messages, mr. strzok. >> yes, sir, my impression not stated by him. my impression was based on the appearance of those messages and in part of a desire by him to avoid even the appearance of any potential bias, that he asked me to return. that's a question >> but he kept everyone else. >> sir, i don't know the staffing decisions that were made. >> including 13 democrats. >> sir, i don't know the affiliation of the people. >> he was concerned enough to remove you but you never felt concerned enough to remove yourself. >> that is correct. >> you are going to get asked other questions here that relate to your transition from the investigation of ms. clinton into the beginnings of this

investigation into the trump campaign and the alleged collusion with the russian government. the fbi is a creation of this body, congress created the fbi with its constitutional authority. today you are here under subpoena, also an exercise of congresses constitutional constitutional authority, which takes precedence? fbi policy or the united states constitution? >> always the united states constitution, my impression is that i am not here under subpoena, i am here voluntarily. not for the session today. >> a subpoena was issued and the service of which was accepted. >> that is not my understanding, sir. >> in supreme court case just last year, the court reviewed whether statements made by a

juror that indicated racial bia bias, the racial bias exhibited by a juror provided an exception to the role that jury deliberation must remain confidential because it's necessary "to ensure that our legal system remains capable to coming ever closer to equal treatment under the law that is so essential to a functioning democracy." he referenced that all the text and questions were simply personal opinions and in no way reflected your intention to act on your opinion. yet if you made these statements on a jury it is hard to imagine that you would not be kicked off immediately because of the risk that your bias would undermine a functioning democracy. do you still hold that personal opinions, even in the face of the supreme court precedent, should not have tainted your involvement on any investigation related to secretary clinton or

president trump? >> i think you are mixing apples and oranges, i am not an attorney and i am not familiar with that supreme court ruling. based on what you said, protected categories are protected matters that we may not, the government and by law, people may not be discriminated against based on their role one way or the other in any one of those categories. that is entirely separate and distinct from political beliefs, political opinion. that is encouraged, is protected by the first amendment. this body my understanding is, recognize -- >> no one stop you from sending the text, but the special counsel, mr. mueller removed you from the investigation when he saw the text. >> that's true, he did. if you let me go back to answering your question, if i may, in terms of political speech, that is radically

different from any sort of protected category based on ethnicity or other category. political thought is protected, the constitution recognizes we all have political belief. when it comes to the expression of that political belief, that is something that this body under the hatch act, expressly stated that it is not prohibite prohibited, then it is expressly encourage. i would tell you that no one in here -- it's an impossible definition to say people must not have political opinions. everyone does, of course they do. the test is whether they that is left behind when you are doing your job. your question of whether i would express that in front of a jury, of course i wouldn't. that would be inappropriate. whether each and every one of those jurors when they go home sitting in their backyard with a friend has a political opinion, my answer would be undoubtedly,

almost, if not all of those jurors would. >> but they are instructed when they leave the jury panel each day to not communicate with anyone regarding the matter they are considering. that is a very different thing, you were considering a matter and conducting texts of all very biased, salacious manner that was totally inappropriate. when mr. mueller saw that, he removed you. >> i appreciate that concern but what i am telling you is there is a vast difference in my mind between an action as a juror, being instructed by a judge not to discuss the matters of a trial compared to a citizen of the united states discussing his personal -- >> you don't suppose there is a reason why? the chairman recognizes the gentleman from new york. >> that may begin by congratulating the witness on his completely correct statement

of first amendment law, that people are entitled to political opinions. you, sir, obviously expressed your political opinions regarding mr. trump and hillary clinton in text messages to lisa page, and she to you. these were private political opinions which he did not express publicly. >> correct. >> the inspector general found the investigation to hillary "we found no evidence that the conclusions were affected by bias or other improper consideration. rather they were based on the assessments of the law." that is correct, no? >> yes, sir. >> with respect to the russia investigation, the ig said he was disturbed by the appearance that investigative decisions may be impacted by bias, made no

such findings and in fact hadn't completed his investigation of the russia investigation, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> when people talk about the appearance, whether people on this panel or the inspector general, those text messages might create the appearance of bias only if they are public. is that correct? otherwise there would be no appearance. >> that's come correct. >> they were not intended to be public, were they? >> they were communications by two private individuals. our fbi agents permitted to have political opinions? >> yes. >> is a 22 year veteran of the fbi, could you tell us without naming names, were you familiar with the fact with other fbi personnel having political opinions with respect to the

presidential campaign? speak otherwise. >> were some of these people anti-trump? >> they were. >> were some of these people prodrome? >> they were. >> were any of the personal opinions affecting divisions in investigations by the fbi? you mentioned the hatch act. at the fbi is prohibited from inquiring as to the political opinions of people it is hiring. >> i don't know the hatch act well enough to tell you. >> i will say that is the case. the government may not inquire to the political opinions of people it is hiring for nonexempt positions. i must say, i think all these inquiries about your political opinions as revealed by these text messages are irrelevant and wrong unless it can be shown as

it has not been shown, as it was found definitively not to be the case, has not been shown in the russia investigation, that they affected any decisions in the investigation. let's leave it at that on that point. mr. strzok, what is the fbi policy -- let me say one other thing. it is prudent, i will observe this. it's obviously prudent of mr. mueller, in hearing about all these text messages, to think they might be subject to incorrect interpretations on publicity and to avoid the kind of attacks on this investigation we are seeing from republican members of this committee and from the administration, to leave that investigation had nothing to do with your

competence or fairness to the investigation but simply to somewhat insulate that investigation from unfair attacks, would you think that might be a correct? >> yes. >> thank you. what is the fbi policy with respect towards agents commenting publicly on an ongoing criminal investigation? >> we don't do that. for a variety of reasons, i think it is unfair to the subject of the investigation, it can tend to skew the conduct of that investigation, other witnesses, future investigative avenues, it can skew potential jurors, i can to give any number of reasons why we don't do that. >> thank you. are you familiar with the report of the fbi handling of the clinton investigation? >> i am. >> that report was highly critical of director comey, for departing from protocol and commenting publicly on an ongoing criminal investigation.

it was critical of him. and although some people have said that they don't agree with the decision not to charge mrs. clinton, in fact the departure from protocol was -- the first departure from protocol was director comey commenting on his opinion about her handling of the various emails and so forth, having decided after she wasn't being charged, departing from protocol and publicly commenting from that, was that not a deviation from protocol cited by the report? >> yes, sir. >> does the fbi expect you to adhere to that policy on not commenting on ongoing criminal investigations today? >> yes. they instructed me, my understanding is they met with chairman goodlatte and his staf staff, that outside of the

approved topics, i was not to discuss anything having to do with ongoing investigations. >> thank you. i will simply observe that asking you and anyone else to uncle comment on ongoing criminal investigation is outside of policy and can damage reputations of people endanger the safety of informants, as you have said. you are an experienced counterintelligence official, can you explain why -- you touch on this, why the investigation is another critical investigation important to our national security? >> i think it is important because of what it represents. the selection of our nation's leader, the person who is charged with the defense of the united states and national security of the united states, whether it is military or economic, there is no greater

responsibility in the land. the way we do that, the underpinning of what we are in america, the election is the process by which we do that. the idea that not only have foreign nation but an advanced, hostile foreign nation would be inserting themselves clandestinely in that process to undermine the will of the united states is terrible. >> thank you. is that why you thought it important to prioritize -- i think it was in october of 2016, the russia investigation and leave the laptop to someone else, you asked to look into it? >> the first reason i did it is because the director told me to, it was our top priority. the second thing was yes, when you look at allocation of resources based on a threat to national security, the russia investigations were of a great impact on the mishandling of classified information investigation. >> the first reason was because the director told you to?

>> yes, sir. >> how frequently does the fbi engage in operations against foreign powers? how frequently does the fbi investigate a possible conspiracy between a presidential candidate and a foreign power? >> this is the first when i can remember in my lifetime. >> it is fair to say we are an unprecedented territory? >> speaking from my experience in the fbi, that's fair. >> is it fair to say our country is facing and is possibly still facing a great threat from a hostile foreign power? >> that is. >> i think that is correct. we know that russia after successfully interfering with our last election is actively working to disrupt the upcoming election in 2018. we are told this by all of our agencies. last week, the senate

intelligence committee, on a bipartisan basis confirmed this assessment. the director of national intelligence testified before the senate intelligence committee about an even more urgent threat. there should be no doubt, they perceive the past efforts as successful and view the 2018 midterm elections as a potential target. what is the majority response to this problem? launch an investigation into hillary clinton's emails and do as much as they can to undermine special counsel robert mueller who is running the most consequential national security investigation of this generatio generation. the republicans are usually taking aim at rod rosenstein. just as they insist on asking you questions about an ongoing investigation, questions you cannot answer, the majority insists on demanding some of the most sensitive information in the deputy attorney general's position, documents he cannot provide for the same reason.

they want copies of the documents that lay out the special counsel's exact line of inquiry. such a disclosure will be dangerous and unprecedented. republicans are demanding the doj violate the very policies of the inspector general criticized the department for violating into thousand 16. this is incredibly inappropriate and dangerous and we are forced to ask ourselves why, why house to republicans have been so dismissive of russia's attacks on the united states, why are they so intent on destroying public confidence in the justice department and the special counsel investigation? why have they abandon house rules to pick unnecessary fights with you, lisa page, and deputy attorney general rosenstein. the obvious answer is because they are scared, because president trump is scared, because the special counsel's investigation is operating at a breakneck pace and has already produced five guilty pleas and

criminal charges against individuals, because accountability is coming one way or another and they are scared and trying to undermine the investigation and distract attention. now -- i would say the basis of these questions we are hearing today is the 11th hour interview, i now call upon the majority to release that transcript in full today. this will show this is the entire joint investigation, in private for 11 hours, there is nothing that prevents the majority from releasing that transcript. selected portions of that transcript have been leaked by members of the majority,

misleading portions have been taken out of context. i don't know if demand is the right word but demand so far as i cannot the transcript be released, so people can see it. and can make better judgments. i asked the chairman now to order the release of that transcript. will the chairman do so? >> not today. >> not today. >> will the chairman ever do so? >> you can direct your questions to the witness, this is the time to do that. >> i will observe that the chairman will not answer the question and that this is part of the continuing evasion and attempt at obfuscation. we know the pattern and the pattern is we are not releasing transcripts except parts of them

that may convey the impression, falls or true, that we want to convey. there is no legal reason why this transcription not be released, there is only a partisan reason why this transcription not be released. there is no valid reason why it should not be released. there is a purpose to our inquiries, spending 11 hours, no reason they shouldn't be released. i will yield now. >> i think the gentleman for yielding and i would say it is very customary and investigations to keep transcripts of private interviews until the conclusion of the investigation. this investigation certainly has not concluded and it's very appropriate that the questions that were asked and the answers given are not shared. with other potential witnesses. >> reclaiming my time, i will observe that many of the same questions are being asked today, but number two, given the fact

that selected portions of the transcript have been leaked, i think that changes. >> i was going to inquire, i have been trying to get the answer to this question but to the extent that this transcript is available to all of us, i intend to release it, i can't find any prohibition that makes us unable to release it in our rules, we have the same witness after 11 hours here in a public hearing, so the notion that we have to somehow keep the secret while pieces are being released is doing a real disservice to the american people. is there any reason i can't just release it as a member of the committee? >> will the ranking member yield? >> i am not aware of any but i would have to look at the house rules. i will yield. >> i think the gentleman for yielding. it is correct that both members on the republican side and the democratic side have used quotations from the transcript for the purpose of interview and

hearing and that is a legitimate use of the transcript. >> reclaiming my time, some members have also used for the purpose of talking to the news media and that may be or may not be an appropriate use. be that as it may the transcript should be released, i will yield now. i will yield to the gentleman from maryland. >> i would like to ask the ranking member of its legitimate within the rules of the committee and house representatives for members to release certain portions of the overall transcript, is there anything that would prevent us from releasing the entire transcript? >> i am unaware of anything off the top of my head that would prevent a the member releasing the transcript, but that is off the top of my head. i would not want to say that definitively. >> mr. chairman, are you aware of anything that would prevent us from doing that? >> yeah, the decision is made by the chairman of the committee. let me just say, no one --

>> mr. chairman, will you clarify? i am not in the practice of letting the chairman of the committee make decisions for me, could you explain to me? >> it if it's just your preference -- >> the chair of the committees that are conducting that investigation, we will decide when transcripts of private interviews will be released. no one on this side of the aisle has released it other than to ask a question based upon it in the hearing, which is an appropriate use of it. >> reclaiming my time i will observe that some members have released parts of the transcript by being quoted in the media, not for questions here. does the gentleman from rhode island still want -- >> i would ask unanimous consent that the transcript of this witness be part of this record in its entirety. >> i object. >> objection is heard.

i yield to the gentleman from rhode island. >> i think this is a tremendous interest to the american people. there is an effort here to characterize this behavior, much ado has been made of it. we had an 11 hour hearing in which this very same witness testified, he is now testifying consistently before the american people. there seems to be no good reason other than a personal preference that this transcript not be released. i would say to the chairman respectfully, if there is no prohibition, the fact that you would prefer we not is insufficient to persuade me and we intend to release this transcript unless someone presents us with some rule under our house proceedings for this committee that prevents us from doing it and we will give you until 5:00 5:00 this afternoono present that were we intend to release it. >> reclaiming my time, i want to

associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from rhode island, i would agree with him, i think it will be a public service to release these transcripts, that is why i demanded that they be released, there is no good reason not to. >> the chair wants to respond to the gentleman from rhode island. first of all, there was an agreement in the interview that it was private, confidential, and that it would not be released. that is not going to take place under this set of circumstances. secondly, we are here investigating irregularities conducted in an investigation by the fbi. if the gentleman wants to perpetuate that by creating irregularities here and releasing questions so that other potential future witnesses can read the question before they are asked, that is in my

opinion exactly what many on the gentleman's side of the aisle have been all about, attempting to disrupt his investigation into this hearing process. >> reclaiming my time, mr. strzok -- >> chairman, i object. >> do you object to the release of the transcript from that hearing? >> i would not object. >> i will observe that the minority, the chairman says there was an agreement on the conduct of that hearing, the minority was not party to that agreement. at no point were we asked -- >> it is stated on the record in the hearing. >> it is stated as a decision, as a fact. we were not asked, we agreed to nothing because we were not asked. and we think the transcripts should be released for the reasons stated and if the

witness is not object i don't know why the majority should object. >> if the gentleman will yield in earnest i will be glad to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about releasing all relevant information. i think if we are talking about full transparency, let's talk about full transparency and a variety of other things. it's interesting we want to release one thing but we are somehow allowing peter strzok to suggest there are a lot of things that are off the record. i will work in earnest with my colleagues. >> i appreciate the gentleman enemies and please say that we are not disrupting a legitimate investigation into the investigation. the republican side is trying to disrupt the investigation into the russian interference in our election. >> the gentleman yields back.

>> now that the chairman and the ranking member have had ample time to ask questions and i think the gentleman from new york has the record, we are going to move, because we have 72 more members who have questions to ask, to strict adherence to the five minute rule and we will begin by recognizing the gentleman from wisconsin for 5 minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. there have been all kinds of complaints about leaking transcripts and things like that, one of the reasons we are here today is because there has been a flood of leaks out of the justice department about what is going on. barely a day goes by when you can't pick up the newspaper and find out it's rumored this or rumored that. then we have a witness from the fbi that comes up here, that we can't possibly talk about that,

because it's against our rules. i hope there would be a few prosecutions of people that have been leaking this stuff to the various news media. i want to get to looking at statutes. you look at rules, i've been looking at statutes. somehow along the line, the report on the conclusions of the clinton investigation, the word gross negligence was changed to extremely careless in determining mrs. clinton's handling of classified information. gross negligence would mean it would subject her to criminal liability, extremely careless would have the opposite effect, it would not. i would like to ask you, mr. strzok, a couple of questions about that. the original may 2nd draft of the statement that directory

comey, characterized mrs. clinton's actions as grossly negligent, is that correct? >> that is my recollection, yes. >> are you aware gross negligence was changed to extremely careless and the eventual statement? >> yes. >> do you recall the june 6th, 2016 meeting attended by you, and lisa page, to discuss the language of the statutes on whether to use grossly negligent or something else in the draft statement, what was discussed at that meeting? >> i don't remember that specific meeting, there were a variety of meetings with a bunch of people that included discussion of this concern. >> did the alternative phrase extremely careless, but the meeting? >> i did at some point, i don't know if it was during that meeting or at another one. >> whenever it happened, who brought it up?

>> somebody within our office, the general counsel dead, one of the attorneys. >> you don't member who did it? >> it was a legal issue that one of the attorneys brought up. >> metadata shows that you modified the draft statement on june 6th. is this when the phrase "grossly negligent" was changed to extremely careless? >> i don't recall specifically when it happened. my recollection is working on the draft with a group of us in my office because it was the largest office, it was made there. >> was at your computer that with the change in? >> based on my subsequent review, i believe that to be true. >> who has access to your computer, anybody besides you? >> i do, my secretary had access to elements of it. >> why was the change made?

>> my recollection, sir, i am not an attorney. my recollection was that attorneys within the fbi had raised the concern that they use of gross negligence triggered a very specific legal meeting. >> criminal. >> in a legal context, grossly negligent is used in various statutes, particularly one of the mishandling statutes, to talk about a criminal element of the criminal offense. quickly, and i promise -- >> this change was hillary's get out of jail free card. >> absolutely not, sir. >> hillary hasn't been prosecuted, if she wasn't grossly negligent but was extremely careless, there is no criminal standard involved. with grossly negligent there is. >> there are a lot of things i would disagree within that assertion. she received no get out of jail free card.

>> she got get out of the white house free card when the white voters cast their votes. >> there is nothing further from the truth. what i would tell you with regard to that decision, there was concern that people would draw an inference based on that use, that it was necessarily talking about a particular subset of a statute. >> that reads for pinocchio's. >> may i respond? there was concern about the use of the world grossly negligent and the question of whether or not director comey wanted to convey that in implying evidence of a crime and whether his use when people heard that, whether they would interpret that as whether she did or did not violate any particular statute. the lawyers looking at the use of the word grossly negligent,

looking at the statute where it occurs, both realized that was probably not what he wanted to say and ultimately made the decision to change that wording and convey what it was he didn't want to say. all those discussions were generated based on a legal discussion of the use of that term as a legal definition, not as a violation of any particular statute at all. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for 5 minutes. >> i think it would be easier going back to the last question if you were simply able to indicate, to your knowledge whether the evidence would have supported the use of gross negligence and the decision made by the lawyers and the fbi that that was not the case and therefore that term should not be used. i also want to talk at a more macro level about what's going

on here. one of the things i try and do, imagine how i would feel if various things had been done or said about a member of my own party and how i would react because i think it's important to try to understand that. when you take a look at the texts you sent, i think you've acknowledged that it would be people who were supporters of trump uneasy about your intentions. i think that was reflected in the inspector general's report. i think obviously that brought suspicion of you and the fbi among people who were trump supporters. the fact that you also had highly critical texts of the

attorney general, governor martin o'malley, senator bernie sanders, isn't really relevant, they were not subject to an investigation. it was important that the inspector general go in and take a look to find out for us, for this committee, and the american people, what really happened. and he did, spent a lot of time, interviewed many people in here was his conclusion. he did chastise you, i understand you accept that admonishment, but found there was no evidence of political bias in the decision in that investigation. a direct quote, we did not find documentary or testimony that improper considerations were made. to listen to some of my friends, you'd think that the fbi, which i always felt was made up of

conservative law enforcement people, has magically been transformed into a left-wing organization. that is not my understanding. if you take a look at the people who were in charge, mr. wray, who was not a democrat, mr. comey who was appointed by mr. trump, he is not a democrat. i happen to know that robert mueller is not a democrat. these are not political decisions made by political operatives, they should be following the evidence. i just like to note that if you had wanted to harm and interfere with the election of president trump, you could have leaked information that the investigation was ongoing. none of that came out.

we asked the leaders of the department of justice and the fbi about whether there was an investigation of mr. trump prior to the election and we were told they could not comment on it, which was in fact the appropriate response. you should not comment on an ongoing investigation. if you find something, you have an indictment. if you don't find something you say nothing. that's where mr. comey errored, he violated that policy and damage the campaign of one of the candidates and the rest is history. i just think that this extraordinary hearing, i've been a member of congress for 24 years, it's the first time we've had this kind of circus, really, of trying to really investigate the investigators when that's already done. i would urge that we make sure

that the actions we take do not create further divisions in our country. president trump tweeted a few months ago "the top leadership and investigators at the fbi and justice department have politicized the sacred investigative process in favor of democrats and against republicans, something which would've been unthinkable just a short time ago." is that tweet supported by the inspector general's report? >> no. >> no, it is not. i would hope those on the committee who believe in the rule of law, who understand our country would be damaged if we allow political divisions to attack our law enforcement agencies, to undercut investigations, that we will be harming our country in a way that our enemies, including

russia would do, that's why they interfere in our election. to create division, among the american people, and among us here in the halls of government. i would ask we take yes for an answer, the inspector general did investigate this matter, he found out there wasn't political influence. we wait for the results of the investigation. i pray we find that aren't president was not involved, they'll be great news for our country. i will accept it, not investigated. i hope we can put our partisanship out the door, stepped back from the precipice we are finding ourselves now, and i would hope this hearing which i think serves no good purpose for our country, could be brought to an end. i yelled back.

>> the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, for 5 minutes. >> first of all, very quickly, i would like to associate myself with the outstanding opening statements made by chairman goodlatte and chairman gowdy and express my views completely. let me also say, will mr. strzok will not admit what almost everyone else knows is extreme bias, i find it amazing that he can sit here and say he was not biased in a way that clearly colored and affected his investigation. if you don't agree with that, i want to read the words from the inspector general of the justice department, who wrote that the clinton investigation "was inconsistent with typical investigative strategy and gave rise to accusations of bias and

preferential treatment." i would guess that mr. strzok knows, chris swecker wrote the ig report presents evidence of jarring political bias. to come to the inevitable conclusion that political bias was there. this is like saying one plus one equals zero. do you have any reason to think there is some sort of bias or animosity towards it you? >> i disagree with mr. swecker's conclusion, i can't speak to his

motivations of bias whatsoever and i know of no biased by the inspector general. >> also, cheryl atkinson, columnist for one of the capitol hill newspapers, "the earth shattering finding about the inspector general confirms citizens worst fears, high-ranking government officials conspiring to affect the outcome of the u.s. presidential election." let me ask you this. you know judges who have even minimal bias are required to recuse themselves from a case. do you think fbi agents have some sort of -- that they are special people that shouldn't be held to my standards? >> i would absolutely say fbi agents, judges, they set those

beliefs aside and in their pursuit of the truth and application of the law. i believe i am held to the highest standard. >> you told chairman goodlatte that you did not think you should have recused yourself in this case. >> i would say that is entirely consistent. i believe all my personal opinions were never taken into account in anything i did in an official act. i think that was appropriate and keeping to the highest standards of the fbi. >> i think since both the clinton and trump investigations had such tremendous political ramifications, i think the ethical, fair, just, and proper thing would be for you to recuse yourself and move on to other work. there were many other cases you could've worked on that you were never expressed any bias. whether or not?

there are all kinds of cases. >> i completely disagree with you, i don't think it would have been necessary for me to recuse myself, i think every day with the clinton investigation, with the russia influence investigation, when i walked in the door, the entirety of my action was dedicated to pursuing the facts wherever they live. >> many times judges have defendants appear before them who after they have been found guilty, they apologize, say they are sorry, but many times people think those apologies are said more in hopes of getting probation and regret that they have been caught rather than a sincere apology. do you feel you should apologize in any way to the american people for the things you have expressed, this extreme bias you expressed, do you have any regret as to calling trump

supporters, saying they smelled and things of that nature? >> one, i don't agree with your characterization of my views as bias. i think what i clearly articulated, i can understand those concerns and i hope when you heard me in my opening statement, when i talked about my regret, the harm in the heart to the people i love and my family, the way that these texts have been used against the fbi, when i responded to a question about using a turn of phrase, smelling when i should have said hearing or seeing, those were not intended as direct animus towards any set of people and i hope people understand that i do sincerely regret that. i hope you hear that. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman gentleman from new york for 5 minutes. >> four months the republicans have increasingly use their

congressional oversight and authority to undermine special counsel mueller's investigation. they have even called for his investigation to be shut down. why? it is concerning national security and it seems to be successful. the special counsel has now obtained five guilty pleas and indicted 18 others. and included in these indictments and confessions and guilty pleas, michael flynn pled guilty to lying to the fbi, rick gates pled guilty to conspiring against our country, making false statements to our country and the fbi. i'm not exactly sure what the republicans want to shut down. do they want to shut down the special counsel's upcoming trials against campaign manager

paul manafort? one of these trials is scheduled to begin here in virginia in the eastern district later this summer. related to it, on february 22nd, a grand jury in virginia approved a set of 32 counts of tax, financial, and bank fraud, charges against paul manafort. on february 16th federal grand jury in the district of columbia separately approved five other charges, including, and i quote, "conspiracy against the united states." this indictment coming forward, i'd like to quote from it. the defendant, paul manafort together with others, knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud the united states by

impeding and impairing the lawful functions of government agencies, mainly the department of justice and department of the treasury. and to commit offenses against the united states of america. since this indictment, gates has pleaded guilty and he is now cooperating. included in his statement of offense, "manafort engage in a variety of criminal schemes, knowingly and intentionally conspired to assist in criminal schemes." i'd like to ask you, to be clear. mr. gates is swearing under oath that he conspired with mr. manna

mr. manafort in criminal activity. in a few weeks, his trial date is set to begin and end of the team of prosecutors will present their evidence and i cannot imagine how anyone in this body or this country, with the exception of mr. manafort and his coconspirators, whatever want in any way, shape, or form, to halt this trial from going forward. can you think of any reason why anyone would want to halt this trial from going forward? >> i am not aware of any. >> thank you, and i yelled back. >> i yield to the gentleman,

mr. meadows. >> i think the gentleman and the gentle lady. in the spirit of transparency, i think we all want transparency here. i would offer for the chairman's consideration and this body's consideration, releasing the full transcripts we had in the 11th hour, breaking with two different conditions. we had the opportunity to interview lisa page first since those text messages were back and forth between two witnesses. the second if we can scrub that transcribed interview of any person all relevant information that might be embarrassing before we do that, with that i yield back. >> thank you. the spirit of the gentleman's recommendation is well taken and we will definitely take that under advisement.

>> i would also hope we gave the fbi the opportunity for redaction of anything that would impact on the nation's national security. i hope the gentleman would accept that. >> reclaiming my time, it is my understanding that the gentleman does accept that. i want to thank you, trying to work these things out in full transparency, i think that is important. i think the american people and this committee would appreciate it. >> does the gentleman from north carolina's suggestion relates solely to the testimony of agent strzok or under the same guise of transparency, would we apply that same process and standard to the previously unreleased testimony of andrew mccabe who was examined in a similar environment. >> in the spirit of transparency we need to look at all transcribed interviews and let

the american people judge for themselves. i think that is consistent with my conversations with the gentleman from maryland. the chair rep recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, for 5 minutes. >> i would like to allow my time to my friend and colleague from texas, mr. ratcliff. >> president trump fired fbi director jim comey. that same day, you and lisa page exchanged quite a few text on the topic. at 8:14:00 p.m. that day, you texted miss paige and said "we need to open the case we've been waiting on now." is that the former deputy director of the fbi who has since been fired and criminally referred by the inspector general? >> it is. >> what case are you referring to opening now that auntie's

acting director of the fbi? >> to get into that would relate to ongoing investigations which, consistent with the department's policy on investigations, i am not authorized to discuss an ongoing investigation. >> let me see if i can give you a question you can answer. you sent for car more text to ms. page and her first response to you is we need to lock-in and then there is a black mark wher, in a formal, chargeable way, soon, period. whose name has been blacked out? >> i would need to see the original text. >> you don't know, okay. i don't know either. i don't know if the person whose name has been redacted is a republican or democrat, i do not know if they are black or brown or white, i don't know their religious beliefs, i don't know those things and i don't care. here's what i know, decisions

about when and whether to open investigations and when and whether to charge people with crimes aren't supposed to depend on who is sitting in the director's chair or on political decisions or the political agendas of fbi agents and lawyers. if i trump hating fbi agent and a trump hating fbi lawyer are within hours of president trump firing their boss, if they start talking about opening an investigation now that andy is acting and that some person needs to be locked in in a formal, chargeable way, soon, i know as a former u.s. attorney that whoever is the subject of that case that was opened now that andy is acting and whoever you talked about needing to be locked in soon enough formal, chargeable way, they would've had their civil liberties violated, they would have been deprived of due process.

my first question do you you wouldn't answer, my second question to you you could not answer, let's go for a third question. on page 400 of the inspector general report, someone tells the inspector general, "there is a bright line between what you think personally and believe and to the conduct your official business. "who said that? >> i believe i did, sir. >> you did say that and i heard you say similar things last weekend today, very unequivocally in your opening marks that you would never cross that line in 26 years. earlier today in response to a question you said "i took my personal belief out of every official action." you are asking us to believe,

when you say those things you never cross that line, that's really what this comes down to. >> i am asking you to believe and i am offering evidence. you have under oath been as clear as a bell on that, you've said it over and over again. i'm almost embarrassed to ask you this question. of the approximately 50,000 text messages i have seen with your personal beliefs, go ahead and confirm on the record that none of that occurred on an official fbi device or a time, go ahead and do that. >> many of them did. >> oh, they did. what you really meant to say was that when you said you never

crossed that line, what you meant to say was except for 50,000 times, hundreds of times of day where i went back and forth expressing my personal opinions about stopping trump and impeaching trump on official fbi phones, on official fbi time. other than that you never cross that line. i'm sure there are 13,000 fbi agents out there beaming with pride at how clearly you have drawn that line. are you starting to understand why some folks out there don't believe a word you say? and why it is especially troubling that you of all people are at the center of the three highest profile investigations in recent >> and that you were in charge of a investigation, investigating, gathering evidence against donald trump, a subject that you hated, that you wanted to "f" him, to stop him, to impeach him. do you see why that might call

into question everything you've touched on all of those investigations? chairman, i'm done with this witness and i yield back. >> mr. chairman, if i can respond. >> briefly. >> sir, while there are several questions and i will answer all of them briefly, there were several statements but i only heard one question. fair enough. first, i understand why people might think that, particularly based upon conspiracy theorists, folks in this body and elsewhere. that's why i'm glad to be here today publicly, why i'm glad to hear that people are calling for the release of my private interview, so that people can judge for themselves who i am, what i said. and the facts. and not something that is being spun or misrepresented on a 10:00 talkshow or other place. and so absolutely. i can understand that. and i'm glad that the facts are coming out. is second, sir, to your earlier point about -- i never, and i'm unaware of any case being open that represented some violation of civil liberties or a removal

of due process rights. i have never done any activity, opened any case with regards to that. and when you look in the context of what had occurred, sir, during the time that director cohen might have been fired, where the president said that that had occurred because of a member cup written by the deputy attorney general looking to conduct in the clinton investigation and then pivoting and saying it was because o of e russian investigation and a huge burden had been taken off of his shoulders, we were all very concerned from an investigative standpoint the pace, severity and theun precedented nature that the facts were unfolding. >> i did say briefly. >> i appreciate that. i'm wrapping up. >> pointed to your response, however, and in the interests of full transparency, and to mr. ratcliffe's point, will you

authorize the release of all of the other text messages that have not been released to the congress to this point? >> sir, i -- i would authorize the release of any work related text messages that are out there. >> ahhh, but the question is what is work-related and what is not. >> that's right, sir. and i would not accept or agree to the release of non-work related text messages. >> even -- even though your testimony that you would never let your work interfere with your personal opinion. >> that is exactly my -- >> how will we know that, unless we see those text messages? >> well, the inspector general, very carefully, an independent body went through that and found, sir, that there were no acts of bias, that there was nothing demonstrative. >> the inspector general works for an entirely different entity than the united states congress. will you authorize release to the united states congress? >> no, sir. >>