corrupt people. >> respectfully in your home state of florida the number of people applying to come work for us and devote their lives working for us is up over 100%. >> we're deeply proud of them and they deserve better than you. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from -- >> thank you, mr. chair. director wray, thank you for continuing to serve with all of these attempts to sully your name. suggest you have committed crimes. you have done an excellent job as f.b.i. director. i don't know every you've done but i think the f.b.i. is a premier law enforcement agencies and i support law enforcement. to attack the f.b.i. is to attack law enforcement in general. two days after mar-a-lago there was some individual went after the cincinnati headquarters of the f.b.i. how do you think that came about? >> so the incident that you are

asking about was deeply dist disturbing. we had an individual wearing a tactic call vest and gun and nail gun who tried to attack the cincinnati field office. a subsequent review of the subject's devices and online postings identified a pretty striking anti-f.b.i., anti-federal law enforcement hostility. he was calling on others to kill federal law enforcement claiming he felt he was fighting in his words a civil war. it is unfortunately part of a broader phenomenon that we have seen not just against the f.b.i. this is important to add, but against law enforcement all across the country. not just against law enforcement professionals themselves, which is appalling enough, but calling

for attacks against their families, which is truly despicable. >> that man was captured and eliminated, was he not? >> yes. >> a few days later was the arizona f.b.i. department subject of armed violence -- armed protestors? >> well, i know that our phoenix field office has had a number of very concerning security incidents where people attempted to attack or breach the facility. i can't remember the dates when that happened. >> all of that has happened in the same sphere. it has been information has been put out on social media and by members of congress questioning the f.b.i., questioning law enforcement in general has had an effect on f.b.i. officials and others like justice. a story the other day about

people involved in the prosecution of former president and threats to them. d.o.j. personal as well as f.b.i. is that something going on presently? are there efforts to have a unit at the f.b.i. look into how they protect and defend law enforcement personnel threatened with violence? >> we did stand up a whole dedicated unit to focus on threats to f.b.i. individuals, f.b.i. employees and f.b.i. facility because of the uptick over that time period. >> january 6th was beyond a weaponization of government. it was a nuclearization by the government against the government. i believe i heard that you said you didn't have the prior notice or reason to believe there would be such an event on january 6th, is that correct? >> to my knowledge, we did not have prior knowledge of an

attempted violent overthrow and breach of the capitol building itself. we were concerned and put out intelligence products through partners and others warning of the potential or violence more generally on that date. >> i think tucker carlson and colleagues on the other side of the aisle that ray epps was a secret government agent helping encourage this crime so as to make the president look bad. do you have any knowledge of ray epps being a secret government agent? >> no. i will say this notion that somehow the violence at the capitol on january 6th was part of some operation orchestrated by f.b.i. sources and agents is ludicrous and a disservice to our brave, hard working, dedicated men and women. >> i agree with you. i think the f.b.i. has the most talented law enforcement people

in the nation and world and concerned about safety. they tend to, as i understand it, lean republican but they do their job down the line. that's what they are supposed to do. i'm happy we have the f.b.i. operating in memphis and other places to work with our police departments and joint units to protect our citizens and thank you for your service to the united states. >> gentleman from california is recognized. >> i will follow up on my colleague from memphis. how many individuals were either f.b.i. employees or people at the f.b.i. that made contact with were in the january 6th entry of the capitol and surrounding area? >> i really need to be careful here talking about where we have or have not used confidential human services. >> was there one or more individuals that would fit that description on january 6th that were in or around the capitol? >> i believe there is a filing

in one of the january 6th cases that can provide more information about that and happy to see if we can follow up with you. >> was there one or more? you would know if there was at least one individual who worked for the f.b.i. who entered the capitol on that day. >> again, i just can't speak to that here but i'm happy to get the court filing. >> it has been two years and you are now come before us, the gentleman asked these questions, makes all kinds of insinuations and you nod your head yes and i ask you simply was there one or more and you won't answer that. so i will make the assumption that there was more than one, more than five, more than ten, and that you are ducking the question because you don't want to answer for the fact that you had at least one and somehow missed understanding that some of the individuals were very dangerous and that there were others inciting individuals to enter the capitol after others

broke windows. i will move on because i think it is time to move on past january 6th. i just seems that the other side won't. you are a near cabinet level individual. do you feel comfortable speaking to other members either cabinet level or sub cabinet level when appropriate to resolve problems within the government? >> absolutely. >> okay. and so when the f.b.i. censored the united states government, you wouldn't have to just take it down by calling meta or google, would you? >> i'm sorry, i'm not sure i'm following the question. >> are you familiar with the russian language account of the united states department of state that was taken down at your agency's request? >> that doesn't ring a bell as i

sit here right now, no. >> now you have something to take back and look at because, in fact, in this bundle that sbu constantly was submitting to various agencies was, in fact, a russianmentioned sbu. i am not sure we're talking about the same thing but i will en dever to find more context with sbu. i'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. when russia invaded ukraine, the security service of ukraine, sbu, a longstanding good partner of the f.b.i., asked us for help on a whole range of things.

and one of those things was to contact u.s. companies on their behalf because the russians, the invasion had cut off the ukrainian's communications. we did pass through information from the sbu to social media. >> are you familiar with the fact that president zelensky has had to clean house at the sbu? >> i know there have been a number of personnel changes. >> we'll follow up with this in more detail. the question i have for you is, you are the premier law enforcement operation and you are a former department of justice high-ranking executive at all levels. so would you agree that the job of the f.b.i. is criminal investigation? >> is criminal investigation and to protect the country from national security threats. those two things. >> the idea you take information and have it taken down, used your authority and the leverage you have to have meta , google,

facebook being meta or twitter take down people's information on things like where covid came from, where do you find the national security interest in that? where do you find the interest in free speech of american citizens being taken down? i repeat free speech of american citizens. where do you have that authority? >> we don't ask social media companies to censor information or suppress information. when it comes to national security threats certainly. so what we do do is alert them when some other intelligence agency gives us information about the foreign intelligence service being behind some account, we'll call social media companies' attention to that. but at the end of the day we're very clear that it is up to the social media companies to decide whether to do something about it or not. >> the suggestion of the most powerful law enforcement

operation is not a suggestion, it is effectively an order. i yield back. >> bill: gentleman from georgia is recognized >> we're here today because maga republicans will do anything to protect donald trump, their savior, no matter how unfounded or dangerous it may be. welcome to the legislative arm of the trump re-election campaign. a jury found that found cause that trump kept highly sensitive national security documents which could put our country and our sources in danger if they got out, which photographs show trump kept those records in bathrooms, showers, closets, and in the mar-a-lago ballroom. maga republicans are afraid that the justice system might hold trump accountable for his actions so to protect him,

republicans are trying to intimidate f.b.i. officials. in case that does not work, republicans are trying their hardest to discredit the f.b.i. in the eyes of the american public. when trump lost in 2020, they tried to make americans distrust their election systems. now that the f.b.i. and the justice department have sought to hold trump to the same standard any other american citizen would be held to, maga republicans are telling americans not to trust the f.b.i. to protect trump republicans are trying to distract us from the real work that the f.b.i. does every day, which is fighting violent criminals, child predators and fighting domestic terrorists and extremists so as to protect our democracy and our national security. and even worse, maga republicans are stirring up threats that pose a danger to the safety of

f.b.i. employees. it is past time that republicans realize the consequences of their words and put the good of this country over politics. now, director wray, i want to thank you for your service during a time of unprecedented travail. director wray, you were a partner in an international law firm before you took a drastic pay cut to accept the job of f.b.i. director, isn't that correct? >> yes, that's something my wife remind me of from time to time. >> and let me ask you this, sir, and you took this office after trump fired the former f.b.i. director, jim comey, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and did you contact the trump administration to offer yourself for this job, or did the

administration recruit you for the job? >> they contacted me and asked me if i would be willing to consider taking on the role. >> so trump handpicked you to be the f.b.i. director. >> yes. >> and he expected you to do what he wanted you to do, correct? >> well, that i can't speak to. i can tell you same thing i told him that i will do this job by the book. >> he is unhappy with you now, isn't he? >> i will let him speak for himself. >> a lot of his acolytes here reflect his intent at this particular time. director wray, are you aware that maga republicans have repeatedly called for the f.b.i. to be defunded? >> i have heard some of that language. >> in fact, republicans on this very committee have said that your institution should be dismantled, isn't that correct? >> well, i think certain members

have. >> and one member tweeted quote, let's defund and dismantle the f.b.i., end quote. another told fox news that quote, republicans should defund the bureaucracy, end quote. a third told the press he thinks the f.b.i. needs to be split up and moved out into pieces, end quote. those are direct quotes and only a small sample of what's out there. can you briefly describe for us what the effect would be on our national security and on our domestic tranquility if the f.b.i. were to be defunded or dismantled? >> certainly it would be disastrous for 38,000 hard working career law enforcement professionals and their families. more importantly in many ways it would hurt our great state and local law enforcement officers who depend on us every day to work with them on a whole slough of challenging threats.

it would hurt the american people, neighborhoods and communities across this country. the people we are protecting from cartel, foreign and domestic terrorists. cyberattacks. the people it would help would be the violent gangs and cartels, foreign terrorists, chinese spies, hackers and so forth. >> time of the gentleman has expired. chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. >> i thank the chairman. director wray, thank you for your work with the f.b.i. and thank you for your history of work in law enforcement. you started out as an ausa. i am getting this information from wikipedia, the great font of knowledge. you were nominated by republican president bush for the position of assistant attorney general in the criminal division at the department of justice and confirmed by a republican senate

if i am correct in that. >> yes, by unanimous voice vote. >> you were then nominated by republican president donald trump to be the f.b.i. director and again confirmed by republican senate for that position. >> yes, i think there were only five votes against me and they were all from democrats. >> according to wikipedia, you are still a registered republican and i hope you don't change your party affiliation after this hearing is over. but i want to thank you. i want to thank you for leading an agency, as you mentioned in your opening statement, that protects americans from foreign terrorists, that protects americans from spies from china and russia and cybercrime and public corruption and organized crime and drug cartels and drug traffickers and white collar criminals and thank you for protecting law abiding americans

from the evil that exists around us. you know this but worth mentioning. the f.b.i. doesn't protect america because it is a beautiful country. it doesn't protect america just because of the citizens who live in this country. you and the f.b.i. protect america because of the values that we hold, because of our constitutional republic, because this is a special place. the rest of the world knows just how special this place is. director wray, i am concerned about fisa. i am not concerned about fisa in a partisan way and not in favor of defunding the f.b.i. nor am i in favor of splitting up the f.b.i. i'm concerned about fisa because i'm concerned about what makes this place special and the threats to us. and i would love to work with the f.b.i. on how we can protect americans at the same time

protecting the civil liberties of americans. and that area of fisa is what really concerns me. i know you have gone to great lengths to try to work with f.b.i. agents on how they access information under 702 and i know that at times it has been successful and at times it has not been successful. but the spirit of fisa and the spirit of our constitutional republic really demands the f.b.i. culture shift. it shifts to a place where f.b.i. agents understand that protecting american's civil liberties. protecting the privacy that we all enjoy in this country, even though we screw up, we still enjoy this privacy and in court we have the highest burden of proof the world has ever known to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. and that has to be -- that information has to be gathered by the government in a legal

way. so i fear that we are going to over correct on fisa in congress. that we are going to take away some tools that are necessary because there is a trust factor here that is missing. i would love to know how we can draw that line in a way that assures the civil liberties. i have agree with my colleague from california, i don't often agree with folks from california but agree that it is essential we not get geo location information from what i consider criminals at big tech and that we protect that information for americans. you as law enforcement official should not know where i am necessarily unless you have probable cause to get that information. i'm also concerned about the ability of law enforcement, particularly the f.b.i., to

access information when i go on the internet and i search for a gun vault or i search for a holster, i don't want the government to know that i own a gun. i think i have that privacy right to make sure that government doesn't know that i own a gun or any other information that i search for on the internet unless you have probable cause to make that search. so i want to ask you a question in the last few seconds. how can you work on the culture in the f.b.i. and help us reach that sweet spot on fisa? >> well, thank you for that. certainly we starting with first principles try to drive home every day to our workforce our mission is to both protect the american people and uphold the constitution. and we have on the issue of fisa, clearly had failures in the past. i've been very plain about that. we've implemented a series of reforms. and if you look, if you look at the reports that have started to come out now from the fisa

court, odni, justice department and others who looked at the effect of our reforms, over and over again they are showing significant improvement in compliance. we're talking about the most recent fisa court opinion finding 98% compliance and commending us for moving in the right direction. d.o.j. reports on 99% compliance. internal audit found a 14% jump up to 96%. all separate reports looking at the impact of our reforms. a lot of the public commentary about our failures. let's be clear. we have had problems and they're unacceptable and i'm determined to fix them. those problems almost entirely pre-date those reforms, even though some have just come out recently. so we will keep working at this. it is not a one and done. i recognize we need to work with the congress on this issue. this is an incredibly important

tool. as you know from your own public service, this is an inced inly important tool to protect the american people from very serious foreign threats. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. director. i want to pick up where mr. buck began as well. i'm glad we have one democrat and one republican to thank you for your service to your country. you are being vilified by members of this committee because the justice department and f.b.i. has had the audacity to investigate criminal conduct by a former president and i just want a chance to recap hough we got to where we are. during the last administration and for four years the justice department took the position not unprecedented for the department, that a former president could not be a -- a current president could not be

indicted. i think that's a flawed matter as a constitutional principle but it was the view of the office of the legal counsel and justice department during the trump years. the president of the united states could not be indicted. my republican colleagues seem to believe a former president similarly cannot be indicted. that would effectively make a president above the law, beyond the reach of the law. in my view there would be only one thing the founders would find more politically precarious and dangerous to our constitution than the indictment of a president or former president and the failure to indict a president or former president when they have engaged in criminal conduct. the justice department, i believe, as representative lofgren, my fellow member of the january 6th committee asserted, took a very long time to begin the investigation of donald trump and his involvement in january 6th. i believe it began with urgency

when it came to the foot soldiers who broke into the capitol and assaulted police officers that day. what i can tell from the public record, the activities of the president himself, some of which were a matter of public record such as his tape recorded conversation with the secretary of state in georgia which he badgered the secretary to quote, find 11,780 votes that don't exist. it was the subject of an investigation by the local district attorney was not the subject of investigation for more than a year by the justice department. to me, that is unexplainable. it was never the kind of case in which you could roll up the foot soldiers on the higher ups because there were multiple lines of effort in trying to overturn the election. the appointment of the special counsel accelerated the

investigation and that's a positive step for the department and country so we can get resolution to this. likewise with mar-a-lago, notwithstanding the protest of my colleagues, there were repeated, repeated requests by the archives to get those documents back from the former president. and then when those were unsuccessful there was a grand jury subpoena. when that was unsuccessful and only then and there was evidence that the former president was still withholding highly classified materials did the f.b.i. go this step of a search warrant. that was more than a year and a half after the initial requests. this was anything but a rush to judgment in the mar-a-lago case. so i believe the department, if anything, has exercised enormous caution, i would say too much caution in the january 6th committee's work and oversight to proceed against a former president when there is serious

and credible allegations of criminal conduct. but i want to thank you for your stewardship during this incredibly difficult time. i don't think there has been a more difficult fame for an f.b.i. director. notwithstanding concerns i have expressed, none of them go to your integrity or your commitment to the country and i want to thank you for that. let me ask you about a different topic, although related to january 6th as well. let me ask you broadly about domestic violent extremism. we voted down by the republicans we should oversee an increasingly dire threat of domestic violent extremism. one of your recent reports underscored the rise of this prevalent threat and ask you if you would address it today. >> so the rise of domestic violent extremism is something that i and we have been identifying for quite some time. it goes back well before

january 6th. a lot of people don't know this but the joint terrorism task forces we hear about it were largely created in response to domestic terrorism. in my first few years as director, we were identifying this issue more and more and why we elevated in the summer of 2019, racially motivated violent extremism to a national threat priority level and we saw i think about a 40% increase in the number of domestic violent extremism investigations all before anything to do with january 6th. since then it has continued. domestic violent extremism cuts across the spectrum from the racially motivated, militia, anarchist and environmental violent extremism and of course recently we've had a lot of

violent extremism attacks against pro-life facilities and we're investigating those. it covers a wide spectrum. what they all have in common is three things, violence or threats of violence, motivated by some ideology and it varies in violation of federal criminal law and that's the violent extremism i am talking about when i identified this phenomenon. >> can i enter into the record two letters both from david weiss, the a pointed u.s. attorney in delaware rebutting allegations concerning partiality in the investigation of the hunter biden case? >> no objection. director, what's the difference between a traditional catholic and radical traditional catholic? >> i'm not an expert on the catholic orders. >> your f.b.i. wrote a memo

talking about radical traditional catholics. can you define it for us? >> you are referring to the richmond product, a single product by a single field office, as soon as i found out about it i was agas and ordered it withdrawn and removed from f.b.i. system. we are finishing an internal review to what happened. >> we the congress and american people have to do an internal review before we can talk to the people who wrote this? >> when we finish our internal review, very soon, we'll come back before the committee to provide a briefing on what we found. then we can -- >> we want to talk to the people who wrote it. any idea how many catholics in america? a lot. over 60 million. what percentage of those are the traditional catholics? >> it's something that i thought was appalling and removed it. >> let's read from that product

page four of that product. the copy you gave us when can we get a copy that doesn't have redactions and can actually see what the american taxpayers were paying for to see their rights, their first amendment religious liberty rights attacked? let me read from page four. provide new opportunities to mitigate extremist threat through outreach to traditional catholic parishes and the development of sources with the placement and access to report on places of worship. that's pretty fancy language for they are trying to put informants in the parish, in the church is what this memorandum said from one of your field offices. you won't let us talk to the people who did it. any response to that? >> i was waiting for the question. >> do you think priests should be informants inside the church? >> we don't recruit, open or operate human services to

target, report on religious organizations. >> it sounds like you were trying to do it in richmond, virginia. >> no, sir. >> it didn't happen? you can assure us this didn't happen? >> that product as best as we can tell involve in any investigative action as a result of it, none. >> you know what the motivation for it was? why would they think about do it? >> i think that's what our internal review will find. i would rather wait until i hear the results are. >> i can read the document. i assume you can do the same. it says there on the same page richmond assesses extremist interest is radical traditional catholics is likely to increase over the next 12 to 24 months in the run-up to the next general election. same paragraph. invents where they might have cause includes legislation, judicial decisions in such areas as abortion rights, immigration, affirmative action, and lgbtq

protection. it's politics, that's the motivation. in the run-up to the next election and they talk about the border, affirmative action and abortion rights? total politics. i think it's interesting that affirmative -- we got a decision by a bunch of catholics who sit on the supreme court relative to affirmative action. politics was the total motivation here and that's what is scary. that's what is so frightening and why we -- how this happens, i don't know. five people signed off on it. five people including the chief division counsel at the richmond field office. i would like to talk to this lawyer. a lot of people in this room went to law school and did a course on the constitution and talks about the first amendment. i find that really scary. when do you think we'll have a chance? how soon will you complete the internal investigation so we can talk to these folks who put this together? >> i expect us to be able to brief the committee on our internal review later this summer. >> will that briefing include

the names of individuals who put this memo together? >> i'm not sure. when it is we'll provide you an appropriate briefing. >> we've already started putting in place a number of fixes and further informed by the results of the review. >> more training, more things. the same thing you told us on fisa. while you may have some improvement you have 240,000 the database was illegally searched. what are the training and procedures you are putting in place? >> i put the fisa stuff to the side. >> you told us the same thing you fixed something and you haven't. >> i do not believe the number you just invoked on the fisa side is since the reforms. the fixes as you called them. post date the numbers that you are referring to. >> can we get an unredacted copy while the investigation of this memorandum. >> i will find out if there is more of the document that be can shared with you. we've tried to be careful in what we redact and always a basis for it.

let me see if there is more that we can provide. my instructions are to be as sparing as possible in the redactions that we provide. >> gentleman from california is recognized. >> i think it's rich the guy that accused you of lawlessness is in violation of his own congressional subpoena over january 6th. quite rich you hear all the allegations from somebody who won't respond to a lawful subpoena. i want to talk more about your workforce. that's where you started. a couple weeks ago, at the bureau, you had family day. can you tell us what family day is? >> family day is an opportunity for employees from all over the f.b.i., tends to be primarily from the nearby geography because of the trip employees to bring families into f.b.i. headquarters so they can see a little bit about the place their loved ones work and why mom or dad is spending so much time

away from home. >> see any little kids at family day? >> many, many, many. an opportunity for us to say thank you to the families. we talk a lot in law enforcement about sacrifice. but the reality is that law enforcement officers or professionals are sacrificing to do what they love. our families are sacrificing because of who they love. >> what would you say in your experience is the number one worry of a little kid about a mom or dad with a special agent out in the field? >> they are worried their mom or dad won't come home at night because they've been killed and it has happened, unfortunately. all too often. >> fort lauderdale a couple years ago. >> yes, two of our agents killed in connection with a child exploitation case down there. it was the single darkest day i have had in this job. >> want to turn your attention to an organization called marco polo run by a former trump aide

named garrett vegler. over the past couple of weeks he has docsed the addresses of a former special alth connected to the hunter biden case and puts up the dates of birth and pictures of two current special agents who work for you. he has said the name, which i will not say, of an assistant u.s. attorney who worked in the hunter biden case that she will answer for her crimes. justice will be done. it is out of my hands but she will answer. do these types of threats and docsing concern you and what it could mean? >> what we're most concerned about are the actual acts of violence that have happened as we just discussed. this doxing is itself hugely problematic because the more information -- personal information about law enforcement professionals that are out in the internet, the

more people who may be unstable or inclined to violence that are out there who can choose to act on it. we're seeing that all too often. the number of officers across law enforcement killed in the line of duty has been up alarmingly over the last few years. and i know that because one of the things i committed to doing early in my tenure was every time an officer anywhere in the country. >> harris: we have been watching the hearing in front of the house judiciary committee led by republicans now. a heated moment just unfolded with representative matt gaetz of florida and f.b.i. director christopher wray. before we get into the replay of that, in case you missed it. we'll lean in harder and bring in my guest. i'm harris faulkner and this is "the faulkner focus" coverage of this live hearing. matt whitaker, jason chaffetz, and fox news contributor.

i should point out chairman of oversight when he was on the hill. matt, i will start with you and what you've seen -- what you've seen from gaetz. let's watch it quickly. >> you seem deeply uncurious about it, don't you? almost suspiciously uncurious. are you protecting the bidens? >> absolutely not. the f.b.i. -- >> you won't answer the question. you won't answer the question. that's a shakedown. the f.b.i. has broken so bad that people can go and engage in queries that when you come before the congress to answer questions, you are like blissfully ignorant as to the unlawful queries, blissfully ignorant as to the biden shakedown regime, and it just seems like it gets into a creepy place as well. >> harris: legally, your reaction. >> well, it is good to be with you, harris. what congressman gaetz is channeling is the feelings of a lot of americans that don't

think when chris wray answers questions, he comes off either informed or gives full answers. the f.b.i. because of the missteps of several of their leaders has lost the benefit of the doubt. it is time for transparency and all of these, whether it's investigating domestic terrorism. whether it's querying the date basis we need a full report to understand what the f.b.i. is doing and how they are using their powers so that congress can pass laws that effectively make sure that we have the laws in force on the books but they aren't abused against american citizens exercising their first amendment and constitutional rights. >> harris: i will come back to you. we're watching this as it unfolds. we have andy biggs of arizona, congressman republican there. let's go. >> are you aware he promised more than 1,000 more individuals

will be charged or indicted related to january 6th >> i had not heard that. >> it is a quasi quit yeah system. do you agree with that? >> certainly not quotas. that doesn't make any sense. goals is more of an ambiguous term. >> certainly not quotas. >> certainly not quotas. >> do you know in any of the personnel of the f.b.i. are on the investigations promised that will lead to indictments by the january 6th quotas used by attorney grace? >> it doesn't found same ill area to me. >> you told the committee that a small group of people on the u.s. capitol on january 6th had all sorts of weapons. do you remember being here for that committee hearing and testifying that way? >> in general, yes. >> it has been report evidence

that more than 40 f.b.i. personal agents or contractors were in the crowd on january 6th. is that number accurate. >> i don't know if that number is accurate. >> former capitol police chief reportedly has asserted the protest crowd was filled with federal agents. are you aware of his assertion? >> i am not. >> would you agree with him that it was filled with federal agents on january 6th. >> i would have to get the full context to evaluate. >> how many agents or human resources were present at the capitol complex and vicinity on january 6th? >> again, it is going to get confusing. depends on when -- we deployed and responded to the breach that occurred. there were federal agents -- >> you and i both know we're

talking different things here. don't distract here. we're focusing on those who were there in an undercover capacity on january 6th, how many were there? >> again, i'm not sure i can give you that number as i sit here. i don't know if there were under cover agents on scene. >> i find that kind of a remarkable statement, director. at this point you don't know whether there were under cover federal agents, f.b.i. agents in the crowd or in the capitol on january 6th? >> i say that because i want to be very careful. there have been a number of court filings related to some of these topics and i want to stick with what's -- >> i understand that. i have thought i heard you say you didn't know whether there were f.b.i. agents or informants or human sources in the capitol or in the vicinity on january 6th. did i misunderstand you? >> i referred very specifically to undercover agents.

>> yeah. so are you acknowledging, then, there were undercover agents? >> as i sit here now i don't believe there were undercover agents, there were f.b.i. agents. >> did you have any assets present that day in the crowd? >> when it comes to what you are calling assets or what we would call confidential human sources that's a place where i want to be careful, much always i said in response to an earlier question, there are court filings that i think speak to this that i'm happy to make sure we get to you assuming they aren't under seal. and that can better answer the questions than i can as i sit here right now. >> in the same june 2021 committee hearing you told us the fisa court quote, approved f.b.i. procedures, minimization procedures and collection and did not find misconduct. that's what you said. specifically you said the fisk

found no misconduct but three months later the inspector general found widespread problems in f.b.i. fisa applications raising serious applications about the review process of applications including hundreds of examples of non-compliance with woods procedures. from december 2020 to november 2021 the f.b.i. conducted 3.4 million of warrantless data under fisa. up triple the amount of the previous year and worse as you were telling us there was nothing to worry about. but now your reforms produced -- reduced it down to 200,000 total, 119,000 americans. it doesn't seem like you have accomplished much there if you have 119,000 illegal searches and queries under fisa. i yield back. >> bill: gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

house judiciary committee is responsible for helping insure the rule of law. unfortunately this chairman ignored a bipartisan congressional subpoena served upon him. the actions of this chairman have undermined the credibility of all congressional committees in seeking information from with its and undermined the rule of law. thank you for your public service and for your service as a brave f.b.i. agent. i will ask you a series of basic questions to get fact out to the american people about our system of justice. trump advisor roger stone was convicted in a federal court, correct? >> that's my recollection. >> trump donor elliott brady was convicted in a federal court, correct? >> also my recollect. >> the attorney general at the time was bill barr. which president nominated him for attorney general?

>> mr. trump. >> michael cohen was convicted on two separate occasions in federal court, correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> attorney general at the time for cohen's second was matthew whitaker. which president appointed matthew whittaker as acting attorney general? >> president trump. >> trump's former campaign chairman paul manafort was convicted in federal court, correct? >> yes. >> his former campaign manager was convicted in a federal court. his campaign foreign policy advisor george papadopoulos was convicted in a federal court, correct? >> yes. >> the attorney general then was jeff sessions. who nominated him? >> president trump. >> you were the f.b.i. director for all of those cases at the time, which president nominated you. >> president trump.

>> what these facts show is we don't have a two-teared system of justice, we have one department of justice that goes after criminals regardless of party ideology. all of these folks were convicted under the administrations of three separate republican attorneys general. it is not the fault of the f.b.i. the donald trump surrounded himself with criminals. donald trump brought that upon himself. thank you to the f.b.i. or exposing the cess pool of corruption of these trump associates and now -- explain what your missions are and how critical they are. a series of basic questions. the f.b.i.'s mission includes count irrelevant trims, correct? >> yes. >> and that means f.b.i. tries to stop terrorist attacks on american soil, right?

>> yes. >> f.b.i.'s commission includes counter intelligence, correct? >> yes. >> it works to stop espionage of american companies and organizations, is that right? >> yes. >> f.b.i.'s mission includes stopping cybercrime, right? >> correct. >> the mission includes stopping corruption and stopping weapons of mass destruction from being detonated on american soil. >> yes, we work with others on it but yes. >> mission is going after organized crime and violent crime, correct? >> yes. >> white collar crime, right? >> the mission includes going after child sex trafficking correct? >> yes. >> republican members of their caucus including members on this committee have asked if -- with that allegation against republicans we want to step in for a second. jason chaffetz, former republican congressman and fox news contributor and matt

whitaker also. they invoked your name and then they mentioned you. defund the f.b.i. was the accusation that ted lieu had, jason, saying that's what republicans are seeking. what's your reaction to that? >> they want accountability. should it be reorganized in such a way it has become too unwieldy with 38,000 f.b.i. agents in a portfolio so wide and broad and politicized maybe they should look at it. that's a responsible way for congress to act. they should have that debate. i think the democrats are organized in just invoking trump, trump, trump and very pinpointed. i'm shocked that the republicans have not asked some of the pointed questions that they should about biden. classified documents that biden had. how come they aren't asking about the hunter biden probe? i haven't heard david weiss, the

u.s. attorney in delaware. they haven't asked him that question and haven't followed up on how is the f.b.i. going to assist congress in going after a dulyly issued subpoena on the administration? there are so many questions left to be asked. >> harris: you were the chairman of oversight on the hill. when you say there are gaps in republican questioning and you say why, what is your thinking on it? why hasn't it happened? is there some crescendo that we should be expecting at this point? >> republicans the end to be independent operators. gaetz was real good, johnson was pinpointed in his questions. and what jim jordan start evidence to do talking about targeting of catholics effective but too many of them are off just doing their own thing. >> harris: i asked my team to pull that as that was happening from jim jordan pressing saying that the f.b.i. is showing up in churches as informants.

let's watch. >> let me read from page four. provide new opportunities to mitigate extremist threat through outreach to traditional catholic parishes and the development of sources with the placement and access to report on places of worship. that's pretty fancy language for they are trying to put informants in the parish, in the church. that's what this memorandum said, director, from one of your field offices. you won't let us talk to the people who did it. your response to that why would they think about do it >> that's what our internal very view will find and want to wait. >> i can read the document. i don't need an internal review. >> harris: interesting about that, jason. director wray's first response is i was aghast they were doing it in catholic churches but

wants to wait for the report to tell him why it happened. is he in charge or not? >> congressmen, when they want information about fisa then they need to get the director on the record and say when will i have that? when do we get a classified briefing and make him give them a date and ask him and have him explain before all of the american people why the chairman of the judiciary committee cannot get in there and interview these people. there is no excuse for that. it is the people's house and they need to go and be more aggressive that way, not just say okay, we look forward to seeing your report. that doesn't stand. that should not be an acceptable answer. >> harris: matthew whitaker jason is saying they need to be more prosecutorial and a team ready to go. have democrats done that from what you are watching? >> it's very interesting, you know. chris wray is a talented

witness. he has done this many times. he is very good at appearing to be agreeing with them while at the same time not having the best facts at his discretion. so they are going to have to, to jason's point and pin him down as to what the answers are on these key issues, harris. because the targeting of not only the catholics in their parishes but parents at school boards and political opponents of this administration i think are three areas we need concrete specific answers from the director. >> one quick thing. >> harris: kevin kiley is talking about policing school board meetings. the republican from california with the questions. let's go back real quick. >> i'm not aware of any such evidence but i know we have had

a number of our folks who have been up here for transcribed interviews so unless some of them shared it, i am not aware. >> they shared with us suggests the opposite. for example you had a letter from christopher dunham acting assistant director in march of this year where the f.b.i. acknowledged it did not observe an uptick directed to school officials. does that sound accurate to you? >> yes, sir. >> is it also true according to the f.b.i. itself none of the school board related investigations have resulted in federal arrests or charges? >> i have think that's correct. i think of the 25 -- for context, that's 25 tips. if that's correct i would like oh move on. it concluded the justice department's demonstrated there was no justification for the attorney general directive. do you have any reason to object to that conclusion? >> no. >> we had an investigation of

parents, a mobilization of federal powers against the most protected for first amendment activity. the right of citizens to speak and petition on the most important issues, the education of their children. and you are telling me that the entire basis for that, there was no evidence to support it. >> well, i want to be clear we the f.b.i., as i said, were not and did not investigate people for exercising that. >> the attorney general said -- should attorney general garland rescind that memo? do you believe he snowed >> that's a question for the attorney general. >> do you believe the attorney general should apologize to parents subject to that? >> i won't speak to that. >> will you apologize for the f.b.i.'s own role. >> the f.b.i. conducted itself the way it should here, we've continued to follow our longstanding rules and have not changed anything in response to that memo. >> time of the gentleman expired. the chair recognizes the lady from washington.

>> thank you so much for being with us. thank you for your service to the country. i do want to focus on some areas of concern around american civil liberties that i have had longstanding concerns about. in testimony to senate intelligence in march, you stated that the f.b.i. had previously purchased commercial database information that includes location data derived from internet advertising. but that to your knowledge the f.b.i. does not currently purchase data. just last month, the odni declassified a report revealing that the f.b.i. and other agencies do purchase significant amounts of commercially available information about americans from data brokers. the report notes that commercially available information has increasingly important risks and applications for u.s. person's privacy and civil liberties and information can reveal sensitive and

intimate information about individuals. it is public information that the f.b.i. uses babble, street and has a lexus account that provide data for purchase. can you tell me how the f.b.i. uses that data? >> respectfully this is a topic that gets very involved to explain and so what i would prefer to do is have our subject matter experts come back up and brief you and they can answer your questions in detail about it. because there is a lot of confusion that can be unintentionally caused about this topic. my testimony that you referred to before remains the same and the story about the odni report doesn't change that. there is a lot of precision and technical dimensions to this. >> i look at a report that is from the office of the director of national intelligence saying

that the f.b.i. purchases data. i ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record. >> no objection. >> do you know if the contracts with data brokers like the ones i described provide location data? >> my testimony about purchasing commercial database information that includes location data derived from internet advertising remains the same, which is we currently do not do that. >> but the information that you have that has already been purchased, does it contain location? >> i'm not trying to be obtuse or difficult. i know from experience the more you drill into this whole issue of commercial data, location data, etc. , it gets very involved and some cases involves pilot projects in the case and some cases it involves national security information. i just want to make sure we get you the information you need. >> that's great.

i will take that but i want to say this is an extremely important issue for the american people to understand how their data is being used. location data, bio metric and medical and mental health and communications and information about people's internet activity and while i understand that that's complicated, that is the reason that you come before us so that the american let me ask you this. does the fbi have a written policy outlining how it can purchase and use commercially available information? >> there's a number of policies that bear on this topic, again, that can be part of the same briefing that we're happy to provide. i don't dispute this is an important topic. i'm saying because it's an important topic that a minute and 12 seconds counting down is not the best way to explain it. >> i understand that. i'm asking whether there's a policy. sounds like there's a policy. when was that policy las