it's a question of gathering the evidence and applying it under the tools. >> in response to a question earlier you stated that you fully expect russia to continue to be engaged in efforts to influence our elections and you expect them to be back in 2018 and in 2020. what more should we be doing both to defend our election infrastructure and our future elections against continuing russian sbfrninterference and w more is the agency doing to help our allies in countries like on france and germany that have upcoming elections where there is ever reason to bleach the russians are actively interfering there, as well? >> i think two things that we can do and are doing both in the united states and with our allies is telling the people responsible for protecting the election infrastructure everything we know about how the russians and others tried to attack those systems, how they might come at it, what ip addresses they might use, what phishing techniques they might

use and we've shared the same thing with our allies. one. two, to equip the american people and our allies to understand that this is going on. because a big part of what the russians did was pushing out false forks he cinformation, ec with the troll farms. and we can tell the american voter this is going on. you should be skeptical, you should ask question, you should understand the nature of the news that you're getting. and we've delivered that same message to our european colleagues. and an interesting thing is happening. marketplace of ideas is responding. because it's not a role for government. people are out there using the power of social media to push back against this kind of thing in france, netherlands, germany and i hone it will happen here in the united states where ordinary citizens will see this bogus stuff going on and push back. got to have good troll armies pushing back the other way so the marketplace of information is better educated frankly. >> it's an optimistic vision and

i appreciate it, and i also appreciate the work the fbi continues do to strengthen our defenses. but i think there is more to do. you certainly as you have of itted before made a great deal of news just before our own election. and i'm struck that you chose to make public statements about one investigation and not another. the investigation we now know that was ongoing into the trump campaign and investigation ongoing into secretary clinton. how has the approach taken with regard to the clinton investigation been memorialized and have you modified in any way fbi or department procedures regarding disclosure of information concerning investigations particularly close an election? >> we have not. and the reason for that is everything that we did that i did was in my view consistent with existing department of justice policy. that is, we don't confirm the existence of investigations except in unusual circumstances.

we don't talk about investigations that don't result in criminal charges unless there is a compelling public interest. and so those principles should still govern. we also whenever humanly possible avoid any action that might have an impact on an election. i still believe that to be true and incredibly important guiding principle, one that i labored under here. frankly as i said earlier, didn't think i had a choice because i could only have two actions before me, i couldn't find a door labeled no action. so those principles still exist. they are incredibly important. the current investigation with respect to russia, we've confirmed it, the department of justice authorized knee cme to m it exists. we won't say another word until we're done. and then i hope we'll figure out if it doesn't result in charges what if anything will we say about it. >> i do think there was a third door available to you in late last year just before the election, and that was to confirm the exist about tense of an ongoing investigation about the 2ru6r78 campaign.

which i think was of compelling interest and was an unusual circumstance, an activity by a known adversary to interfere in our election. had there been public notice that there was renewed investigation in to both campaigns, i think the impact would have been different. would you agree? >> no. i thought a lot about this and my judgment was counterintelligence -- we have to separate two things. i thought it was very important to call out what the russians were trying to do with our election. and i offered in august myself to be a voice for that in a public piece calling it out, the obama administration didn't take advantage of that in august. they did it in october. but i thought that was very important to call out. that is a separate question from do you con on firm the existence of a classified investigation that has just started to try and figure out are there any connections between that russian activity and u.s. persons that started in late july. remember, the hillary clinton investigation, we didn't confirm it existed until three months

after it started and it started publicly. so i thought the consistent principle would be we don't confirm the existence of certainly any investigation that involves a u.s. person, but a classified investigation in its early stages. we don't know what we have, what is there. and so my judgment was consistent with the principles i've always operated under, that was the right thing to do. separately i thought it was very important to call out and tell the american people that russians are trying to mess with your elections. >> well, i hope that in the future that attempt to draw attention to russian interference in an election which you testified you expect to continue will be effective. let me ask one last question if i might. there is a lot of ways that the fbi helps state and local law enforcement, one i've been grateful for was the violence reduction network through which the fbi provided much needed assistance to wilmington police department, my hometown, where we've had a dramatic spike in violence. i'd be interested in hearing how you imagine or how you intend that the fbi will continue to assist local law enforcement in

combatting unprecedented spikes in violent crime in a few of our communities such as will minken to where they have happened. >> and the vrn, violence reduction network, because piloted in wilmington and a small number of other places and we believe it works. where the fbi brings to a fight that is primarily a state and local fight our technology, our intelligence expertise at figuring out how to connect dots and which of the bad guys we should focus on and then our a littles agents and their ability to make cases. so we're trying to do it in cities around the country.s age to make cases. so we're trying to do it in cities around the country. about half of america's biggest cities saw another rise in violence the first quarter of this year, so we're trying to do what we've done in wilmington in those places, as well. >> i appreciate your efforts to support local law enforcement. thank you. >> good morning, mr. director. it's afternoon now. assume for a second that i'm not

a united states senator and that i don't have a security clearance to look at classified information. if someone sends me classified information and i know or should know it's classified information, and i read it, have i committed a crime? >> potentially. >> has the person who sent me the information committed a crime? >> potentially. if they knew you didn't have appropriate clearance and a need to know. >> was there classified information on former congressman weiner computer? >> yes. >> who sent to him? >> his then spouse huma abedine appears to have had a regular practice of forwarding e-mails to him for him i think to printout for her so she could then deliver them to secretary of state. >> did former congressman weiner read the classified material? >> i don't think so. i think his -- i don't think

we've been able to interview him because he has pending criminal problems of other sorts. but my understanding is that his role would be to print them out as a matter of convenience. >> if he did read them, would he have committed a crime? >> potentially. >> would his spouse have committed a crime? >> again, potentially. it would depend upon a number of things. >> is there an investigation with respect to the two of them? >> there was. we completed it. >> why did you conclude neither of them committed a crime? >> because with respect to ms. abedine in particular, we didn't havefully indication that she had a sense that what she was doing was in violation of the law. couldn't prove any sort of criminal intent. really the central problem we had with the whole e-mail investigation was proving that people knew, the sect aretary a others knew that they were communicating about classified information in a way that they shouldn't be and proving that

they had some sense that they were doing something unlawful. that was our burden and we weren't able to meet it. >> so she thought it was okay to send her husband the information? >> well, i think -- i don't want to get too much into what she thought. we could not prove that the people sending the information either in that case or in the other case with the secretary were acting with any kind of mens rea, with any kind of criminal intent. >> assume for a second again i'm not a united states senator. i'm working for a presidential campaign. and i'm contacted by a russian agent and he just wants to talk about the campaign in general and strategy. am i committing a crime? >> harder to answer. i probably don't want to answer even in a hypothetical given the work that we're doing. >> all right. let me try this way.

let's assume that i'm not a united states senator and i'm working for a presidential campaign. and i'm contacted by a russian agent who says i've got some hacked e-mails here and i want to visit with you about them. am i committing a crime? >> also, senator, i think i should resist arnsing thnswerin hypothetical. >> include to me now the law but just in your personal opinion when interrogation techniques become torture? >> you mean not the law? >> that's right. >> there is a statue that defines torture in the united states. so that as a lawyer and as a member of law enforcement organization, that's where i would start, that the definition of torture is laid out in american statutes.

i'm not sure are i understand what you mean beyond that. >> i'm asking your personal opinion about what you think constitutes torture. where you personally would draw the line drawing on your substantial experience. >> i'd say in general any conduct that involves the intentional infliction of physical pain or discomfort in order to obtain information is in the colloquial sense torture. may not be torture under the statute which congress chose to define at a fairly high level. but as a human being and an fbi director, i consider the infliction of physical pain and discomfort to be by and large colloquially torture. >> any kind of physical pain or discomfort? suppose you just served someone bad food. >> well, again, tricky for us because the fbi is very careful never to inflict intentionally inflict physical pain or discomfort of any sort to try

and question somebody. so -- >> i understand. >> are so item say, yeah, that is conduct you should stay way clear of. it's also ineffective. but that is another deal. >> do you think it is possible from a law enforcement perspective to properly vet a nonamerican, noncitizen i should say, coming to the united states from a conflict area such as syria? >> it's difficult to do it perfectly. and i have concerns about the ability to vet people coming from areas where we have no relationship on the ground with the government there. and so i suppose it's possible do it reasonably. there are a number of tools you could bring to bear, but there are always risks associated with that. >> how do you do it? you can't call the chamber of

commerce in syria. how do you do it? >> well, we do it now, we query the holdings of the entire american intelligence community to see if any what we call selectors, phone numbers, e-mails, addresses associated with that person have ever shown up anywhere in the world in about our holdings. that's a pretty good way do it. getting into the person's social media to see what they have there is another pretty good way do it. the way we rely on in most cases is the host government will have information about them. >> and i'm looking up my article here. go ahead. >> and in iraq, we had the united states military presence for many years and collected a whole lot of bio met frickes so we can query that to see if the person's fingerprints ever showed up. >> let me stop you for one moment. how about yemen? >> similarly difficult. >> i yield back my three

seconds. >> thank you. you've been getting a lot of questions surrounding your decision to making certain statements about the investigation into secretary clinton's e-mails. and to many of us, you treated the investigation of the clinton e-mail investigation or matter whatever you want to call it differently than how you treated the ongoing oinvestigation of te trump campaign and russian attempts to interfere with the elections. and while -- if i can understand correctly, you felt free to speak about the clinton investigation because it had been completed when you had your press conference in july of 2016? >> correct. >> and you do confirm that there is still an ongoing investigation of the trump campaign and their conduct with regard to russian efforts to undermine our elections?

>> we're conducting an investigation to understand whether there was any coordination between the russian efforts and anybody associated with the trump campaign. >> so since you've already confirmed that such an investigation is ongoing, can you tell us more about what constitutes that investigation? >> no. >> in july of 2016 when you announced that you were not going to be bringing criminal charges against senator clinton because you did need to show intent and there was no intent discovered, you spoke for 15 minutes not only did you say that you were not going to bring criminal charges against her by the way which you said at the end of your 15 minutes, but you went on to chastise her saying that she -- >> and as you can see, this is andrea mitchell in new york today, and in washington president trump and palestinian president mahmoud abbas is about to speak. as you know, president trump is

a strong assumer of israel and not of the palestinian state. >> i'm pleased to welcome president abbas to the white house for his first visit to washington in quite a while. almost 24 years ago it was on these grounds that president abbas stood with a courageous peace maker, enisraeli prime minister rabine. here at the white house president abbas signed a declaration of principles, very important, which laid the foundation for peace between the israelis and palestinians. the president and mr. president, you signed your name to the first israeli/palestinian peace agreement. you remember that well, right? and i want to support you in being the palestinian leader who signs his name to the final and

most important peace agreement that brings safety, stability, prosperity to both peoples and to the region. i'm committed to working with israel and the palestinians to reach an agreement, but any agreement cannot be imposed by the united states or by any other nation. the palestinians and israelis must work together to reachage agreement that allows both peoples to live is, worship and thrive and prosper in peace. and i will do whatever is necessary to facilitate the agreement, to mediate, to arbitrate, anything that they would like to do. but i would love to be a immediate eight amediat mediator or arbitrator and we will get this done. peace also means defeating isis and other terrorist groups. these groups are a threat to all people who chair requierish hum. i know president abbas has spoken out against isis and

other trirs groerrorist groups must continue to billed our partnership with the palestinian security forces to counter and defeat terrorism. i also applaud is the palestinian authorities continued security coordination with israel. they get along unbelievably well. i had meetings and at these meetings, i was actually very impressed and somewhat surprised at how well they get along. they work together beautifully. but there can be no lasting peace unless the palestinian leaders speak in a unified voice against incitement to violate and violence and hate. there is such hatred. but hopefully there won't be such hatred for very long. all children of god must be taught to value and respect human life and condemn all of those who target the innocent.

as part of our efforts to move forward toward peace today, we will also discuss my administration's effort to help unlock the potential of the palestinian people through new economic about opportunities. lastly, i want to note the positive ongoing partnership between the united states aunnd the palestinians on a range of issues, private sector development and job creation, regional security, counterterrorism, and the rule of law. all of which are essential to moving forward toward peace. i welcome president abbas here today as a demonstration of that partnership, that very special partnership that we all need to make it all work. and i look forward to welcoming him back as a great mark of progress and ultimately toward the signing of a document with the israelis and with israel

toward peace. we want to create peace between israel and the palestinians. we will get it done. we will be working so hard to get it done. it's been a long time. but we will be working diligently. and i think it is a very, very good chance and i think you feel the same way. mr. president, thank you very much. [ speaking foreign language ] >> mr. president i would like to thank you for this honorable invitation to come and meet but and i look forward to working with you in order to come to

that deal, to that historic deal to bring about peace. >> translator: mr. president, our strategic option, our strategic choice is to bring about peace based on the vision of the two state, a palestinian state with its capital of east jerusalem that lives in peace and stability with the state of israel based on the borders of 1967. [ speaking foreign language ]

>> translator: mr. president for us to bring about a comprehensive and just peace based on the two state solution, such matter would give a great imimpetus and other international initiatives as well as it enables to fight and

deter terrorism and fight the criminal isis group, isis that is totally innocent and has nothing to do with our noble religion. and that also if we create peace that is just and comprehensive, that will also lead arab and islamic countries to have normal relations with israel based as stipulated in the previous arab summits, the latest of which was the arab summit in jordan. [ speaking foreign language ] >> translator: mr. president, we believe that we are capable and

able to bring about success to our efforts because, mr. president, you have the determination and you have the desire to see it become to fruition and to become successful. and we mr. president, we are coming into a new opportunity, a new horizon that would enable us to bring about peace in that regard. [ speaking foreign language ] >> translator: mr. president, as far as a permanent solution, we

believe that this is possible and able to be rye solesolved. i am firmly believing that we are able to resolve it and in that i also believe that we will be able to resolve the issue of the refugees and the issue of the prisoners. according to the international law, according to the terms of international law, the international legitimacy and various relevant references in terms of reference in that regard and based on what is stipulated in the previous treaties and agreements, that no unilateral steps must be taken to get ahead of the agreement and discussing those issues. [ speaking foreign language ]

>> translator: mr. president, it's about time for israel to end its occupation of our people and our land after 50 years. we are the only remaining people in the world that still live under occupation. we are aspiring and want to achieve our freedom, our dignity, and our right to self-determination and we also want for israel to recognize the palestinian state just as the palestinian people recognize the state of israel. [ speaking foreign language ]

t . >> translator: mr. president, i affirm to you take we are raising our children and grandchildren owe-- owe on a cu of peace to live like the other children in the world along with the israeli children in peace, treatment and security. [ speaking foreign language ]

>> translator: mr. president i bring with me today the message of the suffering ever my people as well as aspirations and hopes of the palestinian people from the holy land. where the jewish faith, christian faith and muslim faith, where they all co-exist together to move forward in an environment of security, peace and stability and love for all. [ speaking foreign language ] #

. >> translator: mr. president, i believe that we are capable under your leadership and your stewardship, your courageous stewardship and your wisdom, as well as your great negotiating ability, i believe with the grace of god and with all of your effort, we believe that we can become will of-we can be partner, true partners to you to bring about a historic peace treaty under your stewardship to bring about peace. >> now mr. apresident we have hope. >> thank you very much. so we are going to start a process, we've spoken to bibi netanya netanyahu, we've spoken to many of the great israeli leaders.

we've spoken with many of your great representatives, many of them are here today for lunch with us. we'll start a process which hopefully will lead to peace over the course of my lifetime. i've always heard that perhaps the toughest deal to make is the deal between the israelis and the palestinians. let's see if we can prove them wrong. okay? >> okay. >> good. thank you. thank you very much, everybody. thank you. >> and there was an historic meeting. donald trump and mahmoud abbas. with me, kelly o'donnell is at the white house. and you heard abbas laying out the terms on refugees, two state solution, whereas the president was speaking this broad strokes, but indicating that he wants to be the deal maker and we know that he's con signed a lot of this to jared kushner. >> you can see a lot of the

differences particularly in the details. and what you heard from president trump there and i was watching very closely, made no reference to the core issues of the conflict. borders, refugees, settlements. none of that came up when he said well will achieve peace and make a beautiful deal. but when you heard the palestinian president speak, you heard him refer to international law, to previous agreements, to the two state solution. >> occupation. >> to occupation, what israel has been doing for 50 years. >> and this is where it will get tricky because these are the issues that have always stalled the international community, is that up these core issues getting the two sides closer to agree on any of these issues seems to be further away now than it has ever been and president trump made no reference to how his deal is going to look like or whether even or not he support as two state or one state solution. >> and there is a lot of movement today on health care.

at least fred upton the michigan republican very moderate congress member who has made deals before with others of his counterparts, he's a negotiaton, he has come up with a solution or at least an amendment that would include pre-existing conditions as a benefit and brought it to the president. where does it stand now, do they have the votes? >> well, that remains an open evidence, however it appears that they are closer to having the votes on what is certainly in terms of magnitude someoneone most important domestic efforts. the president had a meeting with four house republicans who were wanting to get to yes, but really had an issue with how the overhaul from the republican point of view of obamacare changing that dramatically would affect those with pre-existing conditions. after the president has said in a number of interviews that pre-existing conditions would be fine and there are others who did not believe that would be the case.

so bottom line is this would be an additional $8 billion over five years to help those get coverage who have pre-existing conditions. it appears a vote could happen this week, but paul ryan has been adamant no vote until he's certainly he has the votes. we think it's within a handful now of being able to pass. >> and let's go back to capitol hill where the senate judiciary committee is continuing its questioning of james comey. right now senator blumenthal asking whether a special prosecutor is needed now that attorney general jeff sessions has recused himself from the russian investigation into whether there was collusion from the trump campaign. >> so far as the investigation, on going investigation into trump associates and their potential collusion with the russian meddling in our election, will you be providing any updates to the american people? >> certainly not before the matter is concluded and then depending upon how the matter is

concluded, some are concluded with criminal charges and then there is a public accounting and charging document. other matters as with the e-mail investigation end with no charges but some statement of some sort. others end with no statement. i don't know yet. and obviously i'd want to do that in about close coordination with the department. >> will you make recommendations to presumably it would be the deputy attorney general or the special prosecutor if one is a pointed as to whether criminal charges should be brought? >> i don't know in this case in particular, but in general we almost always do especially the highest profile matters. >> but you cannot yourself pursue criminal charges, correct? >> correct. >> i think that is important for the american people to understand because it bears on the question of whether a special prosecutor ought to be a pointed. the fooik mbi cannot bring char neither can the intelligence committees do so. authorize c

nor can an independent economics, only the deputy attorney general otherr a speci prosecutor designated by him, correct? >> correct. >> let me close because i am running out of time, have you been questioned at all by the inspector general in connection with the inquiry that i understand is ongoing into a number of the topics that we've been discussing here? >> yes, i've been interviewed. the inspector general is inspecting me and looking at my conduct in the course of the e-mail investigation. and i encourage, i want that inspection because i want my story told because some of if is classified, but also if i did something wrong, i want to hear that. i don't think i did, but i've been interviewed and i'm sure i'll be interviewed again. >> do you have any regrets or are there any things that you would do differently in connection with either the

comments you made at the time you close onned the investigation or when you then indicated to congress that you were in effect reopening it? >> the honest has is no. i've asked myself that a million times because lordy has this been painful. only thing he regret is maybe answering the phone when they called me to recruit me to be fbi director. >> we would welcome you back to connecticut. >> but i can't. and i've gotten all kinds of rocks thrown at me and this has been really hard, but i think i've done the right thing at each turn. i'm not on anybody's side. so he hard for people to see that. but i've asked that a million times. should you have done this, should you have done that? and the honest answer, i don't mean to sound arrogant, i wouldn't have done it any different. somehow i would have wished it away, wished that i was on the shores of the connecticut sound, but failing that, i don't have any regrets. >> i want to ask one last question unrelated to this topic

on the issue of gun violence. would you agree that universal background checks would help with law enforcement in prevention of gun violence? >> the momore able we keep gush out of criminals and spouse abusers, the better. >> i'll take that as a yes. thank you. >> i'll call on senator tillis. i think we have one member if that member is coming back for first round, then we have three or four, maybe five of us that want a second round. so i hope that people will get back here so we know exactly how many people we have out of coof courtesy to director comey. sno senator tillis. >> thank you for being here. i'm always impressed with your composure and your preparation. and i want to get to a couple of other things maybe first then if i have time come back to what

the hearing has been predominantly about. when you briefed us last year, i think that you said that there were some -- that there were ongoing investigations on homeland security potential terrorists either homegrown or foreign inspired investigations in every state. is that still the case? >> yes. >> you can give me roughly an idea of the number of investigations that is? >> yeah, it's just north of 1,000. thoo ca that caseload has stayed about the same. some have closed, some have are opened, but 1,000 homegrown violent extremists investigations in the united states. >> and at the time i also asked the question about to what extent that you can discuss in in setting were people who were the target of those investigations persons who came in through various programs where questions about vetting have been raised as to whether or not they are accurate.

at the time, there were a dozen and a half i think that you may have estimated. do you have any rough numbers about that? >> i do. we have about 1,000 homegrown vie on lent extremist investigations and we probably have another 1,000 or so that are -- i should define my terms. homegrown violent extremists, we have no indication that they are in touch with any foreigners. then we have another big group of people that we're looking at who we see some contact with foreign terrorists. so you take that 2,000 plus cases. about 3 about 00 of them are people who came to the united states as refugees. >> okay. and to what extentabout 00 of t people who came to the united states as refugees. >> okay. and to what extentbout 00 of th people who came to the united states as refugees. >> okay. and to what extentout 00 of thee who came to the united states as refugees. >> okay. and to what extentut 00 of them who came to the united states as refugees. >> okay. and to what extentt 00 of them who came to the united states as refugees. >> okay. and to what extent 00 of them a who came to the united states as refugees. >> okay. and to what extent00 of them aro came to the united states as refugees. >> okay. and to what extent hr of -- yo mentioned that there were about half of the various computer devices that you can't get into with any technology that the fbi has which i assume is some of the most advanced available.

to what extent is the access to that information relevant in these investigations of potential homeland threats? >> i would say it's a feature of all our work, but especially concerning here because we're trying through lawful process figure out are they couplinging this poison on the internet and are they in touch with anybody. so it's true in terrorism cases about half the devices we can't open. about 90 some percent of our subjects are using at least one encrypted app, as well. >> so just because of physical and technological constraints, half of the base of information you can't get to. without 702, how much more of the remaining half would be harmed? >> the 702 actually addresses a different challenge. losing 702 would be disastrous because it would lose our -- >> it is relevant in these investigations. >> it is. because -- >> that's what i mean. so half of the physical assets, you can't already getting acces. and then there is the metadata and all the other information that would be instructive to these investigations. so by going dark, do we mean

100%? >> we're headed towards 100%. 702 is our window into the raeld bad guys overseas. and if we close that, i don't know why on earth we would close that window -- >> so we have thousands of investigations of potential home loond securi land security threats either by people who have self radicalized, some influenced, some who have come over in refugee programs that we will basically pull the rug out from under you in terms of being able to actively investigate them or i should say expeditiously investigate them? >> certainly impair our ability. folks say why don't you get metadata. you can't convict them based on metadata. >> you have to drill down. i want to go back to the investigation. and i just want to give you an another opportunity to maybe finish by explaining the context that you were operating in, but i want to create a context going back to the investigation first began. it was already a part of media attention and i think on june

27th, the then attorney general met with the spouse of someone who is subject to an active investigation which was at the very least an unusual encounter which also spun up the media. and then i think it was july 5 that you made the statement that i think a few of the things you've said, that i guess based on the evidence you were gathering, it was like removing a frame from a huge vin be damage jigsaw puzzle and dumping pieces on the floor, something else that the media ties into. and then you said there is evidence of potential violations of statutes regarding the handling of classified information. and you went on to say that under similar circumstances, a person who is engaged in these activities would likely be subject to security or administrative sanctions. that was the tough part of the statement that you made. but you went on to say that you didn't believe a reasonable minded prosecutor would bring a case even though there was evidence of potential

violations. and that you were expressing your view that the justice department should not proceed. is that typical for you to go to a point and say i've gathered this information, there may be evidence of violations, but we don't think any prosecutor in the doj would pursue it, therefore we will recommend not pursuing it? is that common? >> for an fbi director to do that? i've never heard of it or imagined it ever until this circumstance. >> was there some logic in that at the time that you were making that decision based on the information that you were provided, was there the same sort of not process to have it rise to that level that then led to your october 28 notification of congress that you had to look at other evidence that had been identified on anthony weiner's pc? what i'm trying to do, it looks like you were trying to provide as ever real time information as you had. >> yeah. >> and then on november 6, the

fbi apparently moved heaven and earth and got something done in a matter of days that they thought was going to take i don't understand tbeyond the election. i just want to give you an opportunity to glue togetherund election. i just want to give you an opportunity to glue together the decision for your actions on july 5 and how there are parallels between that and what you ultimately did on october 28 and then november 6. and i'll yield back the remaining of my time for the answer. >> and i've lived my whole life caring about the credibility and integrity of the criminal justice process, that the american people believe to be and that it be in fact fair, independent and honest. so what i struggled with in the spring of last year was how do we credibly complete the investigation of hillary clinton's e-mails if we conclude there is no case there. the normal way do it would be have the department of justice announce it. and i struggled as we got closer to the end of it with a number

of things had gone on, some of which i can't talk about yet, that made me worry that the department leadership could not credibly complete the investigation and decline prosecution without grievous damage to the american people's confidence in the justice system. and thend th and then the capper was, i like loretta lynch, but her meeting with president-elect on that plane was the capper for me. and i said the department cannot by itself end this. the best chance is if i do something i never imagined before, step away from them and tell the american people, look, here's what the fooiblg dibi di what we think. and that offered us the best chance of the american people believing in the system that it was done in a credible way. that was a hard call to me to call the attorney general and say i'm about do a press conference and i'm going to tell you what i'm going to say. i hope some day you understand

why i have do this. i thought this is the best way to protect these institutions that we care so much about. and having done that,ing and then having testified repeatedly under oath we're done this, was done in a credible way, there is no there there, that when the anthony weiner thing landed on me on october 27 and this was a huge new step to be taking, we may be findings golden missing e-mails that would change this case, if i were not to speak about with that, it would be a disastrous catastrophic concealment. it was incredibly painful choice, but actually not all that hard between with very bad and catastrophic. i had to tell congress that we were taking these additional steps. i prayed to find a third door. i couldn't find it. two actions speak or conceal. i don't think many reasonable people would do it differently than i did no matter what they say today. if you were standing there staring at that on october 28, would you rather conceal that? so i spoke. again, the design was to act credibly, independently and

honestly so so the american people know that the system is not rigged and that's why i felt transparency was the best path in july. in october i sent the letter only to the chairs and rankings. did i know that they would looel leak it? of course. i know how congress works. but i did not make an announcement. and my amazing people moved heaven and earth to do what was impossible to get through those e-mails by working 24 hours a day and then said honestly, sir, we found tons ever nof new stuf doesn't change our view. and i said are you sure. they said we're sure, we don't believe there is a case against hillary clinton. and then i said by god i have to tell congress that. and know i'm going to get a storm at me for that. but what i can promise you all along i said to people you may think we're idiots, we're honest people. we made judgments trying to do the right thing and i believe even with hindsight we made the right decisions. and i'm sorry for that long answer. >> director comey, we have seven

times six is 42 minutes. i hope you won't want to take a break. >> i'm made of stone. >> thank you. >> on march 6, i wrote to you asking about the fbi's relationship with the author of the trump dossier christopher steele. most ever the of these answers not been answered. prior to the bureau launching the investigation of the alleged ties between trump campaign and russia, did anyone from the fbi have interactions with mr. steele regarding the issue? >> that's not a question that i can can answer in this forum. i've briefed you privately on this and if there is more that is necessary, then i'd be happy do it privately. >> have you ever represented to a judge that the fbi had interaction with mr. steele whether by name or not regarding

alleged ties between the trump campaign and russia prior to the bureau launching its investigation of the matter? >> i have to give you the same answer, mr. chairman. >> this one i'm going to expect an answer on. do fbi policies, just the policies, allow to pay an outside investigator for work another source is also paying him for as well? want me to repeat it? do fbi policies allow to pay an outside investigator for work that another source is also paying that investigation greor? >> possibly is my answer, but i'll get and yyou a precise ans. >> in writing. >> sure. >> did the fbi provide any payments whatsoever to mr. steele related to the investigation of trump associates? >> i'm back to my first -- i can't answer in this forum.

>> was the fbi aware that mr. steele reportedly paid his sources who in turn paid their sub sources to make the claim in the dossier. >> same answer, sir. >> here's one you ought to be able to answer. is it vital to know whether or not sources have been paid in order to evaluate their credibility, and if they have been paid, doesn't that information need to be disclosed if you're relying on that information in seeking approval for investigative authority? >> i think in general, yes. i think it is vital to know. >> the fbi and the justice department have provided me material inconsistent answers in closed settings about its reported relationship with mr.

steele. will you commit to fully answering the questions from my march 6th and april 28th letter in providing all requested documents so we can resolve those inconsistencies, even if in a closed session being necessary? >> because as i sit here, i don't know all the questions are in the letters. i don't want to answer that specifically. but i commit to giving you all the information you need to address just that challenge, because i don't believe there's any inconsistency. i think there's a misunderstanding. but in a classified setting, i'll give you what you need. >> okay. well, i hope to show you those inconsistencies. >> i think i know where the confusion is, but in a classified setting we can straighten it out. >> the next question. according to a complaint filed with the justice department, the company that oversaw dossier's creation, was also working with a former russian intelligence

operative on a pro-russian lobbying project at the same time the company fusion g.p.s. a allegedly failed to register as a foreign agent, which is a law that lets the president punish russian officials who violate human rights. were you aware of the complaint against fusion was acting as an unregistered agent for russian interests? >> that's not a question i can answer in this forum. >> you can't answer that? >> no, no, i can't. >> i'll go on to something else. last week, the fbi filed a declaration in court pursuant to freedom of information act litigations. the fbi said that a grand jury issued subpoenas for secretary

clinton's e-mails. yet you refused to tell this committee whether the fbi sought or had been denied access to grand jury process from the justice department. so i think a very simple question, why does the fbi give more information to someone who files a lawsuit than to an oversight committee in the congress, and that has happened to me several times? >> i'm not sure, senator, whether that's what happened here. but you're right, i refused to confirm in our hearings whether we used a grand jury and how. i think that's the right position. because i don't know it well enough, i don't think i can tell you -- i don't think i can distinguish t distinguish as i sit here. >> just as a matter of proposition here, if i as chuck grassley file a freedom of information act and you give me more information than you give to senator chuck grassley, how

do you justify that? >> that's a good question. >> what do you mean, it's good question? how do you justify snit >> it's a good question. i can't as i sit here. >> eee gads. was the clinton investigation named operation mid year because it needed to be finished before the democratic national convention? if so, why the artificial deadline. if not, why was that the name? >> certainly not because it had to be finished by a particular date. there's an art and a science to how we come up with code names for cases. they assure me it's done randomly. sometimes i see some that make me smile. but it was called mid year exam was the name of the case. ky assure you the name was not selected for any nefarious purpose or any timing on the investigation. >> last question, when was the grand jury convened, before your first public statement about closing the case?

>> i'm still not in a position where i'm comfortable confirming whether and how we used a grand jury if an open setting. i don't know enough about what was said in the foia case to know whether that makes my answer silly. but i want to be so careful talking about grand jury matters. so i'm not going to answer that, sir. >> senator feinstein. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. director, first of all, thank you for your fortitude going through this. i appreciate it. in your testimony, you noted that the first half of the fiscal year, the fbi was unable to access the content of more than 3,000 mobile devices. even though the fbi had the legal authority to do so. i'm familiar with one of those, and that is the southern california terrorist attack, where 14 people were killed if san bernardino. of those 3,000 devices that you

weren't able to access, can you say how many of these were related to a counterterrorism event? >> i don't know as i sit here, senator. but we can get you that information. >> i really very much appreciate that. we had looked at legislation that would take into consideration events of national security and provide that device s -- there must be some way of even going before a judge and getting a court order to be able to open the device. do you think that would work? >> that would sure to my mind be a better place for us to be from a public safety perspective. but we aren't there now. >> in terms -- this week, the

british parliament's home affairs select committee released a report finding that social media platforms, such as facebook, twit facebook, twitter, and youtube failed to post extremist material from terrorist and neonazi groups, even when that material was reported. the committee urged tech companies to pay for and publicize online content monitoring activities and called on the british government to strengthen laws related to the publication of such material. last year, i worked with senators burr, rubio, and nelson to introduce a bill to require tech companies to report terrorist activity on their platforms to law enforcement. what do you advise -- the

provision we modeled it after an existing law, which requires tech companies to notify authorities about cases of child pornography but does not require companies to monitor any user, subscriber, or customer. i plan to reintroduce the mae measure in separate legislation. so would the nfbi benefit knowig when terrorists are plotting and other illegal activity online? >> yes. >> would the fbi will willing to work with the judiciary committee going forward on this provision in >> yes, senator. we would be happy to work with you on it. >> well, i was so struck when san bernardino happened. you made overtures to allow that

device to be opened, and then the fbi had to spend $900,000 to hack it open. and as i subsequently learned of some of the reason for it, there were good reasons to get into that device. and the concern i have is that once people have been killed in a terrorist attack, and there may be other dna, there may be other messages that lead an investigative agency to believe that there are others out there. isn't it to the -- for the protection of the public that one would want to be able to see if a device could be opened and i've had a very hard time, i've tried going out, i've tried to talk to the tech companies in my state. one facebook was very good and

understood the problem. but most do not. has the fbi ever talked with the tech companies about this need in particular the >> yes, senator. we've had a lot of conversations. as i said earlier, in my sense, they've been getting more productive, because i think the tech companies have come to see the darkness a little bit more. my concern was, privacy is really important, but they didn't see the public safety cost. i think they're starting to see that better. what nobody wants to have happen is something terrible happen in the united states, and it be connected to our inability to access information with lawful authority and we ought to have the conversations before that happens, and the companies more and more get that. i think over the last year and a half. but it's vital. we weren't picking on apple in the san bernardino case. there were real reasons we needed to get into