it's 0 okay with you, we're going to ask the fbi and the department of justice to give us those documents that may or may not have been exchanged between mr. ohr and agent strzok. the committee would like to have that and if in fact there were documents. i have a minute. i yield to >> the fbi has told me i can answer questions about the receipt of the documents. >> how convenient. >> the gentleman may proceed with his question and you may answer. >> may i confirm with counsel to see if this is completely unfounded or if there are limitations on what i may say? >> i've got a lot of questions i've asked all day long. >> let's asked when you've been told you can answer. >> lets after this one about the documents. >> the documents were received from a different source.

the initial batch of mid-september. >> no, no, no. you said -- did you get documents from bruce ohr? >> yes. received materials from bruce ohr. >> what were those documents? >> we received documents from mr. ohr, not me. excuse me, sir. >> i can maybe make it simpler. agent strzok, was it the dossier? >> what i am authorized to tell you in response to a question, did you receive any documents from bruce ohr, the fbi has directed me that i may say, not me, the fbi received documents and materials from mr. orr. >> did you? but you did not come mr. ohr. did you get the dossier from

mr. ohr? >> the fbi received material. congressman -- >> this is amazing. nellie orr works for fusion, works for glenn simpson, and she is giving documents -- >> regular order. let us bring in the director of the fbi to answer those questions. the gentleman cannot answer. he cannot answer. >> regular order. >> i understand, mr. chairman. >> the fbi has instructed mr. strzok he can answer additional questions. >> agent strzok. >> get the answers to those questions. >> has the fbi given you permission to say if glenn simpson is the name used in the email where you say simpson? >> i don't believe they have given me guidance. my most recent understanding of my guidance from the fbi is in

response to the question of whether the fbi received documents from mr. ohr. the answer is we did. that's all i'm authorized to say. >> to the fbi give give you -- >> the fbi is not directed me or allowed me to respond. >> i yelled back. the bigger the committee will stand in recess until immediately after this series of votes. >> jesse: that was peter strzok, the fbi agent, lead investigator on the clinton email probe, lead investigator on the trump-russia probe. a lot of people are accusing him of bias and he denied bias all day long, girl there on capitol hill for hours by a joint house committee. let's to get around the table. that was a marathon today, very contentious. >> greg: i felt like i was unemployed on the sofa watching

back-to-back episodes of jerry springer. that was like parliament without the wigs. this whole event reveals how little wisdom there is in this world. there is so much noise, so little wisdom through those are all smart people. they are not dumb people, but the environment, the politics and the spotlight turns everybody into idiots. and i say all of them. not just strzok. we are never going to get to the truth because he has 30 lawyers there. 30 democrats are there white knighting every time you want to get to the truth, they jumped in front of him to take the bullet. his smirk drives me crazy. i want to pull my hair out and scream. i have the finger on the pulse

of something. >> jesse: his smirk definitely bother me as well. >> jesse: dana, i know you have been glued to the tv. >> dana: absolutely. >> jesse: do you think the members of congress on the republican side landed any solid blows today on peter strzok that shed light on any of his activities with regard to the trump-russia investigation? >> dana: i am sure if you ask the republicans, did you land any blows on him, they will say absolutely yes and they will give you lots of reasons. the democrats would say absolutely not they would give you all the reasons command the polarization continues. i did think it was quite odd that you had one congressman on the democratic side said he wanted to give peter strzok a purple heart which is outrageou outrageous. that's disgusting, actually. to suggest, given what the purple heart is actually for. then you had democrats applauding part of the testimony

that peter strzok gave, that's wholly inappropriate. several republicans, including louie gohmert, went way overboard, it felt like a public lynching. i thought it was terrible. you know they should do with these hearings. i know we are on televisions or maybe we don't say this, it should not be on camera. it should be on the record. they're good reporters there. it wouldn't beat public. as soon as you bring cameras and camille have this grand standin standing. >> greg: it turns it into a cable news show. >> dana: nothing against cable news. >> jesse: dana brought up a point, democrats consistently constantly throughout the day attacked and interrupted and made a spectacle whenever a republican was getting close to something, they would get out of order and let's just look at some of the contentious back-and-forth that happened during the hearing. >> point of order. the witness will answer the

question. >> you are repressing, mr. chairman. >> point of order. >> attorney-client privilege. he has been advised not to answer the question. >> what rules are we following that would dictate such an answer by you, mr. chairman? >> we are following the rules of the committee. >> democratic members have a right to know the rules are in governing this hearing. can you share with us? are you making it up as you go along? >> it's tough because i keep getting interrupted. >> jesse: juan williams, you've seen this for decades on capitol hill. is there a strategy behind people interrupting and causing this type of chaos during a hearing in order to deflect? or these people just can't control themselves emotionally? >> juan: i think the latter is true. i think it is grand standing. i like what greg said about jerry springer. it's not cable news. it is afternoon television.

at its worst. >> greg: there is no hair pulling because you have larry go mart. >> juan: the big guy, he would prevent the fight. they don't have that. they need that. contrary to what you think, i thought strzok explained some things, and don't forget dana that you had democrats who want to release the testimony that he gave earlier in a closed-door hearing. republicans of said we don't want it released. >> dana: i don't know. let it all out. >> juan: i think when strzok said some things that to me were news, he said when he is talking in what appeared to be i think to a democrat or a republican about, we are going to stop trump and i thought that's not good for an fbi agent to say. i understand they are more -- wyatt mueller and the fbi would let this guy go. he says he's really upset about the way trump treated khmer thd

star family. and tell you what the man said. the second thing -- >> jesse: can replace some of that sound. >> i want to know what it meant, agent strzok. >> candidacy for the president. >> it's not that tough. >> my sense was that the american population would not vote him into office. i'm trying to explain the text. >> "we will stop it," you were speaking on behalf of the american people? >> what my testimony is and what i said during extensive asking of this question during my prior interview, i don't recall writing that text. what i can tell you is that text

in no way suggested that i or the fbi would take any action to influence the candidates. >> that's a fantastic answer to a question nobody asked. >> jesse: do you believe that? >> you remember it. "we will stop it" means there is intent to do something to stop it. that's not just him having an opinion or bias which he obviously had. trey gowdy lays out the history of the comments of this guy made about not only president trump but trump voters. how he was glorifying hillary clinton and saying she should win the election before he even interviewed her. there's a whole history of bias. then you have this text. it's outrageous. this is what people say when they say that people in politics think the american people are a bunch of. -- a bunch of morons.

he was thinking trump may be able to win back the election or -- it's just ridiculous. >> juan: strzok makes the case that if he really was trying to stop donald trump, he would have leaked the fact of the investigation into russian collusion with the trump campaign. >> jesse: here's where i disagree. i don't think they would ever leak that they were investigating trump without any evidence. at that point, there was no evidence of collusion. we still not seen any evidence of collusion, and trump was running on a "the system is rigged against me." and i don't think obama would ever allow or whatever like anybody leaking there investigating donald trump. that was his answer for why we didn't do anything about russia and why we didn't do anything -- during 2016 in the fall, president obama is on record as saying he didn't want to say anything because he didn't want to look like we were rigging the

election against one candidate. >> juan: you are right but that's not what we are talking about. this guy, fbi agent, former army ranger. let me tell you, i'm a journalist. guys like him leak, and he didn't leak it. >> jesse: it was already out. the dossier was out. harry reid had been briefed on it by john brennan. it was out there. >> greg: i find it interesting when you can't recall a text but you can explain the context of a text you don't recall sending. i don't remember doing it, but i remember what i meant. he wins this argument because with a text exchange, it's open to interpretation. i believe there is something nefarious when he said we will stop it. it doesn't matter what i think because there are competing alternatives. and it's hard to prove. >> jesse: he can't answer any

questions. every time they ask him when did you learn that the dossier was founded by hillary, the fbi says i can't say anything. where did you get the dossier? the fda says i can't say -- the fbi says i can't say anything. >> juan: chamber proceedings. what we are really after here, the heart and soul, agent strzok, were you biased against donald trump during the campaign and did you conduct your investigation in such a way as to hamper the trump campaign and potentially aid the clinton campaign? >> jesse: he answered that. then i will have dana react. whether bias affected his decision-making. >> let me be clear unequivocally and under oath. not once in my 26 years of defending our nation did my personal opinions impact any official action i took. the fact is after months of investigation, there is simply

no evidence of bias in my professional actions. this investigation is not politically motivated. it is not a witch hunt. it is not a hoax. it's an impossible definition to say people must not have political opinions. everyone does. of course they do. the test is whether or not that is left behind when you are doing your job. >> jesse: here is an analogy. a left-wing journalist who's been writing anti-trump hit pieces for decades and has been investigating trump and it's very, very graciously anti-trump. then when you ask him has your bias ever affected your writing and your journalism? no. i keep my personal opinions totally separate. isn't that the same thing? >> dana: i think journalist do try to do that. i would put myself in that category. yesterday i interviewed brian fallon from demand justice. he had been the press secretary for hillary clinton. everyone knows i was the press secretary to president bush. 109 during that show set aside

my personal experiences or leanings as i interview him? i can try but it probably comes through. it varies by degrees. a better example might be a doctor. you know what i mean about the doctor. let's say there's an anti-trump dr. and somebody on the trump team is having a heart attack. does the doctor walk away or does he take care of it? >> jesse: the doctor resuscitate salary then pulls the plug on trump. that's when you know the bias -- >> juan: ronald reagan was shocked, to the hospital, and ronald reagan looks up of the doctor, they are about to operate and he says i hope some of you guys are republican. that's a pretty good. >> greg: you know why he said that? they would be better doctors. thank you, america. >> jesse: doesn't have a hard, remember? >> greg: we look at the

mueller investigation, the collusion emails. hillary relitigating -- we have these confrontations. we are politicians and celebrities. they are attacking trump. at some point, we are going to have to get over 2016. none of this is on the american mind. maybe i'm wrong. because this is on three cable networks. it's summertime. people are out doing stuff. they don't care. >> i think trump has made a point that was in the fbi, there's been an effort by some of those people, by some aspect of it to undermine him. many pooh-poohed it and laughed at it. when i want more information you need to not only show his bias but to show that there was intent here to do something about it. you don't say if i write a text to jesse and say juan is doing a terrible job on the show ends jesse says he just got renewed and i say we will stop it, that means we are going to try to stop you from getting renewed. that doesn't mean the american people are going to write letters and try to make it

happen. this was direct intent. >> juan: i would say in my own defense, it is time for shark- shark-nado, a lot of people would watch that show. >> forcing him to reenact those text. great television. >> juan: talk about jumping the shark. >> dana: that is the point. it's a congressional hearing. >> i think it drove the point home on how perfectly biased those things that he was saying. he had to reiterate it and everyone at home was like to -- >> jesse: he was removed from the mueller probe for bias. the ig says he was biased and he's still being investigated for bias. >> juan: the ig report said it didn't affect his work. >> jesse: it said it couldn't prove.

>> greg: can we stop talking about it? >> jesse: the hearing is in recess for the next 15. we are going to come back live when they are back. trump shakes up nato. the sound that shock waves next. no matter who rides point, there are over 10,000 allstate agents riding sweep. call one today. are you in good hands? until her laptop crashed this morning. her salon was booked for weeks, having it problems? ask a business advisor how to get on demand tech support for as little as $15 a month. right now, save $300 on our hp 2-in-1 laptop bundle at office depot officemax

the winter of '77.uring i first met james in 5th grade. we got married after college. and had twin boys. but then one night, a truck didn't stop. but thanks to our forester, neither did our story. and that's why we'll always drive a subaru. you might be missing something.y healthy. your eyes. that's why there's ocuvite. ocuvite helps replenish nutrients

your eyes can lose as you age. it has lutein, zeaxanthin and omega-3. ocuvite. be good to your eyes.

>> greg: like an orange tornado, donald trump swept into the nato summit. the expectation: total destruction. hasn't anyone noticed a pattern? not the media who water trump, s always the end of the world. tremendous progress has been made. >> tremendous progress has been made. everyone has agreed to substantially up their commitment. they are going to a bit at levels they've never thought of before. >> greg: never, never. after all the noise, everything is calm again and it seems like the only thing trump did was ask the other guys to pay their fair share. fair share. remember when the media love that? >> it's only right that we ask everyone to pay their fair

share. it was important for us to make sure millions -- millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share. the wealthiest americans pay their fair share. >> greg: but to ask that of the allies, the media bristles. how dare they? asking them to chip in on the bill especially in public. when the dinner bill comes, it's always the know it all who darts to the bathroom, leaving you to call it on him. he never expected trump would be at the table because -- germany spends only 1.24% of its gdp on nato which was created to curb soviet expansion. meanwhile germany is pipelining with putin. talk about soviet expansion. since america has always left with the bill, maybe we can call germany out for hiding in the john. trump wants defense spending at 4% gdp, twice with these

countries already fail to meet. why would he do that? maybe to get them to meet the initial target. could he be a stable genius? stegall i'm very consistent. i'm a very stable genius. >> greg: can't the media admit trump had a point? now putin's next which means everyone on cnn will don their chicken suits and scream at this guy telling us it's the end of the world. another apocalypse averted. >> jedediah: i don't understand the outrage over thi this. i don't understand why there's a country that's an ally of ours it is doing what they are supposed to be doing and we are all supposed to be helping each other out and they are not pulling their weight in a certain area, i guess you have to be cautious with the language. you don't want to jeopardize relationships. he is the president of the united states. he is supposed to put america first and say we are supposed to be helping each other out and if you're not giving the percentage

were supposed to and we are, you need to up it. >> jesse: he is like the guy at the restaurant when the bill comes, he itemizes the bill. you had steak. i only had an appetizer. it's funny. the media loved when obama went on the apology tour, and they hate this. he wants to strengthen nato and make sure everybody has skin in the game. i don't see why they have a problem with it at all. >> greg: juan, is the set stereotype where you realize you have this snooty european ugly american who comes over and talks about money. >> juan: no. we have a stable genius. with the stable genius goes over there in the context is what's missing. 97-2 is what the senate voted this week to say we like nato. the american public is like 69% nato helps us in terms of international security.

guess what. we have here a situation where the president comes out and says i have persuaded all of these nato allies stop their spending. emmanuel macron comes out and says no. we said we would hold to our existing promise. it's bluster. >> greg: they are lousy tippers, the french. >> jesse: he likes nato. he just thinks he can get up better price for it. >> greg: maybe i am wrong. this is only my speculation. to get to 2%. >> dana: it is the art of the deal. you know you're going to compromise. i think what he is saying is if you think you have a problem with russia and i agree with you, if he does, we will see. you have a problem, then you should put more towards your defense. the thing that's bothered me about this, it's not like there is a big nato pie. the percentages are what you spend on your own defense. country. that's why they are a little bit different. the estonian gdp, 2% of estonia

estonia's gdp, which is made that in an hour. i think the putin thing is interesting. you have netanyahu go to putin the other day and say let us deal with syria and let us deal with iran. >> greg: is in the pipeline thing? >> jesse: they should have gone through ukraine. instead it goes right to russia. >> dana: part of the reason the ukrainians didn't want to do is they didn't want the russians to put their pipeline through ukraine. >> jesse: transmission fees. >> juan: that deal was struck in 2000, way before -- you have a different context. >> jesse: i agree. they should buy it from us. >> juan: do you really want germany to have a strong military? >> jesse: juan.

>> greg: the explosive bombshell that has liberals foaming at the mouth over president trump's supreme court nominee. copd makes it hard to breathe. so to breathe better, i go with anoro. ♪ go your own way copd tries to say, "go this way." i say, "i'll go my own way, with anoro." ♪ go your own way once-daily anoro contains two medicines called bronchodilators that work together to significantly improve lung function all day and all night. anoro is not for asthma. it contains a type of medicine that increases risk of death in people with asthma. the risk is unknown in copd. anoro won't replace rescue inhalers for sudden symptoms and should not be used more than once a day. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition, high blood pressure, glaucoma, prostate, bladder, or urinary problems. these may worsen with anoro. call your doctor if you have worsened breathing,

chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain while taking anoro. ask your doctor about anoro. ♪ go your own way get your first prescription free at anoro.com. after a scratch so small rocket get your first prescription free you could fix it with a pen. how about using that pen to sign up for new insurance instead? for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ you shouldn't be rushed into booking a hotel. with expedia's add-on advantage, booking a flight unlocks discounts on select hotels until the day you leave for your trip. add-on advantage. only when you book with expedia.

add-on advantage.

i just want to find a used car start at the new carfax.com show me used trucks with one owner. pretty cool. [laughs] ah... ahem... show me the carfax. start your used car search at the all-new carfax.com. ♪ >> dana: if you thought the left attacks against supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh were already bad, wait until you hear these ridiculous attempts at a smear campaign. in a "washington post" headline, the elite world of brett kavanaugh, we learn that in cavanaugh's george prep your book you listed himself as the treasurer of the keg city club. 100 kegs or bus. another post headline reveals supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh piled up credit card debt by purchasing nationals tickets. and pro-choice group naral says we'll be damned if we're going

to let some frat boy named bret strip us of our bodily rights. stephen colbert also doing some mudslinging. >> i don't know much about cavanaugh but i am skeptical because his name is bret. sounds less like a supreme court justice and more like a waiter at ruby tuesday's. >> dana: this is all they have? >> jesse: i guess so. he likes likes baseball and lio drink. >> dana: you have felt like a guy who goes into credit card debt to get nationals tickets. it's worth it. >> juan: mrs. williams, you didn't hear that. i'm a big nationals fan and i season tickets. >> dana: he has been a government employee for all his adult career. >> juan: he lives in a better neighborhood than i do. he lives in a great neighborhood. this is so much fun. at this point, they are just having fun because the real thing is can the democrats stop

him? delay or stop it? it's is frivolity. by the way, the nationals this year are not worth the money. >> jedediah: why do democrats do this? it reminds me of mitt romney and they are running articles about how mitt romney bullied kid in prep school. seems like democrats do this often. talk about this guy's record. i have issue with one of the tax related cases about how he argued that the mandate for the affordable care act was a tax and not a penalty. talk about that. take issue with that. why did they go into this nonsense depletes level argument? it makes people say your guys are swimming. >> juan: i think they will get into it. that's where we are at the moment. yesterday, there were these wonderful pictures of him with his family when he was the nomination was announced and he spoke in the east room of the white house. then there were articles about,

what does it mean when men show off their women as part of their resume, the $2 and the wonderful wife. i thought this is ridiculous. leave the guy alone. but they are going to talk about the record, not only the tax records, surveillance. >> dana: commercial break. greg, what you think. is it good for brett kavanaugh? >> greg: beer kegs, baseball, and debt. you can't get more american than that. this is a new era. you're going to get younger nominees who are from a generation where they use party as a verb and not a noun. i am older than this guy and older than the previous guy in my hobbies were not this benign. >> jesse: you are older than the supreme court -- >> greg: i am older than two of them. we are in an era. the permanence of social media, everyone is going to have a paper trail. the supreme court is going to show up. >> dana: what did you mean

when you tweeted -- >> greg: exactly. how much are those tickets? that's a lot. >> dana: he's been a government employee for 20 years. >> greg: you have baseball, decked, beer. if they find out that he runs an apple pie smuggling ring. >> juan: he goes to a great catholic church attended by more of the washington elites and he hangs out -- >> jedediah: oh, my gosh. >> jesse: and he was serving homeless people hot meals at a soup kitchen. >> greg: it was too hot. >> dana: it is like weekend at kavanaughs, supreme court addition. we are waiting for the hearings to resume on capitol hill. we'll bring it to you. facial recognition as a hot new craze but there is more than meets the eye. what you should know before opting in.

with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com

to most ...most people.like... but on the inside, i feel chronic, widespread pain. fibromyalgia may be invisible to others, but my pain is real. fibromyalgia is thought to be caused by overactive nerves. lyrica is believed to calm these nerves. i'm glad my doctor prescribed lyrica. for some, lyrica delivers effective relief from fibromyalgia pain, and improves function. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts or actions.

tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling, or blurry vision. common side effects: dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, swelling of hands, legs and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who've had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. with less pain i can do more. ask your doctor about lyrica. if you're elligble, you could pay as little as $25 a month. yeah... but popping these things really helps me...relax. please don't, i'm saving those for later. at least you don't have to worry about renters insurance. just go to geico.com. geico helps with renters insurance? good to know. been doing it for years. that's really good to know. i'll check 'em out. get to know geico. and see how easy homeowners and renters insurance can be.

♪ >> juan: welcome back to "the five." you are going to see more of the wild and harry congressional hearings, peter strzok hearings, resume any minute. before that, we will give you some entertainment. we will give it to you live what it resumes. you might think that the new facial recognition tools are cool, but they could come at a big cost and surveillance. the new technology can apparently land you in trouble for anything from jaywalking to traffic violations and far more. social media companies like facebook user to help tag users in photos, but consumer groups and advocates say it may violate your privacy. names people without their consent. jedediah, there was a front page piece in "the new york times" this week talking about how the chinese government is using this

technology to spy on people in public places doing ordinary things. does this upset you? >> jedediah: very scary, this is why i wrote the book #donotdisturb. i wrote a lot of this. comes out october 9. the preorder is available now. i wrote this because this stuff with facial recognition and fingerprinting is getting really, really scary. it can be hacked. you never know if a third party is going to require the data and what they're going to do with it. oftentimes, you don't even realize that you are having these photos taken of you or you are part of the system because you have to opt out. it's not that you have to give your consent to often. you have to know they are automatically scanning in my face and i have to search and figure out how to opt out. people assume if they haven't signed up, they are not participating. >> greg: a problem with facial recognition.

what if you look a lot like someone. i will be able to access brad pitt's bank accounts. >> jesse: i will get hit for fines for david schwimmer running red lights. >> juan: here's what surprised me. they can go into a supermarket. jesse is in the supermarket, buying soup. they can see that's jesse watters. that's jesse watters. he likes campbell soup. if you give him a discount right now, jesse will buy more. you think, why are they doing this? why are they using the technology? >> jesse: they are doing it to make money. 2 minutes later there is an ad that pops up that exactly what you're looking at. >> greg: it is so embarrassing. [laughter] >> jesse: especially at work. >> juan: what were you looking for, greg? >> jesse: i like it for terrorism. i could see putting it in airports or train stations or times square but you can only use it to fight terrorism. i don't like it when you can get

hit for jaywalking or running a red light. i like the cat and mouse with police. they should be able to catch you running the red light personally. they shouldn't be able to use red light cameras. it's not fair. >> dana: did this happen to you recently? >> juan: dana, six years ago the europeans asked them to stop this. don't do it. what we have seen is especially after zuckerberg testified, declining confidence in facebook in the american public because of things like that. >> dana: "the new york times" story about china affected me because in some ways, you think it's convenient. a friend of mine who lives in abu dhabi. her husband is in the military. she got in a car accident. she called the police and they said are you in the white acura? we are seeing it now. cameras are everywhere. what's happening in china is even worse. they will find out, you are walking on the street. oh, that guy right there, they put your face on a bulletin

board, big debt. publicly shaming people. >> jesse: was it kavanaugh? >> juan: that's a liberal joke. >> dana: the allure of this is that it adds to convenience and it helps you get things done, but then the danger is when it tipped over onto the other side. >> greg: can i make one point? privacy is overrated. i think we should let everybody know everything. before you get exposed, expose yourself. [laughter] >> juan: peter strzok just sat back down at the congressional hearings. we're going to take you back to that live. (man 1) i read that the saguaro can live to be two hundred years old. (woman) how old do you think that one is? (man 1) my guess would be, about... (man 2) i'd say about two hundred. (man 1) yeah... (burke) gives houseplant a whole new meaning. and we covered it.

talk to farmers. we know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

>> dana: where we are going to take you back to the hearing. here's peter strzok. >> in the summer of 2016, were you working as a speechwriter? >> no. >> would you have happy to have written the speech for donald trump the candidate in the summer of 2016 where he told an audience russia, if you are listening, and then went on to tell the russians that they hacked hillary clinton's emails, they would be rewarded. did you write that speech? >> i did not. >> does any of the behavior i

described concern you from a counterintelligence perspective? >> tremendously. it indicates a set of standards and requests that in in my mind encourage a foreign power to begin inserting themselves into our electoral process. it indicates a willingness or desire to engage in a conversation and dialogue about how to do that. it potentially implicates a variety of laws. without getting into what has or has not been done investigative lee, i am expressing that. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows. >> mr. strzok, i'm going to go through a few questions. i want to make sure i have it clear. i think you were quoted as saying we don't ever talk about ongoing investigations outside of the fbi. is that true?

>> i don't know the context in which i said it. >> sharing with the media. >> right, so in my experience, i can think of examples not that i have participated in, where members of there's an ongoing case, say a field office wanted to enlist the public's help and they would talk to the media about getting a lead on a kidnapper. there are times when that might occur, so that's why i want to be careful to frame what i said. >> you had never talked to anyone outside of the fbi about the russia investigation at all? >> i have never spoken to any member of the media about the russia investigation. >> have you spoken to anyone who is not in the media and is not part of the department of justice or the fbi about the russia investigation other than witnesses? >> the u.s. intelligence committee. >> so you talked to the cia. >> the u.s. intelligence committee. >> that include the cia?

to go potentially. i don't think i can answer the specifics of who i talked to. >> i'm going to ask questions that you can answer that are not specifics. in doing so, i need you to give me clear answers. are you aware there was a meeting between director brandon and senator harry reid where indeed he shared certain intelligence with senator reid on august 25 of 2016. are you aware of that? >> not to my recollection. >> the text message between you and ms. page a few days after that on august 30 where you said "here it comes," when senator reid sent a letter to director comey, what would you have been referring to? >> my recollection is imprecise. senator reid had been making a lot of comment. i don't know if it was public comment or comment or director comey. >> they weren't public at the time. are you aware that in your email

dated january 10, where you will knowledge the fact that harry reid knew about the dossier prior to sending that letter, are you aware what he meant? >> i don't know that i was talking about the material which you are referring to as the dossier. >> check your notes and report back because we have evidence that would suggest it. >> the date on this was august? >> august 25 was the briefing with harry reid of 2016 by director brennan. he sends a letter then to director comey which we have acknowledgment of my director comey and by you and lisa page in text messages that would suggest that you weren't aware of that. the cia director briefing harry reid and the indication is that they talked about the dossier, and we get that indication from an email from you from january 10. >> that's not true. congress become of the first i have of any material of the

material produced by mr. steele was mid-september of 2016. i did not know or have information of that material certainly from any other source prior to mid-september. >> you had not seen it until mid-september. >> my recollection is that in mid-september, again, i have to -- >> i want to give you a chance to make sure we are clear. you were not aware of a briefing that took place between director brennan and senator harry reid on august 25. >> that is correct. i was not aware of that meeting. >> let me go further. we have four or five other documents that would indicate that the white house was notified at least four different times about this investigation. do you think that would be appropriate during an ongoing campaign that the obama administration would be kept up to speed on a rush of collusion investigation. do you think that would be appropriate? >> you are mixing a couple things. it would be entirely appropriate for the white house to be aware

and concerned about what the government of russia was doing regard to the elections. >> that was not my question. but i agree. i am concerned. i have a bill that i encourage my colleagues to talk about russia interference. we are talking about an investigation that would include collusion being talked about with the white house. we have evidence that would suggest not once, not twice, not three times but four times that it was discussed by people in the obama administration. were you aware of any discussion that took place with regards to russia collusion that took place with the obama administration executive branch? >> i want to ask you. when you say investigation, are you talking about investigations -- i'm not saying there were or were not, investigations of u.s. persons or potentially investigations of a russian? >> u.s. persons associated with donald trump's campaign. big i'm not aware briefings to

the white house. >> anytime between july 31 and november 8 when the election happened. that is your sworn testimony, you are not aware of any? >> specific identities of people who were there. >> i wasn't asking about the people. i don't want to know the people. are you aware of any conversations that happened with obama administration officials? >> i am certainly aware of conversations that occurred with obama administration officials. i am aware of a variety of conversations that took place across the u.s. intelligence community talking about the russian efforts. i am aware, my recollection and understanding, again, i was not present at any briefing. my understanding is there were not discussions of identities of individual u.s. persons who may or may not have been the subject of investigations. >> you are parsing words. >> you asked me to parse words.

if you want a specific answer to be careful, the only way i can do it is by parsing. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman for 5 minutes. >> thank you. mr. chairman. against the wisdom of my grandmother that said that when you see a circus going on, don't jump in the middle of it and expect people not to call you a clown, i will ask questions anyway. it's a distraction from real issues we should be talking about in this country. we have asked this committee to have a hearing on the fact that we still not renewed the voting rights act. we have had no hearing. we have asked this committee to have a hearing on daca where we are putting at risk dreamers who make this country a better

place. but we have had no hearing on daca. we have asked for hearings on the fact that we are separating infants and toddlers from their parents with now clearly no ability to reunite the family. so we have sick and maniacal things going on in this country and we spent six hours with 20% of congress locked in a room bashing someone in hopes that we can discredit a law enforcement investigation. in my wildest dreams, and my entire life, i never thought that i, a young black man, would be defending the fbi. but we were always taught that we have to believe in the system, that the people who take an oath and swear to protect people who protect and serve our communities, people who have fought for this country on foreign land, that we give them the benefit of the doubt of

their honesty in their integrity and the fact that they want to see justice served. we have the the -- we won't hae hearings to look at russian collusion. we can't even get the administration to admit that russians played a part in hacking our election. so when we look at what we are doing today, what we are doing is wasting precious time. i can go down the list. on september 7, of 2017, we sent a letter about daca. on october 2 of 2017 we sent a letter to this committee asking them to have a hearing about the las vegas shooting. and what we could be doing as the judiciary committee to make sure that that doesn't happen again. we sent a letter november 6 of 2017 to ask about what we could be doing when 25 people were

killed in a church in texas. we we the judiciary committee, y are we not having a hearing on that? so the question is with all the the talent, we have spent far too much time today on a red herring that is designed to do what i'm afraid it's doing, which is distracting from the real issues that we're dealing with in this country. unfortunately with the media and our 24-hour news cycle, american people will hear this over and over and actually think this is a real substantive hearing. when it's not. i just think it's very unfortunate. because people in america have some real problems they're dealing with, how to find their children, how to keep a roof on their