other matters. i just don't feel it's appropriate for me to do that in this situation and secondly, when i was asked yesterday to respond to a piece that i was told was going to be written and printed in the "washington post" this morning, my response to that was in my time of service, which is interacting with the president of the united states or anybody in his administration i have never been pressured. i have never felt pressure to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relationship to an ongoing investigation. >> all i would say, director coates, is there is a chance here to lay to rest some of these pressure points. if the president is asking you to intervene or downplay. you may not have felt pressured but if he is even asking, to me that is a very relevant piece

of information. and again, at least in terms of the conversation with admiral rogers i think we'll get at least some -- another individual's version. at some points these facts have with >> thank you senator coates, excuse me, director coats and admiral rogers for your testimony. with all due respect to my colleague, i think you have cleared up substantially your direct testimony that you have never been pressured by anyone, including the president of the united states. thank you for that. let's go back to section 702 which is what this hearing is supposed to be all about. it's becoming obvious that those who work in the intelligence community that we are in a different position then europe is. there are risks are obviously

very high and they are suffering these attacks on a very regular basis and becoming more regular. let's talk about our collection efforts versus the european collection efforts and particularly as it relates to section 702. obviously, we think about spats between us and the europeans regarding intelligence matters, but we know there is a robust munication and cooperation between our european friends and ourselves. so i want to talk about it -- section 702 in that respect. why don't we start with director coats and i'll throw it to everyone else. how important is section 702, the continuation of section 702 and its related parts to doing what we have been doing as far as helping the europeans in the

europeans helping us and doing the things we are doing here in america to see that we don't have the kind of situations that have been recently happening in europe? >> having just returned a few weeks ago from major capitals in europe and discussing this very issue with my counterparts throughout intelligence community's of these various countries, they voluntarily before i can even ask the question expressed extreme gratitude for the ability, the information that we have been able to share with them relative to threats. numerous threats have been avoided through section 702's authorities. these threats have been deterred or intercepted.

unfortunately, what is happening particularly in england, shows that regardless of how good we are, there are bad actors out there who bypassed the more concentrated, large attack efforts and taken it through inspiration or direction from isis or other terrorists groups. they've chosen to take violent action against those countries. the purpose of the trip was to ensure them that we would continue to work and share together. their collection activities, capabilities in many cases are good, but in some cases, lack the ability that we have. we share information with them and helps keep their people safe also.

it's highly valued by them. i don't think we should take for granted that just because europe has been the recent target of these attacks that the united states is safe from that. we know through intelligence that there is planning going on and we know that there is a lone wolf issues and individuals were taking instructions from isis and social media and that for whatever reason, our copycatting is happening. that threat exists here also. let me lastly say that the nations i've talked to, many of which have been extremely concerned about violating privacy rights have initiated new procedures and legislation and mandates relative to getting intelligence agencies better collection because they think they needed to protect their citizens. >> and a few seconds i have

left, mr. rosenstein, could you tell me please, we get a lot of pushback from the privacy people and we've not heard testimony that there is no intentional violation. can you tell the american people what's in store for someone when these guys catch intentionally misusing section 702? >> i can assure you that the department of justice, we treat with great seriousness any allegations of violations regarding classified informatio information. if there were a credible allegation and someone had willfully violated section 702 and a way that was violation of criminal law, we would investigate that case and if prosecution were justified, we had prosecuted. we recognize that we have an obligation to the american people that these authorities are used appropriately and responsibly and we comply with

the constitution. >> this is your commitment and the department of justice's commitment to the american people? >> that's correct. >> senator feinstein. >> thank you mr. chairman. just a couple of comments on section 702. it's a program that i support. it's a program that i believe has worked well. it's a big program, and it's an important one. it's a content collection program involving both internet and phone communications, so it can raise concerns about privacy and civil liberties. in the year 2016, there are 106,469 authorized targets out of 3 billion internet users. that's the ratio. the question of unmasking has

been raised. it's my understanding that 1,939 u.s. person identities were unmasked in 2016 based on collection that occurred under section 702. my question is going to be the following and i'll ask it all together and hopefully you'll answer it. i would like a description of the certification process and the use of an amicus. i would like your response to the fact that the question, the program sunsets after five years about raising that sunset versus no sunset because of the privacy concerns. it's my belief there should be a sunset and the use of an amicus

which is currently used as part of the certification process and whether that should be continued and formalized. admiral, -- >> doj will be smarter on the amicus. please, will you take that piece? >> i'm not sure i am smarter on the amicus piece, i can say that with regard to the question of unmasking, this is primarily a question for the department. if there is a foreign person who has been communicating about a person in the decisions made, i think what's important for people to recognize is that's an internal issue. that unmasking is done internally within the cloak of confidentiality within the intelligence community.

that's the goal of this collection is to understand -- >> mr. rosenstein, let me just tell you, i listen to somebody who should have known better talking about unmasking any political sense and that is not the case. what i'm looking for is the definition of how this is done and under what circumstances. >> i think, that's really a decision made by the intelligence community, not the department. they should respond to that. >> i can do that. in response to unmasking come of the criteria applies. first, we define in writing who has the authority to unmask a u.s. person identity. that is 20 individuals in 12 different positions. i am one of the 20 and one of those positions.

secondly, the outline in writing, what criteria will be were applied. under our process of section 702 to protect the identity of u.s. persons as part of our minimization procedures. when we think we need to reference a u.s. person in a report, we will not use a name or identity. we say u.s. person one, two, three. the report is on problem gated. some of the recipients of that report will come back to us and say i'm trying to understand what i am reading, could you help me understand who is person one or two, et cetera. we apply to criteria and response to the requests. number one, you must make the request in writing. number two, the request must be made on your official duties, not the fact that you find this report really interesting and you're just curious. it has to tie to your job and then finally, the basis of the

request must be that you need this identity to understand the intelligence you are reading. we apply those three criteria, we do it and writing and one of those 20 individuals and agrees or disagrees. if we unmask, we go back to that entity who requested it, not every individual who received a report, but that one entity who asked, we then provide them the u.s. identity and that we also remind them, the classification of this report and the sensitivity of that ident in plg this u.s. person to you, we are doing it to help you understand the intelligence, not, not so that you can use that knowledge and discriminate lay. ed must remain appropriately protected. >> if i could add something to that. given the nature of this issue, it's a legitimate question that you've asked. i've talked with my colleagues

at nsa, cia, fbi and so forth and suggesting that we might ask our civil liberties and private protection agencies to look at this, to see that these are the right procedures. certainly would be doing so many different, would they have recommendations that better protected people from misuse of this. they've all agreed to do that. i think it's a legitimate issue to follow up on. i've talked to the agency heads about doing that and they're willing to do it. >> i also have an internal review. given all the attention and focus, let's step back and reassess and ask ourselves is there anything that that would suggest we need to do something different? >> good, thank you. >> mr. chairman, with your permission, and amicus wasn't used in 2015. that decision was made by the

court which has a statute to authority. my understanding is that was done in 2015. >> would you feel it would be helpful to make it a part of the regular certification process? >> at my understanding is the statute permits the court to do it, so i believe the court has the authority and i leave it to the judges to decide when it's appropriate to exercise that. >> thank you. >> thank you all for being here. i understand fully the need for the president of the united states to be able to have conversations with members of the intelligence community who are protected, particularly in a classified setting. i also understand that the ability of this community to function depends both on its credibility, and also the importance of its independence that it's not an extension of politics no matter which administration is at play. in the absence of one of those two things, and impacts

everything we do including this debate we are having here today. the challenge we have now is that while the folks who are with us this morning are constrained and what they can say, there are people who apparently work for you who are not and are constantly speaking to the media about things and saying things and it was the congress in a very difficult position because the issue of oversight on both your independence and on your credibility falls on us. i think that what is being sent to the media is untrue, than it's unfair to the president of the united states. if it is, -- if it is true, it's something the americans need to know and that we need to know in order to conduct our job. my questions are geared toward director coats and admiral rogers. you have testified that you never felt any pressure to influence any ongoing investigation of the fbi. are you prepared to say that you have never felt or been asked by the president or the white house to influence an ongoing

investigation? >> senator , i hate to give up reading this, but i'm going to do it. i'm willing to come before the committee and tell you what i know and what i don't know. when i'm not willing to do is share what i think is confidential information that ought to be protected in an open hearing. i'm not prepared to answer your question today. >> director coats, what the incredible respect i have for you, i'm not asking for classified information. i'm asking whether or not you've ever been asked by anyone to influence an ongoing investigation? >> understand, but i'm not going down that road. not in a public forum. i also was asked the question, if the special prosecutor called upon me to meet with him and asked his questions, i said i'll be willing to do that. >> i stayed by my previous

comment. >> and the interest of time, let me ask both of you, has anyone ever asked you now or in the past, this in administration or any to issue a statement that you knew to be false? >> for me, i stand by my previous statement. i've never been directed to do anything. >> not directed, asked. >> i've never felt pressured to do so. >> have you been asked to say so big it is a true? >> i stand by my previous statement, sir. >> i do likewise. >> is anyone aware of any effort by anyone in the white house or elsewhere to seek advice on how to influence any investigation? >> my answer is absolutely no, senator . >> no one has anything to add to that? >> i don't understand the question. >> the question is do you -- are you aware of any efforts of

anyone in the white house looking for advice on how to potentially influence and investigation? >> about me? no. >> no. >> okay. who wants to answer? i'm sorry. >> i'm not sure i understand the question, but if you're asking whether i'm aware of request to other people on the intelligence community, i am not. >> you're not aware of any one single that? >> no, sir. >> has anyone come forward and said i just got a call from some of the white house asking me what is the best way to influence someone on an investigation? >> i've never received anything. >> it's an allegation made in one of the press reports and that's why i asked. >> we just want to make sure we are clear on the question. the answer is no as i understand it, but i'm not sure i am

familiar with a particular report referring to. >> i'm running out of time and i do want to ask because this is important. did the nsa violate the rules that were put in place in 2011 to minimize the risk of collection of upstream information? >> how how we die compliance incidents? yes. have a reported those? yes. have a reported those two are oversight and congress? yes. have a reported those to the department of justice? yes. >> under the obama administration, there is a significant uptake of an incidence of unmasking from 2012-2016. >> i don't know that, i have to take that. we have the data, but i don't know that at the top of my head. i i apologize, i just don't know off the top of my head. >> thank you very much,

mr. chairman. i noted the conversations you've had with my colleagues with respect to the content of conversations that you may have had with the president. my question is a little different. did any of you four write memos, take notes, or otherwise record yours or anyone else's interactions with the president related to the russia investigation? >> i don't take any notes. >> let's get the four of you on the record. >> senator, i really take notes, i've taken a few today, but i am not going to answer questions concerning the russia investigation. i think it's important for you to understand. three not whether you want a memo. >> i'm not going to answer questions. >> time is going to be short. when he wrote a memo, notes, anything. >> i also will not comment and any conversations i have had or notes i've taken are not taken

to the russia investigation. >> the likewise, i take the same position. >> director coats, on march 23rd, you testified to the armed services community, you are not aware of anyone contacting anyone in the intelligence community with the request to drop the investigation into general flynn. yesterday, "the washington post" reported that you had been asked by the president to intervene with director comey to back off of the fbi's focus on general flynn. which one of those is accurate? >> i will say once again, i'm not going to get into any discussion on that in an open hearing. >> both can't be accurate. you promised americans that you would provide what you called a relevant metric for the number of law-abiding americans who were swept up in the section 702

searches. this morning, you went back on that promise and you said that even putting together a sampling, and a statistical estimate would jeopardize national security. i think that is a very, very damaging position to stake out. we are going to battle it out in the course of this because there are a lot of americans who share our view that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. we can have both. you rejected that this morning, we went back on a pledge, and i think it is damaging to the public. >> could answer the question? >> my time is short and i want to ask you -- go >> i would like to answer your question. what i pledge to you in my confirmation hearing as i would make every effort to try to find out why we were not able to come

to a specific number of collection on u.s. persons. i told you i would consult with admiral rogers, i told you i would go to the national security agency to try to determine whether or not i was able to do that. there were extensive efforts, i learned, on the part of nsa to try to come to get you an appropriate answer. >> respectfully, that's not what you said. you said and i quote, we are working to produce a relevant metric. let me go -- >> we were not able to achieve that. working to do it is different than doing it. >> you told the american people that even a statistical sample would be jeopardizing america's national security. that is inaccurate, and i think

detrimental to the cause of ensuring we have both security and liberty. here is my other question. we are trying to sort out, who are the targets of a section 702 investigation? director comey gave three different answers in a hearing a month ago and i think it would be very helpful if you would tell us who in fact it is a target of these investigations? i want to go after serious foreign threats. we don't know as of now if director comey, having given three different answers who the targets are. >> i can't speak for former director klapper. targets as i understand are

non-u.s. persons, foreign individuals are the targets in terms of section 702 is directed and prohibited from directing targets on u.s. persons. >> my time is up. i will tell you, director comey gave three answers, he finally said i could be wrong, but i don't think so. i think it's confined to counterterrorism, to espionage, and finally, he said he didn't think a diplomat could be targeted. we need you all in addition to protecting the liberties of the american people to tell us who the targets are. >> the targets are highly classified. some of those are by revealing those names of those targets, have released the methods that we have used and that has turned against us.

>> director comey listed a number of targets which is why there is confusion. he said that on the record, we need you to tell us on the record as well, consistent with protecting sources and methods. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director coats, let me thank you for a very cogent explanation of section 702 and the fact that it cannot be used to target any person located in the united states, whether or not that person is an american. i think there's a lot of confusion about section 702 and i appreciate your clear explanation this morning. i have a question for each of you that i would like to ask and i want to start with admiral rogers. did any one the white house direct you on how to respond today or where their discussions of executive privilege?

>> have i asked the white house? is it their intent to invoke executive privilege hashtag yes. this is my answer, no one else's. >> my answer is exactly the sam same. >> i have not had any communications with the white house about invoking executive privileges. >> i have not had any conversations with the white house about executive privilege either. >> admiral rogers, in january, the fbi, cia, and nsa jointly issued an intelligence committee assessment on russian involvement -- you testify today that they relied in part on section 702 authorities to support its conclusion that the russians were involved in trying

to influence and involvement in the 2016 elections. can you provide us with an update on nsa's further work in this area? >> in terms of the russian efforts? yes, ma'am, . we continue to focus analytic and collection effort trying to generate insights into what the russians and others are doing, particularly with respect to infrastructure, we continue to generate insights on a regular basis. if my memory is right, i testified before -- we did open threat assessment and in that hearing, which i think was the 11th of may, i reiterated we continue to see similar activity that we identified and highlighted in the january report. those trends continues. >> it's my understanding that president obama requested the report that was issued in january, is that correct? >> yes, ma'am.

he asked for a consolidated single input. >> could you explain the difference between the requests from president obama for that unclassified assessment and the allegations and president trump on whether or not there was any intelligence concerning collusion between the russians and the members of the trump campaign? >> i apologize, i'm confused by the question. i'm not going to comment on any interactions with the president, i don't feel that that is appropriate. as i previously testified, i stand by the report. >> let me ask a broader question that i truly am trying to get a handle on. that is, how does the

intelligence community reach a decision on whether or not to comply with the requests that come from the president of the united states? obviously, your report to the president of the united states, and i'm interested in what process you go through to decide whether or not to take a task that's assigned by the president. >> off the top of my head, i would say we comply unless we have reason to believe that we are being directed to do something that is immoral, unethical, or illegal. >> director mccabe, did director comey ever shared details of his conversations with the president with you in particular, did director comey say that the president had asked for his loyalty? >> sir, i'm not going to comment

on conversations the director may have had with the president. i know he's here to testify in front of you tomorrow, he'll have an opportunity to ask him. >> i'm asking you, did you have that conversation? >> i responded that i'm not going to comment on those conversations. >> why not? >> because for two reasons, first, as i mentioned, i'm not in a position to talk about conversations that director comey may or may not have had -- >> i'm not asking about that. i'm asking about conversations you had with director comey. >> those matters also begin to fall within the scope of issues being investigated by the special counsel and wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on those today. >> so you're not invoking executive privilege and obviously, is not classified. this is the oversight committee, why would it not be appropriate for you to share that conversation with us? >> i think i'll let director comey speak for himself tomorrow in front of this committee. >> we certainly look forward to

that, but i think your unwillingness to show the conversation is an issue. director coats, you've set as well that it would be an appropriate to answer a simple question about whether the president asked for your assistance and blunting the russian investigation. i don't care how you felt, i'm not asking whether you felt pressure, i'm simply asking to that conversation occur? >> once again, i will say that i do believe it's inappropriate for me to discuss that in an open session. >> you realize, obviously, this is not leasing any classified information, but you realize how simple it would simply be to say no that never happened. >> why is it inappropriate, director coats? >> i think conversations between the president and myself are, for the most part, -- >> you seem to apply that

standard selectively. >> no, i don't. >> you clear an awful lot up by simply saying -- >> i do not share with the general public conversations that i have had with the president, but may be my within the administration that i believe should not be shared. >> i think your unwillingness to answer a very basic question speaks volumes. >> it's not a matter of unwillingness. it's a matter of how i share with it with whom i share it to too. when there are ongoing investigations, i think it's inappropriate -- >> util think american people deserve to know the answer to that question? >> investigations will determine that. >> mr. rosenstein, did you know when you wrote the memo that was used as the primary justification for firing director comey that the administration would be using it

as the primary justification? >> as i know you are aware, i have a number of documents associated with me that are in the public record here at the memorandum i wrote concerning director comey's in the public record. appointing special counsel is in the public record. a written version of the statement that i delivered -- >> were you aware of the primary justification for his firing? >> i answered many questions in a close briefings -- >> you're not answering this question. >> as i expanded those briefing briefings, i support mr. mccabe on this. we have a special counsel who is investigating -- >> at this point, you filibustered better than most of my colleagues, so i'm moving on to a different question and saying that given the president stated that the fbi director,

that his firing was in response to investigations into russia, which he made very clear and lester holds interviews, you talked with what the president and the attorney general about this firing. in light of mr. sessions recusal, what role did the attorney general play in that firing and was it appropriate for him to write the letter that he wrote in this case? >> i'm not trying to filibustered. i think i took about 30 seconds, but i am not going to comment on that manner. i'm going to leave it to special counsel mueller. i think that's appropriate for mr. mccabe to do that. >> so you can't comment on recusal and what's inside and outside the scope of the recusal? >> mr. chairman, you ought to let the witness answer the question. >> at your specific question is was in the recusal and my understanding is the recusal you're referring to is also in the public record and i believe it speaks for itself. >> thank you.

>> director mccabe, on may 11th when you're before this committee, you said there has been no effort to impede the russian investigation, is that still your position? >> it is, but let me clarify. i think you're referring to the exchange that i had with senator rubio and my understanding, at least my intention was whether or not the firing of director comey had a negative impact on our investigation. my response was then and is now that the fbi investigated and continues to investigate, and now of course of the special counsel, the shot investigation and a appropriate way. >> i think, as i recall that conversation, it was a discussion about whether or not there were plenty of resources,

with of the funding was adequate, and what you were reported to have said, i haven't looked at the exact transcript, but i have looked at the news article, was that you were aware of no effort to impede the russian investigation. >> we did talk about resource issues and whether or not we had asked for additional resources to pursue the investigation. i believe my response of the time was we had not asked for additional resources and that we had adequate resources to pursue the investigation. that was true then, it's still true today. >> and you would characterize your quote as no effort to impede the russian investigation is still accurate? >> that's correct. >> on the section 702 issue, when the fbi wants to follow-up on or pursue a u.s. person in or outside the united states, look or do you go to to get that to happen? do you go to the pfizer court as well?

>> if we are seeking collection under section 702? >> well, how do you relate to seven oh -- section 702? when the fbi seeks electronic surveillance collection on a u.s. person, we go to the pfizer court and get a title i to do so. if we have an open investigation on a foreign person in a foreign place and the collection is for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence, we can nominate that person for that as we refer to it internally, the selector, whether it's an email address, we can nominate that for section 702 coverage. we convey that nomination for the nsa and they pursue the coverage under their authority. >> view would be the person that would pursue coverage for u.s. person either here or outside the united states? >> that's correct.

we are the u.s. person agency, that's right. >> admiral rogers, senator feinstein mentioned that last year, 1,139 u.s. persons were unmasked for some purpose, is that a number you agree with? >> it's in the 2016 generated transparency report. from memory, the number is 1,934 from memory. >> wove the number have been in 2015? >> to be honest, i don't know. i would have to take that one for the record. i do know that we didn't start the transparency commitment that we made, partnering with the dni, we didn't start that until the latter end of 2015, so the 2015 data that's been published as a matter of public record. 2016 is the first calendar year

where we have published all the data for the entire year. >> director coats? >> i've seen the number, i don't recall what it was. >> what i'm asking, you can take this to the record, is was there an increase in 2016? did you have significantly more requests then you had had -- >> i don't often have of my head, i will say section 702 collection has continued here the amount of total collection has increased generally every year. it's more and more impactful for us. it generates more and more value. >> when section 702 generates more information, it would indicate there was a u.s. person involved in criminal activity, what you do with that information? >> we reported to doj and the fbi because we are not a criminal organization. >> what do you do with that

information? information from a section 702 collection that clearly indicates there's a crime? >> that's an fbi issue. >> we take that referral and if that's a u.s. person, we began to build an investigation towards title i pfizer collection. >> thank you. >> first on section 702, like senator feinstein, i want to express my support for this important tool for our intelligence agencies. i do have a concern which we can discuss perhaps in closed session about the process by which american names which are incidentally collected are then queried. i'm concerned by the distinction between query and search and

where we run into the fourth amendment. it strikes me as bootstrapping to say we collected it legally under section 702 and then we can go and look at these american persons. i believe the fourth amendment imposes a warrant requirement in between nonstop which is not present. we can discuss that at greater length. mr. mccabe, i'm puzzled by your refusal to answer the question about a conversation you may have had with director comey. what's the basis of your refusal? >> as i stated, i think -- i can't sit here and tell you whether those conversations that you're referring to -- >> do not remember them? >> i don't know whether conversations fall within the purview over the special counsel is now investigating. >> is there some prohibition in the law that i'm not familiar

with? >> it would not be appropriate for me to discuss. >> that's the basis of your refusal to answer the question? three yes, sir, and knowing that director comey will be sitting here -- >> at your position that the special counsel can ask you, but not us. >> i have to be particularly careful about not stepping into the special counsel's lane. >> i don't understand why the special counsel's lane takes precedence over the oversight committee. can you explain that? why does the special counsel get deference and others committee? is there some legal basis? >> i would be happy to take that matter back to discuss it more fully with my general counsel and the department, but right now -- >> on the record, i would like a legal justification for your refusal to answer the question because i think it's a straightforward question.

it's not involving discussion with the president, esther involving discussions with director comey. director coats and admiral rogers, i think you testified that you did discuss today's testimony was someone in the white house. >> i said i asked the white house intended to invoke executive privilege with any interaction between myself and the president of united states. >> it was the answer question rick >> to be answered in this >> why are you not answering these questions? is there an invocation by the president of the united states of executive privilege? is there or not? what you feel isn't relevant, admiral. what you feel isn't the answer. the why you're not answering the questions? if there is, then let's know about it. if there isn't, answer the questions.

>> i stand by the comments i've made. i'm not interested in repeating myself. i don't mean that in a contentious way. >> i do mean it in a contentious way, i don't understand why you're not answering our questions. when you are confirmed before the armed services committee, you took a note, do you solemnly swear to give the committee the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i answer those conversations are classified and is not appropriate in an open forum to discuss those classified conversations. >> was classified about a conversation involving whether or not you should intervene in the fbi investigation? >> i stand by my previous comments. >> mr. coates, same series of questions. was the basis for your refusal to answer these questions? >> the basis is what i previously explained. i do not believe it is appropriate for me -- >> i'm not satisfied with i do not believe it's appropriate.

you swore that oath to tell us the truth and today you are refusing to do so. what's the legal basis for your refusal to do so? >> are not sure i have a legal basis, but i am more than willing to sue before this committee during this process and a closed session and answer your questions. >> we are having a closed session in a few hours. to commit that you'll answer these questions? >> that closed session you'll have in a few hours, it involves the staff going over the technicalities of a number of these issues -- >> you will answer these questions directly and unequivocally and without hesitation? >> i plan to do that. i do have -- i have to work through the legal counsel of the white house relative to whether or not they're going to exercise

executive -- >> admiral rogers? >> i likewise respond. i certainly hope that's what happens. i believe that's the appropriate thing, but i do have to acknowledge because of the sensitive nature, i need to be talking to the general counsel in the white house. i hope we come to a position where we can have this dialogue. >> i hope so too. both of you testified you had never been pressured under three years. i would argue that you have waived executive privilege by testifying as to something that didn't happen. i believe you opened the door to these questions. it is my belief that you are inappropriately refusing to answer these questions. >> before i turned to senator langford, let me say that the vice chairman and i have had conversations with acting attorney general rosenstein one special counsel

was named. as i shared with members of this committee, prior to that, as we carried out an investigation, there would come a point in time there was an investigation going on at the fbi or if there was a special counsel with the special counsel. it was my hope that already, the vice chair and i would have had that conversation with the special counsel. we have not, but we've made the request, we intend to have it. i think both of us anticipate that we would reach this point at some point in the investigation. there are some things that will fall into special counsel and or an active investigation. >> at this point, we have not

had that conversation with mr. mueller, we've not been waived off. on any subject. the way i'm hearing all of you gentlemen is that mr. miller has not waived you off from answering any of these question questions. is that correct? >> i've had no conversations with mr. mueller. i've been out of the country for the last nine days. >> have any of you -- if you have not had questions waived off with mr. mueller, i think, i understand your commitment to the penetration, but our questions deserve answers, and at some point, the american public deserves full answers. >> ls mr. rosenstein to address that. >> i'm sensitive to your desire to keep our answers brief and my full answer is very lengthy, but my brief answer from my perspective with the doj, our

default position is that when there is a justice department investigation, we do not discuss it publicly. that's our default rule. >> is at the row for the president of the united states as well? that is what the questions are being asked about. reports that nobody has laid to rest here that the president of the united states has intervened directly an ongoing investigation and we've got no answer from any of you and frankly, we've at least heard from director coats and admiral rogers that they have not been asked to recuse in answer because of director mueller and i don't understand why we can't get that answer. >> i'm not answering for director rogers, i'm answering ford director mccabe and myself. >> do you feel confident the fbi is fully operating with special counsel for any requests and

setting up with coordination, work projects, insight, anything the special counsel as they are trying to get prepared? is everyone in the fbi fully cooperating? >> absolutely. i'm absolutely confident of that. we have a robust relationship of the special counsel's office. >> admiral rogers, this spring, nsa decided to stop about queries. that was a long conversation. it's now come out in the public about the conversation mother that was identified as a problem. the court agreed with that and that has been stopped. when i need to ask you is, who first identified that as a problem? >> the national security agency. >> okay, how did you report that, how to that conversation go, when to identified the problem? >> and 2016, i had directed our

office of compliance, list to a fundamental baseline. we completed that effort in my memory is, i was briefed on something like october 20th, that led me to believe the technical solution that we put in place was not necessary. it then went through -- there's an underlying issue with the technical solution we put in place. we'll need some time to work our way through that, the court granted us that time. the court also said we will continue to allow section 702 under the 16 authorizations but we will not reauthorize 17 until you show us you have addressed this. we then went through an internal process interact with the department of justice as well as the court and by march, we had come to a solution that the fisa

court was comfortable with. and they also granted us authority for the 17 section 702 efforts. >> reported to the court that they initially came to you -- >> i went to the court and so we had an issue >> and the court agreed. and i got held up and went to the process of review on the court is now signed off on the other 16? >> that is correct. >> how does this harm your collection capabilities to not be able to do that? >> i acknowledge that in doing this, we are going to lose some intelligence value, but my concern was, i just felt it was important, we needed to be able to show that we are fully compliant with the law and the technical solution med put in place, i didn't think was generating the level of reliability. as a result of that, i said we need to make the change -- i will say this, the fisa court opinion also says the same

thing. if we can work that technical solution, i would potentially come back with the department of justice and the court to recommend that we reinstituted and the court acknowledged that in their certification. >> when you say greater reliability, what you mean? it >> our office of compliance highlighted cases of 2016 and i thought to myself, it's clearly not working as we think it is. we were doing queries to the operator and a handful of situations against u.s. persons and that is not in accordance with the intent of the law. >> clearly. what i'm hearing from you is the accountability system worked.

the issue rose up, we are collecting, we do have information on u.s. persons, we don't want to give up that information immediately, the court then put the final stop on it, it was collected and that's now cleared? >> yes, sir, . >> most oklahomans that i interact with don't know the term section 702. when i asked them, should we collect information on terrorist organizations and terrorists overseas were planning to carry out attacks on us and our allies, they don't hesitate, they say absolutely we should do that. they don't want collection on themselves and their mom, but they absolutely want us to be able to target terrorists. the issue that i think we talk about when we talk about section 702 is a normal conversation back home that if we miss something internationally,

everyone says i thought we were doing this. why aren't we? i fully appreciate the civil liberties conversation in the privacy questions, those are things i'm also passionate about and it's very interesting for me to be able to hear from you that you're passionate about it and the nsa is passionate. i appreciate that. in this case, when it comes out of the public media that this has occurred, and actually shows the system itself worked. when there was a query going on, it stopped immediately. i do appreciate that, thank you. >> i want to thank all four of you for your service. you all are held to the highest regards by your colleagues and your peers and i think it speaks volumes. i appreciate that very much. we have a committee here, i'm brand-new, this is my first time at this.

i don't think there's a person who doesn't want to find out the facts and the truth and be able to go back home and explained to the democrat and republican colleagues that we have gotten the facts, we got from our intel which we truly appreciate. this is our findings. were having a hard time getting there as you can tell. i respect for you all are coming from. i hope you can understand that sooner or later, there has to be one element at the public can look at and say this is not politically motivated, this is not a witch hunt. nobody trying to harm anybody, we just want to do the business of our government and our country and do the best we can and make sure they have the confidence in the people that they put ahead and have elected. that's what we're trying to get to. today it's been very difficult. i've been sitting here listening to some of the answers and the inability to answer some of the questions. at the intelligence committee cannot get answers we know in an

open setting like this, are these answers -- only be given in a classified intel setting? could you answer differently? director coats, you said you would be able to answer differently. >> i think i've made that very clear. >> likewise, i certainly hope s so. >> speaking for mr. mccabe and myself, we have been involved in managing the criminal investigation. i would ask that it's appropriate for director mueller to make the determination. i would encourage you to use mr. mueller as your point person. >> let's say the question was

asked to mr. mccabe. could you answer differently in a classified setting? >> i would reiterate, at this point with a special counsel involved, it would be appropriate for the committee to have an understanding to wear those questions would go. i would also point out that as we have historically when we are investigating sensitive matters in which operational security is of utmost importance, members of the intelligence community typically come and brief the leadership on sensitive investigative matters. we have done so, i have done so, director comey has done so prior to the appointment of special counsel. some of the questions you've asked this morning address those closed, very restricted, very small settings. >> let me say this. if it would be the desire of the chairman and vice chairman, if we could since we have a classified hearing scheduled for

2:00 this afternoon, would you make yourselves available? there is a lot of buildup, anxiety if you will. i think you could really help an awful lot of us clear the day up. >> if i could address the senator's question this afternoon is set with technical people to walk us through section 702. rest assured that we will take the first available opportunity to have people back in closed session to address those questions that they can address. hopefully prior to that, the vice chair and i would have an opportunity to meet with director mueller to determine whether that fits within the scope of his current investigation and we will do that. >> all i'm saying is that you can tell by the intensity of the questions here that there's a lot of concerns right now. we have director coats and admiral rogers say they would be willing to