ceremony of the president and the first lady who will head into denayer at blenheim, these dinners are special and thank you for joining us, everyone, i'm dana perino. here now is shep. >> without interruption, our coverage continues of this dinner, the golden hour in oxfordshire, 8:00, british summertime, a spectacular spectacular evening and why don't we just enjoy this together.

[ ♪ ] ♪ [applause]

♪ ♪

♪ >> shepard: dinner time now at glenheim palace, oxfordshire. the president's european tour where the government is no doubt in crisis. the prime minister facing pressure to resign as the united kingdom planned to split from the eu. the president said the united states is spending too much money to protect european allies from the russians. there were reports that president trump threatened to pull out of nato unless and until european friends started spending more on defense. the president now says his tough talk worked. >> tremendous progress has been made.

everybody has greed to substantially up their commitment. they're going to up it at levels that they never thought of before. >> could you clarify, are you still threatening to potentially pull the united states out of nato for any reason and do you believe you can do that without congress' support and approval? >> i think i can. it's unnecessary. the people have stepped up today like they have never stepped up before. >> shepard: in stepping up, they have been doing so for four years. the french president denied president trump threatened to leave nato and said the alliance's goals are unchanged and every country plans to spend 2% of gdp on their own militaries by 2024 as previously agreed prior to the trump administration even though the president says he wants to deal that goal to 4%. the u.s. does not spend that

much on its military now. this comes days before president trump is set to meet one-on-one with vladimir putin, the ex-kgb spy who stands to gain if the nato alliance stumbles. reporters asked president trump if putin is an enemy. is vladimir putin an enemy? whether he would press him on russian interference in our election. >> we go into that meeting not looking for so much. we will ask your favorite question about meddling. little be asked that again. he will deny it. he's a competitor. somebody said is he an enemy is. he a friend? no, i don't know him well enough. >> shepard: russia is the enemy of the united states. it interfered in our election and more.

john roberts with the latest. >> the pomp and ceremony, glenheim palace, oxfordshire northwest of london. it's interesting. it's on the list of historic places as you can imagine here in england. interesting, too, it's the only nonroyal, non-episcopal public house to bear the title of palace. it's the birth place and home of winston churchill as well. built back in the 1700s. steeped in history. tomorrow the president will get together with the prime minister for a working day of meetings at checkers, the country home of the prime minister. we'll be headed there for another press conference the president will hold. from there, off to scotland where the president will play golf. and then he will head off to finland for the meeting with president putin.

let's go to this morning. white house officials say behind closed doors the president was very aggressive with our nato partners in terms of upping their commitment to nato. the president telling them that burden sharing needed to change if it didn't change, the white house was going to make its own changes and it was going to do its own thing. listen to what the president said in a press conference earlier today. >> yesterday i let them know i was extremely unhappy with what was happening. they have substantially upped their commitment. now we're very happy. have a very, very powerful, very strong nato. much stronger than it was two days ago. >> the tactics were unorthodox. perhaps heavy handed when compared to traditional nato diplomacy. according to ian stoltenberg, they had the desired effect.

he got a commitment from other nations to up their financial contributions to nato and stoltenberg pointing out that since president trump took office, nato has taken in an extra $41 billion that it wouldn't have taken in ordinarily, shep. >> shepard: john roberts live in london. thanks so much. our coverage continues now of the hearing on capitol hill of fbi agent peter strzok. republicans and democrats alternating in this committee today. currently asking the questions, the republican louis gomert of texas' first direct. >> they can document that, but you were given the information and you did nothing with it. one of the things i found most egregious with mr. horowitz's testimony -- by the way, horowitz got a call four times by someone wanting to brief him leaving messages telling him

about this and he never returned the call. he had 500 pages of bias that he gave us and threw a bone to the democrats and say we can't find bias. when you have text messages, mr. strzok, the way you do, saying the things you did, you would have been better off coming in here and say look, that was my bias. you kind of get around to that a little bit when you say, hey, you know, everybody has political views. those are called biases. we always have them. and you have come in here and said, i have no bias. you do it with a straight face. i watched you in the private testimony you gave. i told some of the other guys, he's really good. he's lying. we know he's lying. he can probably pass a polygraph. >> mr. chairman -- >> this is my time. >> mr. chairman, point of order.

point of order. >> the gentleman will state his point of order. >> a member of this committee said this witness was under oath and a former agent lied. there's no evidence of that i ask him to withdraw it. >> i do not withdraw it. it's not a violation of the rule and he's not a member of congress. as you expected bias through your members and -- >> not a people would agree -- >> the gentleman from rhode island -- >> it's my time -- >> the gentleman from rhode island will suspend. >> a disgrace of what this man has done -- >> the gentlemen from texas will suspend for a moment. >> there is a disgrace and it won't be recaptured any time soon because of the damage you've done to the justice system. i've talked to fbi agents around the country. you've embarrassed them, you embarrassed yourself and i can't help but wonder when i see you looking there with a little smirk how many times did you look so innocent into your

wife's eye and lied to her about lisa page -- >> this is outrageous. >> shame on you -- >> mr. chairman, this is harassment of the witness. >> you need your medication? >> the gentleman controls the time. >> i ask the witness be permitted to response. >> he will be permitted to respond. >> have you ever talked to hillary clinton during your investigation besides the one questioning you mentioned before that or after that to this day? >> point of order, mr. chairman. point of order, mr. chairman. the gentleman will state his point of order. >> it is, i think, against the rules of the house for a member of the committee to be impugning the character of a witness. >> it's not. >> he should ask questions -- the purpose of this hearing is to elicit information. should not be impugning the character of the witness.

>> the gentleman is advised of the rules of the house. they're only directed to the members and the president of the united states. >> it's okay to impugn the character of witnesses in any way whatsoever? >> listen, i've heard many members on your side of the aisle impugn the character of somebody that is covered by the rules of the house. the gentleman -- the gentleman has 20 seconds left. the clock will be turned back on and he can complete his time and the witness can respond. >> have you talked to hillary clinton other than the times she was examined in front of witnesses? >> no. >> so after throwing away what you have with all of the bias you have, you never got a thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman may respond. >> sir, that's quite a set of statements -- >> mr. chairman, i did not finish with a question. there was no question asked. >> he's been given the opportunity to respond.

>> the gentleman will suspend. the time of the gentleman has -- >> the rules of our hearings are if there's a question asked during the time, the witness may respond to the question after the time. >> the witness is going to be allowed to respond briefly -- >> that's a new rule. >> sir, first, i assure you. >> no question. >> under oath as i spoke during my interview a week or two ago, i have always told the truth. the fact that you would accuse me otherwise, the fact that you would question whether or not that was the sort of look i would engage with in a family member who i have acknowledged hurting goes more to a discussion about your character and what you stand for and what is going inside you -- >> it's to your credibility -- >> both individuals come to order. >> you lost your credibility. that's the problem. >> the gentleman from texas will suspend. the witness has had ample opportunity to express his

feelings about that. now the chair recognizes -- >> mr. chairman, there's a discussion about the representative's first assertion about what the icig said that i would like to respond very briefly. i have no recollection of that conversation. i'm not a computer expert. i can tell you that every allegation that we had -- icig was a great and close partner. every allegation that we had, whether from them for anybody else was forwarded to experts that looked at it. the scores and scores of blackmails and servers were combed over by the fbi experts to see if there's any indicia -- >> you don't recall going over those e-mails, correct? >> the gentleman will suspend. >> i have no idea what you're talking about -- >> and the witness will suspend as well. >> that is enough. >> you can't let a witness go on forever when the fact is you never did -- >> mr. chairman, order! >> regular order.

>> you didn't do anything about it. >> sir, if there was a lead, i gave it to the team. unequivocally. there was nothing -- >> mr. strzok -- >> there gohmert, you will suspends. mr. deutsche, i apologize. i've been instructed by the ranking member that we're going committee to committee. the next is the gentleman from virginia, mr. connelly, for five minutes. >> wow. the american public might be forgiven for mistaking this so-called hearing for a russian political assault trial. it's got all the trappings. character assassination, demagoguery, connecting dots,

generalizing from an isolated incident, cherry-picking facts, sometimes fabricating facts. it's astounding and a new low in the united states congress. what a shame. but mr. strzok, you're under oath. and my understanding is the big republican beat in the waters to discredit you and the fbi and hopefully undermine the mueller investigation hinges on the fact that you sent out some indiscrete personal e-mails about your political views on the then pending 2016 election. is that correct? >> sir, that's my understanding. >> so you're understand oath. say yes or no. the following e-mail, character matters, real donald trump is not going to win but he can make an honorable move. did you write that e-mail? >> no.

senator ben sasse wrote that e-mail. he should be here as well apparently. my wife julia and i, we have a 15-year-old daughter. do you think i can look her in the eye and tell her i endorsed donald trump when he acts like this and his apology? that was no apology. that was an apology for getting caught. i can't tell the good people in my state that i endorse add person that acts like this. was that you, mr. strzok? >> no. >> it was republican jason chaffetz. did you write the following. "for the good of the country and to give the republicans a chance after defeating hillary clinton, mr. trump should step aside. his defeat seems almost certain. four years of hillary clinton is not what is best for this country." that's you, right? >> no. >> no it was the congressman from colorado. in light of these comments, donald trump should step aside and allow our party to replace him with mike pence or another appropriate nominee.

i cannot in good conscious vote for donald trump and i would never vote for hillary clinton. that's yours. >> no. >> no. that's the republican from virginia. here's another one. "it's now clear donald trump is not fit to be president and cannot defeat hillary clinton. i believe he should step aside and allow governor pence to lead the republican ticket. you wrote that one". >> no, sir. >> that's bradley burns of alabama. >> here's another one. i won't vote for vice president. as disappointed as i've been with his antics, i thought supporting the nominee was the best for our country and our party. now it's clear that the best thing for our country and our party is for trump to step aside and allow responsible, respect able republicans to lead the ticket." you wrote that one. >> no, sir. >> no, that was republican martha rove of alabama.

how about this one? "i respectfully ask that you, mr. trump, with all due respect step aside, step down. allow someone's else to carry the banner of principles." you wrote that one. >> no, sir. >> that was mike lee of utah. so it sounds like when you wrote these e-mails, you had a lot of good company on the republican side of the aisle. now you're an orphan. i wonder what changed? but your opinion was hardly a striking one. hardly unusual especially when you and i live in northern virginia, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> so you wrote an e-mail criticizing the candidate trump and predicting he would lose was not an isolated kind of opinion. is that correct? >> no, it's not to my knowledge. >> and do you under oath confirm what the inspector general, mr. horowitz said, there's no

evidence that your personal opinion not withstanding in any way tainted the ongoing criminal investigation led by mr. muler? >> i do. >> that's your testimony under oath? >> yes. >> thank you. so sorry for the treatment you received here today. as a member of congress, i take no pleasure watching this spectacle. thanks for being here. >> the chair recognizes mr. poe from texas for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman. i take no pleasure in the self-pity that you have shown the rest of us the entire day. i'm a former prosecutor. i loved being a prosecutor in the district attorney's office and spent 22 years trying criminal cases, saw about 25,000 felony cases. i saw a lot of people in law enforcement. in our entire justice system, from the beginning to the end of

the justice system, people are involved in our justice system. and those people whoever they are, cannot be biassed one way or the other. it starts in a courtroom with the jury. both lawyers spent a lot of time, including court, talking to jurors about whether they're biassed. why? because people that are biassed or come across as bias, you're out of here. you can't be fair. we don't let judges serve on cases if they have a bias. they're recused. many times they just recuse themselves. they recognize there's a bias. we don't let people testify unless the bias when they testify is allowed to be brought out. in other words, if a witness is testifying, let's say you, for example, both sides are entitled to bring out the bias for or against the -- about the witness

that is against the offender, used in that case, because in our justice system things must be fair and things must look fair. there must not be bias and there must not be a look of bias by anyone. that's the way our system works. now, in my opinion, who has -- my opinion is not any better than anybody else's but i've seen a lot of people over the years, in the people business. judging people. i have heard your statements today. it seems to me that your own words have shown your bias. you say you're not bias. we base things on evidence, not necessarily on words. your words to me prove you're bias. your attitude proves you're bias. your arrogance proves your bias and i think you're protesting

too much proves your bias. be that as it may, the scarry part is not whether you're biassed or not, the scary part is what about other people in the fbi. what about people that we don't know about that have the same attitude that you do about people who are being investigated by the fbi. that is what is scary. because people out here, the rest of us, that don't get to work for the fbi or the justice department, we are concerned about our justice system doing the right thing for the right reason. making sure that our justice system is just. part of the fairness in justice is that there isn't a bias. for or against anybody as they go through the system. now, based on what you said, i don't think i would ever allow you as a juror to be on a criminal case.

ever. i don't know that the defense attorney or the prosecutor would allow you to be on a jury. because your words are what we hear. your protesting seems to make those words more of a show of your bias. the comment that you're going to stop him in an e-mail or text or something, that not only shows you're bias but you're going to act on your bias and you're going to stop president trump. that's the way it comes across. the evidence comes across. so how do you assure us that the attitude that you have shown us today of the text messages and all of the things that we've been talking about, how do we know that is not rampant that the fbi? how do we know that? >> sir, what i would answer to you -- >> can you answer that question? >> yes.

>> how do we know there's not bias in the fbi in this particular investigation or other investigations? how do we know that? >> sir, the way you do that is exactly what you suggested. you look to the evidence. you look to the actions of the men and women of the fbi and the conduct of the cases. you look to my actions in the conduct of the investigations. you've done with others a spectacular job of equating the word bias with personal political belief. it's astounding how effective that's been. but you know full well they are not the same. is fact of bias -- >> reclaiming my time. you'll have a chance to try to answer the questions you're trying to answer. how do we know that the attitude that you have shown us to date, whatever you want to call it. mr. cohen wants to make a saint out of you. how do we know the attitude you have today is not the same attitude of the fbi as they're

investigating other cases? >> the time has expireded and the gentleman may answer the question. >> hopefully without enter rep shun. >> sir, the way you judge that, you look at the evidence. you look at the acts. what fbi agents and analysts and everybody else do. you look at what i did. you look at what the inspector general concluded. not only me, but all the agents and ddes and everybody else involved in the investigation and you see that the evidence unequivocally, there's no act of bias. so this false assertion that your making that political personal belief must equal bias, that we merged the two words together is one of the triumphs going on that i cannot disagree with me. a judge asks jurors, are you able to set aside your personal opinions and render a judgment based on the facts. sir, you know that on your experience. what i'm telling you that is

that i and the other men and women of the fbi, every day, take our personal beliefs and set those aside in vigorous pursuit of the truth wherever it lies, whatever it is. >> and i don't believe you. i yield back. >> and the chair recognizes the senator from florida, mr. deutsche. >> let's be clear about what is going on here. we understand that president trump doesn't like this investigation. we understand that is clear. what we've seen in this joint committee and in the judiciary committee meeting a couple weeks bag with members of the house demeaning themselves by asserting that the deputy attorney general sat there under oath and lied. today repeated assertions that mr. strzok is sitting before us under oath lying to us.

the efforts to impugn the credibility not just of mr. strzok but the entire fbi, it's shameful. truly shameful. the depths to which some of my colleagues have plummeted in order to advance a narrative to support the president's opposition to an investigation which is an investigation as mr. strzok pointed out and as to many of us seem to have forgotten is an investigation into the russian's efforts to destabilize the democracy of the united states of america. i wish that the attacks that have been levelled against mr. strzok, the attacks on rod rosenstein, the attacks on our fbi director, i wish there was even a slight degree of that same fervor directed against what the russians did in 2016 so

that we could get to the bottom of that and anticipate what they're trying to do this november and in 2020. now, mr. strzok, this is the inspector general's report. the number 1 finding this inspector general's report is that the fbi should not discuss on going criminal investigations. that's what the i.g. said director comey didn't wrong. he went into great detail about the longstanding practice and the reasons for that to protect the integrity of criminal investigations. in this case, the investigation that i just referred to. but listening to my republican colleagues, it's almost as if they never read this report. like you never bother to pick it up. or worse, you read it, you understand it, but you don't care. you're asking mr. strzok to do

exactly what the inspector general said not to do. exactly. mr. strzok, have you answered these questions that you've been asked about the investigation, are you concerned the inspector general could investigate you and issue a report like this one saying you shouldn't have done that? >> certainly it's possible. i'd be more worried about the john going investigation. >> i understand. the inspector general explained in this 600-page report that the mistake director comey made was discussing the steps the fbi was taken in the hillary clinton investigation. here's what we've heard today. we heard it from the chairman, we heard it from my colleagues. you've got two choices. you can ignore the fbi's policy that has been put in place to protect the investigations and you'll talk about that in a

second and answer the questions in which case maybe you trigger an i.g. report, or you don't answer the questions and maybe we hold you in contempt. now, can you just again, since this has been a really long day, can you explain why it's important not to interfere with ongoing criminal matters? >> there's a variety. the first is, we do a lot of investigations where we never charge anybody. it's not fair to given the inveries g inveries -- investigative power that we have that will screw up a bunch of things, talking to witnesses. and then secondly, we want someone to have a fair trial. putting our finger on the scale would be inappropriate. >> and the negative consequences on the outcome of that

investigation? >> it would be tremendous. >> right. mr. strzok, i appreciate the last comment. i would urge my colleagues that in the midst of this appaplexie that seems to be breaking out, what we're trying to do here is get to the truth. the truth that we need to get to is what a hostile foreign adversary did to interfere with our democracy. let's please keep that in mind as we move forward. let's make that the focus. that's what the american people are expecting. that's what they're counting on us to do. get out of the way. let this investigation go forward. let's get to the truth. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentlemen from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. strzok, i have here -- i'm

sure you're familiar with this handbook -- the ethics handbook of the department of justice. there's several paragraphs that i want to read to you. the first is general principles of ethical conduct continued. employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they're violating the law or the ethical standards set forth, whether particular circumstances create an appearance of the law or these standards have been violated should be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with the knowledge of the relevant facts. next was the appearance of an impropriety. the employee should avoid the appearance that the employee is violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in these

guidelines. further more it states, for whom that a security clearance is required -- and you do have a security clearance. >> today i do, yes. >> you've had one for quite a while. >> yes. >> other than the circumstances. >> yes. >> for performance of their official duties prohibited conduct and more may be grounds for suspension, irrevocation of a clearance. this could also result in adverse disciplinary action for suspension or removal. under the hatch act, all employees may vote, express opinions and make contributions. political activities by federal employees is restricted. employees -- i want you to listen to this careful ly -- serving some are more restricted

than others. i think you're a person that falls into that category as well. i'm just actually disheartened about the situation that you're in. i say this with prejudice. you are your own worth enemy. you have an answer for everything. you have an attitude that is very obvious today and you are the kind of witness that you and i as a prosecutor for 18 years as a district attorney and u.s. attorney would love to get on the stand. the reasonableness of the statements that you made -- i'm not going to get into the language -- but the repetitiveness of it. where was your judgment? what were you not thinking when you were sending the e-mails and

the statements that you made and the comments of the people in virginia? i would expect someone of your caliber to be way above that. you got carried away. you got impressed with yourself and you're in a position that i'm sorry that that's the case. but if you are trying to draw a distinction of between bias and political opinion, there's not the wide distinction that you are drawing at this point. because i would bet the farm that if you're sitting next to me as the investigating prosecutor and i was the prosecutor and a judge was handling the case whether civil or criminal, we, you and i, would be pointing out the biases that i see that you have

exhibited here. i just don't understand your judgment based on your background and you may respond to that. >> sir, i appreciate your comments and i appreciate your concern. the first thing i would tell you is i -- i'm disappointed if you did not understand the amount of regret that i expressed from the beginning of my opening statement to the harm and damage that this has caused the people i love -- >> i do understand that now, sir. but it's in hindsight. people like you and i that are here to protect the citizens, we should be thinking of this before. >> congressman, without question. i would absolutely agree with you that there are things that i regret in retrospect. i hope it comes across today. a large portion of today has been combative that has nothing to do with my sense of regret and remorse. i would draw since you brought up the ethics manual, i would

note in that manual every fbi employees, doj employees, other members of the intelligence committee are restricted. but within that category. if you read that manual citing the hatch act, it says except for where otherwise prohibited, employees may not only have political opinions but they're encouraged to express them. >> i know it well. >> privately and publicly. so i don't draw any disagreement with you about bias where it occurs. what i disagree with you and so many people today is that political belief does not equate to bias and we have to go to the evidence. if you the demonstrate acts of bias, bias is there. in the absence of any and truly the inspector general, the committee, any anybody of other people have looked and looked and not a single act tells me that it didn't occur. really competent people have looked for it. beyond me telling you under oath

that i know it didn't happen, what is important to realize is, it's not just me. it's this entirety of folks looking at it and if structure of the fbi -- >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman recognizes mrs. kelly from illinois for five minutes. >> i know it's been a long day for you. i'll keep it simple. some questions are repetitive. if you can say yes or no. in your time at the fbi, have you ever investigated a member of the democratic party? >> yes. >> did any of those investigations result in an indictment? >> no. not to my recollection. >> have you ever investigated anyone that identifies as independent or unaffiliated with either of the two major political parties? >> ma'am, i don't know. >> so you don't know if any of those resulted in -- >> i don't know -- when i think of the democratic party, secretary clinton was part of

the democratic party. i don't -- beyond that i'm not a public corruption agent and political with affiliation is not something that we looked at. >> in your assessment, would your work history suggest a bias by you toward any one police call party? >> no. not at all. >> you investigated secretary clinton for the use of private e-mails. >> yes. >> she's a member of the democratic party. >> yes. >> we know you have investigated a republican in the ongoing mueller investigation. we know that has led to an indictment. in fed, it's led to 19 indictments, five guilty pleas. so is it fair to say you have investigated an indicted individuals from the political spectrum? or you may not even -- >> yes, ma'am. we don't look at that. so i don't know. it's a fair assumption. >> there's been news reports that president trump's advisers,

ivanka trump, steven miller, steve bannon, reince priebus and gary cohn used private e-mail to conduct official business. president trump is a correct? >> yes. >> so these individuals were key staffers to a republican president, correct? >> yes. >> these individuals served as senior advisers to the president, white house chief strategist, chief of staff and director of the national commit council. it's safe to say have its in high positions are exposed to top secret materials. >> yes. >> to your knowledge, has the fbi opened investigations for their use of e-mail for private business? >> i can't answer that. if they were ongoing, it would be inappropriate for me to talk about them. >> neither the house judiciary committee and the oversight committee have open hearings on

that issue. several of those officials continue to advise the president of the us and receive a paycheck paid by our tax dallas. also, i'd like to say when constituents call my office, they're dems, republicans and independents and not involved like us. if you ask them i'm sure that they would say they receive top notch service from my office and i have my biases like everybody else like we've talked about. listening to the conversation today, i have to wonder about some of my republican colleagues, not everybody, but since you apparently think that bias prevent people from doing their best job, makes me wonder what happens when democrats call your office. do you not give them the same service as your republican constituents? that's what you imply over and over and over. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford for five minutes.

>> i appreciate it, mr. chairman. i'm going to yield my team to my colleague from ohio. >> agent strzok, i want to go back to this e-mail regarding the buzz feed pending publishing -- buzz feed publishing of the dossier. you have that in front of you again? >> i do. >> my last round of questioning, you said you spoke with bruce ohr. >> that's correct. >> at the time you were working with mr. ohr, did you know that he was meeting with representatives from fusion including glen simpson? >> may i consult with counsel? >> sure can. if you could hold my time.

>> sir, i would like to answer your question. it's a short and easy answer question but at the direction of the fbi, i cannot discuss the content of theoperational matters. >> i appreciate that. at the time of meeting with bruce ohr, did you know that his wife worked for fusion? >> i believe the same answer.

sorry about the time. sir again, i'm sorry. i'd like to answer that question but at the direction of the fbi because it relates to an on going operational matter, i can't. >> let's go to the e-mail. sounds like there's three copies but two different versions. the set you're examining and referencing to your colleagues you say is identical to what mccain has, referring to the dossier and cornyn and simpson, you won't tell me who the individuals are but that one is different. is that an accurate reading of your e-mail? >> it isn't. i think to give you the context of that comment, i would have to -- i have to tell you, sir,

this is more frustrating for me than for you. because of the -- because to frame that -- to give you an accurate answer, i would have to give you the context of what was going on, which includes details that i've been instructed by the fbi that i may not provide. >> there's another e-mail down below on the one you're looking at which talks about buzz feed has 16 other reports. looks like they have 16 of the i believe 17 sections that made up the entire dossier. is that an accurate reading there? >> sir, it's not an accurate reading. i would tell you what the fbi has told me i may say in answer to the dossier is -- >> it's not an accurate reading. that's what it says. buzz feed has 16 other reports. >> that's a literal reading. understanding what that means would prior me to provide information beyond what the fbi would like for me to tell you. >> we'd like to know. i'd like to -- i don't know if you have this in front of you, this is house intelligence

committee's report. chapter 6, a foot note on page 113. it's says this. in late march 2017, daniel jones met with the fbi regarding pqg. the pin quarter group. which he described as exposing foreign influence in western elections. >> he told the fbi that pqg was being funded by wealthy donors in california and new york. he stated that pqg has continued with the services of fusion to investigate russian meddling in the election. are you familiar with this meet something >> i don't know. i'm not aware. >> i'm going from the intelligence report that the majority issued from the house intelligence committee. >> i'm not aware of that meeting or who that is. >> have you ever spoke with

daniel jones? >> no. >> do you know mr. jones? >> i do not. >> all right. i want to go back to one more question i asked you the first round, mr. strzok. mr. simpson, when he did testify in front of the senate judiciary committee was asked about fusion. no one from fusion spoke with the fbi. is there any way that contradicts what is in the e-mail that's been referencing with you? >> i don't know. i can tell you, i have not spoken to mr. simpson. >> i asked you that the first time. i thank the chairman and i thank the gentlemen from south carolina. yield back to the chairman. >> the chair would note several of the questions were not answered by the witness on the advice of his counsel and i presume through the anybody.

we will note those questions so that we can address them at a future time because i find it stunning they're not allowing you to answer those questions, mr. strzok. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the chairman started saying i wish the hearing wasn't necessarily. sorry i don't believe that. it isn't necessary. there are hearings that are necessary. we see them every day. there's 3,000 children separated from their moms and dads and the government doesn't know where their moms and dads are and can't even bring them together that seems like something that the judiciary committee should be investigating. we start a policy in this country where we ban, ban muslims from coming in and we make a test, a religious test. sounds like something the judiciary committee should take up. we have a president of the

united states, there's 16 women that are come forward to say that the president of the united states has attacked them. what does the committee do? no hearings. one of the committee members had to resign in disgray because he asked a staffer for a million dollars if she would carry a baby for him. do we have any hearings on the state and the plight of women in the workplace in america? no. these are all things and issues on the american people's minds. we don't want to talk about those issues. those should be issues that i believe are pertinent and should have hearings what we do is bring mr. strzok here so recan regurgitate and continue to say that he is lying and he's biassed and somehow he corrupted the invest combination to the point that we can't believe mr. mueller? we can't believe mr. rosenstein?

the new fbi director appointed by the president and we should abandon. my members on the other side,s if there's two people that are thrilled today? the fox at fox news and the kremlin. they both worked on one thing. electing president trump. president of the united states of america. they've got to be overjoyed today at the kremlin and they have to be applauding. watch the news reel tonight. a lot of this today is simply what? auditioning for fox news and of course at the clapping at the kremlin. i never thought i would see a sign that the congress of the united states could do the work of destroying. what do we know? we know very clearly that our men and women of the intelligence community have unanimously stated and this is unrefutable that the russians worked to undermine our democracy and to elect donald

trump of the united states. that is something that is irrefutable. you is say what you want about mr. strzok. that's irrefutable. we don't investigate that. how can we have an attack on our democracy and we don't want to investigate? we want to investigate mr. strzok. i want to ask you because they say you have this bias. when did you learn and how did you learn about the investigation into the possible collusion between the donald trump campaign and russia influence in our 2016 election? >> sir, i'm limited to what director comey was authorized to say about the department of justice. but in late july. >> late july. when did the public learn about the investigation into russian collusion and donald trump's investigation? >> i don't remember specific date. but it was well into the following year. >> it was after the election. >> yes, sir. >> so what we're to believe from the republican majority that you're so biassed, you're such a

democrat that you can't hold back from destroying donald trump but yet you never told anybody that was an investigation into donald trump's campaign and collusion with the russians? you never told anybody about that? >> no, sir. >> you never talked to a reporter about that? >> no, sir. >> but you had it in your hands. maybe you didn't. in america you can do almost anything. but you did have almost a magical bullet in your hand to derail the donald trump investigation and did it? >> no, sir. >> no, you didn't. right? are there republicans that work at the fbi? makes it sounds like you're all democrats. i never heard that before. are there republicans? >> yes, sir. >> what is interesting here is, since you like to cherry pick the democrats that have given minute to the fbi agents that give money to the democrats, why don't you reveal the republican members of the fbi that gives money to the republicans? reveal the members that are in

and state when they apply for a voter registration that they apply as republicans? they don't. that's not what this is about, this is about for the american public, mr. strzok, really not about you. they want to damage and destroy our democracy. one of the ways they do it is by taking the institution like the fbi is regrettable. okay, kremlin. another good day for you. you influenced the election. you wanted donald trump to win. you won that one. now you want to destroyed your institutions. congratulations, kremlin and congratulations to everybody helping them. >> gentleman to illinois yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just have a couple of questions for you, mr. strzok. i'd like to yield the balance of my time to chairman gowdy. in light of the last round of questioning, it's fair to say that you wanted to stop president trump from being elected in your own words, didn't you? >> no, sir. that was my expression that i had a preference not for

candidate trump to be president but that i did not and would not -- >> did i not hear you read your own text correctly that you would stop him? stop it? >> no. you misheard me. i said my sense of not recalling writing that text is that the american populous -- >> you don't like donald trump do you? >> fair to say i'm not a fan. sir. >> were you the only one that could have done the job you're doing? were you the only one that could have led this investigation? >> it was logical given that i was the number 2 in counter intelligence i would have a role. but no, there's many qualified folks in the fbi. dads. >> in retrospect, should you have recused yourself? >> no. >> you don't like the man. you had several despaisparaging texts about him but you didn't think somebody else should take the case? >> no. there's times i didn't care for secretary clinton and i investigated this as objectively as any other investigation.

so no, i don't think it was merited. >> that's the one thing i struggled with. a man in your position and power and the respect that people should have for you because of your position in the fbi that you would have stop to think maybe there was somebody that could do a better job that didn't have such disdain for the president. you claim to be such a patriot. once he was elected you continued to do this. you have to accept that elections have consequences. i yield the balance of my time. >> i thought you didn't recall typing the text and then you said you recall it was late at night. somehow mitigated the content of what you typed. so do you recall it or was it late at night and what else do you recall about the timing of that? >> mr. chairman, my recollection of statements have been consistent across the board. i don't remember typing it. it was late at night. my sense was i can tell you what it was not. it was not a suggestion that i

or the fbi take any action -- >> i tell you what, instead of us musing about what you meant, why don't we go with what you said. okay? >> i'd rather you go with what i did. at the end of the day -- >> we'll get to that in a second. i promise you. no, no he's not. we'll stop it. and i think you've agreed the it was his candidacy, right? >> or his election. again, not recalling writing it, his canadasy, his election. i don't recall writing it. >> what did you mean by "stop". >> by sense, looking at the context, is there is no way coming off the heels of insulting the khan family that the american and the other statements made and the comparison during the debate and everything else, there was no way that the american population was going to elect this man. so my sense was this was an

off-the-cuff don't worry about it comment. look at the next day when i sent a text saying, what was that? it's clear there's no conspiracy, no meeting of the minds, no suggestions of actions. it was merely a one-off comment. >> of course, about a week before you used the word "we" again in connection with an insurance policy to make sure that he was not elected president. then we get to the date mueller was appointed special counsel, the day after. let's go through this one. see if it rings a bell with you. "who gives up an f, one more ad and investigation leading to impeachment with" with a question mark. why are you talking about impeachment the day of special counsel's appointment? what -- while you're thinking about that, let me give you a few other options you could have said. an investigation leading against

indictments to russians, an investigation leading to robust response to what russia tried to do. you didn't say any of that you went straight to impeachment. do you know how impeachment works? >> i have a general understanding. >> how does it work? >> sir, my understanding is limited to that as something done by the congress, there's articles of impeachment and the procedure -- >> let me ask you this. do you have to be a sitting office holder to be impeach? >> sir, i don't know the answer. >> i do. i will take note that you never once used the world in connection with secretary clinton, did you? >> i did not, no. >> you didn't. if you did, we don't have it. so that's an investigation where you didn't think about mentioning it, but the day mueller was appointed rather than punishing russia or rather than indicting russians, rather

than doing something about social media, you went straight to impeachment. >> wrong. that's incorrect, sir. >> i'll tell you what -- >> i'm out of town. we'll re-visit. >> may i respond? >> you may when we re-visit the issue. >> answer the question -- >> mr. chairman, the witness is permitted to answer the question briefly. >> the gentleman from louisiana is recognized -- >> as the chairman has repeatedly said today. >> the gentleman from -- >> is the witness not permitted -- >> i'm going to object to your not permitting the witness to answering the question. >> one moment when i find out -- >> that is not the question. >> sir, you asked if i went directly to improvement rather than russia. i'd like to respond to that question -- >> we're going to come back to it. if you're dieing to respond to it now, as long as you d