this is a cbs news special report. james comey's testimony on capitol hill. the fbi director fired by president trump is about to talk with congress about his dealings with the president. live pictures from the hearing room where the senate intelligence committee is about to meet. his testimony could be some of the most significant heard by congress in recent memory. i'm charlie rose with norah o'donnell and gayle king in the night. "face the nation" anchor john dickerson and jan crawford are with us as well. >> lots to discuss this morning. james comey has arrived on capitol hill. he was fired nearly one month ago. right in the middle of the fbi's investigation of russian election meddling. members of congress quickly called for comey to testify.

>> our correspondents are spread out across washington getting reaction from capitol hill and the white house. nancy cordes is overlooking the hearing room. what are the main questions do you think the senators will have for mr. comey today? >> they'll want to know what it was about that initial meeting that comey had with the president-elect back in january at trump tower that led him to start taking these notes. after every discussion he had with the president. they want to know what the attorney general did after comey went to him and said he was very up consideratable about these one-on-one conversations that the president was seeking out with him and that he wanted the attorney general to do anything he could to keep him out a situation like that. they'll probably ask him if he thinks he was fired because he didn't want to do what the president wanted him to do, somehow lift the cloud of the

russian controversy hanging over his presidency and he'll likely ask him point-blank whether he thinks p president's comments to him amounted to obstruction of justice. we've been told comey will probably avoid weighing in on that specific legal question. he'll say that that's for others to determine. but he certainly made it clear in his opening remarks released to this committee yesterday that he found the president's spreeies to be awkward, strange, and very concerning. some republicans are going to want to know if comey 'cause so concerned about what the president was saying to him why didn't he go public sooner, before he was fired by president trump. but if you read comey's written statement, you'll see that he did go to other fbi officials, inform them about what he was hearing, and there you see him now coming into the hearing room. >> james comey arriving. >> his first public testimony

since being fired with the president of the united states. he'll describe the nine different occasions the two of them spoke in just four months in which the former fbi director a describes what he calls pressure to drop the investigation of michael flynn, who was the president's national security adviser and was also fired by president trump. >> and great anticipation as to what he might add to what he's already said in his opening statement. jan, the moment we've been waiting for. >> a lot at stake for james comey. a chance to rehabilitate his own representation. now he's like riding into washington, mr. smith goes to washington, known as the man fired by the president as opposed to the man who put trump in the white house. >> some democrats accuse him of being the man who led to hillary clinton's defeat.

could he be the man who leads to president trump being pushed out of the white house? >> the battle, you can see why the republican sources who support the president, are trying so hard to bring up that ole history, all the bad things the democrats said about james comey -- >> just beginning. >> director comey, i thank you for being here at the committee taud and thank you for your leadership and dedication to the federal bureau of investigation. your appearance today speaks to the trust we have built over the year years, and i'm looking forward to a very open and candid discussion today. i'd like to remind my colleagues that we will reconvene in closed session at 1:00 p.m. today, and i ask you reserve for that venue any questions that might get

into classified information. the director has been very gracious with his time but the vice chairman and i have worked out a very specific time line for his commitment to be on the hill so we'll do everything we can to meet that agreement. the senate select committee on intelligence exists to certify for the other 85 members of the united states senate and the american people that the intelligence community is operating lawfully and has the necessary authorities and tools to accomplish its mission and keep america safe. part of our mission, beyond the oversight we continue to provide to the loouintelligence communi and its activities is to investigate russian interference in the 2016 u.s. elections. the committee's work continues. this hearing represents part of that effort. allegations have been swirling in thes prefor the last several weeks and today is your opportunity to set the record

straight. yesterday i read with interest your statement for the record, and i think it provides some helpful details surrounding your interactions with the president. it clearly lays out your understanding of those discussions, actions you took following each conversation, and your state of mind. i very much appreciate your candor. i think it's helpful as we work through to determine the ultimate truth behind possible russian interference in the 2016 elections. your statement also provides texture and context to your interactions with the president from your van tanl point and outlines a strained relationship. the american people need to hear your side of the story just as they need to hear the president's descriptionings of events. these interactions also highlight the importance of the committee's ongoing investigation.

our experienced stamp is interviewing all relevant parties. we will establish the facts separate from rampant speculation and lay them out for the american people to make their own judgment. only then with le as a nation be able to move forward and to put this episode to rest. there are several outstanding issues in your statement i hope you isle clear up for the american people today. did the president's request for loyal loyalty, your impression, that the one-on-one dinner of january 27th was, and i quote, at least in part an effort to create some sort of patronage relationship or his march 30th phone call asking what you could do to lift the cloud of russian investigation in any way, alter your approach or the fbi's investigation into general flynn, or the broader investigation into russia and possible links to the campaign.

in your opinion, did potential russian efforts to establish links with individuals in the trump orbit rise to the level we could define as collusion or was it a counterintelligence concern? there's been a significant public speculation about your decisionmaking related to the clinton e-mail investigation. why did you decide publicly -- to publicly northern plains fbi's recommendations that the department of justice not pursue criminal charges? you have described it as a choice between a bad decision and a worse decision. the american people need to understand the facts behind your action. this commit see the uniquely suited to investigate russia's interference in the 2016 elections. we also have a unified bipartisan approach to what is a highly charged partisan issue. russian activities during 2016 election may have been aimed at one party's candidate but as my colleague, senator rubio, says

frequently, in 2018 and 2020, it could be aimed at any one, at home or abroad. my colleague senator warner and i have worked in -- have worked to stay in lock step on this investigation. we each had our differences on approach at time p times but i've constantly expressed we need to be a team and i think senator warner agrees with me. we must keep these questions above politics and partisanship. it's too above anyone trying the score political points. again, i welcome you, director, and i turn to vice chairman for any comments he might have. ? thank you, mr. chairman. let me start by thanking all the members of the committee for the seriousness with which they've taken on this task. mr. comey, thank you for agreeing to come testify. as part of this committee's investigation into russia.

i realize that this hearing has been obviously the focus of a lot of washington in the last few day, but the truth is many americans who may be tuning in today probably haven't focused on every twist and turn of the investigation. so i'd like to briefly describe, at least from this senator's standpoint, what we already know and what we're still investigating. to be clear, this investigation is not about relitigating the election. it's not about who won or lost. and it sure as heck is not about democrats versus republicans. we're here because a foreign adversary attacked us right here at home, plain and simple. not by guns or missiles but by foreign operatives seeking to hijack our most important democratic process, our presidential election.

russian spies engaged in a series of online cyber war and broad campaign disinformation all ultimately aimed at sewing chaos to undermine public faith in our process, in our leadership, and ultimately in ourselves. and that's not just this senator's opinion. it is the unanimous determination of the entire u.s. intelligence community. so we must find out the full story. what the russians did, and candidly as other colleagues have mentioned, why they were so successful. and more importantly, we must determine the necessary steps to take to protect our democracy and ensure they can't do it again. the elections were mentioned in 2018 and 2020. in my home state of virginia we have elections this year in tweftd. simply put, we cannot let

anything or anyone prevent us from getting to the bottom of this. now, mr. comey, let me say at the outset we haven't always agreed on every issue. in fact, i've occasionally questioned some of the actions you have taken. but i've never had any reason to question your integrity, your expertise, or your intelligent. you've bp a straight shoot we are this committee and have been willing to speak truth to pow, even at the risk of your open career, which makes the way in which you were fired by the president ultimately shocking. recall we began this entire process with the president and his staff first denying that the russians were ever involved and then falsely claiming that no one from his team was ever in touch with any russians. we know that's not the truth.

numerous trump associates had undisclosed contacts with russians before and after the election, including the president's attorney general, his former national security adviser, and his current senior adviser, mr. kushner. that doesn't begin to count the additional hosts of advisers who have been caught in this massive web. we saw mr. trump's campaign manager, mr. manafort, forced to step down over ties to russian-backed entities. the national security adviser, general flynn, had to resign over his lies about engagements with the russians. we saw a candidate himself express an odd an unexplained affection for the russian dictator while calling for the hacking of his opponent. there's a lot to investigate. and then director comey publicly acknowledged he was leading an investigation in those links between mr. trump's campaign and

russian government. as the director of the fbi, mr. comey was ultimately responsible for conducting that investigation. which might explain why you're sitting now as a private citizen. what we didn't know was at the same time that this investigation was proceeding, the president himself appears to have been edge gauged in an effort to influence or at least co-op the director of the fbi pb the testimony mr. comey has submitted for today's hearing is disturbing. on january 27th, after summoning director comey to dinner, the president appears to have threatened the director's job while telling him, quote, i need loyalty, i expect loyalty. at later meeting on february 14th the president asked the general to leave the oval office so he could privately ask director comey to see way clear to letting flynn go.

that is a statement that director comey intermepreted as request that he drop the investigation connected to general flynn's false statements. think about it. the president of the united states asking the fbi director to drop an ongoing investigation. after that, the president called the fbi director additional occasions, march 30th and april 11th, and asked him again, quote, to lift the cloud on the russian investigation. director comey denied each of these improper requests. the loyalty pledge, the admonition to drop the flynn investigation, the request to lift the cloud on the russian investigation. of course after his refusals, director comey was fired. the initial explanation for the firing didn't pass any smell

test. director comey was fired because he didn't treat hillary clinton appropriately. of course that explanation lasted about a day because the president himself then made very clear that he was thinking about russia when he decided to fire director comey. shockingly, reports suggest that the president admitted as much in an oval office meeting with the russians the day after director comey was fired. disparaging our country's top law enforcement official as a quote/unquote nutjob. the president allegedly suggested that his firing relieved great pressure on his feelings about russia. this is not happening in isolation. at the same time the president was engaged in these efforts with director comey, he was also at least allegedly asking senior leaders of the intelligence community to downplay the

russian investigation or to intervene with the director. yesterday, we had dni director coats and nsa director admiral rogers, who were offered a number of opportunities to flatly deny those pressure forms. they expressed their opinions but they did not take that opportunity to deny those reports. they did not take advantage of that opportunity. in my belief, that's not how the president of the united states should behave. regardless of our investigation into the russian links, director comey's firing and hi testimony raised separate and troubling questions that we must get to the bottom of. again, as i said at the outset, i've seen first hand how seriously every member of this committee is taking his work. i'm proud of the committee's efforts so far. let me be clear. this is not a witch-hunt. this is not fake news. it is an effort to protect our country from a new threat that

quite honestly will not go away anytime soon. so, mr. comey, your testimony here today will help us move towards that goal. i look forward to that testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, vice chairman. director, as discussed when you agreed to appear before the committee, it would be, under oath. i'd ask you to please stand. raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you xwod? >> i do. >> please be seated. director comey, you're now under oath. and i would just note to the members you will be recognized by seniority for a period up to seven minutes. and, again, it is the intent to move to a closed session no later than 1:00 p.m. with that, director comey, you are recognized. you have to floor for as long as you might need. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member warner, members

of the committee, thank you for inviting me here to testify today. i've submitted my statement for the record and i'm not going to repeat it here this morning. i thought i would just offer some very brief introductory remarks and then i would welcome your questions. when i was appointed fbi director in 2013, i understood that i served at the pleasure of the president. even though i was appointed to a ten-year term, which congress created in order to underscore the importance of the fbi being outside of politics and independent, i understood that i could be fired by a president for any reason or for no reason at all. and on may the 9th, when i learned that i'd been fired, for that reason i immediately came home as a private citizen. but then the explanations, the shifting explanations, confused me and increasingly concerned me. they confused me because the president and i had had multiple conversations about my job, both

before and after he took office. and heed a repeatedly told me i was doing a great job and he hoped i would stay. and i had repeatedly assured him that i did intend to stay and serve out the remaining six years of my term. he told me repeatedly that he had talked to lots of people about me, including our current attorney general, and had learned that i was doing a great job and that i was extremely well liked by the fbi workforce. so it confused me when i saw on television the president saying that he actually fired me because of the russia investigation and learned again from the media that he was telling privately other parties that my firing had relieved great pressure on the russia investigation. i was also confused by the initial explanation that was offered publicly that i was fired because of the decisions i had made during the election year. that didn't make sense to me for a whole bunch of reasons, including the time and all the

water that had gone under the bridge since those hard decisions had to be made. that didn't make any sense to me. and although the law required no reason at all to fire an fbi director, the administration then chose to defame me and more importantly the fbi by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader. those were lies plain and simple. and i am so sorry that the fbi workforce had to hear them and i'm so sorry that the american people were told them. i worked every day at the fbi to help make that great organization better. and i say "help" because i did nothing alone at the fbi. there are no indispensable people at the fbi. the organization's great strength is that its values and abilities run deep and wide. the fbi will be fine without me. the fbi's mission will be relentlessly pursued by its

people and that mission is to protect the american people and uphold the constitution of the united states. i will deeply miss being part of that mission, but this organization and its mission will go on long beyond me and long beyond any particular administration. i have a message before i close for the -- my former colleagues of the fbi. but first i want the american people to know this truth -- the fbi is honest. the fbi is strong. and the fbi is and always will be independent. and now to my former colleagues, if i may, i am so sorry that i didn't get the chance to say good-bye to you properly. it was the honor of my life to serve beside you, to be part of the fbi family, and i will miss it for the rest of my life. thank you for standing watch. thank you for doing so much good for this country. do that good as long as ever you can. and, senators, i look forward to

your questions. >> director, thank you for that testimony both oral and the written testimony that you provided to the committee yesterday and made public to the american people. the chair would recognize himself first for 12 minutes, the vice chair for 12 minutes based upon the agreement we have. director, did the special counsel's office review and/or edit your written testimony? >> no. >> do you have any doubt that russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 elections? >> none. >> do you have any doubt that the russian government was behind the intrusions and the dnc and the dccc systems and the subsequent leaks of that information? >> no. no doubt. >> do you have any doubt that the russian government was behind the cyber intrusion in the state voter files? >> no. >> do you have any doubt that officials of the russian government were fully aware of

these activities? >> no doubt. >> are you confident that no votes cast in the 2016 presidential election were altered? >> i'm confident. by the time -- when i left as director i'd seen no indication of that whatsoever. >> director comey, did the president at any time ask you to stop the fbi investigation into russian involvement in the 2016 u.s. elections? >> not to my understanding, no. >> did any individual working for this administration, including the justice department, ask you to stop the russian investigation? >> no. >> director, when the president requested that you, and i quote, let flynn go, general flynn had an unreported contact with russians, which is an offense.

and if press accounts are right, there might have been discrepancies between facts and his fbi testimony. in your etstimation, was genera flynn at that time in serious legal jeopardy? and in addition to that, do you sense that the president was trying to obstruct justice or just seek for a way for mike flynn to save face given he had already been fired? >> general flynn at that point in time was in legal jeopardy. there was an open fbi criminal investigation of hi statements in connection with the russian contacts and the contacts themselves. and so that was my assessment at the time. i don't think it's for me to say whether the conversation i had with the president was an effort to obstruct. i took it as a very disturbing thing, very concerning, but that's a conclusion i'm sure the special counsel will work towards to try and understand what the intention was there and whether that's an offense. >> director, is it possible that as part of this fbi

investigation the fbi could find evidence of criminality that is not tied to the 2016 elections, possible collusion, or coordination with russians? >> sure. >> so there could be something that just fits a criminal aspect to this that doesn't have anything to do with the 2016 election cycle. >> correct. in any complex investigation, when you start turning over rocks, sometimes you find things that are unrelated to the primary investigation that are criminal in nature. >> director comey, you have been criticized publicly for the decision to present your findings on the e-mail investigation directly to the american people. have you learned anything since that time that would have changed what you said or how you chose to inform the american people? >> honestly, no. it caused a whole lot of personal pain for me, but as i look back, given what i knew at the time and even what i've learned since, i think it was the best way to try and protect

the justice institution, including the fbi. >> in the public domain is this question of the steele dossier, a document that has been around now for over a year. i'm not sure when the fbi first took possession of it, but the media had it before you had it and we had it. at the time of your departure from the fbi, was the fbi able to confirm any criminal allegations contained in the steele document? >> mr. chairman, i don't think that's a question i can answer in an open setting because it goes into the details of the investigation. director, the term we hear

most often is collusion. when people are drying inteies related to the interference in our election, would you say it's normal for foreign governments to reach out to members of an incoming administration? >> yes. >> at what point does the normal contact cross the line into an attempt to recruit agents or influence or spies? >> difficult to say in the abstract. it depends on the context, whether there's an effort to keep it covert, what the nature of the request made of the american by the foreign government are. it's a judgment call based on a whole lot of facts. >> at what point would that recruitment become a counterintelligence threat to our country? >> again, difficult to answer in the abstract, but when a foreign power is using especially coercion or some sort of pressure to try and co-opt an american, especially a government official, to act on its behalf, that's a serious

concern to the fbi and at the heart of the fbi's counterintelligence mission. >> so if you've got a 36-page document of specific claims that are out there, the fbi would have to, for counterintelligence reasons, try to verify anything that might be claimed in there, one, and probably first and foremost, is the counterintelligence concerns that we have about blackmail. would that be an accurate statement? >> yes. if the fbi sechs a credible allegation that there is some effort to co-opt, coerce, direct, employee covertly an american on behalf of the foreign power, that's the basis on which a counterintelligence investigation is opened. >> and when you read the dossier, what was your reaction give than it was 100% directed at the president-elect? >> not a question i can answer in an open setting, mr. chairman.

>> when did you become aware of the cyber intrusion? >> there are all kinds of cyber intrusions going on all the time. this one the late summer of 2015. >> and in that time frame there were more than the dnc and the dccc that were targets. >> correct. it was a massive effort to target government and nongovernmental, new governmental agencies like nonprofits. >> what would be the estimate of how many entities out there the russians specifically targeted in that time frame? >> it's hundreds. i suppose it could be more than a thousand. but it's at least hundreds. >> when did you become aware that the data had been exfiltrated? >> i'm not sure exactly. i think either late '15 or early '16. >> and did you, the director of fbi, have conversations with the last administration about the

risk that this posed? >> yes. >> share if you will what actionings were taken. >> the fbi undertook to notify all the victims, the entities attacked a part of this massive spearfishing campaign so, we notified them in an effort to disrupt what might be ongoing. and then there was a series of continuing interactions with entities through the rest of '15 into '16, and then throughout '16 the administration was trying to decide how to respond to the intrusion activity that it saw. >> and the fbi in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate, did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the day tay that collected? >> in the case of the dnc and maybe the dccc, we did not have access to the devices

themselves. we got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity that had done the work, but we didn't get direct access. >> but no content. >> correct. >> isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint? >> it is, although what was briefed to me by my folks, the people who were my folks at the time, is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016. >> let me go back if i can briefly to the decision to public by go out with your results on the e-mail. was your decision influenced by the attorney general's tarmac meeting with the former president? >> yes, in an ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me,

that i had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the fbi and the justice department. >> were there other things that contributed to that that you can describe in an open session? >> there were other things that contributed to that. one significant item i can't. i know the committee's been briefed on. there have been some public accounts of it which are nonsense but i understand the committee has been briefed on the clatsds fi classified facts. probably the only other consideration i can talk about in an open setting, the foerge treasury secretaried me not to call it an investigation but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me, but that was one of the bricks in the load that led me to say i have to step away from this department to chose this case credibly. >> director, my last question. you're not only a seasoned prosecutor, you've led the fbi for years. you understand the investigative

process. you've worked with this committee closely and we're grateful to you because i think we've mutually built trust in what your organization does and what we do. is there any doubt in your mind that this committee can carry out the oversight role in the elections in parallel with the now special counsel set up? >> no, no doubt. it can be done. it requires lots of conversations. but bob mueller is one of this country's great, great pros and i'm sure you'll all be able to work it out with him to run it in parallel. ? thank you once again. vice chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, director comey, thank you for your service.

your comments to your fbi family were heart felt. although there have been some trying to spear your reputation, you had acting director mccabe in public testimony a few weeks back and in public testimony yesterday reaffirm the vast majority of the fbi community had great trust in your leadership and obviously trust in your integrity. i want to go through the meetings you with referenced in your written testimony. january 6th at trump tower, you went out with a series of officials to brief the president-elect on the russian investigation. my understanding is you remained afterwards to brief him on, again, quote, some personally sensitive aspects of the information you relayed. you said after that briefing you felt compelled to document that conversation. you actually started documenting it as soon as you got into the car. you've had extensive experience at the department of justice and

at the fbi you've work under presidents of both parties. what was it about that meeting that led you to determine you needed to start putting down a written record? >> a combination of things. i think the circumstances, the subject matter, and the person i was interacting with. circumstances, first, i was alone with the president of the united states. or the president-elect, soon to be president. the subject matter, i was talking about matters that touch on the fbi's core responsibility and that relate to the president, president-elect personally. and then the nature of the person. i was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting and so i thought it really important to document. that combination of things i'd never experienced before but it led me to believe i got to write it down and in a very detailed way. i think that's a very important statement you just made. and i m i understanding is then,

unlike your dealings with presidents of either parties in your past experience, in every subsequent meeting or conversation with this president, you created a written record. did you feel that you needed to create this written record of these memos because they might need to be relied on at some future date? >> sure. i created records after conversation conversations, and i think i did it after each of our nine conversations. if i didn't, i did it for nearly all of them, especially the ones that were substantive. i knew there might come a day where i would need a record of what happened not just to defend myself but to defend the fbi and our integrity as an institution and the independence of our investigative function. that's what made this so difficult is it was a combination of circumstances, subject matter, and the particular person. >> so in all your experience, this was the only president that you felt like in every meeting you needed to document because at some point, using your words, he might put out a nontruthful

representation of that meeting. >> that's correct, senator. and as i said in my written testimony, as fbi director, i interacted with president obama, and i spoke only twice in three years and didn't document it. when i was deputy attorney general i had one one-on-one meeting with president bush about a very important and difficult national security matter. i didn't write a memo documenting that conversation either. sent a quick eshg mail to my staff to let them know there was something going on but i didn't feel with president bush the need to document it in that way. again, because of the combination of those factors just wasn't present with either president bush or president obama. >> i think that is very significant. i think others will probably question that. our chairman and i have requested those memos. it is our hope that the fbi will get this committee access to those memos so that, again, we can read that contemporaneous rendition so that we've got your side of the story. now, i know members have said and the press have said that a

great deal has been made of whether the president you were asked in effect to indicate whether the president was the subject of any investigation and my understanding is prior to your meeting on january 6th, you discussed with your leadership team whether or not you should be prepared to assure then president-elect trump that the fbi was not investigating him personally. now, my understanding is your leadership team agreed with that or was that a unanimous decision, any debate about that? >> but it unanimous? one of the members of the leadership team had a view that although it was technically true, we did not have a counterintelligence file case open on then president-elect trump. his concern was because we're looking at the potential, again, that's the subject of the investigation, coordination between the campaign and russia, because it was president, president-elect trump's

campaign, this person's view was inevitably his behavior, his conduct this fall within the scope of that work and so he was reluctant to make the statement that i made. i disagreed. i thought it was fair to say what was literally true. there is not a counterintelligence investigation of mr. trump. and i decided in the moment to say it given the nature of our conversation. >> at that moment in time, did you ever revisit that in the subsequent sessions? >> with the fbi leadership team? >> sure. >> and the leader had that view, it didn't change. his view was still that it was probably although literally true, his concern was it could be misleading because the nature of the investigation was such that it might well touch -- obviously, it would touch the campaign and the person at the head of the campaign would be the candidate, so that was his view throughout. >> let me move the the january 27th dinner where you said, quote, the president began by asking me whether i wanted to

stay on as fbi director. he also indicated that lots of people, again, your words, wanted the job. you go on to say that the dinner itself was seemingly an effort to, quote, have you ask him for your job and create some sort of quote/unquote patronage relationship. the president seems from my reading of your memo, to be holding your job or your possibility of continuing your job over your head in a fairly direct way. what was your impression and what did you mean by this notion of a patronage relationship? >> well, my impression -- and again, it's my impression, i could always be wrong, but my common sense told me what was going on is either he hald concluded or someone had told him that you didn't -- you've already asked comey to stay and you didn't get anything for it and that the dinner was an effort to build a relationship, in fact, he asked specifically

of loyalty in the context of asking me to stay. as i said, what was odd about that is we'd already talked twice about it by that point and he'd said i very much hope you'll stay, i hope you'll stay, in fact, i just remembered sitting here a third one. you've seen the picture of me walking across the blue room and what the president whispered in my ear was, i really looking forward to working with you. those encounters -- that was a few days -- >> sunday after the inauguration. the next friday i had dinner and the president begins by wanting to talk about my job. so i'm sitting there thinking, wait a minute, three times we've already -- you've already asked me to stay or talked about me staying. my common sense -- again, i could be wrong, but my common sense told me what's going on here is he's looking to get something in exchange for granting my request to stay in the job. >> again, we all understand that. i was a governor. i had people work for me. but this constant request, again, quoting you, him saying

that he -- you explain your independence, he kept coming back to i need loyalty, i expect loyalty. had you ever had any of those kind of requests before from anyone else you've worked for in the government? >> no. and what made me uneasy was at that point i'm the director tf the fbi. the reason congress created a ten-year term is so that the director is not feeling as if they're serving at -- with political loyalty owed to my particular person. the statue of justice has a blindfold on because you're not supposed to be peeking out to see whether or not your pay ron is pleased about what you're doing. you should be concerned about the facts and the law. that's why i became fbi director, to be in that kind of position. that's why i was so uneasy. >> let me move on. my time is running out. february 14th, again, it seems a bit strange, you're in a meeting, and your direct superior, the attorney general, was in that meeting as well, yet the president asked everyone to leave including the attorney

general to leave, before he brought up the matter of general flynn. what was your impression of that type of action? had you ever seen anything like that before? >> no. my impression was something big is about to happen, i need to remember every single word that is spoken and, again, i could be wrong, but i'm 56 years old, i've been -- seen a few things. my sense was the attorney general knew he shouldn't be leaving, which is why he was lingering, and i don't know mr. kushner well, but i think he picked up on the same thing, and so i knew something was about to happen i needed to pay very close attention to. >> i found it very interesting in the memo that you wrote after this february 14th pull-aside, you made clear that you wrote that memo in a way that was unclassified. if you affirmatively made the decision to write a mem hoe that was unclassified, was that because you felt at some point

the facts of that meeting would have to come clean and come clear and actually be able to be cleared in a way that could be shared with the american people? >> well, i remember thinking this is a very disturbing development, really important to our work. i need to document it and preserve it in a way -- this committee gets this, but sometimes when things are classified, it tangles them up. >> amen. >> it's hard to share it within an investigative team. you have to be careful how you handle it, for good reason. my thinking is if i write it in such a way that i don't include anything that would trig err classification, that'll make it easier for us to discuss within the fbi and the government, and to hold onto it in a way that makes it accessible to us. >> again, it's our hope, particularly since you're a pretty knowledgeable guy and wrote this in a way that was unclassified that this committee will get acses to that up classified document. i think it will be very

important to our investigation. let me ask this in closing. how many ongoing investigations at any time does the fbi have? >> tens of thousands. >> tens of thousands. did the president ever ask about any other ongoing investigation? >> no. >> did he ever ask about you trying to interfere on any other investigation? >> no. >> i think again this speaks volumes. this doesn't even get to the questions around the phone calls about lifting the cloud. i know other members will get to that. but i really appreciate your testimony and appreciate your service to our nation. >> thank you, senator warner. just -- i'm sitting here going through my contacts with him. i had one conversation with the president that was classified where he asked about our -- an ongoing intelligence investigation. it was brief and entirely professional. >> didn't ask you to take any specific action then. >> no. >> unlike what he had done

vis-a-vis mr. flip and the overall russian investigation. >> correct. >> thank you, sir. >> senator rich. >> mr. comey, thank you for your service. america needs more like you and we really appreciate it. yesterday i got and everybody got the seven pages of your direct testimony that's now part of the record here. and i read it, then i read it again. and all i could think was number one, how much i hated the class of legal writing when i was in law school. and you were the guy that probably got the a after reading this, so i find it clear, i find it concise, and having been a prosecutor for a number of years and handling hundreds, maybe thousands of cases and read police reports, investigative reports, this is as good as it gets. and i really appreciate that not only the conciseness and the clearness of it but also the fact that you have things that were written down contemporaneously when they happened and you actually put

them in quotes so we know exactly what happened and we're not getting some rendition of it that's in your mind. >> thank you. >> so you're to be complimented. >> i had great parents and great teachers who beat that into me. >> that's obvious. the chairman walked you through a number of things that the american people need to know and want to know. number one, obviously, we all know about the active measures that the russians have taken. i think a lot of people were surprised at this. those of us who work in the intelligence community, it didn't come as a surprise, but now the american know this and it's good they know this because this is serious and it's a problem. i think secondly i gather from all this that you're willing to say now that while you were director, the president of the united states was not under investigation. is that a fair statement? >> that's correct. >> so that's a fact we can rely on. >> yes, sir. >> i remember you talked with us shortly after february 14th when "the new york times" wrote an article that suggested that the

trump campaign was colluding with the russians. do you remember reading that article when it first came out? >> i do. it was about allegedly extensive electronic surveillance communication. >> correct. that upset you to the point you surveyed the intelligence community to see whether you were missing something. is that correct? >> that's correct. i want to be careful in open setting. >> i'm not going to go any further than that. >> okay. >> so thank you. in addition to that, after that you sought out both republican and democrat senators to tell them that, maye, i don't know where this is coming from, but this is not -- this is not factual. do you recall that? >> yes. >> okay. so, again, so the american people can understand this, that report by "the new york times" was not true. is that a fair statement? >> in main, it was not true. and, again, all of you know this, and maybe the american people don't, the challenge, and i'm not picking on reporters, about writing stories about

classified information is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it, and we don't call the press to say, hey, you got that thing wrong about this sensitive topic. we just have to leave it there. i mentioned to the chairman, the nonsense around what influenced me to make the july 5th statement. nonsense. but i can't go explaining how it's nonsense. >> thank you. so those three things we now know regarding the active measures where the president's under investigation and the collusion between the russian -- the trump campaign and the russians. i want to drill right down as my time is limited to the most recent dust-up regarding allegations that the president of the united states obstructed justice. and, boy, you nailed this down on page 5, paragraph 3. you put this in quotes, worlds matter. you wrote down the words so we can all have the worlds in front of us now. there's 28 words there that are in quotes and it says, quote, i

hope -- this is the president speaking -- i hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting flynn go. he is a good guy. i hope you can let this go. now, those are his exact words. is that correct? >> correct. >> and you wrote them here and put them in quotes. >> correct. >> okay. thank you for that. he did not direct you to let it go. >> not in his words, no. >> he did not order you to let it go. >> again, those words are not an order. >> he said "i hope." now, like me, you probably did hundreds of cases, maybe thousands of cases charging people with criminal offenses. and of course you have knowledge of the thousands of cases out there that -- where people have been charged. do you know of any case where a person has been charged for obstruction of justice or for that matter any other criminal offense where this -- they said or thought they hoped for an

outcome? >> i don't know well enough to answer. and the reason i keep saying his words, i took it as a direction. i mean, this is the president of the united states with me alone saying "i hope" this, i took it as this is what he want me to do. i didn't obey that, but that's the way i took it. >> you may have taken it as direction but that's not what he said. >> that's correct. >> he said "i hope." >> his exact words. >> you don't know of anyone who's ever been charged for hoping something. is that a fair statement? >> i don't as it sit here. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator feinstein. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. mr. comey, i just want you to know i have great respect for you. senator cornyn and i sit on the judiciary committee so we have occasion to have you before us. and i know you're a man of strength and integrity, and i really regret the situation we all find ourselves in. i just want to say that.

one arching question. why do you believe you were fireplaced? >> i don't know for sure. i take the president at his word that i was fired because of the russian investigation. something about the way i was conducting it, the president felt created pressure on him that he wanted to relieve. again, i didn't know that at the time, but i watched his interview, i read the press accounts of his conversations, so i take him at his word there. now, look, i could be wrong. maybe he's saying something that's not true, but i take him at his word, at least based op what i know now. >> talk for a moment about his request that you pledge loyalty and your response to that and what impact you believe that had. >> i don't know for sure because i don't know the president well enough to read him well.

our rip department get off to a great start given the conversation i had to have on january 6th. it didn't improve are the relationship because it was awkward. he was asking for something and i was refusing to give it. again, i don't know him well enough to know how he reacted to that exactly. >> do you believe the russia investigation played a role? >> in why i was fired? >> yes. >> yes, because i've seen the president say so. >> let's go to the flynn issue. the senator outlined i hope you could see your way to letting flynn go. he's a good guy. i hope you can let this go. but you also said in your written remarks, and i quote, that you hald understand the president to be requesting that we drop any investigation of flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the russian ambassador in december, end

quote. please go into that with more detail. >> the context and the president's word are what led me to that conclusion. as i said in my state, i could be wrong, but flynn had been forced to resign the day before. and the controversy around general flip at that point in time was centered on whether he had lied to the vice president about the nature of his conversations with the russians, whether he had been candid with others in the course of that, and so that happens on the day before. on the 14th the president makes specific reference to that and so that's why i understand him to be saying that what he wanted me to do was drop any investigation connected to flynn's account of his conversations with the russians. >> now, here's the question. you're big. you're strong. i know the oval office and i know what happens to people when they walk in. there is a certain amount of intimidation. but why didn't you stop and say,

mr. president, this is wrong, i cannot discuss this with you? >> that's a great question. maybe if i were stronger i would have. i was so stunned by the conversation that i just took it in, and the only thing i could think to say, because i was playing in my mind, i was saying remember every word he said, i was playing in my mind, what should my response be, and that's why i very carefully chose the words. look, i've seen the tweet about tapes, yeah, i hope there are tapes. i remember saying i agree he's a good guy as a way of saying i'm not agreeing with what you just asked me to do. again, maybe other people would be stronger in that circumstance, but that was -- that's how i conducted myself. i hope i'll never have another opportunity. maybe if i did it again, i would do it better. >> you described two phone calls you received from president trump, one on march 30th and one on april 11th where he, quote,

described the russia investigation as a cloud that was impairing his ability, end quote, as president and asked you, quote, to lift the cloud, end quote. how did you interpret that? and what did you believe he wanted you to do? >> i interpreted that as he was frustrated that the russia investigation was taking up so much time and energy i think he meant of the executive branch but in the public square in general. an it was making it difficult for him to focus on other priorities of his. but what he asked me was actually narrower than that. so i think what he meant by the cloud, and again, i could be wrong, but i think what he meant by the cloud was the entire investigation is taking up oxygen and making it hard for me to focus on the things i want to focus on. the ask was to get it out that i, the president, am not personally under investigation.

>> after april 11th, did he ask you more ever about the russia investigation? did he ask you any questions? >> we never spoke again after april 11th. >> you told the president i would see what we could do. what did you mean? >> that was kind of a slightly cowardly way of trying to avoid telling him we're not going to do that, i would see what we could do as a way of kind of getting off the phone frankly, and then i turned and handled it to the acting deputy attorney general, mr. bente. >> so i wanted to go into that. who did you talk with about that, lifting the cloud, stopping the investigation back at the fbi and what was their response? >> well, the fbi, during one of the two conversations, i'm not remembering exactly, i think

first -- my chief of the staff was actually sitting in front of me and heard my end of the conversation because the president's call was a surprise. and i discussed lifting the cloud and the request with the senior leadership team, who typically, and i think in all these circumstances, was the deputy director, my chief of staff, the general counsel, the deputy director's chief counsel, and i think in a number of irks the number three in the fbi and a few of the kfgss included the head of the national security branch. so that group of us that lead the fbi when it comes to national security. >> okay. you had the president of the united states asking you to stop an investigation that's an important investigation. what was the response of your colleagues? >> i think they were as shocked and troubled by it as i was. some said things that led me to believe that. i don't remember exactly. but the reaction was similar to mine. they're all experienced people

who had never experienced such a thing so they were very concerned. then the conversation turned to what should we do with this information. and that was a struggle for us. because we're the leaders of the fbi so it's been reported to us. i have shared it with the leaders of the fbi. our conversation was should we share this with any senior officials at the justice department. our absolute primary concern was we can't infect the investigative team. we don't want the agents and analysts know the president of the united states has asked and when it comes from the president i took it as a direction to get rid of this investigation because we're not going to follow that request. so we decided we have to keep it away from our troops. but is there anybody else we ought to tell at the justice department? as i laid out in the statement we considered whether to tell the attorney general that didn't make sense because we believed rightly that he was shortly going to recuse.

there were no other senate confirmed leaders in the justice department at that point. the deputy attorney general was mr. bente and we decided the best move was would be to hold it, keep it in the box. document it as we had already done. figure out what to do with it down the road. look, it's your word against the president's. no way to corroborate this. my view of that changed when the prospect of tapes was raised. that's how we thought about it then. >> thank you. >> senator rubio? >> thank you. director comey, the meeting in the oval office where he made the request about mike flynn was that the only time he asked you to hopefully let it go? >> yes. in that meeting as you understood it, he was asking you not about the general russia investigation but about the jeopardy that flynn was in himself. >> that's what i understood, yes, sir. >> while he hoped you did away

with it, you perceived it as an order, given the setting and the like and some of the circumstances. >> yes. >> at the time did you say anything to the president about that's not an appropriate request or did you tell the white house counsel that is not an appropriate request, someone needs to tell the president that he can't do these things? >> i didn't. >> why? >> i don't know. i think the circumstances were such that i was a bit stunned and didn't have the presence of mind. i don't know. i don't want to make you sound like i'm captain courageous. i don't know if i had the presence of mind to say, sir, that's wrong. i don't know if i would have. but in the moment it didn't come to my mind. what came to my mind, be careful what you say. so i said, i agree flynn is a good good. >> you perceived the cloud to be the russian investigation in general. >> yes, sir. >> but specific ask was that you would tell the american people what you had already told him, what had already told the leaders of congress, both

democrats and republicans, that he was not personally under investigation. >> yes, sir. >> in fact, he was asking you to do what you had done here today. >> correct. yes, sir. >> again, at that setting, did you say to the president that it would be an appropriate -- inappropriate for you do so and then talk to the white house counsel so hopefully they'd talk to him and say you can't do. this. >> first time i said i'll see what we can do and second time i explained how it should work, that the white house counsel should contact the deputy white house attorney. i think the president said i think that's what i'll do. >> so for you to say it made no sense, because it could potentially create a duty to correct if the circumstances change? >> that's right. i confirmed before my testimony that there was an investigation. there were two primary concerns. one was it creates a duty to correct which i have lived before and you want to be very careful about doing that second

it's a slippery slope. if we say the president and the vice president under investigation what's the principled basis for stopping? so the leadership at justice said you're not going to do that. >> during the phone call about general flynn you said he abruptly shifted and brought up something that you call quote/unquote the mccabe thing. specifically the mccabe thing is that his wife had received campaign money from what i assume terry mcauliffe. >> yes, sir. >> very close to the clintons. so why did -- had the president at any point in time expressed to you concern, opposition, potential opposition to mccabe? i don't like this guy because he got money from someone that's close to clinton? >> he had asked me during previous questions about andy mccabe and said, in essence, how he is going to be with me as president, i was pretty rough on him on the campaign trail. >> he was rough on mccabe?

>> he said he was rough on mr. and mrs. mccabe on the campaign trial. i said, he's a total pro. you have know the people of the fbi. >> so when the president says remember i never brought up the mccabe thing, because you said he was a good guy, did you perceive that to be a statement that i took care of you, i didn't -- because you told me he was a good guy, so now, you know, i'm asking you potentially for something in return, is that how you perceived it? >> i'm not sure what to make of it. it's possible. it was is out of context that i didn't have a clear view of what it was. >> on a number of occasions here, you bring -- let's talk about the general russia investigation, okay? page 6 of your testimony you say the first thing you say is, he asked what we could do to quote/unquote lift the cloud and you responded that we were investigating the matter as quickly as we could and there would be great benefit if we don't find anything to having done the work well and he

agreed. he reemphasized the problems and so in ensense, he agreed that it would be great if all the facts came out and we found nothing. he agreed that would be ideal, but this cloud is still messing up my ability to do the rest of my agenda. is that an accurate assessment? >> yeah. he said, and if some of my satellites did something wrong, it would be good to find that out. >> well, that's the second part. the satellites. he said if one of my satellites -- i imagine by that he meant the other people surrounding the campaign dud something wrong, it would be great to know that as well. >> yes, sir, that's what he said. >> are those the only two instances that the back and forth happened that the president was saying -- i'm paraphrasing here, it's okay, do the russian investigation i hope it comes out. i have nothing to do with anything russia. it would be great if it all came out and if people around me were doing things wrong? >> yeah. as i recorded it accurately that was the sentiment he was expressing. >> so the president has asked three things of you. he asked for your loyalty and you said you'd be loyally

honest. >> honestly loyal. >> honestly loyal. that -- he asked you on one occasion to let the flynn thing go because he was a good guy. he said the same thing in the press, he's a good guy, he's been treated unfairly, et cetera. so i imagine your fbi agents read that. >> i'm sure they did. >> the president's wishes were known to them certainly by the next day when he had a press conference with the prime minister. going back the three requests were, number one, be loyal, number two, let the mike flynn go, he's been treated unfairly and number three, can you please tell the american people what the leaders in congress know, that you told me three times that i'm personally not under investigation? >> yes, sir. >> you know, this investigation is full of leaks, left and right. we have learned more from the newspapers sometimes than we do from our open hearings for sure you ever wonder why of all the things in this investigation the

only thing that's never been leaked is the fact that the president was not personally under investigation despite the fact that both democrats and republicans and the leadership of congress have known that for weeks? >> i don't know. i find matters briefed to the gang of eight is tightly held. >> who are the senior leaders at the fbi that you shared the conversations with? >> as i said in response to senator feinstein's question, deputy director, my chief of staff, general counsel, deputy director's chief counsel and then the number three person at the fbi who's the associate deputy director. and then quite often the head of the national security branch. >> senator widen. >> thank you. welcome, you and i have had significant policy differences over the years particularly protecting americans access to secure encryption, but i believe the timing of your firing

stinks. and yesterday you put on the record testimony that demonstrates why the odor of presidential abuse of power is so strong. now to my questions. in talking to senator warner about this dinner that you had with the president, i believe january 27th, all in one dinner the president raised your job prospects. he asked for your loyalty. and denied allegations against him. it all took place over one supper. now, you told senator warner that the president was looking to quote get something. looking back did that dinner suggest that your job might be contingent on how you handle the investigation? >> i don't know i'd go that far.

i got the sense my job would be contingent upon how he felt -- how he felt i conducted myself and whether i demonstrated loyalty. but i don't know whether i'd go so far -- >> you said that the president was trying to create some sort of patronage relationship. a patronage relationship isn't the underling expected to behave in a manner consistent with the wishes of the boss? >> yes. >> okay. >> or at least consider how what you're doing will affect the boss as a significant consideration. >> let me turn to the attorney general. in your statement you said that you and fbi leadership team decided not to discuss the president's actions with attorney general sessions. even though he had not recused himself. what was it about the attorney general's own interactions with the russians or his behavior

with regard to the investigation that would have led the entire leadership of the fbi to make this decision? >> well, our judgment as i recall was that he was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons. we also were aware of the facts that i can't discuss in the open setting that would make his continued engagement in a russia related investigation problematic so we were convinced -- in fact, i think we had heard that the career people were recommending that he recuse himself. that he was not going to be in contact with russia related matters much longer and that turned out to be the case. >> how would you characterize attorney general sessions' adherence to his recusal, with regard to his involvement in your fire which the president has acknowledged is because of the russian investigation. >> that's a question i can't answer.

i think it's a reasonable question. if as the president said i was fired because of the russia investigation, why was the attorney general involved in that chain, i don't know. so i don't have an answer for the question. >> your testimony was that the president's request about flynn could infect the investigation. had the president got what he wanted and what he asked of you, what would have been the effect on the investigation? >> well, we would have closed any investigation of general flynn in connection with his statements and encounters -- statements about encounters with russians in the late part of december. so we would have dropped an open criminal investigation. >> so in effect, when you talk about infecting the enterprise, you would have dropped something

major that would have spoken to the overall ability of the american people to get the facts? >> correct. and as good as our people are, our judgment was we don't want them hering that the president of the united states wants this go away. because it might have an effect on their ability to be fair and impartial and aggressive. >> now, the acting attorney general yates found out that michael flynn could be blackmailed by the russians and she went immediately to warn the white house. flynn is gone, but other individuals with contacts with the russians are still in extremely important positions of power. should the american people have the same sense of urgency now with respect to them? >> i think all i can say, senator, the special counsel's investigation is very important, uning what -- understanding what efforts there were or are to

influence our government is a critical part of the fbi's mission so -- you have the right person in bob mueller to lead it. it's a very important piece of work. >> vice president pence was the head of the transition. to your knowledge, was he aware of the concerns about michael flynn prior to or during general flynn's tenure as national security adviser? >> i don't -- you're asking including up to the time when flynn was forced to resign? my understanding is that he was and i'm trying to remember where i get that understanding from. i think from acting attorney general yates. >> so former acting attorney general yates testified that concerns about general flynn were discussed with the intelligence community. would that have included anyone

at the cia or dan coates' office the dni? >> i would assume yes. >> michael flynn resigned four days after attorney general sessions was sworn in. do you know if the attorney general was aware of the concerns about michael flynn during that period? >> i don't as i sit here, i don't recall that he was. i could be wrong but i don't remember that he was. >> and finally, let's see if you can give us some sense of who recommended your firing. besides the letters from the attorney general, the deputy attorney general. do you have any information on who may have recommended or have been involved in your firing? >> i don't. i don't. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. comey, let me begin by thanking you for your voluntary compliance with our request to appear before this committee and assist us in this very important investigation. i wanted to first ask you about your conversations with the president. the three conversations in which you told him that he was not under investigation. the first was during your january 6th meeting according to your testimony in which it appears that you actually volunteered that assurance, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> did you limit that statement to counterintelligence investigations or were you talking about any kind of fbi investigation? >> i didn't -- i didn't use the term counterintelligence. i was speaking to him and briefing him about some salacious and inverified

material. it was in the context of that that he had a strong and defensive reaction about that not being true. and my reading of it was was it was important for me to reassure him we were not personally investigating him. so the context focused on what i talked to him about. it was very true and i was worried about being -- kind of a j. edgar hoover type of situation. diplomat -- i didn't want him to think i was briefing him on this to have it hang over him in some way. we had been told by the media it was about to launch. we didn't want to keep it from him and he needed know this was being said. but i was keen not to leave him with the impression that the bureau was not trying to do something to him so i said, sir, we're not personally investigating you. >> and that's why you volunteered the information?

>> yes, ma'am. >> then on the january 27th dinner you told the president that he should be careful about asking you to investigate because, quote, you might create a narrative that we are investigating him personally which we weren't. again, were you limiting that statement to counterintelligence investigations or more broadly such as a criminal investigation? >> it was again, he was reacting strongly against that unverified materials saying i'm tempted to order you to visit and i said, sir, it might create a narrative that we're investigating you personally. >> then there was the march 30th phone call and with the president in which you reminded him that congressional leaders had been briefed that we were not personally -- fbi was not

personally investigating president trump and again, was that statement to congressional leaders and to the president limited to counterintelligence investigation or was it a broader statement? i'm trying to understand whether there was any kind of investigation of the president under way. >> no. i'm sorry, if i misunderstood, i apologize. we briefed the congressional leadership we had opened counterintelligence cases on. and we said specifically the president not one of those americans, but there was no other investigation of the president that we were not mentioning at that time. the context was, counterintelligence, but i wasn't trying to hide some criminal investigation of the president. >> and was the president under investigation at the time of your dismissal on may 9th? >> no. >> i'd like to now turn to the

conversation with the president about michael flynn which had been discussed at great length. and first, let me make very clear that the president never should have cleared the room and he never should have asked you as you reported to let it go. to let the investigation go. but i remain puzzled by your response. your response was i agree that michael flynn is a good guy. you could have said, mr. president, this meeting is inappropriate. this response could compromise the investigation. you should not be making such a request. it's fundamental to the operation of our government that the fbi be insulated from this kind of political pressure. and you have talked a bit today about that you were stunned by

the president making the request. but my question to you is later on upon reflection, did you go to anyone at the department of justice and ask them to call the white house counsel's office and explain that the president had to have a far better understanding and appreciation of his role vis-a-vis the fbi? >> in general, i did. i spoke to the attorney general and i spoke to the new deputy attorney general, mr. rosenstein, when he took office and explained my serious concern about the way in which the president is interacting especially with the fbi. and i specifically as i said, i asked the attorney general, it can't happen that you get kicked out of the room and the president talks to me. look, in the room -- and why didn't we raise this specific -- it was of investigative interest to us to try to figure out, so

what just happened with the president's request so i would not gone on to alert the white house that it happened until we figure out what to do with this investigatively. >> your testimony was that you went to attorney general sessions and said, don't ever leave me alone with him again. are you saying that you also told him that he had made a request that you let it go with regard to part of the investigation of michael flynn? >> no, i specifically did not. i did not. >> okay. you mentioned that from your very first meeting with the president you decided to write a memo memorializing the conversation. what was it about that very first meeting that made you write a memo when you had not done that with two previous presidents? >> as i said a combination of

things. a gut feeling is an important overlay, but the circumstances that i was alone. the subject matter and the nature of the person that i was interacting with and my read of that person. and -- yeah. and really just a gut feel laying on top of that, that this going to be important to protect this organization that i make records of this. >> and finally, did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the department of justice? >> yes. >> and to whom did you show copies? >> i asked -- the president tweeted on friday after i got fired that i better hope there's not tapes. i woke up in the middle of the night on monday night, because it didn't dawn on my originally there might be corroboration, there might be a tape and i asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with the reporter.

didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons. but i asked him to because i thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. so i asked a close friend of mine to do it. >> was that mr. wittes? >> no. >> who was that? >> a good friend of mine who's a professor at colombia law school. >> thank you. >> senator heinrich? >> mr. comey, prior to january 27th of this year, have you ever had a one-on-one meeting or a private dinner with a president of the united states? >> no. i met -- dinner no. i had two one-on-ones with president obama, once to talk about law enforcement issues, law enforcement and race, which was an important topic throughout for me. and for the president. and then once very briefly with him to say good-bye. >> were those brief interactions? >> no. the one about law enforcement and race in policing, we spoke for probably over an hour. just the two of us. >> how unusual is it to have a

one-on-one dinner with the president? did that strike you as odd? >> yes. so much so that i assumed there would be others that he couldn't possibly be having dinner with me alone. >> do you have an impression that if you had found -- if you had behaved differently in that dinner and i'm quite pleased that you did not, but if you had found a way to express some sort of expression of loyalty or given some suggestion that the flynn criminal investigation might be pursued less vigorously, do you think you would have still been fired? >> i don't know. it's impossible to say looking back. i don't know. >> but you felt like those two things were directly relevant to your -- to the kind of

relationship that the president was seeking to establish with you? >> sure. yes. >> the president has repeatedly talked about the russian investigation -- on the russia's involvement in the u.s. election cycle as a hoax and as fake news. ask you -- can you talk a little bit about what you saw as fbi director and obviously only the parts that you can share in this setting that demonstrate how serious this action actually was and why there was an investigation in the first place. >> yes, sir. the -- there should be no fuzz on this whatsoever. the russians interfered in our election during the 2016 cycle. they did it with purpose. they did it with sophistication. they did wit overwhelming technical efforts and it was an active measures campaign driven from the top of that government.

there's to fuzz on that. it's the high competence judgment of the members of this committee and they have seen the intelligence. it's not a close call. that happened. that's about as unfake as you can possibly get. and it's very, very serious which is why it's so refreshing to see a bipartisan focus on that. because this is about america, not about any particular party. >> so that was a hostile act by the russian government against this country? >> yes, sir. >> did the president in any of those interactions that you have shared with us today asked you what you should be doing or what our government should be doing or the intelligence community to protect america against russian interference in our election system? >> i don't recall a conversation like that. >> never? >> no. >> do you find it odd. >> not with president trump. i attended a fair number of hearings with that with president obama. >> do you find it odd that the president seemed unconcerned by

russia's actions in our election? >> i can't answer that because i don't know what other conversations he had with other advisers or intelligence leaders. >> did you have any interactions with the president that suggested he was taking that hostile action seriously? >> i don't remember any interactions with the president other than the initial briefing on january the 6th. i don't remember. i could be wrong, i don't remember any conversations with him at all about that. >> as you're very aware, it was only the two of you in the room for that dinner. you have told us the president asked you to back off the flynn investigation, the president told -- >> not in that dinner. >> fair enough. told the reporter that he never did that. you have testified that the president asked for your loyalty in that dinner. the white house denies that.

a lot of this comes down to who should we believe? do you want to say anything as to why we should believe you? >> my mother raised me not to say things like that about myself so i'm not going to. people should look at the body omy testimony. you can't cherry pick it, he said this, but on this he's a dirty rotten liar and i have tried to be open and fair and transparent and accurate. a significant fact to me is so why did he kick everybody out of the oval office? why would you kick the attorney general, the president, the chief of staff out to talk to me if it was about something else? and so that -- that to me is -- as an investigator is a very significant fact. >> as we look at testimony or as communication from both of you, we should probably be looking

for consistency. >> well, in looking at any witness you look at consistency, track record. record over time. that sort of thing. >> thank you. so there are reports that the incoming trump administration either during the transition and/or after the inauguration attempted to set up a sort of back door communication channel with the russian government. using their infrastructure. their devices or facilities. what would be the risks particularly for a transition, someone not actually not in the office of the president yet to set up unauthorized channels with a hostile foreign government, especially if they were to evade our own american intelligence services? >> i'm not going to comment on whether that happened in an open setting. but the risk -- primary risk is obvious. you spare the russians of having the cost of breaking into our communications by using theirs

and you make it easier to use the conversations to the benefit of russia against the united states. >> the memos that you wrote, you wrote -- did you write all nine of them in a way that does -- to prevent them from needing classification? >> no. and on a fair of the occasions i wrote i sent e-mails to my chief of staff or others on some of the brief phone conversations that i recall. the first one was a classified briefing that wasn't in a skiff, it was in a conference room at trump tower. i wrote that on a classified device. the one i started to type in the car, that was a classified laptop. >> any reason in a skiff, that this committee -- it would not be appropriate to see those communications at least from your perspective as the author? >> no. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. comey, when you were

terminated at the fbi i said and still continue to feel that you have provided years of great service to the country. i also said that i'd had significant questions over the last year about some of the decisions that you made. if the president hadn't terminated your service, would you be the director of the fbi today? >> yes, sir. >> so you took as a direction from the president something that you thought was serious and troublesome but continued to show up for work the next day? >> yes, sir. >> and six weeks later were still telling -- telling the president on march the 30th that he was not personally the target of any investigation? >> correct, on march the 30th and i think -- i think on april 11th as well. we're not investigating him personally that is true. >> well, the point -- the concern to me there is that all

of these things are going on. you now in retrospect or at least you now to this committee that these were -- you had serious concerns about what the president had you believe directed you to do and had taken no action. hadn't even reported up the chain of command, assuming you believe there's a chain of command that these things happened. do you have a sense of that looking back that was a mistake? >> no. in fact, i think no action was the most important thing i could do to make sure that there was no interference with the investigation. >> on the flynn issue specifically i believe you said earlier that you believed the president was suggesting you drop any investigation of flynn's account of his conversation with the russian ambassador. which was essentially misleading the vice president and others. >> correct. and i'm not going to go into the details but whether there was false statements made to

government investigators as well. >> any suggestion that the -- that general flynn had violated the logan act i always find pretty incredible. the logan act has been on the books for over 200 years and nobody has ever been prosecuted for violating the logan act. my sense would be that the discussion, not the problem, misleading the investigators or the vice president might have been. >> that's fair, yes, sir. >> had you briefly on february the 14th -- previously on february the 14th discussed with the president anything your investigators had learned or in talking with mr. flynn? >> no, sir. >> he said he's a good guy, you said he's a good guy and there was no further action take on that? >> he said more than that. i tried to figure out what to do with i and made a decision we'll

hold this and see what we make of it down the road, yes, sir. >> was it your view that you had no responsibility to report that to the justice department in some way? >> i think at some point -- i don't know what director mueller is going to do with it, but at some point i was sure we were going to brief it to the team in charge of the case. but or judgment was in -- our judgment was in the short term -- no fuzz on the fact that i reported to the attorney general that's why i stressed he shouldn't be kicked out of the room but didn't make sense to me.

>> in reading your testimony, january the 27th and march the 30th it appears on all three of the occasions you unsolicited by the president made the point to him that he was not a target of an investigation. >> correct. yes, sir. >> one i thought the march 30th, you said very -- well, even though -- you may want -- that was the 27th where he said, why don't you look into that dossier thing more. you said, well, you may not want that. because then you couldn't say -- we couldn't answer the question about you being a target of the investigation but you didn't seem to be answering that

question anyhow. senator rubio pointed out the one unanswered, unleaked question seems to have been that. in this whole period of time but you said something earlier. i don't want to fail to follow-up on. after you were dismissed you gave information to a friend so that friend could get that information into the public media. >> correct. >> what kind of information was that? wasn't -- what kind of information did you give to a friend? >> that the president -- that the flynn conversation, that the president had asked me to let the flynn -- i'm forgetting my own words but the conversation in the oval office. >> so you didn't consider your memo or your sense of that conversation to be a government document. you consider it to be somehow your own personal document that you could share with the media as you wanted to? >> correct. >> through a friend? >> i understand this to be my recollection recorded of my conversation with the president as a private citizen, i felt free to share that i thought it

was important to get it out. >> so were all of your memos that you recorded on classified or other documents -- memos that might be yours as a private citizen? >> i'm sorry, i'm not following the question. >> i think you said you used classified -- >> yes, not the -- unclassified, i don't have any of them anymore. i gave them to the special counsel. but my view was that the content of those unclassified -- the memorialization of those conversations was my recollection recorded. >> so why didn't you give those to somebody yourself rather than give them through a third party. >> because i was worried the media was camping at the end of my driveway at that point. i have going out of town with my wife to hide and i worried it would be like seagulls at the beach if i gave it to the media. >> you created a source close to the former director of the fbi as opposed to just taking the responsibility yourself for

saying here are these records. and like everybody else i have other things i'd like to get into, but i'm out of time. >> okay. >> senator kane? >> first i want to acknowledge senator blumenthal and nelson. the one thing you'll learn today, the chair there is less comfortable there than the chairs here, but welcome to the hearing. mr. comey, a broad question. was the russian activity in the 2016 election a one off proposition or is this part of a long term strategy? will they be back? >> it's a long term practice of theirs. it's stepped up a notch in a significant way in '16 they'll be back. >> i think that's very important for the american people to understand. that this is very much a forward looking investigation in terms of how do we understand what they did and how do we prevent it, would you agree that's a big part of our role here? >> yes, sir. it's not a republican or a democratic thing.

it's an american thing. they're going to come for whatever party they choose to try to work on behalf of. they're not devoted to either in my experience. that's my observation. they'll be back. >> i don't think putin is a republican or a democrat, but he's an opportunistic. >> a fair statement. >> with regard to several of the conversations, in his interview with lester holt on nbc, the president said i had dinner with him. he wanted to have dinner because he wanted to stay on. is this an accurate statement? >> no, sir. >> did you in any way initiate that dinner? >> no he called me at my desk at lunch time and asked me was i free for dinner that night. i called -- he called himself, he said can you come over for dinner tonight? i said, yes, sir. he said, will 6:00 first, and he said i wanted to invite your whole family and is that a good

time? i said whatever works for you. how about 6:30. i said whatever works for you, sir. i hung up and i had to call my wife and break a date with her. i was supposed to take her out to dinner that night. >> that's one of the great all time excuses -- >> in retrospect, i love spending time with my wife and i wish i had gone to dinner with her that night. >> that's one question i won't follow-up. the president said in one case, i called him and in one case he called me. is that accurate? >> no. >> did you ever call the president? >> no. i might -- the only reason i'm hesitating is i think there was at least one conversation where i was asked to call the white house switch board to be connected to him. but i never initiated a communication with the president. >> in his press conference on may 18th, the president was asked if he asked you to shut

down the investigation into flynn. he said no no. next question is that an accurate statement? >> i don't think it. >> with him being personally under investigation, does that mean that the dossier is not being reviewed or investigated or followed up on in any way? >> obviously i can't -- i can't comment either way. i can't talk in the open setting about the investigation as it was when i was the head of the fbi. obviously it's director mueller's -- bob mueller's responsibility now. so i don't know. >> so clearly, your statements to the president back in those -- these various times when you assured you weren't under investigation were as of that moment, correct? >> correct. >> on the flynn investigation is it not true that mr. flynn was and is a central figure in this entire investigation of the relationship between the trump campaign and the russians? >> i can't answer that in an open setting, sir. >> and certainly mr. flynn was

part of the so-called russia investigation, can you answer that question? >> i have to give you the same answer. >> we'll be having a closed session shortly so we'll follow-up on that in terms of his comments to you about -- i think in response to mr. risch, senator, i hope you hold back on that. when you get the president who says i hope or i suggest or would you, do you take that as a directive? >> yes. yes. it rings in my ear as kind of -- well will no one rid me of -- >> i was going to quote that henry the ii who will rid me of the meddlesome priest and he was killed the next day. the exact same situation, we're thinking along the same lines. several other questions and these are a little bit more detailed. what do you know about the

russian bank veb? >> nothing that i can talk about in the open setting. >> i know that takes care of my next three questions. >> i know it exists. >> you know it exists. what is the relationship of ambassador -- the ambassador from russia to the united states to the russian intelligence infrastructure? >> well, he's a diplomat who is the chief of mission at the russian embassy which employs a robust cohort of intelligence officers so surely he's witting -- of their aggressive intelligence operations at least some in the united states. i don't consider him to be the intelligence officer himself. he a diplomat. >> did the fbi ever brief the trump administration about the advisability of interacting directly with ambassador kislyak? >> i think can i say sitting

here there were a variety of defensive briefings given about the counterintelligence risk. >> back to mr. flynn. would the -- would closing out the flynn investigation have impeded the overall russia investigation? >> no. unlikely except to the extent -- there's always a possibility if you have a criminal case against someone and you bring it and squeeze them and you flip them and thai give you -- they give you information about something else. but i saw the two as touching each other, but separate. >> with regard to your memos, isn't it true that in a court case when you're weighing evidence contemporaneous memos and contemporaneous statements to third parties are considered probative in terms 206 -- in terms of the validity of testimony? >> yes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator cotton -- excuse me,

langford. >> director comey, good to see you again. we have had multiple opportunities to visit as everyone on this dias has and i appreciate you and your service. and what you have done for the nation for a long time which you continue to do. i told you before in the heat of last year when we had an opportunity to visit, i'd pray for you and your family because you carry a tremendous amount of stress and that's true today. your notes are obviously exceptionally important because they give a very rapid account of what you -- what you wrote down and what you perceived happening in the different meetings. have you had an opportunity to reference those notes when you're preparing the written statement that you put forward today? >> yes. yes. i think nearly all of my written recordings of the conversations i had a chance to review them before filing my statement. >> do you have a copy of any of those notes personally? >> i don't. i turned them over to bob mueller's investigators.

>> the individual that you told about your memos that then sent on to "the new york times," did they have a copy of those memos or were they toll orally of the memos? >> i had a copy at the time. >> do they still have a copy of the memos? >> it's a good question. i think so. i guess i can't say for sure sitting here. but i guess i don't know. but i think so. >> so the question is, could you ask them to hand that copyright back to you so you could hand them over to the committee? >> potentially. >> i would like to move that from potential to seeing if we can ask that question. so we could have a copy of those. those notes are important to us to go through the process so we can continue to get to the facts as we see it. the written documents are exceptionally important. but are there other documents that we need to be aware of in preparation of your written statement that would assist us? >> not that i'm aware of, no. >> passed the february 14th meeting which is an important meeting as we discussed, the

conversations here about michael flynn. when the president asked you about -- he hopes that you would let this go, and the conversation back and forth about being a good guy, after that time did the president ever bring up anything about michael flynn again to you? you had multiple other discussions -- >> no. >> did any member of the white house staff ever come to you and talk to you about letting go of the flynn case or dropping it or anything referring to that? >> fo.. >> did the director of the national intelligence talk to you about that? >> no. >> did anybody from the attorney's general's office ask you about that? >> did anyone at the nsa ask you about that? >> if this seems to be something that the president trying to get you to drop it, the come back in and say i hope we can let this go but then it never reappears

again. did it slow down your investigation or any investigation that may or may not be occurring with michael flynn? >> no, although i don't know there are any manifestation of the investigation when i was fired so i don't know if president had any way of knowing if it was effective or not. >> okay. fair enough. if the president wanted to stop an investigation, how would he do that? knowing it's an ongoing criminal investigation or counterintelligence investigation, would that be a matter of trying to go to you, you perceive and to say you make it stop because he doesn't have the authority to stop or how would the president make an ongoing investigation stop? >> again, i'm not a legal scholar so smarter people answer this better but i think as a legal matter the president as the head of the executive branch and could direct in theory -- we have important norms against this, but direct that anybody be investigated or not be

investigated. i think he has the legal authority because we all report up to the president. >> would that be to you or the attorney general? >> i suppose he could -- if he wanted to issue a direct order he could do it any way. he could do it through the attorney general or through me. >> is there any question that the president is not real fond of this investigation? i can think of 140 word character expressions that he's done publicly to express he's not fond of the investigation so i have heard you share before in this conversation that you're trying to keep the agents that are work on -- working on it away from any comment that the president has made. he's made the comment to 6 million people that he's not fond of this investigation. do you think there's a difference in that? >> yes. >> okay. >> i think there's a big difference in kicking superior officers out of the oval office looking the fbi director in the eye and saying, i hope you'll let this go. i think if our -- if the agents as good as they are heard the

president of the united states did that -- there's a real risk of a chilling effect on their work. that's why we kept it so tight. >> okay. you had mentioned before about news accounts. without having to go into all of the names and the specific times and to be able to dig into that, has there been news accounts about the russia investigation, about collusion, about this whole event or accusations as you read the story, you were stunned about how wrong they got the facts. >> yes. there are many, many stories purportedly based on classified information about lots of stuff. but especially about russia that are dead wrong. >> i was interested in your comment that you made as well that the president said to you, if there were some satellite associates of his that did something wrong it would be good to find that out. that the president seemed to talk to you specifically on march the 30th and said i'm frustrated that the word is not getting out that i'm not under investigation. but if there are people that are

in my circle that are, let's finish the investigation. is that how you took it as well? >> yes, sir. >> then you made a comment earlier about the attorney general previous attorney general asking you about the investigation on the clinton e-mails saying that you had been asked not to call it an investigation anymore, but to call it a matter. and you had said that confused you. can you give us additional details on that? >> well, it concerned me because we were at the point where we had refused to confirm the existence as we typically do of the investigation for months and of the getting to the place where that looked silly because the campaigns we're talking about interacting with the fbi in the course of our work. the clinton campaign at the time was using all kinds of euphemisms, security review, matters, things like that for what was going on. we were getting to the price place -- place that the attorney general and i would have to talk

publicly about us and i wanted to know if she wanted to confirm we had an investigation and she said, yes, but call it a matter. i said why would i do that? she said, just call it a matter. again, you look back in hindsight, should i have resisted harder, i just said, it -- this isn't a hill worth dying on. so i said, okay. the press is going to completely ignore it. that's what happened when i said, we have opened a matter. they all reported the fbi has an investigation open. so that concerned me because that language tracked the way that the campaign was talking about the fbi's work and that's concerning. >> it gave the impression that the campaign was somehow using the same language of the fbi because you were handed the campaign language and told to -- >> again, i don't know if it was intentional or not but it gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way political campaign was describing the same activity. which was inaccurate. we had a criminal investigation

open as said before the federal bureau of investigation, we had it own at the time. that gave me a queasy feeling. >> senator manchin? >> thank you. i appreciate you being here. west virginia is very interested in this hearing that we're having today. i have had over 600 requests for questions to ask you. from my fellow west virginians and most of them have been asked and quite a few that were quite detailed that i'll ask in our classified hearing. i want to thank you first of all for coming and agreeing to be here. volunteering and volunteering to stay into the classified hearing. i don't foe if you had a chance -- know if you had a chance to watch the hearing yesterday. >> i watched some of it. >> it was quite troubling. my colleagues had some questions, and they refused to answer in the open setting. that makes us much more appreciative of your cooperation. sir, the seriousness of the russia aggressions in our past elections and knowing that it

will be ongoing as senator king had alluded to, does -- what's your concerns there? i mean, what should the american public understand? peel said -- why are we worried about this? why make this a big deal? can you tell me what your thoughts would be? and then the final thing is on this same topic. did the president show any concern or interest or curiosity about what the russians were doing? >> thank you, senator. as i said earlier i don't remember any conversations with the president about the russia election interference. >> did he ever ask you any questions -- >> well, there was an initial briefing and there was a conversation there. i don't remember it exactly that he asked questions about what we found and what our confidence level was. but after that i don't remember anything. the reason this is a big deal is we have this big messy wonderful country where we fight with each other all the time. but nobody tells us what to think, what to fight about, what

to vote for except other americans. and that's wonderful and often painful but we're talk act a foreign government that uses technical intrusion tried to the way we think, we vote, we act. that is a big deal. and people need to recognize it. it's not about republicans or democrats. they're coming after america which i hope we all love equally. they want to undermine our credibility in the face of the world. they think that this great experiment of ours is a threat to them and so they're going to try to run it down and dirty it up as much as possible that's what this is about. and they'll be back. because we remain as difficult as we can be with each other, we remain that shining city on the hill and they don't like it. >> extremely important, it's dangerous what we're dealing with and it's needed is what you're saying? >> yes, sir. >> do you believe there were any tapes or recordings of your conversations with the president? >> it never occurred to me until the president's tweet.

i hope there are and i'll consent to the release -- >> both of you are in the same findings -- you both hope there are tapes and recordings? >> well, all i can do is hope. the president surely knows whether he taped me and if he did, my feelings aren't hurt. release the -- release all the tapes i'm good with it. >> got it. sir, do you believe that robert mueller our new special investigator on russia will be thorough and complete without political intervention and would you be confident on the findings and recommendations? >> yes. bob mueller is one of the finest people and public servants. he will do it well. he is a dogged, tough person and you can have high confidence that when it's done he's turned over all the rocks. >> you have been asked a wide variety of questions today and we'll be hearing more i'm sure in the classified hearing. something to ask the folks when they come here, what details of this saga would be -- should we be focusing on and what would

you recommend we do differently? or just our perspective on this? >> i don't know. one of the reasons i'm pleased to be here i think this committee has shown the american people -- although we have two parties and we disagree about important things we can work together when it involves the core interest of the country. i hope you keep doing what you're doing. it's good in and of itself, it's a special model especially for kids that we're a functioning adult democracy. >> you mentioned you had -- i think what six meetings, three times in person, six on the phone, nine times in conversations with the president. did he ever at that time allude that you're not performing adequately? ever indicate that? >> no, quite the contrary. i was about to get on a helicopter one day. the head of the dea was waiting for me. and he just called to check in and tell me i was doing an awesome job. and wanted to see how i was doing. i said i'm doing fine, sir then i finished the call and got on

helicopter. >> mr. comey, do you believe you would have been fired if hillary clinton had become president? >> that's a great question. i don't know. yeah, i don't know. >> do you have any thoughts about it? >> i might have been. i don't know. look i said before, that was an extraordinarily difficult and painful time. i think i did what i had to do. i knew it was going to be very bad for me personally. and the consequences of that might have been if hillary clinton might have been -- i might have been terminated. i really don't know. >> my final question, after the meeting in the oval office you asked attorney general sessions to ensure you were never left alone with the p. did you ever consider why attorney general sessions was not asked to stay in the room? >> oh, sure. i did. and have. in that moment -- >> did you ever talk to him

about it? >> no. >> you never had a discussion with jeff sessions on this? >> no. >> on any of your meetings? >> no. >> did he inquire, did he show any inquiry what was that meeting about? >> no. >> did he inquire? did he show any i choiry whatsoever of what that meeting was about? >> no. i did say to him -- i had forgotten this -- when i talked to him and said you have to be between me and the president and that's incredibly important, i forget my exact words. i passed along the president's message of importance of aggressively pursuing leaks of classified information which is a goal i share and passed that along to the attorney general, i think it was the next morning in a meeting, but i did not tell him about the flynn part. >> does this give rise to the obstruction of justice? >> i don't know, that's bob miewrl's job to sort that out. >> thank you, sir.

mr. chairman. senator cotton. mr. comey you encouraged the president to release the tapes, did you encourage the department of justice of your friend at columbia or mr. mueller to release. >> sure. you said you did not record your conversations with president obama or president bush in memos. did you do so with attorney general sessions or any other member of d.o.j. or mr. trump? >> no. did you report with any uh other obama department of justice. >> not that i recall. in your statement for the record you cite nine private conversations with the president, three meetings and two phone calls, four phone calls that are not discussed in your statement for the record. what happened in those phone calls? >> the president called me, i believe, shortly before he was inaugurated as a followup to our conversation, private conversation on january 6.

he just wanted the to reiterate his rejection of the allegation and talk about he'd thought about it more, and why he thought it wasn't true, the verified -- unverified and salacious parts and, during that call, he asked me, again, i hope you're going to stay, you're doing a great job, and i told him that i intended to. there was another phone call i mentioned, i think -- could have the date wrong -- march 1 where he called just to check in with my as i was about to get on the helicopter. there was a secure call we had about an operational matter that was not related to any of this about something the f.b.i. was working on, he wanted to make sure that i understood how important he thought it was, totally appropriate call. and then the fourth call -- i'm forgetting -- i may have meant the call when he called to invite me to dinner. i'll think about it as i'm answering other questions but i think i got that right.

>> let's turn our attention to the underlying activity here russia's hacking into the e-mails, releasing them and allegations of collusion. do you believe donald trump colluded with russia? >> that's a question i don't think i should answer in an open setting. as i said, when i left, we did not have an investigation focused on president trump. but that's a question that will be answered by the investigation, i think. >> let me turn to a couple of statements by one of my colleagues senator feinstein, she was the ranking member on this committee till january which meant she had access to information. on may 3, on cnn's wolf blitzer show, she was asked do you have evidence that there was collusion between the trump campaign and russia, she said not at this time. next interview she was asked

again, and you said not at this time. has anything changed since we last spoke? senator feinstein said, well, no, no, it hasn't. do you have any reason to doubt those statements? >> i don't doubt senator feinstein was saying what she understood. i don't want to go down that path first of all because i'm not in the government anymore and answering in the negative i worry leads me deeper and deeper into talking about the investigation in an open setting. i don't want to be unfair to president trump. i'm not trying to suggest by my answer something nefarious but i don't want to get into the business of saying not as to this person or that person. >> february 14, "new york times" published a sort "trump campaign aides competed contacts with russian intelligence." you consider asked if that was accurate, would it be fair to characterize that story as almost entirely wrong?

>> yes. did you have at the time the story was accomplished any indication or contact between trump people, russians, intelligence officers, other officials or close associates with the russian government? >> that's one i can't answer sitting here. >> in classified setting then. i want to turn attention now to mr. flynn and the allegations of his underlying conduct, to be specific, his alleged interactions with the russian ambassador on the telephone and what he said to seen your trump officials and department of justice officials. i understand there is issues with mr. fin and activity on behalf of foreign governments, those are allegations that will be pursued, but i want to speak specifically about his interactions with the russian ambassador. there was a story on january 23 in "the washington post" that says "f.b.i. reviewed flynn's calls with russian ambassador but found nothing elicit." is this story accurate?

>> i don't want to comment on that, senator, because i'm pretty sure the bureau has not confirmed any interception of communications and, so, i don't want to talk about that in an open setting. >> would bit improper for an incoming national security advisor to have a conversation with a foreign ambassador? >> in my experience, no. but you can't confirm or p deny that the conversation happened and we would need to know the contents of that information to know if it was improper. >> i don't think i can talk about that in an open setting. i have been out of the government a month so i also don't want to talk about things when it's now somebody else's responsibility, but maybe in a classified setting we can talk more about that. >> you stated earlier there wasn't an open investigation of mr. flynn in the f.b.i. did you or any f.b.i. agent ever sense that mr. flynn attempted to deceive you or made false statements to an f.b.i. agent?

>> i don't want to go too far. that was the subject of the inquiry. >> did you ever come close to closing the investigation on mr. flynn? >> i don't think i can talk about that in an open setting either. >> we can discuss these more in a closed setting, then. mr. comey, in 2004, you were a part of a well-publicized event about an intelligence program that had been recertified several times and you were acting attorney general when attorney general john ashcroft was incapacitated due the illness. there was a dramatic showdown at the hospital here. the next day, you said that you wrote a letter of resignation and signed it before you went to meet with president bush to explain why you refused to certify it. is that accurate? >> yes, i think so. at anytime in the three and a half months you were the f.b.i. director during the trump administration did you ever

write and sign a letter of resignation and leave it on your desk. >> letter of resignation, no, sir. >> letter of resignation. no, sir. so despite all the things you testified to here today you didn't feel this rose to the level of an honest but serious difference of legal opinion between accomplished and skilled lawyers in that 2004 episode? >> i wouldn't characterize the circumstances in 2004 that way, but to answer, no, i didn't find -- encounter any circumstance that led me to intend to resign or consider to resign, no, sir. >> thank you. senator harris. director comey, i want to thank you. you are now a private citizen and you are enduring a senate intelligence committee hearing, and each of us get seven minutes instead of five as yesterday they asked you questions. so thank you. >> i'm between opportunities now, so -- >> well, you are -- ( laughter ) i'm sure you will have future opportunities. you and i are both former prosecutors. not going to require you to

answer. i just want to make a stawment that, in my -- make a statement that, in my experience of prosecuting cases, when a robber meld a gun to smeebs head and said i hope you will give me your wallet, the word "hope" was not the most operative word at that moment but you don't have to respond to that point. i have a series of questions to ask you, and they're going to start with are you aware of any meetings between the trump administration officials and russian officials during the campaign that have not been acknowledged by those officials in the white house? >> that's not -- even if i remember clearly, that's not a question i can answer in an open setting. >> are you aware of any efforts by trump campaign officials or associates of the campaign to hide their communications with russian officials through encrypted communication or other means? >> i have to give the same answer, senator. >> sure. and in the course of the f.b.i.'s investigation, did you ever come across anything that suggested that communications,

records, documents or other evidence had been destroyed? >> i think i've got to give you the same answer because it would touch on investigative matters. >> and are you aware of any efforts or potential efforts to conceal communications between tubings officials and russian officials? >> i think i will give you the same answer, senator. >> thank you. as former attorney general, i have a series of questions about your connection with the attorney general during the course of your tenure as director. what is your understanding of the parameters of general sessions recusal from the russian investigation? >> i think it's described in a written release or statement from d.o.j. which i don't remember sitting here, but the gist was he would be recused from all matters relating to russia and the campaign or activities of russia and the '16 election, something like that. >> so is your knowledge of the extent of his recusal based on the public statements he's made? >> correct. okay. so ther is there any kind of

memorandum issued from the attorney general or the department of justice from the f.b.i. outlining the parameters of his recalls? >> not that i'm aware of. do you know if h he recruit f.b.i. or d.o.j. documents pertaining to the investigation before he was recused? >> i don't. i don't know. >> and after he was recused, i'm assuming it's the same answer. >> same answer. and aside from any notice or memorandum that was not sent or was, what mechanism or processes to ensure that the attorney general would not have any connection with the investigation, attorne to your knowledge? >> i don't know for sure. i know he consulted with career officials to run recalls at d.o.j. but don't know what mechanism they set up. >> the attorney general recused himself but do you believe it was appropriate for him to be involved in the firing of the chief investigator of that case, of the russia interference? >> that's something i can't answer signature here. it's a reasonable question but that would depend on a lot of

things i don't know, like what did he know, what was he told, did he realize the president was doing it because to have the russia investigation, things like that i don't know. >> you've mentioned in your written testimony the president essentially asked you for a loyalty pledge. are you aware of him making the same request of any other members of the cabinet. >> i am not. do you know one way or the other? >> i don't. i've never heard anything about it. >> you mentioned you had the conversation where he hoped that you would let the flynn matter go on february 14 or thereabouts. it's my understanding that mr. sessions was recused from any involvement in the investigation about a full two weeks later. to your knowledge, was the attorney general, did he have access to information about the investigation in those interim two weeks? >> in theory, sure, because he's the attorney general. i don't know whether he had any contact with any materials related to that. >> to your knowledge, was there

any directive that he should not have any contact with any information about the russian investigation between the february 14th date and the day he was ultimately recused or recused himself on march 2? >> not to my knowledge. i don't know one way or another. >> and dud you speak to the attorney general about the russia investigation before his recusal? >> i don't think so, no. do you know if anyone in the department in the f.b.i. forwarded any documents or information or memos of any sort to the attention of the attorney general before his recusal? >> i don't know of any or remember of any sitting here. it's possible, but i don't remember any. >> do you know if the attorney general was, in fact, involved in any aspect of the russia investigation after his recusal on the 2nd of march? >> i don't. i could assume not. let me say it this way, i don't know of any information that would lead me to believe he did something to touch the russia

investigation after the recusal. >> in your rine testimony, you indicate that you -- after you were left alone with the president, you mentioned that it was inappropriate and should never happen again to the attorney general, and, apparently, he did not reply and you write that he did not reply. what did he do? if anything. did he just look at you? was there a pause for a moment? what happened? >> i don't remember real clearly. i have a recollection of him just kind of looking at me, and there's a danger here i'm project on to him, so this may be a faulty memory, but his body language gave me the sense of what am i going to do. >> did he shrug? i don't remember clearly. i think the reason i have that impression is i have some recollection, almost imperceptible, like, what am i going to do? but i don't have a clear recollection of that. he didn't say anything. >> on that same february 14 meeting, you said you understood the president to be requesting that you drop the vsmghts after

that meetings, however, you received two calls from the president march 30 and april 11 where the president talked about a cloud over his presidency. has anything you've learned in the months since your february 14 meeting change your understanding of the president's request? i guess it would be what eh has said in public documents or interviews? >> correct. okay. and is there anything about this investigation that you believe is in any way biased or is not being informed by a process of seeking the truth? >> no. the appointment of a special counsel, especially given who that person is, offer great comfort to americans no matter what your political fulliation is this will be done independently, competently and honestly. >> and do you believe he should have full authority, mr. mueller, to be able to pursue that investigation? >> yes, and knowing him well over the years, if there's

something he thinks he needs, he will speak up about it. >> do you believe he should have full independence? >> oh, yeah, and he would been part of it if he wasn't going to get full independence. >> thank you. senator cornyn. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. comby, i'll repeat what i've said at previous hearings that i believe you're a good and decent man who's been dealt a very difficult hand, starting back with the clinton email investigation, and i appreciate your willingness to appear here today voluntarily and answer our questions and cooperate with our investigation. as a general matter, if an f.b.i. agent has reason to believe that a crime has been committed, do they have a duty to report it? >> that's a good question. i don't know that there's a legal duty to report it. they certainly have a cultural, ethical duty to report it. >> you're unsure whether they would have a legal duty? >> yeah, it's a good question.

i've not thought about it before. there's a statute that prohibits knowing of a felony and taking steps to conceal it, but this is a different question. so, look, let me be clear, i would expect any f.b.i. agent who has any information about a crime to report it. >> me, too. but where you rest that obligation, i don't know. it exists. >> and let me ask you as a general proposition, if you're trying to make an investigation go away, is firing an f.b.i. director a good way to make that happen? by that, i mean -- >> yeah, doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but i'm hopelessly biased, given that i was the one fired. >> i understand it's personal. no, given the nature of the f.b.i. i meant what i said, there's no dispensable people in the world including the f.b.i. there's lots of bad things about me not being at the f.b.i., most for me, but work will go on

before. >> so nothing you testified to today has impeded the investigation of the f.b.i. or mr. mueller's ability to get to the bottom of this? >> correct, especially former director mueller is the critical part of that investigation. >> let me take you back to the dlinten email investigation. i think you have been cast as a hero or a villain, depending on whose political ox is being gored, at many different times in the clinton email investigation and even now, perhaps, but you clearly were troubled by the conduct of the sitting attorney general, loretta lynch, when it came to the clinton email investigation. you mentioned the characterization that you'd been asked to accept that this is a matter and not a criminal investigation, which you said it was. there was the matter of president clinton's meeting on the tarmac with the sitting

attorney general at a time when his wife was a subject to a criminal investigation, and you suggested that perhaps there are other matters that you may be able to share with us later on in a classified setting, but it seems to me that you clearly believe that loretta lynch, the attorney general, had an appearance of a conflict of interest on the clinton email investigation. is that correct? >> i think that's fair. i didn't believe she could credibly decline that investigation, at least not without grievous damage to the department of justice and to the f.b.i. >> and under department of justice and f.b.i. norms, wouldn't it have been appropriate for the attorney general or if she had recused herself, which she did not do, for the deputy attorney general to appoint a special council? that's essentially what's happened with director mueller. would that have been an appropriate step in the clinton email investigation, in your opinion? >> certainly a possible step, yes, sir. >> and were you aware ms. lynch

had been requested numerous times to appoint a special counsel and had refused? >> yes, from, i think, congress -- members of doing had repeatedly asked, yes, sir. >> yours truly did on multiple occasions. and that heightened your concerns about the appearance of a conflict of interest with the department of justice which caused you to make what you have described as an incredibly painful decision to basically take the matter up yourself and led to that july press conference? >> yes, sir. after former president clinton met on the plane with the attorney general, i considered whether i should call for the appointment of a special counsel and decided that that would be an unfair thing to do because i knew there was no case there. we had investigated very, very thoroughly. i know this is a subject of passionate disagreement, but i knew there was no case there, and calling for the appointment of special counsel would be brutally unfair because it would

send the message, ah-ha, there's something here. that's my judgment. >> if the special counsel had been appointed, they could have made that determination at the there was nothing there and declined to pursue it, right? >> sure, but it would have been many months later or a year later. >> let me just ask you to -- given the experience of the clinton email investigation and what happened there, do you think it's unreasonable for anyone, any president who has been assured on multiple occasions that he's not the subject of an f.b.i. investigation, do you think it's unreasonable for them to want the f.b.i. director to publicly announce that so that this cloud over his administration would be removed? >> i think that's a reasonable

point of view. the concern would be, obviously, because if that boomerang comes back, it will be a very big deal because it will be a duty to correct. >> we saw that in the clinton email investigation, of course. >> yes, i recall that. i know you do. so let me ask you, finally, in the minute that we have left, there was this conversation back and forth about loyalty, and i think we all appreciate the fact an f.b.i. director is a unique public official in the sense that he's a political appointee in one sense, but he has a duty of independence to pursue the law pursuant to the constitutional laws of the united states, and, so, when the president asked you about loyalty, you got into this back and forth about, well, i'll pledge you my honesty, and then, it looks like, from what i've read, you agreed upon honest loyalty or something like that. is that the characterization? >> yes. thank you very much.

, sir. senator. thank you. there have been press reports that the president in addition to asking you to drop the flynn investigation and has asked other senior intelligence officials to take steps which would tend to undermine the investigation into russia, there are reports he asked coats and rogers to make statements exonerating him or taking pressure off him and reports of rogers and director pom pawo to intervene and reach out to the f.b.i. and ask them -- do you have any information with respect to any of these allegations? >> i don't. i'm aware of the public reporting, but i had no contact, no conversation with any of those leaders about that

subject. >> thank you. you have testified that you interpret the discussion with the president about flynn as a direction to stop the investigation, is that correct? >> yes. ou have testified that the president asked you to lift the cloud by essentially making public statements exonerating him and perhaps others. you refused, correct? >> i didn't -- i didn't do it. i didn't refuse the president. i told him we would see what we could do, and then the second time he called, i told him, in substance, that's something your lawyer will have to take up with the justice department. >> part of the underlying logic we discussed many times throughout this morning is the duty to correct. that is a theoretical issue but also for a practical issue. was there -- your feeling that the direction of the investigation could, in fact,

include the president? >> well, in theory. i mean, as i explained, the concern of one of my senior leader colleagues was, if you're looking at potential coordination between the campaign an russia, the person at the head of the campaign is the candidate, so logically, this person argued, this candidate's knowledge, understanding will logically become a part of your inquiry if it proceeds. so i understood that argument. my view was that, what i sawed to the president was accurate and fair and fair to him. i resisted the idea of publicly saying it, though if the justice department had wanted to, i would have done it because to have the duty to correct and the slippery slope problem. >> and again, you've also testified that the president asked you repeatedly to be loyal to him and you responded you would be honestly loyal, which is your way of saying i will be honest and the head of the

f.b.i. and independent. is that fair? >> correct. i tried honest first. also, you see it in my testimony, i also tried to explain to him why it's in his interest and every president's interest for the f.b.i. to be a part, in -- apart, in a way, because its credibility is important to a presidentened the country, and, so, tried to hold the line. it got very awkward. and i then said, you will always have honesty from me. he said honest loyalty, and i accepted that as a way to end the awkwardness. >> the culmination is you were summarily fired or an explanation or anything else. >> well, there is an explanation, i just don't buy it. >> well, yes. so you were fired. do you believe you were fired because you refused to take the president's direction? is that the ultimate reason? >> i don't know for sure. i know i was fired. again, i take the president's words. i know i was fired because of something about the way i was

conducting the russia investigation was somehow putting pressure on him and iritating him and he decided to fire me because of that. i can't go farther than that. >> the russian investigation as you've pointed out and my colleagues have reflected is one of the most serious, hostile acts against this country in our history, undermining the very core of our democracy and our electionings is not a discreet event. it will likely occur. it's probably for '18, '20 and beyond, and, yet, the president of the united states fires you because, in your own words, some relation to this investigation, and then he shows up in the oval office with the russian foreign minister first after classifying you as crazy and a real nut job which i think you've effectively disproved this morning, he said i face pressure because of russia, that's taken off.

your conclusion would be that the president, i would think, is downplaying the seriousness of this threat, in fact, took specific steps to stop a thorough investigation of the russian influence and, also, from what you've said or what was mentioned this morning, doesn't seem to particularly interested in these hostile threats by the russians. is that fair? >> i don't know that i can agree to that level of detail. there is no doubt it's a fair judgment, my judgment that i was fired because to have the russia investigation. i was fired in some way to change -- or the endeavor was to change the way the russian investigation was being conducted. that is a very big deal and not just because it involves me. the nature of the f.b.i. and the nature of its work requires that it not be the subject of political consideration and, on top of that, you have the russia

investigation itself is vital because of the threat, and i know i should have said this earlier, but it's obvious, if any americans were part of helping the russians do that to us, that is a very big deal, and i'm confident that, if that is the case, director mueller will find that evidence. >> finally, the president tweeted that james cokie better hope that there are no hopes of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press. was that rather unsubtle attempt to attempt to intimidate you from testifying and anyone else who seriously crosses his path of not doing it? >> i'm not going to sit here and try to interpret the presidentas tweets. to me its major impact as occurred to me in the middle of the night, holy cow, there are tapes, and if there are tapes, it's not just my word against his on the direction to get rid of the flynn investigation. >> thank you very much.

senator mccain. in the case of hillary clinton, you made the statement that there wasn't sufficient evidence to bring a suit against her, although it had been very careless in their behavior, but you did reach a conclusion in that case that it was not necessary to further pursue her. yet, the at the same time, in the case of mr. comey, you said that there was not enough information to make a conclusion. tell me the difference between your conclusion as far as former secretary clinton is concerned and mr. trump.

>> the clinton investigation was a completed investigation that the f.b.i. have been deeply involved and, so, i had an opportunity to understand all the facts and a apply those facts against the laws as i understood them. this investigation was underway, still going when i was fired, so it's nowhere near in the same place, at least it wasn't when i was -- >> but still ongoing. it was when i left. that investigation was with going on. this investigation is going on. you reached separate conclusions. >> no, that one was done. that investigation of any involvement of secretary clinton or new of her associates is complete? >> yes, as of july 5, the f.b.i. completed its investigative work, and that's what i was announcing what we had done and what we had found. >> well, at least in the minds of this member, there's a whole lot of questions remaining about

what went on, particularly considering the fact that, as you mention, it's a "big deal" as to what went on during the campaign. so i'm glad you concluded that part of the investigation, but i think that the american people have a whole lot of questions out there, particularly since you just emphasized the role that russia played. she was a candidate for president at the time so she was clearly involved in this whole situation where fake news, as you just described it, "big deal," took place. you're going to have to help me out here. in other words, we're complete, the investigation of anything that former secretary clinton had to do with the campaign is over, and we don't have to worry about it anymore? >> with respect to secretary -- i'm a little confused, senator. planned parenthood to secretary

clinton, we had a criminal investigation in connection with her use of a personal email server. >> i understand. that's the investigation i announced on july 5. >> at the same time you mentioned there would be no charges brought against then secretary clinton for any activities involved in the russia involvement, in our engagement in our election. i don't quite understand how you can be done with that but not done with the whole investigation of their attempt to affect the outcome of our election. >> no, i'm sorry, at least when i left, when i was fired on may 9, there was still an open, active investigation to understand the russian efforts and whether any americans work with them. >> but you reached the conclusion that there was no reason to bring charges against secretary clinton, so you reached a conclusion, in the case of mr. comey, president

comey -- >> no, sir. in case of president trump, you have an ongoing investigation. so you've got one candidate who you're done with, and another candidate that you have a long way to go. is that correct? >> i don't how far the f.b.i. has to do go, but, yes, the clin email investigation was completed, the investigation of russia's efforts in connection with the election, and whether there was any coordination and, if so, with whom between russia and the campaign was ongoing when i left. >> you just made it clear in what you said that there was a "big deal." i think it's hard to reconcile in one case you reach a complete conclusion and the other side you will have not, and, in fact, obviously, there's a lot more there, as we know, as you called it a "big deal." she's one of the candidates, but in her case, you say there will

be no charges, and in the case of president trump, the investigation continues. what has been brought out in this hearing is more and more emphasis on the russian engagement and involvement in this campaign. how serious do you think this was? >> very serious, but -- i want to say -- be clear. we have not announced and there was no predication to announce an investigation whether the russians may have coordinated with secretary clinton's campaign. >> no, they may not have been unvovrld with her campaign, they were involved with the entire presidential campaign, obviously. >> of course. and that is an investigation that began last summer and, as far as i'm aware, continues. >> so both president trump and former candidate clinton are both involved in the investigation, yet one of them, you said there's going to be no

charges, and the other one the investigation continues. well, i think there's a double standard there, to tell you the truth. then when the president said to you, you talked about the april 11th phone call, and he said "because i have been very loyal to you, very loyal, we had that thing, you know," did that arouse your curiosity as to what "that thing" was? >> yes. why didn't you ask him? it didn't seem to me to be important for the conversation we were having to understand it. i took it to be some -- an effort to communicate to me that there is a relationship between us where i have been good to you, you should be good to me. >> yeah, but i think it would intensely arouse my curiosity if the president of the united states said "we had that thing, you know," i'd like to know what the hell that thing is, particularly if i'm the director of the f.b.i. >> yeah, i get that, senator. honestly, i tell you what, this is speculation, but what i concluded at the time is, in his

memory, he was searching back to our encounter at the dinner and was preparing humself to say, i offered loyalty to you, you promised loyalty to me, and all of a sudden, his memory showed him that did not happen and he pulled up short. that's just a guess, but a lot of conversations -- >> i think i would have had some curiosity if it had been about me, to be honest with you. so are you aware of anything that would lead you to believe that the president or the members of the administration or the members of the campaign could potentially be used to coarse or blackmail the administration? >> that's a subject for investigations, not something i can comment on sitting here. >> but you reached that conclusion as far as secretary clinton is concerned, but you're not reaching a conclusion as far as this administration is concerned. are you aware of anything that would lead you to believe that

information exists that could coerce members of the administration or blackmail the administration? >> that's not a question i can answer, senator. >> senator's time's expired. thank you. ime's expired for the hearing. can i say for members, we'll reconvene promptly at 1:00 p.m. in the hearing room. we have a vote scheduled for 1:45. i would suggest that all members promptly be there at 1:00. we have about three minutes. i would like to have order. photographers -- photographers return to where you were, please. this hearing is not adjourned yet. either that or we'll remove you. to members, we have about three minutes of updates that we would love to cover as soon as we get

into the closed session before we have an opportunity to spend some time with director comey. based on our agreement, it would be my intentions to adjourn that closed hearing between 2:00 and 2:10 so that members can go vote, and i would urge you to eat at that time. jim, several of us on this committee have had the opportunity to work with you since you walked in the door. i want to say personally, on behalf of all the committee members, we're grateful to you for your service to your country, not just in the capacity as f.b.i. director, but as prosecutor and more importantly being somebody that loves this country enough to tell it like it is. i want to say to your workforce that we're grateful to them with the level of cooperation that they have shown us, with the trust we've built between both organizations, the congress and the bureau. we couldn't do our job if it wasn't for their willingness to

share can dudley with us the work that we need to see. this is the ninth public hearing this committee has had this year. that is twice the historical year-long average of this committee. i think the vice chairman and my's biggest challenge when this investigation has concluded is to return our hearings to the secrecy of a closed hearing, to encourage our members not to freely talk about intelligence matters publicly, and to respect the fact that we have a huge job, and that's to represent the entire body of the united states senate and the american people to make sure that we work with the intelligence community to provide you the tools to keep america sov and that you do -- america safe and that you do it within the legal limit or those limits set by the executive

branch. we could not do it if it were not for the trusted partnership that you have been able to lead, and others before you. so, as we depart from this, this is a pivotal hearing in our investigation, we're grateful to you for the professionalism you've shown and your willingness. i will turn to the vice chairman. >> i simply want to echo, again, the thanks for your appearance, and there clearly still remain a number of questions, and the one thing i want to commit to you and more importantly, chairman, i want to commit to all those who are still potentially watching and following, there are still a lot of unanswered questions and we're going to get to the bottom of this, we're going to get the facts out. the american people deserve to know. there are the questions around implications of trump officials and the russias, but there is also the macro issue of what the russians did and continue to do, and i think it is very important that all americans realize that threat is real, it is

continuous, it is not just towards our nation, it is all towards all western democracies and we have to come to a solution, sir. thank you, mr. chairman. >> director comby, thank you once again on behalf of the committee. this hearing is adjourned. >> this is a cbs news special report of the testimony of james comey in front to have the senate intelligence committee. the committee just wrapped up the public session and will now question the former f.b.i. director in a private session where classified information can be discussed. it has been an historic hearing definitely and we are expected to hear a response to comey in the next hour from president trump's pemple lawyer, when marc kasowitz speaks, we will bring it to you in a cbs news special report. >> the president is addressing the speech to freedom row. he has not directly addressed the comey testimony but described his administration as being under siege and vowed not to back down. >> let's bring in joh