ten days before the investigation even began, ten days before you drafted the

originating document, approved the originating document, was the point of contact on the originating document, ten days before the investigation began, which the department you worked for says nothing was done before july 31, you said trump is a disaster. i have no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be, and because you struggled a couple weeks ago with a word they thought commonly accepted definition, i'm going to give you the definition of destabilizing. the first one kind of is obvious, it's to make unstable. the second one caught my attention. the second dictionary definition. to call something such as a government to be incapable of functioning or surviving. that's a pretty significant allegation to make ten days before you even began to investigate someone. so that was before july 31st.

i want to ask you in that first week, we'll go ahead and up it to eight days, between july 31 and august 8. how many interviews did you conduct related to the alleged collusion between russia and the trump campaign? >> congressman, as you know, counsel for the fbi based on the special counsel's equities has instructed me not to answer questions about the ongoing investigation. i'm asking for a number -- agent strzok, i'm asking for a number, having gotten to the names, how many people had you interviewed between the beginning of it on july 31 and august 8. an eight-daytime period we're a week into the investigation, how many people did you interview? >> congress, i understand the

question and would very much like to answer. as i stated, as you know as counsel of the fbi, based on the special counsel's equities have directed me not to answer any questions about the ongoing investigation about russian attempts to interfere. >> the gentleman will sustain and the clock will suspend. mr. strzok, you are under subpoena and are required to answer the question, are you objecting to the question? if so, please state your objection. >> mr. chairman, i object. the gentleman does not have standing to object. >> no point of order here. >> the point of order should be heard. gentleman stated point of order. >> my point of order is that intentionally or otherwise this demand puts mr. strzok in the impossible position. he is still an employee of the fbi and fbi counsel instructed him not to answer the question. >> gentleman, we have a problem with the policy, take it up with the fbi, not badger mr. strzok. the gentleman's point of order is not well taken.

it's right on point. >> no, it's not. >> mr. strzok, are you objecting to the question, and if so, please state your objection. >> mr. chairman, two things, one, i do not believe i'm here under subpoena, i believe i am here voluntarily. second, i will not, based on direction of the fbi, to me, based on that, i will not answer that question because it goes to matters which are related to the ongoing investigations being undertaken by the special counsel's office. >> mr. strzok, you have not stated a valid, legal basis for not responding to a question directed to you by a member of the united states house of representatives and you are overruled. >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> let me continue. your testimony is essential to this hearing and to our oversight and information gathering functions with regard to the actions taken and decisions made by the department of justice and the federal bureau of investigation in 2016 and 2017, i am

specifically directing you to answer the question in response to our subpoena, notwithstanding your objection. >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> mr. strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee's directive to answer the question or refuse to do so. the latter of which will place you at risk of contempt citation and potential criminal liability. >> point of order. >> do you understand that? >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> i have a point of order before he answers the question. >> the point of order is not well taken. >> you don't know what the point of order is, you can't say it's not well taken. >> the witness will answer the question. >> mr. chairman, i raise my point of order and instructs department personnel not to respond to questions about existence of on going investigation or comment on its nature or progress. in a letter to congressman john lyndon in two you, lyndon letter the department made this policy

specifically applicable to requests from congress. although congress has clearly legitimate interest how the department enforces statutes, congressional inquiries during pendency after the mare pose inherent threat to the law enforcement litigation functions. unquote. stuart: 11 eastern, "varney & company." you're watching it. get pack to the fireworks. here we go. >> the witness's declination to answer it pursuant to fbi policy which is necessary not to allow us to subvert current investigation. he is right. >> the gentleman has not state ad valid point of order. >> i want a ruling. >> nonetheless, the united states supreme court recognized unquestionably of the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the congress in efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent, legislative action. it is their unremitting

obligation to respect the dignity of the congress and its committees to testify fully with respect to matters within the province of proper investigation. >> mr. chairman, i will, mr. chairman, you know, we all know that if we were to ask a question of a witness about a military secret, if we were to ask them, how bus the h-bomb, he could not answer the question. >> that is classification issue, not an issue of whether or not this is a valid question for which -- >> i appeal the ruling of the chair. >> he ruled it is not a point of order. >> that is not a ruling. mr. strzok, mr. chairman -- i insist on my point of order. i insist on appealing ruling of the chair. >> mr. strzok -- >> point of order, mr. chairman. point of order. i believe there is point of order has been raised, you have

a rule a right -- >> it is not a valid point of order. >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> mr. strzok. >> mr. chairman i appeal the ruling of the chair you just made on whether the -- >> you have not state ad valid point of order. >> that is your ruling. i appeal it. >> that is not appealable -- >> point of order, yes it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is exactly what he is requesting. that is appealing. requiring a vote, either sustain it overrule it. >> the gentleman from new york has not cite ad rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that is your ruling. he appealed it. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney/client privilege which can not be overridden and is a rule of the house to extent that right to attorney/client privilege in

this house. that is what this witness is asserting. attorney/client privilege. he has been advised not to answer the question. >> gentle women will suspend. the gentleman has not raised the attorney/client privilege. he has said that he has been instructed by the fbi not to answer the question. now -- >> by lawyers. >> he knows, he knows, the advice i have just given him. he if he would like i will restate it. but knowing this, will you answer the committee's question as directed or do you refuse to answer the committee's question. >> point of parliamentary -- inquiry. >> according to ruling of the chair, it is not in order. >> point of parliamentary inquiry, mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from south carolina has the time, parliamentary inquiry is not in order during the gentleman's time. the chair is instructing the

witness to answer the question, and the question to you is, will you answer the request committee's question as directed or do you refuse to answer the committee's question? >> mr. chairman. i move to adjourn. >> second. >> you're not recognized for that purpose. >> mr. chairman, i think you have no choice but to recognize such a motion. >> i do not. [inaudible conversations]. >> are you going to make up rules as we go along. >> the motion is not in order during the time controlled bit gentleman from south carolina. >> i appeal that ruling of the chair. >> mr. strzok, will you -- >> i ap peel the ruling of the chair my motion to adjourn is not in order. >> the gentleman is not in order. >> that may be, but i appeal your ruling. >> the gentleman is not recognized. knowing this will you answer the committee' question as directed, do you refuse to answer the

committee's question? >> mr. chairman, as you know, council for the fbi has directed me not to answer questions about the ongoing investigation. as you also know, counsel for the fbi is sitting here behind him. may i consult with him? >> you may consult with your own counsel. >> but i may not consult with the fbi's counsel? >> only with your own counsel. >> mr. chairman, there is no basis for that. he can consult with the fbi counsel. he is not a fbi employee. >> the gentleman is not recognized. >> the chairman is not being proper. >> the chairman is be proper. >> the person can not be directed to confer with the attorney. >> the fbi is not his attorney. >> he is employee of the fbi. he. >> can his attorney consult with the fbi attorney? >> isn't if i have reg privilege of the fbi, shouldn't the fbi coins u counsel sew lit ted on that point.

[inaudible conversations]. >> mr. chairman, my counsel has reiterated that counsel for the fbi has directed that i may not answer that question. >> mr. strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing but based on your refusal to answer the question at the conclusion of the day, we will be recessing hearing, you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation. >> point of order, mr. chairman. will the committee consider contempt for mr. bannon, who refused to answer mr. gowdy's questions under subpoena. >> that is not a proper point of order. >> parliamentary inquiry. parcel meantry inquiry. >> parliamentary inyearry. >> parliamentary inquiry is not in order. gentleman from south carolina controls the time. >> agent strzok. just so the record is clear because there has been a little

while, i didn't ask you the content of those interviews. i didn't ask you the names of who you interviewed. i asked you whether or not you interviewed anyone from july the 31st until august the 8th? i find it interesting the fbi will tell us no interviews were conducted before july 31st. that apparent doesn't impact an ongoing probe. but between july 31st and august 8th, it does. here's the good news. i already know the answer to it. i went and looked at file. the first interview that i can find is on august the 11th of 2016, which is 11 taste after it began, which makes me wonder, on august the 6th, so you had end interviewed anyone. you're investigating this alleged russian collusion with the trump campaign. you're the lead investigator. you originated the investigation. you're the point of contact. you drafted the document, and here you are before you have interviewed a single solitary

witness saying f-trump. that same day, your colleague, lisa page wrote, maybe you're meant to protect the country from that menace. you responded, i can protect the country at many levels. we're not even a week into an investigation that you originated, approved, were contact for, you hadn't interviewed a single solitary soul until august 11th, you're already promising the to protect the country from that menace donald trump. then on august the 8th, you still hadn't interviewed anyone. you're eight days into your russian collusion with the trump campaign investigation. you got another text from your colleague, lisa page. trump's not ever going to become president, right? , right? you replied. no, no, he's not. we'll stop it. by the time you promised to stop him from becoming president, on august the 8th, how many interviews had you conducted?

>> mr. gowdy, so two answers to that. one, with regard to how many interviews had or had not been conducted, i have been directed by counsel for the fbi not to answer that question. second, sir, i think it is important to take those texts in the context how they were written and what they meant. >> and someone may ask you that question, agent strzok, i didn't. i asked you how many people you interviewed before you wrote it if you want to get into context let one of my other colleagues do that with you. here is what i want to know. who is the he, in he's not. >> he is candidate trump. >> so when you said, no, donald trump's not and in connection with a question, going to become president, what's the it? >> chairman gowdy -- >> what is stop it? >> chairman gowdy, that text needs to be taken in context -- >> i'm asking if you want to

have debate over two-letter word we'll have to do that some other time. what and who did you mean by it? >> about gowdy, as i have stated that text was written late at night in shorthand. >> i don't care whether it was written, long hand, cursive. i don't care about any of that i want to know what it meant, agent strzok. >> his candidacy for the president. my sense that the american -- >> not that tough. >> american population would not vote him into office. >> right. we hadn't gotten to the will yet. >> i'm trying to explain the text. i wrote it. >> the will of the american people, is that right, that is your testimony? the will stop it, you were speaking on behalf of the american people, is that correct? >> mr. gowdy what my testimony is, what i said during extensive asking of this question during my private interview, i don't recall writing the text. >> are you denying writing that text. >> what i can tell you that text in no way suggested i or the fbi

would take any action to influence the candidacy of -- >> agent strzok, fantastic answer to a question nobody asked. my question to you -- >> can the witness be permitted to answer the question posed? [inaudible]. >> after conclusion of mr. gowdy's question, if there is question he has not had the opportunity to answer, he will be given additional time to do that. we look forward to that. >> he will not be interrupted by others. >> his time expired, mr. chairman. >> your testimony -- >> 2 1/2 minutes. >> it es going to be tough get through it if i keep getting interrupted. your testimony couple weeks ago, we meant american people, which i found confusing, because on november the 7th, which is the day before the election, you said this, you were concerned those same american people you were concerned on behalf of

might actually elect donald trump president. you said, omg, this is f offing terrifying. which think we know what f-ing me. i'm sure we have omg down too. what with terrifying about the same american people you trusted to stop him in august, not stopping him in november. what was so terrifying about that, agent strzok? >> mr. gowdy i do not have a copy of your transcript. >> it is not your transcript. it your text. >> in gowdy i would say one, i'm not referring to the american electorate at all. the american electorate i respect their is did, right to vote is absolutely cornerstone of our democracy. at no time did i insult call into the question the judgment or the power of the american electorate. what i was expressing in that text is my personal belief, and my personal sense of how i saw, and what i believed in the potential upcoming administration. >> see, that is what i find so

confounding in august you blamed we on american people, that the american people would stop it because you don't want it to be you and lisa page. >> mr. chairman, point of order. not given five minutes to answer questions? we have indulged this harrassment nine minutes. the chair of judiciary and oversight committee -- >> gentle women will suspend. the chair in agreement with the ranking members of both committees agreed that there would be liberality in the questioning by the chairman and ranking members of each committee. the gentleman will continue. >> what i find confounding -- >> we expect that liberality on everyone of our questionings. >> what i find confounding, agent strzok, you were counting on the american people. that was the we you referenced in august, when you said we'll stop it, but the american people didn't stop it. he actually won. so then we go to march of 2017, and you're already talking,

longingly about him resigning. and then we go to the day that special counsel mueller, well before we go to that, that is march of 2017. march of 2016, you wrote, god hillary should win an hundred one million to zero. i'm assuming hillary would be former secretary of state hillary clinton? >> that's correct. >> in march of 2016 weren't you investigating her for potential mishandling of classified information. >> we were. >> had you interviewed her yet? >> no. >> had you interviewed more than 30 other witnesses wound up being interviewed? >> i would have to check the case file but i take your representation. >> if she said something incriminating in your interview took place month later, would she win 100 million to zero then? >> likely not. >> why wouldn't you wait until the investigation was over before you have her, the nominee, and winning a general election against an opponent that hadn't even been named yet, 100 million to zero, agent

strzok? that is how bad she should win? >> mr. gowdy, those personal expressions of observing political process of presidential primaries had no bearing on my actions of any investigation to include the investigation of secretary clinton. >> you couldn't think -- >> or anybody else. >>, you couldn't think of a single person would not vote for hillary clinton for president, 100 million to zero? >> that was clearly hyperbole. >> say it was hyperbole, divide it by 10. say it was hyperbolic divide it by 10. 100 million divided by 10 i'm pretty sure is 10 million. zero divided by 10 is still zero. you couldn't think of a single, solitary person would vote for her for president before you interviewed her and while you were supposed to be investigating her? >> congressman, clearly that is not the truth. clearly i could envision millions of americans who were likely and did vote for then -- >> you wrote it. did you write it? did you write the text? >> i did write that, sir.

>> were you under duress. >> political expression engaging in hyperbole. >> were you under duress,. >> asked and asked over and over again. >> gentlewoman will suspend. the gentleman has the time. >> one other time peer, may 17th. bob comey appointed. your friend jim comey is fired. he already leaked memos to law professor friend and mueller is special counsel. do you remember how long it took for you to start talking about impeachment after bob mueller wag appointed? >> i don't, sir. >> one day. one day. you were talking about impeachment. for anyone who may have missed it the day after his appointment, agent strzok, you did it again five days later! now, how many interviews had you done as part of the special counsel team within the first five days of his appointment? >> sir, again, same answer as before. i can't get into details. >> right the answer is also the

same, it is zero. no interviews had been done. >> i don't know if that is true or not. >> no interviews done by august the 8th, talking about stopping him and how terrifying it would be for him to win and how you can protect the country and no interviews had been done before you're talking about impeachment of the president? no wonder bob mueller kicked you off of the investigation, agent strzok. my question is, if you were kicked off when he read the texts, shouldn't you have been kicked off when you wrote them? >> not at all. >> wasn't discovery of your texts, mr. strzok. it was the existence of your bias that got you kicked off. >> no, mr. gowdy, it wasn't. i do not have bias. my personal opinions in no way -- >> why did you get kicked off? why did you get kicked off? >> mr. gowdy, my understanding why i was kicked off, based on understanding of those texts and

per separating that they might create -- >> hang on a second, agent strzok. hang on a second. perception. you're saying it was perception. there are 13 democrats on special counsel probe, including one hoped was a victory problem. that was perception problem too. they weren't kicked off. why were you. >> mr. gowdy i can't not speak to special counsel -- >> how long did you talk to him when he let you go? >> witness answer the question. >> witness afforded opportunity to answer the question, any question he wants to answer after the -- [inaudible] >> my recollection is, it was a short meeting, somewhere between 15 to 30 minutes, probably around 15 minutes. >> your testimony is, bob mueller did not kick you off because of the content of our texts? he kicked you off because of some appearance he was worried about? >> my testimony, what you asked, what i responded to that he kicked me off because of my bias. i'm stating to you, it is not my understanding that he kicked me off because of any buys.

that it was done based an appearance. if you want to represent what you said accurately, i'm happy to answer that question, but i don't appreciate what was originally said being changed. >> i don't give a damn what you appreciate, agent strzok. i don't appreciate having fbi agent unprecedented level of animus working on two major investigations during 2016. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. >> mr. chairman, can i respond -- >> answer the questions that you promised him he would have the opportunity to answer. endured 15 minutes of badger, the witness. can he be allowed now to answer, as you promised, mr. chairman. >> gentleman will suspend. the witness can ask for additional time to respond to any member's question if the, time has been ended. >> you said you would give him that opportunity at the end -- >> i am giving him. [no audio]

>> presumption based on that horrible, disgusting behavior, that the american population would not elect somebody demonstrating that behavior to be president of the united states it was in no way unequivocally, any suggestion that me, the fbi, would take any action whatsoever to improperly impact the electoral process, for any candidate. so i take great offense and i take great disagreement to your assertion what that was or wasn't. as to the 100 million to one, that was clearly a statement made in jest, using hyperbole. i recognize millions of americans were likely to vote

for candidate trump. i acknowledge that as absolutely their right. that is what makes our democracy such a vibrant process that it is. but to suggest somehow that we can parse down the words of shorthand, text all conversations like they were a purchase of a car, i can assure you, mr. chairman, at no time did any of those texts did personal beliefs enter into the realm of any action i took. furthermore, this isn't just me sitting here telling you. you don't have to take my word for it. at every step, at every investigative decision, there are multiple layers of people above me, the assistant director, executive assistant director, deputy director, director of fbi, multiple layers of people below, section chiefs, unit chiefs, case agents, analysts, involved in all of these decisions. they would not tolerate any improper behavior in me anymore that i would tolerate is in them. that is who we areas fbi.

the suggestion that i in some dark chamber somewhere in the fbi would somehow cast aside all of these procedures, all safeguards somehow to do this is astounding so me. it simply couldn't happen. the proposition that that is going on, that is might occur anywhere in the fbi, deeply corrodes what the fbi is in american society, the effectiveness of their mission, it is deeply destructive. [applause] >> the, mr. chairman, i have a motion. i have rule 11 motion, chairman, clause 2. i move to subpoena steve bannon, mr. bannon was a witness in the house intelligence committee investigation. he was under subpoena. he refused to answer questions of mr. gowdy. >> the gentleman is not recognized. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, for his -- >> motion is in order. a motion is always in order, mr. chairman. rule 11, clause 2. >> i will yield to mr. swalwell.

>> move to subpoena steve bannon on mouse intelligence investigation. he refused to answer questions of mr. gowdy. mr. gowdy appears to have sincere interest have in getting bottom of what happened. so i move under rule 11, to bring mr. bannon to this committee. mr. chairman, is in receipt of devin nunez's letter to our committee recommending the judiciary committee continue on the house intelligence committee's investigation into russia. i move now consideration for mr. bannon to be subpoenaed. >> refuses for contempt proceedings to occur. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman -- >> i object to consideration of the motion that is being made. the -- >> yield back to mr. cummings. but the motion has to be heard, immediately, mr. chairman under rule 11. >> gentleman will suspend. >> motion is not germain.

the gentleman from maryland mr. cummings. >> i move to table the ruling of chair. i move to overrule the ruling of chair. >> mr. chairman, table the motion. >> motion made to table appealing of chair. all those in favor of tabling the appeal, respond by saying aye. those opposed no. in opinion of the air, eyes have it. i. >> mr. chairman, i asked for recorded vote. i asked for recorded vote. >> point of parliamentary inquiry. >> gentleman state his point of parliamentary inquiry. >> on vote to table or that matter appeal ruling of chair do we take separate votes of two committees or one vote of everything? >> my understanding was both you and mr. cummings were satisfied with one roll call vote. but we'll go through each committee in order. and then we'll take the cumlative vote after the conclusion of both commit teets. i wanted to clarify that point.

>> mr. chairman, i had asked for recorded vote. >> recorded vote is being requested. clerk will call the roll. the question is on motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair of the clerk for the judiciary committee will commence. >> mr. goodlatte. >> aye. >> mr. goodlatte votes aye? mr. sensenbrenner votes aye. mr. smith votes aye. mr. chabot, votes aye. mr. issa? mr. king? aye. >> mr. king votes aye? , mr. gomez? mr. gohmert votes aye. mr. jordan votes yes. mr. powe. mr. poe votes yes. mr. marino votes yes. mr. gowdy? pass. >> mr. labrador. mr. collins. [inaudible] mr. labrador votes aye. mr. collins. mr. collins votes aye.

mr. desantis? [inaudible conversations]. mr. desantis votes aye. mr. buck? mr. radcliffe? mr. radcliffe votes yes. miss roby? mr. gates? mr. gates votes aye. mr. johnson. mr. johnson votes aye. mr. bigs, mr. bigs votes aye. mr. rutherford votes aye. miss handle votes yes. mr. rothfus. mr. nadler? mr. nadler votes no. his lofgren, votes no. police jackson lee. miss jackson lee votes no. mr. cohen? mr. cohen votes no. mr. johnson of georgia, votes no. mr. deutch? mr. deutch votes no. in gutierrez? mr. gutierrez votes no. miss bass? mr. richmond? mr. richmond votes no.

mr. jeffreys? mr. cicilline? no. >> mr. is malwell votes no. mr. lou? mr. lou votes no. mr. raskin votes no. mr. shiner? mr. shiner votes no. miss dem ming. miss demings votes no. >> the clerk of the oversight government reform committee will call the roll. >> mr. gowdy. >> pass. >> mr. gowdy passes. mr. duncan? >> aye. >> mr. duncan votes aye. mr. issa, votes aye. >> i am aye for both committees. >> mr. vice is a votes aye. mr. jordan. mr. jordan votes yes. mr. sanford. >> aye,. >> mr. sanford votes aye. mr. amash? mr. gozar. >> aye. >> mr. gozar votes aye. mr. desjarlais votes aye.

miss fox? mr. massey? mr. massey votes aye. mr. meadows? mr. meadows votes aye. mr. desantis? mr. desantis votes aye. mr. ross? mr. ross votes aye. mr. walker? mr. walker votes aye. mr. blum? mr. blum votes aye. mr. hice? mr. hice votes aye. mr. russell? mr. russell votes aye. mr. grossman. grossman votes aye. mr. heard. mr. palmer. mr. palmer votes eye. mr. comer. mr. comer votes yes. mr. mitchell? mr. giantforte? mr. gee giantforte votes yes. mr. cummings? mr. cummings? mr. cummings votes no. ms. malini? ms. maloney votes no.

miss norton. miss norton votes no. mr. clay? mr. lynch? mr. lynch votes no. mr. cooper? mr. cooper votes no. mr. connelly? mr. connelly votes nay. miss kelly? ms. kelly votes nay. ms. lawrence. ms. lawrence votes ney. police watson miss watson coleman votes no. mr. krishnamoorthy votes no. mr. raskin votes no. mr. gomez. mr. welch? mr. welch votes no. mr. cartwright. >> no. >> mr. cartwright streets no. miss plaskett? miss plaskett votes no. mr. sarbanes? mr. sarbanes votes no. >> mr. chair. how is mr. gowdy recorded?

stuart: taking this poll of the two committees, holding a joint session here. newt gingrich is with us. newt, i'm very glad you're with us this morning, your opinion what is going on her is very much germane. at end of this day does anyone doubt that the fbi, peter strzok, protected hillary clinton and undermined president trump deliberately? is there any doubt after hearing what you have heard? >> no, this whole thing is unbelievable. you have the fbi telling strzok not to answer legitimate congressional questioning. if you ever want to see what the deep state looks like, this set of hearings is unbelievable. and he basically being instructed to ignore the congress of the united states and keep secrets from the american people. stuart: it's a circus, what is has become, a circus which the dems, peter strzok is not answering germane questions.

>> well, look, if people have any doubt about how deeply the democrats are committed to circling the wagons and blocking the investigation they just had to watch the exchange between the chairman and the various democrats. they're there, they're leading the cover-up. you have the chairman is trying to get to the facts. you have the democrats on the committee, literally doing everything they can to be obstructive. i thought very remarkable. stuart: this thing about subpoenaing steve bannon, that is total red herring, isn't it? >> of course it is. but, i mean, so was appealing ruling of the chair. so was raising a point of order. this was a group of guys gotten together with the staff, said, how can we make it so painful for the chairman to continue, they will give up? you are searing breakdown of the whole system. you have to ask your elf, is this the kind of america we want to become where members of

congress believe, it is their job to disrupt their own investigation in order to protect their political allies? and does it tell you how much the democrats see strzok as political ally for them. >> how do you think the american people will see it, bearing in mind that this all has to be filtered through a media which is very hostile to president trump? are the american people going to get the true picture of what just happened? >> oh, i think partly because you and others are showing it. and because, very nature of the disruption is so obvious, that, i think the average american is beginning to realize, you have a democratic party out of control. dominated by its radical extremist wing. you have a desperate effort to cover up corruption. you have a fbi and a justice department that were amazingly sick. and i think all of these things, we'll keep learning more and more, gradually inch by inch,

like pulling teeth. they will get to the facts, obviously this will be devastating. think how bad for the fbi to spend this much prestige trying to cover it up. stuart: do you believe there was indeed a cabal active within the fbi and the justice department to protect hillary clinton and undermine president trump? >> absolutely. i believe there is a network of people at very top who were frankly protect the democrats in the house and enron case, involving a pakistani information technician. i look at hillary clinton of the guy who destroyed 13 mobile phones, with a hammer, 13. he gets immunity? if that isn't a sign the fix is in, i don't know how you would describe it. stuart: where do we go from

here? subpoenaing somebody, extend hearing, bringing him back again, putting him under contempt liability, criminally liable? where do we go from here after this circus? >> i think they have to move to hold him in contempt, put him in jail. this is person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as congressional witness. he was a government employee at the time. he has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, i don't think they have any choice except to move motion of contempt because he is fundamentally, and so is his girlfriend, they're both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process. stuart: why is it that lisa page, having been subpoenaed, simply said i'm not going to show up? hold on. hold on a second, newt. elijah elijah cummings is about to ask his questions. i want to listen to this. >> members of the fbi that are

watching this, i want them to be clear we have utmost respect for the organization. and you, and i thank them for doing what they do every day, and, protecting our rights and protecting our people, and protecting our way of life. and, as i listen to you in answering chairman gowdy's questions, particularly at the end, you gave a very impassioned statement but, can you understand why there are members question whether the thoughts that you may have, that you put in an email or text might interfere with the investigation? i mean can you understand, at least the questioning of that? >> yes, sir, i do. >> and i want to, and i know you're familiar with oaths because i'm sure you have taken

them 50 million times, but i remind you you're under oath, i am going to ask you this. how do you square that? in other words, i understand the piece about, there is so many layers, that the fbi wouldn't even allow it to happen, even if, you wanted it, wanted them to, but how do you take that compartmentalize, i guess that is the best word i can think of, when you walk into that room, be neutral, independent, or live up to your oath? do you understand your question. >> i do, sir. >> can you answer that? i think that would be very helpful to me, and i hopefully your answering that question will be helpful to my colleagues, in fairness to all of us. go ahead. >> yes, sir. thank you. and i certainly do, sir,

appreciate and understand that question, that concern. and why people would look at those texts want to know how and why they should believe that those personal beliefs played any role in my official acts. what i can tell you sir, is, that first, i, like every fbi agent, like everybody person in this room, everybody watching, has a political opinion. each and everyone of those people in the fbi, whatever their political beliefs walks in the door, they leave those behind. the fbi has a culture. it is in our culture, it is in our training, it is in our policy, and everything we do is dedicated to the pursuit of the facts where they lay and applying the law to those facts. there is no room for personal belief. it is something that is and a national ma to us. it is something culturally were to occur. were it to occur it would be

noted and stopped. in addition to that culture, we have policies, we have procedures, we have laws, we have guidelines, that are designed to provide outside checks and balances, to provide for outside review, provide for any number of ways that the individual actions of any agent, an any analyst, any support personnel, are not acting in any other way than official policies and procedures. if i tell you, again as i did, personally what i believe and what i did, i understand why people may or may not have doubts or believe that, but then i would turn to say, look at entirety of the rest of the organization, of the men and women who make it up, of all the things that are in place to insure that our job, in the fbi, is to competently and independently pursue facts wherever they are, i can not stress to you enough that is exactly what is done day in, day out, what exactly guided my

behavior over 26 years. >> thank you very much. let me ask you this. in previous testimony to congress, president trump's fbi director, christopher wray explained the critical importance of protecting confidential human sources. this is what he said, agent strzok. and i quote, the day we can't protect human sources is the day the american people start becoming less safe, end of quote. do you agree with that? >> i do. >> the problem is, we now have the transcript of your 11 hour closed-door interview with our committees and it shows that republican members asked you repeatedly about confidential human sources involved in russia investigation. is that correct? >> my recollection is yes, sir. >> do you remember how many

questions they asked you about that? >> i do not, sir. >> let me read one of their questions from the transcript. one republican member asked you this question, and i quote, in the month of july was there any information from confidential human sources given to you as it relates to the russia investigation, end of quote? do you recall being asked that question? >> i do. >> that question was specifically about information from confidential human sources in the russia investigation. obviously you can not answer the question. and that is because the department of justice has a long-standing policy against revealing information from confidential human sources during an ongoing investigation criminal investigation. is that right?

>> yes, sir. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will yield at the end. i want to finish. and that is what director wray was talking about when he testified about revealing those sources, or their information will make america less safe, is that right? >> i don't know why director wray said that but i agree with his statement. >> in your experience, how dangerous could it be to reveal the identity of a confidential human source? >> extraordinarily dangerous. >> will the gentleman yield to his friend? >> of course. >> i thank the gentleman. i want to be clear since the gentleman from maryland, who is my friend is going along a line ever argument that would suggest a question asked by me. i want to make it perfectly clear, i asked if you talked with confidential human sources? i never asked for a name, nor would i ever ask for a name of a confidential human source. i appreciate it. i yield back.

>> i don't think i said that. thank you, the gentleman. disclosing identity of a confidential human source could create a risk to that person or our national security, is that correct? >> yes. >> what effect could revealing a confidential human source, have on fbi ability to recruit or retain human sources in the future? >> i think it could and is having an extraordinary impact in that people who come to the fbi with information are putting themselves at risk. at risk of their job, rick of their life. they trust, literally sometimes put their lives in the hands of the fbi. stuart: we're interrupting briefly, because the questioning is becoming a little technical. previously we saw it become a circus when trey gowdy and others, republicans were asking questions of peter strzok. now a rather technical discussion. i'm going to break away from

that for a moment. liz is with me. ashley is with me. ashley: yeah. stuart: look only word i can find to describe this earlier on was that it had become a circus. ashley: completely. stuart: dominated by legalisms and a desire by the democrats to protect peter strzok from answering any questions. ashley: newt gingrich said it right there. probably ahead of this they figured out things they could do to interrupt, bring up these motions that weren't germane as chairman goodlatte said, take sting and fire out of it. the best section was trey crowd did i talking to peter strzok, very pointedly, how could you not be biased looking at these texts? his defense clearly i can have my own personal opinions but i unequivocally did not let those opinions affect my actions. that's where we're at. stuart: gowdy came back at him, wait a minute, how can you start talking about impeachment as you did within your texts within one

day of running investigation of mr. trump? ashley: exactly right. liz: he continues, peter strzok to say, you know that my bias didn't affect my work. he was removed from the special counsel probe because of those texts. so you know, he did reveal himself. what happened was the dems, interrupted, withering exchange, withering take-down of peter strzok by trey gowdy. trey gowdy was winning. revealing to all americans and people around the world the implicit bias of peter strzok. then what happened was, finally, peter strzok, got, trey gowdy got under his skin and revealed bias. about his text, trump will never be president, right, right? from lisa page. peter strzok said, no we will stop it. he is saying i wrote that late at night after hearing president trump belittle the gold star families, you know, kaiser khan

and his family. he said that was horrible and disgusting behavior prompt thed that tex. the we, he is now claiming he men to say is the american people. 11:00 at night he texted that, he meant to i sat american people is the we in that. not believable. not credible. stuart: most interesting part of the performance thus far has been the questioning by trey gowdy. we turned this around. we have some sound from trey gowdy earlier this morning. roll tape. >> what, and who, did you mean by it? >> mr. gowdy, as i have stated that text was written late at night, in shorthand -- >> i don't care when it was written, i don't care whether it was long hand, cursive. i don't care about any of that i want to know what it meant, agent struck. >> it would be his canada i, sr. to the president. >> it was the existed tense ever your bias got you kicked off. >>, no, mr. gowdy, it wasn't. i do not have bias.

stuart: it was a long exchange between trey gowdy and peter strzok and frankly absoluting fascinating. congressman todd rokita joins us now. first of all, congressman, my impression is, that the democrats did their best to turn this into a circus where peter strzok did not have to answer questions. where am i going wrong? >> no, you're right, and as the hearing goes forward the chairman will continue to get better and better control over the situation. this is a very hard position for the chairman to be in because these democrats have no respect for the american people. they have no respect frankly for the fbi. they are patsies to this arrogant ass. who is sitting before them. if strzok had any, any dignity and respect for the institution of the fbi itself he would have resigned a long time ago but, no, he still stands there. he is still being paid by the

taxpayers. jeff sessions needs to take every opportunity, i know there is process to it, but this process has been going on long enough. this is year-and-a-half after these texts. strzok should be gone. this is ridiculous. stuart, if we care about the institution at all, like strzok himself says he does, he ought to be gone. stuart: the central question, which was asked, how do you have these anti-trump texts of which there are numerous examples, how can you cap those texts and you still maintain that you were neutral, peter strzok was neutral when it came to the investigation of president trump? that was the key question. strzok, simply said you have to believe me. you have to believe me i'm a professional, i wouldn't dream of doing anything like that. >> this goes back to bows back l

cannons. these are thousands of texts not between he and his wife, not between he and a friend, this is mistress, adult adultterrer here. anyone with respect for institution like the fbi. anyone with respect for himself ought to be gone, ought to resign, automatically. instead, now it is going to be up to sessions to get rid of him. it should have been done days and months, even a year ago. stuart: hold on a second. chairman goodlatte asking questions of peter strzok. >> concluded there may may not be denone r mon storable crimes. >> how many other cases you worked recall opining on disposition of the case months ahead of interviewing multiple witness? >> i remember quite a few cases where i or agents would discuss prospects of outcome of the case with prosecutors as the case was

going on, from the beginning of the case, talking about what may or may not be relevant. as the case proceeded which element may not be strong or demonstrable as well as towards the end we're trying to shore up evidence that may or may not be there. >> let me ask you 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 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 distinction between commenting on case related matters versus discussion of personal belief. i think those are very different matters than saying this person as a witness was not credible or this person as a target or subject didn't or did do something. that is very different matter in my mind. >> you can completely separate out what your personal opinion is from what you discussed with others in investigations? >> i'm telling you, sir, i

separated out my personal belief from -- >> but did not do that with regard to attorney page, who is also involved in these investigations? >> i agree with that. i separated out my personal beliefs from any action i took officially as an fbi agent every day. >> do 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. >> let's discuss a text that hits home for me. on august 26, 2016, you texted ms. page, quote, just went to a southern virginia walmart. i could smell the trump support and smell is had capital letters, all capital letters. what does trump support smell like, mr. trump. >> that is expression of speech. i clearly wasn't smelling one thing or the other.

what i was commenting on, living in northern virginia -- >> what does that mean? >> what i meant by that, living in northern virginia, having traveled 100, 150-miles south in the same state, struck by extraordinarily difference and expression of political opinion and belief amongst the community. >> you described that as smell in capital letters? >> that was choice, quick choice of words. -- >> so earlier you had texted miss page, that another part of virginia, lowden county, which is i think in northern virginia, is quote, still ignorant hillbillies, end quote. is that what you meant? >> no, sir, not at all. >> do you consider trump supporters ignorant hillbillies? >> not at small what did you mean by that? >> i tell you as proud fairfax county resident, there is healthy competition between fairfax ad louden.

do i reef any resident of lowden county or southern virginia, any else in the nation, is, are, any of those things. that was a flippant -- >> do you understand the implications of this text when my constituents in virginia read it? >> i do, sir, i would ask you to them them that was a, in some cases certainly unfortunate use of words that in no way do i believe that those things are what -- >> you and miss page used personal phones and accounts to communicate. have you turned over those communications to the inspector general? >> no, sir. >> if not, why not? >> sir, they asked, and working with my attorney, 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. as reviewed there was none. my understanding the inspector general was satisfied with that

action. >> we know from texts that you and miss 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 a number of communications that you have made on government communications devices were personal in nature? >> sir, the broad, broad context of what i used personal email and phones for was personal communications. for those things that were work-related, almost universally that material was translated into fbi systems. certainly if anything that was 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 is something you have to ask her. >> do you know whether it was prior to lynch's announcement she would defer to career

prosecutors and director comey 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 is question you have to ask her. >> so how did you take that statement when she texted it to you? >> the way i took that, sir, is that we had for many months working with the a team, a team of career attorneys in the department of justice, team of attorneys from the eastern district of virginia, a team of agents from the fbi, 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 attorneys looked at it, saw a number of very fatal areas where elements of the crime were

lacking, our ability to demonstrate facts to prove those elements of a crime. so 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 the crime. my assumption certainly is that from the department of justice's perspective briefing their supervisors, briefing their supervisors and ultimately briefing the attorney general. it would be difficult if not impossible definition to bring possible charges 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, that is a difficult question to answer. >> mr. strzok, former director comey played, judge, jury, and

exoneratetor in the hillary clinton investigation. in your experience at the fbi, have you ever seen the fbi director make the decision whether to prosecute for the department of justice? >> mr. chairman, i would not agree with that characterization of director comey. 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 is for me to say. >> i think it is for you to say. i asked you the question. what is your opinion. >> i understand variety of factors went in, i understand some the factors that went into director comey's decision to make the announcement. i can tell you that decision was not made loo italy at all. i can tell you my experience for 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 russian investigation was briefly transitioned from strzok to another counterintelligence division dad in earlier 2017. why were you transitioned from the russian investigation in early 2017? >> sir, let me see if i can answer that question without getting into operational detail. the, the investigation was brought. what russia was doing against our country encompass ad variety of things. there were actions in the cyber arena. actions by agents and intelligence services. there were actions by subjects of investigation that are currently ongoing. the prospect of how the fbi would investigate that was a multitiered effort. so some of those efforts traditionally fell into line with that other d-a-d, and their span and scope of responsible

was moved to their division. >> the footnote goes on to state, ad prestep, decided to keep strzok involved in the russia investigation and rye assigned to it. do you know who in quote, fbi leadership, decided to keep you involved in the russia investigation? >> i do not. >> could it have been deputy director mccabe? >> possibly. i do not know. >> when were you assigned back to the russian investigation, when you were reassigned to russian investigation, were you still in supervisory role? >> sir, would i answer that question again, i don't entirely, my recollection does not comport with the statement from adprestep elements stayed under subordinate leaders and subordinate section and unit chiefs down the line. elements were transferred to a different dad and

. >> did you ever consider recusing yourself since you had personal disdain for the person you were investigateing? >> i did not. >> yet others did require that ultimately. >> sir, i would not characterize those decisions. >> we've been following this for dramatic 50 minutes. before we close, liz, do you find peter strzok a credible witness? >> no, he contradicted himself in the testimony, infamous no, he won't be president, launched at the trump probe at the fbi. i don't recall that text, and went to explain what he meant by the text and what the word we was. he did recall the text. >> do you think strzok was able to keep his dislike from trump away from investigation of trump? >> insult to intelligence i wasn't removed because i was biased by the mueller investigation. i think the texts speak for

themselves and he's not convincing anyone what he would attempt to do, we don't know for sure, in order to keep president trump out or then candidate trump out and hillary clinton in. >> it has been a remarkable 45 minutes of congressional action. no impact on the dow. it is up 200. neil, it's yours. >> we are up 217 points. we're going to be watching these hearings, not living on them. for the simple reason that they're not moving stocks, not moving your money, we think as a business network it would be foolish to continue ignoring some of the forces that are in effect that are moving your money, including a president getting very much in the face of some of the european counterparts when it comes to nato financing and issues of trade, and a lot of the unwinding of those positions that had stocks down now. but the belief that all of this will all settle down. we had better-than-expected news on the i