or mistrust of the russian government. let me review for the record the f.b.i. and doj put away timothy mcveigh who killed 168 americans. clansmen who murdered civil rights workers goodman, cheney and others, the unibomber and terrorists who bomb u.s. embassies. organized crime family king pins. pan am 103 bombing. soviet diplomats that had a spy ring during world war ii. others for espionage. high janning, lindberg kidnapping. clansmen who killed four little girls in the 16th street church in birmingham. on the other hand russians are known for shooting down a civilian airline killing 269 passengers and crew.

and invading ukraine. propping up assad, the butcher of damascus, building the berlin wall. imposing an iron curtain against freedom and conspiring and doing a sabotage of the american presidential election in 2016. perhaps our friends on the other side of the aisle can show more respect for the f.b.i. and the d.o.j. as so many of us do including myself. so let me ask these questions with my limited time i really need just a yes or no. are you in the business of helping to secure the elections in 2018 and making sure that there is an infrastructure in the d.o.j. to help states have secure elections, yes or no. >> yes. >> special counsel mueller, i'm reminded some of us would say we read it in history books of the saturday night massacre. you must be aware of it. during the meeting of may 8, 2017 with you, sessions and the president, the day before comey was fired, what did you discuss

regarding the f.b.i. investigation? >> as i explained previously i'm not going to be discussing anything related to that until after the investigation. >> thank you very much. let me go forward with the question of the protection of the special prosecutor. do you have in place a protection scheme or system that would void a potential saturday night massacre? do you, in fact, have the authority to stand up against the president who is putting out the right wing media to taint the mueller investigation? will you protect mr. mueller if he deserves the protection and has done nothing to violate his duties and responsibilities. >> he hasn't -- >> yes or no. >> i won't take any action unless he has violated his duties. >> let me show you these individuals here. it says that the trump accusers want a day in court or at least want to be heard. the president is the chief

executive and law enforcement officer of the united states. therefore he is an officer of the united states. what intentions do you have to allow these women, who are accusing the president of sexual misconduct and have never been heard in terms of a public setting, as many of us on this committee, women on this committee, democratic women on this committee have asked this committee to hold a hearing, what does the department of justice intend to do in light that the president of the chief law enforcement officer of the aountsz. >> i don't have any position on that, congresswoman. if they file a lawsuit, they're free to do so. it wouldn't be a department matter. >> would you not believe it's important to give these women a forum to be heard? the department of justice and f.b.i. investigates. >> if there is anything that warrants federal investigation we would look at it. >> can we refer these women to

the department of justice? would there be an intake or f.b.i. officers that would take their complaints? >> if somebody wants to file a complaint of a potential federal crime they can report that to the f.b.i. or they can write. anybody can do that at any time. >> let me say to these women you have one option at this time is to go to the department of justice as the deputy attorney general has just said to us to be able to file a complaint and i would encourage them to do that and also encourage this hearing as well to do this -- this committee to have hearings. let me ask about commutation program and president obama and the memo by attorney general sessions that resins memos regarding the charging and sentencing policy and also the use of private prisons. that was by eric holder. what is the position of the u.s. department of justice as it relates to a fair and just commutation program and also the issues dealing with over

prosecution and the sentencing policy that was offered by eric holder which was considered fair and just and the use of private prisons have been known to be abusive to prisoners and do not allow certain requests to go forward. what is your position on that? >> time of the gentleman has expired. he may answer the question. >> you raise a number of issues, congresswoman. i want to clarify anybody is free to report to the department of justice when they believe is crime is commit i had. it is not a complaint in the way you might file a complaint. you are free to report any allegations and the department will conduct appropriate review as we do with any allegations of alleged criminal conduct. we initiate investigations only if we determine there is proper predication of our policies. >> you did not answer our question. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for

five minutes, mr. issa. >> if someone makes the cam -- complaint and they'll have their identification checked, right, to get into the building? >> i'm not certain. if they were to admitted to the building you can walk into most f.b.i. offices i think without having to go through security. >> you wouldn't consider it while they're filing this complaint or allegation their driver's license was looked at, would you? >> if we conduct an investigation we need to know who the witnesses are. >> i wanted to know that wasn't draconian. in the case of mr. strzok, there was an appearance of impropriety that people are observing but you had said there may not have been the reason but if it wasn't the appearance of impropriety based on his numerous rather strident tweets or not tweets but texts

commenting adversely on the president, what was it? >> if i said that, congressman, it was inadvertent. the decision to remove mr. strzok off that case was made by director mueller based upon the circumstances known to him. it is important to understand, though, those text messages were uncovered in the course of an inspector general investigation that is not complete. we won't be able to make any determination of what if any discipline is required. >> let me go to the inspector general now, michael horowitz. he has repeatedly complained that he cannot, in fact, he does not have the authority to look for impropriety by lawyers as to their conduct as lawyers because the office of -- the opr has that authority. that is still true, isn't it? >> it's true but he does have authority for certain types of misconduct by lawyers.

>> okay. we have a situation in which he can look at some of the misconduct, not others, one of the pieces of misconduct he can't look at would be the question of bias or the appearance of bias in their investigations in how they are conducting it and/or decisions. that is uniquely excluded to the inspector general in your cabinet position versus all other cabinet positions. >> i'm not certain about that. if i may, i'll check and get back to you on that. >> he is excluded. >> it would either be opr or the inspector general. with regard to conflicts of interest i believe certain of those are in the jurisdiction of the inspector general but i have to verify that. >> you can get back to me on that. the political views that mr. shabiot mentioned. these are people who had a strong preference. but notwithstanding that, let's be very candid. nobody up here is going to claim to be without their political bias. one of the reasons that when

there is a conflict of interest, people recuse themselves and when there is an appearance of impropriety they are excused. and one of the reasons we look to a special prosecutor and that you appointed a special prosecutor was to not only get past the politics on this dais but to get past the appearance of any conflict by the department of justice. is that fair to say? >> to minimize any appearance on either side of bias, correct. >> okay. but a special prosecutor under the remaining statute how it's done is still a group looking for wrongdoing. that is their charge. they aren't looking for right doing but wrongdoing. that's fair to say like any prosecutor, you aren't looking for innocence? >> they are looking for the truth and then they will make a determination whether or not it's appropriate to prosecute. >> my question to you is if that's the case and if we

accept that my assumption that they are looking to -- if they can, to hang the president or people around him, hear me out for a moment. then there really isn't a problem with having people that are dead set on trying to find anything that will incriminate the administration in a russian connection which is somewhat their charge. i'll posture to you that maybe it's not that bad to have people who really dislike the president and would like to hang him. having said that, when there is impropriety such as mr. strzok, when there is, in fact, a history at the f.b.i. of withholding information from congress, when there is the appearance of impropriety by the department of justice, and when the inspector general is limited under the statute both because he doesn't have full access and because certain portions are out of it, wouldn't you say that this is a classic example where in order to investigate the f.b.i. and

the department of justice a special prosecutor who is equally looking for the truth, if it exists adversely to the conduct of the f.b.i. and the department of justice, is within your charge and responsibility to see it happens. >> time of the gentleman has expired. you may answer. >> my simple answer to it would be if we believe there was a basis for an investigation or special counsel i can assure you we would act. >> mr. chairman, i would say since we have already had dismissals for wrongdoing and ongoing internal investigations the elements necessary to ask for a personal prosecutor to, in fact, see what was done wrong already exist. >> time of the gentleman has expired. chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee mr. kohn for five minutes. >> thank you for serving our

country under the difficult circumstances you have. has president trump ever communicated with you about removing robert mueller from his role of special counsel? >> congressman, i am not going to be discussing my communications with the president but i can tell you that nobody has communicated to me a desire to remove robert mueller. >> you said you are not going to relate your conversations with president trump. how many conversations have you had since your appointment with president trump? >> i am the deputy attorney general, congressman, it is appropriate for me to talk with the president about law enforcement issues and i don't believe that's an appropriate issue for discussion. >> when you chose robert mueller to be the special counsel, what were his characteristics, his history, and the reasons for you to have chosen him for this important position? >> i think it would be very difficult, congressman, for anybody to find somebody better qualified for this job. director mueller has throughout

his lifetime been a dedicated and respected and heroic public servant. he after college volunteered to serve as a marine in vietnam where he was wounded in combat. he attended law school and devoted most of his career as a federal prosecutor with the exception of brief stints in private practice he served as united states attorney in two districts in massachusetts and northern california and served in many other departments as he lost his position as the head of the criminal division when president clinton was elected in 1992. he went into private practice and then went back at an entry level position as a homicide prosecution in the district of columbia in 1990s. he rose through the ranks and was confirmed i believe unanimously as f.b.i. director, protected this nation after 9/11 and then when his tenure term expired he was so well respected that his term was

extend for another two years. so i believe based upon his reputation, his service, his patriotism, and his experience with the department and with the f.b.i. i believe he was an ideal choice for this task. >> thank you, sir. i agree with you. f.b.i. director wray agrees with you. he said that similar thoughts. he said he was a smart lawyer, dedicated public service and well respected within the f.b.i. everybody on the other side of the aisle agreed with you when you appointed him and everybody on the judiciary committee and everybody in the congress agreed with his appointment as f.b.i. director which was unanimous, his reappointment which was unanimous by bush and obama. everybody respects that man in this country. >> i don't. >> we knew that would be an exception. but the fact is they didn't start to dislike him until he started to get to issues that

affected the president that currently serves this country. because of that they said the f.b.i. was in tatters, that the f.b.i., the chief law enforcement, top law enforcement folks in this country are questionable. some of their allies on television said they are like the kgb. questioned you, the justice department and some of the most loyal, dedicated, fearless people in our country who serve the rule of law. i find it repugnant and awful and i wonder what you think about it when you hear about the f.b.i. which works under you being suggested it is in tatters and there is something wrong with the f.b.i. and they are somehow like the kgb. >> congressman, as i know you are aware i have expressed concern with certain aspects of certain things done by the f.b.i. but in general throughout my experience working with f.b.i. agents over the decades i found them to be an exceptional group of public servants, very loyal, faithful and dedicated and some of the finest people i know are

agents of the federal bureau of investigation. >> i thought about them when i watched about the army/navy game because i have the honor of recommending some folks to be at west point and annapolis. those are the cream of the crop and the people at the f.b.i. are in law enforcement the cream of the crop. you hired the best. you always have. i compliment you on that and i hope and know you will continue to hold the department of justice up as a pantheon of outstanding lawyers and jurists and take justice where it should go as truth demands and justice dictates. i yield back the balance of my time. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. >> thank you for your testimony and service. a number of things i'm curious about here. first of all, in the interview of hillary clinton that took

place reportedly july 2 of 2016, how many people were in the room for that? how many people had the opportunity to question her? >> congressman, i do not know the answer to that. i believe when the inspector general completes his review we may have additional information. i personally do not know. >> would you know who selected that team? >> no, i do not. >> really? i recall the testimony by james comey and also by then attorney general loretta lynch, one of the two of them there were three representatives of the f.b.i. and three representatives of doj doing that interview. would that be consistent with practice that you would anticipate? will i here i.g. again >> we would have at least two agents conduct an interview and there may be any number of attorneys based upon who is on the case. i don't know the details of that particular decision. >> and the practice in an interview like that, would

there be records kept of that interview? >> yes, if there were f.b.i. agents present typically they would take notes and make a report summarizing the interview. >> would there be a videotape, audio tape or transcript? >> generally no. >> why not? >> it's just not in the practice to do it. >> it needs to become the practice. the practice across the countryside many of our local law enforcement if you're a county deputy and you interview somebody for drunk driving you tape that interview. we have sheriffs out there that say if they don't do that it's cause for discipline. now we're sitting here with a mystery on what went on in that interview of july 2 and many questions have been asked about that before and after and they will trickle through history until we get to the bottom of it. we don't know who was in the room. you can't tell me who was in the room. do you have any knowledge that peter strzok might have been one of those people? >> i do not know. >> it has been reported in the

news he was. >> i personally do not know. >> when i look through a timeline here quickly to drop this into the record, may -- april, may of 2016 peter strzok interviews huma abiden and cheryl mills who was in the room with hillary clinton and subject of the investigation. may 2 comey emails f.b.i. officials a draft statement a couple months before his recommendation not to prosecute hillary clinton and in that chain peter strzok's name shows up. it's been reported he is the one that swapped out the references from gross negligence to extremely carelessness. i don't know if that's true. do you have any knowledge about that? >> no. but i would point out it's the inspector general review that has turned up that >> i thought that would be the answer. then also skipping forward to july 24th, f.b.i. interviews michael flynn on russia it's report evidence in the news

that peter strzok is in that interview. no knowledge to disagree with the reports that are in the news, however. >> correct. >> and then we get the news later on that sometime in mid-summer peter strzok had been removed from mueller's investigative team but we find out december 4th that took place. i kind of understand that. if that had drifted into the jetstream perhaps we wouldn't be in the middle of this controversy. what about if his hands are in so many things and i'm not touch them all by any means. what will the fruit of the poisonous tree? this is the voids of the fruit of the poisonous tree and looking at what was reported this morning. i took a picture on the television on my iphone. a quote from august 6, 2016. lisa page to peter strzok and they were talking about president trump and maybe --

she is speaking to peter strzok her lover, i hear, maybe you are meant to stay where you are because you are meant to protect the country from that menace. his response is thanks, it's absolutely true that we're both very fortunate and, of course, i'll try and approach it that way. i just don't know it will be tough at times. i can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps. does that sound like a declaration that he would use his job to leverage his work against the president of the united states? >> congressman, the inspector general's investigation includes interviews of numerous witnesses and i anticipate hopefully in the near future we'll have a report with his conclusions. >> would you have any opinion on the lack of the fruit from the poisonous tree that might have been erased by peter strzok? >> as a legal matter i can tell you that if evidence is tainted, then that would raise a concern for me. typically our cases would be

prosecuted based on witnesses and documents and not upon the agent unless he were personally a witness in the case. it would concern us if there were any tainted evidence in the case. >> thank you, mr. rosenstein. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the congressman from georgia. >> thank you for your service to the country, mr. rosenstein. based on the language in your special counsel order, or your order appointing the special counsel, does the special counsel have the authority to investigate any individual who may have obstructed the investigation that f.b.i. director comey confirmed on march 20th of this year which was the russian interference with the 2016 elections? >> special counsel has authority to investigate any obstruction related to his jurisdiction. >> does this authority to

investigate possible obstruction include investigating president trump? >> i hope you won't take an inference one way or the other. but as i've explained that is something we do not do. we don't discuss who may or may not be under investigation. >> i'm not asking you whether or not the president is under investigation, i'm asking whether or not your order appointing the special counsel authorizes the special counsel to investigate the president. >> it authorizes to him to investigate anybody who there is presented indication to believe obstructed justice. >> that includes the president, correct? >> it will include anybody suspected of obstructing justice. >> all right. does -- do you think that it's appropriate for the president to comment publicly on any pending investigation? >> congressman, a decision about whether people in

political positions comment on invery gaitions is not mine. my responsibility is to ensure our investigations aren't impacted by any opinion whether it's a member of congress or anybody else. >> it wouldn't be appropriate for you to comment about any pending investigation, isn't that correct? >> correct. >> the president is the chief law enforcement officer. he considers himself in the country. it would be inappropriate for him, then, to comment on a pending investigation, would it not? >> congressman, i believe over the years there have been presidents who have made comments about investigations and it is simply not my responsibility to make that decision. >> do you think it's appropriate for the president to publicly call for the investigation of specific individuals? >> i'm simply not going to comment on that other than to tell you it's my responsibility along with the attorney general

to make sure those decisions are made independently by the department based on the facts and the law. >> that's the president ever contacted you regarding any pending investigation? >> congressman, i have not received any improper orders and i won't be talking about particular communications i may have which are appropriate communications with the white house. >> what would be your legal basis for refusing to answer the question whether or not the president has contacted you to urge any action in any pending investigation? what would be your legal basis for refusing to answer that question? >> this is not a partisan issue. i worked on an investigation where the previous president encouraged the department to do an investigation. the question for me is are we or are we not appropriately making an independent determination regardless of who comments on it? >> my question, i respect your

question but my question is has the president ever contacted you to urge action in any pending investigation? yes or no. >> i have nothing further to say about it. >> you'll refuse to answer a question from a member of congress seeking to do oversight. >> i've told you, congressman. i have not received any improper orders and i will not talk about communications. i think in every administration, senior law enforcement officers have to be able to communicate with the president and his officials about appropriate matters within their responsibility and not comment on it. so you shouldn't draw any inference. it is simply not appropriate for me to talk about communications i may have with the administration. i would tell you if something happened that was wrong, if somebody ordered me to do something that was improper but that has not happened. >> it would be improper for the president to ever contact you about initiating an

investigation of someone, would it not? >> we've discussed this previously congressman. presidents have commented publicly. >> my question is it would be improper for a president to contact you about initiating an investigation of someone. it would be improper, wouldn't it? >> it would be improper for the president to order me to conduct an investigation. >> it would be improper for the president to ask you to initiate an investigation, would it not? >> if it were for improper reasons, yes. >> is it your testimony today that the president has not asked you to investigate someone specifically? >> congressman, i understand what you are getting at. as i said, i was in the last administration and the president in the last administration commented and there is nothing wrong about that. >> you are being very artful in jumping around and evading answering my question. you aren't going to answer it.

>> i'm not evading. >> are you afraid of president trump firing you? >> no, i'm not, congressman. >> with that i will yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for being here, mr. rosenstein. did you ever tell special counsel robert mueller that in essence everything you do must not only be just and fair but must also appear beyond reproach, anything like that? >> in essence, yes. >> well, since attorney general sessions recused himself, you are effectively the boss of the special counsel and staff, correct? >> that is correct i'm effectively the boss. >> okay. we all know that f.b.i. director james comey was fired. we know of your letter and we know of your public statement. here is a question. to your knowledge who first proposed the idea of firing james comey as f.b.i. director? >> congressman, i'm not going

to comment on that. the president has explained he made the decision and i'm not going to comment beyond that. >> at the time you wrote the letter suggesting the firing, did you believe what you put in that letter? >> yes, i did. >> all right. if an f.b.i. employee goes into a meeting and as part of his job and furtherance of his job and someone in the government, and he comes out and he makes a memo memorializing the meeting, perhaps in the future past memory refreshed, is that memo doj property? >> generally i would think it would be. generally the answer would be yes. >> an f.b.i. employment agreement statement says that -- this is a person agreeing to

work for the f.b.i. -- all information acquired by me with my official duties with the f.b.i. and all official -- i will not reveal by any means any information, material from or related to the f.b.i. files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment. if you make a memo of things that were discussed in as part of your job, then it would be a violation of that agreement to send that to someone to leak to the press, isn't that right? >> it well may be. >> all right. the question i'm about to ask. i'm not asking what you may have told attorney jeff sessions. i don't want to know any words used or sources reference. i'm asking a question that could not possibly have any other answer other than one of two words, that would be yes or no. you are completely free to wholly answer this question with one of those two words. neither word is privileged.

confidential or classified. the question. as attorney general jeff sessions deputy did you give jeff sessions any advice regarding whether or not he should recuse himself in the matter of the russian investigation, yes or no? >> no. can i give a little bit of an explanation? i appreciate you asking that question. i wasn't there. i was confirmed i believe on april 25th and took office april 26th. i was not there at the time of the recusal. >> and did you ever talk to bruce ohr? >> yes. >> four doors down from yours >> i haven't counted but he was down the hall. >> and of course he has been demoted over the relationship with fusion gps and we found out his wife, nelly, was a russian expert and paid by fusion gps in summer and fall of 2016 helping the clinton campaign get a dossier from the russians.

how well do you know the people that work on your hall? >> well, it varies, congressman. i think that's -- some of them i know well, some i don't know as well. >> of course, everybody has some opinions, political opinions or otherwise, the key is not having those affect or bias you in the department of justice. >> correct. >> here is mr. strzok, some of his texts talking about truck. -- trump. he is an idiot like trump. i'm not watching, i can't tell you how little i care right now talking about the republican convention. so much more substantive than the representative debates. he goes on at some point the republican party needs to pull their head out of their blank, shows no sign of occurring any time soon. the f, we were told by christopher wray stands for fidelity but they were made in

the course of infidelity. he makes slurs against kasich. i says i truly hate these people. talking about the republicans. no support for the women who actually has to spend the rest of her life rearing this child but we care about, quote, life. and then a-holes. how can he -- how the f can he be a republican and on and on it goes. america will get what the voting public deserves. and that's what i'm afraid of. hillary should win 100 million to zero. did you hear him make a comment the size of -- anyway, these are not just political opinions, this is disgusting, unaccountable bias. there is no way that could not affect a person's work. were you aware of just how bias mr. strzok was? >> no, i was not. >> thank you.

one final thing. i'm asking a question, the answer is not classified nor privileged. based on information to the best of your knowledge, has the f.b.i. ever used work product or report any part of which was paid for by political campaign, political party, political candidate or prepared on a candidate's behalf? >> congressman, the issue that you are talking about. >> the witness may answer the question. >> i know that we're working with at least one committee, house intelligence that has access to that information. i believe they'll get whatever information. >> i'm asking a general question, not specifically. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> not my personal knowledge but i'm not -- i don't know everything about the f.b.i. >> mr. chairman point of personal privilege. since my character was

slandered by mr. cohen who said that i never -- we never challenged mueller until he came after the administration, when he knows how tough i went after f.b.i. director mueller. he has been here when i went after mueller while bush was president. he knows i have been after him because of the damage he did and what he stated about me is a lie. i need the record to properly reflect that. >> the gentleman's comment is duly noted. the chair recognizes miss bass from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. according to an august 17th f.b.i. intelligence assessment titled black identity extremists likely motivated to target law enforcement officers, quote, it is very likely that black identity

extremists perceptions of police brutality against african-americans spurred an increase in retaliatory violence. i tried to get to the bottom of where this report came from, who did it, what its status is. i've asked attorney general sessions, i've asked director wray and so now i want to ask you. did you order the f.b.i. to conduct this assessment? >> what was the date? >> august 2017. august of this year. >> no, i did not. >> do you know who authored the report? are you familiar with the report? >> i'm not familiar with the report bust the general issue. >> talk about the general issue in particular when the f.b.i. began tracking black identity extremism? >> it's important for me to explain that the f.b.i. does not make a determination with regard to domestic groups to investigate them based upon their first amendment views or affiliation. it bases its decisions on evidence of a propensity to violence.

with regard to members of any ideology, domestically the f.b.i. would only be investigating if there was -- >> do you believe there is a movement in the country called black identity extremism. >> i don't think it encompasses a political movement. they try to identify different tlaets. >> bill: investigate. before you do an investigation there is surveillance, correct? >> generally no, there might need to be a determination first there was a basis for an investigation. typically before any surveillance. >> how does that determination take place and where has it taken place? >> if you want details i need to get back to you but the f.b.i. does have very district guidelines. there was quite a bit of controversy about this issue several decades ago and the f.b.i. has guidelines for those type of investigations. >> i am aware of the f.b.i.'s

history from many years ago and many people are looking at this document -- one of the concerns that has been raised and that i raised with attorney general sessions and director wray is this document, for whatever reason, was mass distributed to law enforcement offices around the country. are you aware of that? >> no, i'm not. >> so when we talk to director wray it wasn't clear how this term was even developed. in other words, what evidence was it based on to even come up with a term like that and then to write a document about it. and then to distribute it to law enforcement around the country. >> i don't know the answer to that, congresswoman. i've been in this job for eight months and i haven't seen any indication the f.b.i. approaching it in a biased way. they have investigations where the person the subject represents a threat not because they associate with an ideology

but because they represent a particular threat. i believe the f.b.i. guidelines are designed specifically to ensure there are no abuses. >> what i'm hearing from activists around the country, in particular activists protesting law enforcement and police brutality or deaths at the hands of law enforcement is that they are being visited by the f.b.i. that the f.b.i. is leaving business cards and then what the concern about that is that if they do engage in a conversation with an f.b.i. agent and perhaps make a mistake or maybe say something that isn't true, they are vulnerable to be prosecuted for lying to a law enforcement officer. so the activists that have received visits by the f.b.i. have never been involved in violence at all. are you aware of that happening in any of your offices around the country? >> no. >> let me express another concern. when a document that doesn't seem to have any scientific basis that develops a category called black identity extremism that nobody can say whether or

not it really exists, when you send a document like that to law enforcement around the country, in some places i will worry they will take that to say that any time there is an officer-involved shooting and then there is a protest the people that protest might be black identity extremists. >> to the best of my knowledge the f.b.i. is not investigating people who are peacefully protesting. as having read that document, i'll review it and see what it says. >> i would appreciate it if you would. if there is no basis for this term, then the f.b.i. take the step to retract the document and send a message to law enforcement around the country that no such category exists. i yield back my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan for five minutes. >> did the f.b.i. pay christopher steele and was the dossier the basis for securing

warrants at the fisa court to spy on americans associated with trump campaign? when you sum it up. did you pay the guy who wrote it and did you use what he wrote discredited dossier, did you use it to get warrants to spy on americans. what's what it comes down to. you are the guy who can answer those questions. i was -- yesterday i was convinced the answer to those questions was probably yes but today i'm even more convinced the answer is yes based on the text messages we got to read early this morning. mr. rosenstein, you know peter strzok, are you familiar with that name? >> yes. >> former deputy head of counter intelligence at the f.b.i. that one? >> i don't know his precise title. he had a sig sniff can't role. >> ran the change the exoneration letter, peter strzok who ran the russian investigation and selected by mr. mueller to be on his team.

that peter strzok we learn had all these text messages. we got to read some of them early this morning. now, as my colleagues point out some of them are he didn't like trump. he didn't miss a page or exchange a -- they said they don't like the president. that's nothing new. everyone on -- no one on mueller's team likes trump. we knew that. i want to focus on one in particular. one in particular. this is a text message from mr. strzok to miss page recalling a conversation and a meeting that took place in andrew mccabe's officer recalling a meeting earlier and mr. strzok says this, i want to believe the -- it's there is a break, dash it says that there is no way he gets elected. no way trump gets elected. i want to believe that. you said that in a meeting in andrew mccabe's office. i want to believe that but then he goes but i'm afraid we can't

take that risk. this goes to intent. he says we can't take the risk. the people of this great country might elect donald trump president. we can't take this risk. this is peter strzok, head of counter intelligence at the f.b.i. and who i think had a hand in that dossier that was all dressed up and taken to the fisa court. he is saying we can't take the risk. we have to do something about it. don't forget the timeline here either, mr. rosenstein. peter strzok, january 10th is the guy who changes the exoneration letter from gross negligent lens to extreme recklessness. july says when comey has the press conference. clinton is okay. and august 2016 we have this text message. the same month that the russian investigation is opened at the f.b.i. august 2016. my guess is that's the same

month that the application was taken to the fisa court to get the warrants to spy on americans. using this dossier that clinton campaign paid for, democrats paid for, fake news all dressed up taken to the court, so i got really just a couple basic questions. seems to me if the answer to any of those two questions, if the answer is yes, if you guys paid christopher steele at the same time the democrats and clinton campaign were paying him or if you took the dossier dressed it up and took it to the fisa court and used that as a basis to get warrants, and now we have intent in this text message saying there is another text message my colleague referenced earlier where mr. strzok says i can protect our country at many levels. he says it with all the humility he could muster. i can protect our country at many levels. this guy thought he was super agent james bond at the f.b.i.

this is obvious. i'm afraid we can't take that risk. there is no way we can let the american people make donald trump the next president. i have to protect our country. this is unbelievable. i'm here to tell you, mr. rosenstein, i think the public trust in this whole thing is gone. seems to me you have two things you can do. you are the guy in charge. you are the guy who picked mueller and wrote the memo saying why he needed to fire comey. the guy in charge. you could disband the mueller special prosecutor and do what we've all called for appoint the second special counsel to look into this and everything else we've learned in the last several weeks, strzok and ohr. >> i can assure you that i consider it very important to make sure a thorough review is done and our inspector general is doing a thorough review. that's how we found those text messages. >> let me ask you this. are you concerned -- this is what a lot of americans are

believing right now. i certainly do. that the comey f.b.i. and the obama justice department worked with one campaign to go after the other campaign. that's what everything points to. think about what we've learned in the last several weeks. we first learned they paid for the dossier, then we learn about peter strzok, and last week we learned about bruce ohr and his wife nelly. this is unbelievable. what is it going to take to get a second special counsel to answer these questions and find out what peter strzok was really up to and what i think he was. >> i think it's important to understand we have inspector general who has 500 employees and $100 million budget and this is what he does. he investigates allegations of misconduct involving department employees. that review he is conducting is what turned up the text messages. it will also involve interviews of those persons and other witnesses. >> we're looking forward to his report. we've met with him and we're anxiously awaiting that report. that doesn't dismiss the fact the country thinks we need a

second special counsel. this committee thinks we need a second special counsel. all kinds of senators think we need a special counsel. what fact pattern do you have to have and what kind of text messages before you have to see it's time for a second special counsel? >> i want to see you and the attorney general explained we take very seriously the concerns of 20 or one member of this committee. we'll make an independent determination and we will. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there are approximately 14,000 special agents within the f.b.i., is that correct? >> 36,000 total employees. >> a majority of those f.b.i. special agents are registered republicans? >> i haven't asked them and i wouldn't want to speculate. >> fair to say a majority of the 14,000 f.b.i. special agents have conservative

leaning political views like much of the law enforcement community throughout the entire nation? >> i'm certain many of them do. i haven't counted. >> the department of justice apparently last evening invited a group of reporters to its offices to view the private text messages that were sent during the election by peter strzok and lisa page, is that correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> who exactly authorized the department of justice in advance of a congressional hearing to invite reporters to come view private text message communications between two department of justice employees who are the subject of a pending investigation. >> that's important question you ask, congressman. it was one of my concerns about this issue is what is the status of these messages and is it appropriate to release them? and the determination was made that it is. so we gave notice to their attorneys, we notified the

committee and our goal congressman is to make sure it's clear to you and the american people we are not concealing anything that's embarrassing to the f.b.i. >> bill: is it extraordinary that you would invite reporters for a private viewing in advance of a congressional >> shannon bream tweeted last evening at 9:29 that fox news producer jake gibson has 10,000 text messages between peter strzok and lisa page. now, it's my understanding that only about 350 or so were released to this committee, is that correct? >> there are others that are being reviewed and we've assured the committee chairs that we will produce them as soon as we have them available. there are some redactions that need to be made >> how is it possible that fox news has 10,000 text messages? >> i wouldn't assume that's

true just because it was in the news. i'm not aware of that. >> this is a fox news reporter indicating that. i'm sure we'll get to the bottom of it. hopefully the chairman would be interested in what was clearly a violation of law and department of justice proceedings. >> if there were evidence we disclosed information to a reporter that wasn't disclosed to the congress i would agree with you. i'm not aware of that. >> the department of justice investigation should be free of political interference, true? >> absolutely. >> we put up a tweet from donald trump on november 3 at 3:57 a.m. in the morning. god knows what he was doing at that time other than tweeting. it says everybody -- put that tweet up. >> the clock stop while we're trying to do this. >> what was the gentleman's

request? >> the committee has been given notice of a tweet that i wanted displayed on the screen last evening and i've been asking for that to be put up. >> there is some technical difficulty in doing that? we'll suspend. >> i believe the gentleman had 1:45. >> we'll make sure he gets plenty of time. >> thank you, mr. gates. >> in the interest of time, mr. chairman i'll read what was written by the president. he said everybody is asking why the justice department and

f.b.i. isn't looking into all of the dishonesty going on with crooked hillary and the dems. let me ask you a question. is it ever appropriate for a president, any president of the united states to encourage the department of justice to launch criminal investigations against his or her perceived political enemies? >> i'm not going to comment on that, congressman, as i've explained previously the president has put a team of experienced folks in charge of the department of justice and we aren't going to be influenced by anything other than the facts and the law. >> is that an appropriate tweet for the president of the united states to send? >> it is not my role to opine on that. >> the president's repeated attempts to incourage criminal prosecutions against perceived political enemies concern you, sir? >> as i said, we understand our responsibility and we are going to continue to conduct our responsibility in accordance with the facts of the law and i am grateful the president has put an experienced team in

charge of the justice department who understand what to do. >> on june 20 the new "the new york times" published and interview. in it the president criticized you from being from baltimore. mr. rosenstein, are you unable to be fair and impartial because you're from baltimore? >> i am not from there. it is true there aren't a lot of republicans in baltimore. >> his statement had no basis in reality, correct? >> as i said that part of it was true. >> former u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york, true? he was fired by donald trump in march, is that correct >> along with almost all u.s. attorneys. >> they have prosecutorial jurisdiction over trump tower in manhattan, right? presidential interviews of u.s. attorney candidates has been reported to be the case for the replacement would be a

departure from presidential protocol, correct? >> for the president to personally conduct the interview? i'm not aware of all the prior practices. i don't think it was done in the last two administrations that i'm familiar with. >> and you were appointed by president bush and then continued in that position as u.s. attorney for maryland by barack obama. that's correct? >> as a matter of law i was appointed and ever removed. >> were you ever asked by president bush for a loyalty pledge or president obama to take a loyalty pledge >> no >> is it appropriate for the president to take a loyalty pledge? >> nobody has asked me to take a loyalty pledge other than oath of office. >> i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. >> thank you for being here.

just so it's clear i'm one of the numerous members of the judiciary committee that have asked for a second special prosecutor based on what mr. jordan earlier said. the justice department is responsible for investigating criminal conduct. would that include criminal conduct by the nsa? >> yes. >> okay. we all learned under the prison that was happening years ago by the nsa that the nsa was doing in my opinion unconstitutional surveillance of americans and emails by tracking it and hacking into see those emails, came to light under snowden after, who he care nothing for, brought it to america's attention. the nsa said they weren't going

to do that anymore. that's appropriate because i thought it was unconstitutional. we've heard reports through the media there has been unmasking of information. what i mean by that is classified information is seized on somebody and someone else, an american, their name is caught up in the communication and if someone leaks who that was, unmasks that individual, my understanding is it's classified information whoever does that unmasking has committed a felony. is that correct? >> the only distinction i would make is the unmasking is something done in the course of the intelligence analysis. leaking would be a violation. >> that's what i'm talking about, the leaking of that information. and as of today, has anybody

been indicted under leaking information on unmasking up until today? has the justice department indicted anybody under those two scenarios and events? >> we have indicted, prosecuted people for leaking. i'm not certain whether -- i don't believe any of them related to unmasking. >> so no one has been indicted, to your knowledge. i want to bring up the foreign intelligence surveillance act that has been discussed by this committee numerous times. it's the law that allows secret courts to issue secret warrants to try to go get terrorists that are operating overseas and get their information. does the justice department present those fisa warrants to a fisa judge? >> in situations where a warrant is required, yes, if it needs to be obtained from a federal judge. >> that's right.

but the justice department is responsible for that; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> also, under fisa, once again, americans are brought in to the scenario because you target a foreign terrorist and then you go after their emails and then you find emails of americans and those are inadvertently caught in the surveillance of the target. according to the "the washington post" recently, 90% of those inadvertent emails are on americans. and my question to you is has why hasn't the justice department, the fbi, the intelligence community presented to congress and our request that took place years ago, how many of those inadvertent emails, communications, text

messages, conversations have been on americans? asked for the number. do you know why that has not been brought to our attention? and let me just follow up with this reason. here's the reason we need it. we are getting ready to maybe reauthorize 702, which i have a lot of problems with i think it's unconstitutional in many other ways. but, beside the point, here we are at a deadline getting ready to reauthorize it and still the intelligence community refuses to tell us how many americans' information has been seized. can you tell us why we haven't gotten that information that we have asked for for years? >> no. i testified at a hearing with director coyotes ohio think woulcoats.he has explaine. i would simply point out you used the term inadvertent. it's a term we use incidental. >> incidental. >> my point simply is if you are investigating a foreign

terrorist, knowing with whom that person is communicating is important to your investigation. >> that's not my question. my question was we are getting ready to maybe reauthorize 702. i don't think we should reauthorize it until we find out from the intelligence community no indictments issued against the intelligence community based upon the staples that you have made to see whether or not they are violating the law and they refuse to give this committee the information about how many people have been caught up in that and stonewalled by the intelligence community saying well, we just can't do it. why can't the intelligence community get some geek at best buy to have them come in and answer that question with a little few taps into the computer system. we just want the number. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. you may answer the question. >> i have heard director coats explain this and he is better position than i. >> so we don't know.