messages, mr. strzok. >> yes, sir. and again, my impression, not stated by him, but my impression was that based on the appearance of those messages and in part of a desire by him to avoid even the appearance of any potential bias, that he asked me to return. but that's a question for him. >> but he kept everyone else in the investigation? >> sir, i don't know the staffing decisions made by director mueller after i departed. >> including 13 democrats. >> sir, i don't know the affiliation of the people on his team. >> so -- but he was concerned enough about your texts to remove you but you never felt concerned enough to remove yourself? >> that's correct. >> mr. strzok, you're going to get asked other questions here that relate to your transition from the investigation of ms. clinton into the beginnings of

this investigation into the trump campaign and the alleged collusion with the russian government. now, mr. strzok, the fbi is a creation of this body. congress created the fbi with its constitutional authority. today, you are here under subpoena. i know you've come voluntarily in your opinion but you're also under subpoena. also an exercise of congress' constitutional authority. which takes precedence? fbi policy, or the united states constitution? >> sir, always the united states constitution. my understanding is i am not here under subpoena, that i am here voluntarily. i understand a subpoena was issued for my prior closed interview but not for this session today. >> a subpoena was issued, and service of which was accepted. >> that's not my understanding, sir. >> in a supreme court case handed down just last year, the court reviewed whether statements made by a juror that

indicated racial bias required the piercing of jury deliberations. justice kennedy wrote the opinion of the court holding that racial bias exuded by a juror provided an exemplifies to the rule that juror deliberations must remain confidential because it is necessary, quote, to ensure that our legal system remains capable of coming ever closer to the promise of equal treatment under the law that is so central to a functioning democracy. on several occasions you've referenced that all the texts were simply permanent opinioson reflected to a close confidant. it is hard to imagine you would not be kicked off a jury immediately because of the risk that your bias would undermine a functioning democracy. do you still hold that personal opinions even in the face of supreme court precedent should not have tainted your involvement in any investigation relating to secretary clinton or

president trump? >> mr. chairman, i think you're mixing apples and oranges. i'm not an attorney and i'm not familiar with that supreme court ruling. based on what you said, protected categories, things like race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, are protected matters, the government may not and people may not be discriminated against based on their role in any one of those categories. that is entirely separate and distinct from political belief or opinion. that on the other hand is encouraged, is protected by the first amendment. and this body, under the hatch act, my understanding is -- >> no one stopped you from sending the texts, mr. strzok. but the special counsel, mr. mueller, removed you from the investigation when he saw the texts. >> that's true, sir, he did. now, if i may go back to answering your question, if i may, in terms of political speech, that is radically different from any sort of

protected category of race, gender, ethnicity, or other categories. political speech, political thought, is protected. the courts have recognized, the constitution recognizes, we all have political belief. and so when it comes to the expression of that political belief, that is something that this body under the hatch act enumerated the categories of what was prohibited and then expressly stated that if it is not prohibited, then it is expressly encouraged. so i would tell you that no one in here -- it's an impossible definition to say people must not have political opinion. everyone does. of course they do. the test is whether or not that is left behind when you're doing your job. to your question of whether or not i would express that in front of a jury, of course i wouldn't. that would be inappropriate. as to your question of whether each and every one of those jurors when they go home and sitting in the backyard with a friend, has a political opinion,

my answer would be undoubtedly all of those jurors would. >> but they're instructed when they leave the jury panel each day to not communicate with anyone regarding the matter that they are considering. so that is a very different thing. you were considering a matter and you were conducting texts of a very biased, salacious manner that was totally inappropriate. and when mr. mueller saw that, he removed you. >> sir, i appreciate that concern. but what i'm telling you is there is a vast difference in my mind between an action as a juror being instructed by a judge not to discuss the matters of a trial compared to a citizen of the united states -- >> you don't suppose there's a reason why -- >> -- discussing his -- >> you don't -- so the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. >> thank you. let me begin by congratulating the witness on his completely

correct statement of key first amendment law, that people are entitled to political opinions. now, you, sir, obviously expressed your political opinions as to mr. trump and hillary clinton and various others in text messages to lisa page. >> i did. >> and she to you. >> yes. >> and these were private political opinions. >> yes. >> which you did not express publicly. >> correct. >> and the inspector general found with respect to the investigation into hillary, quote, we found no evidence that the conclusions by the investigators were based on their political opinions. that is correct, that that is the finding of the ig? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. and with respect to the russia investigation, the ig said he was disturbed by the appearance that investigative decisions might be impacted by bias but

made no subpoena findings and in fact hadn't completed his investigation of the russia investigation; is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> now, when people talk about the appearance, whether people on this panel or the inspector general, the appearance of bias created by those text messages, those text messages might create the appearance of bias only if they're public, is that not correct? >> that's correct. >> because otherwise there would be no appearance. >> that's correct. >> and they were not intended to be public, were they? >> correct. >> they were communications between two private individuals. >> true. >> which are totally permitted. >> that's correct. >> now, are fbi agents permitted to have political opinions? >> yes. >> and as a 22-year veteran of the fbi, could you tell us without naming names, were you familiar with other fbi personnel having political opinions with respect to the presidential campaign? >> i was.

>> and were some of these people anti-trump? >> they were. >> and were some of these people pro-trump? >> yes. >> thank you. and to your knowledge, did any of the pro-trump bias or anti-trump bias or personal opinions affect investigations and decisions by the fbi? >> not to my knowledge. >> okay. now, you mentioned the hatch act. >> yes. >> under the hatch act, the fbi is prohibited, is it not, from inquiring as to the political opinions of people it is hiring? >> i don't know the hatch act well enough to tell you. >> well, i'll say that that is the case. the government may not under the hatch act inquire as to political opinions of people it is hiring for nonexempt positions. and to do so would be improper. and i must say that i think that all these inquiries about your political opinions as revealed by these text messages are irrelevant and wrong, unless it

can be shown, as it has not been shown, as was found definitely not to be the case in the hillary investigation and has not been shown in the russia investigation that they affected any decisions in the investigation. let's leave it at that on that point. mr. strzok, what is the fbi's policy -- oh, let me say one other thing. it is prudent, and i'll observe this, because you said you couldn't answer, it's obviously prudent of mr. mueller in finding these and hearing about all these text messages to think that they might be subject to correcting interpretations on publicity, and in order to avoid the kind of attacks on this investigation that we are seeing from republican member of this committee and from the administration, to ask you to leave that investigation, having nothing to do with your

competence or fairness in the investigation, but simply to somewhat insulate that investigation from unfair attacks. would you think that might be a correct -- >> yes. >> thank you. now, mr. strzok, what is the fbi's policy with respect to its agents commenting publicly about an ongoing criminal investigation? >> we don't do that. >> sorry? >> we do not do that. >> why is that policy in place? >> i think for a variety of reasons. one, i think it is inherently unfair to the subject of that investigation. it can tend to skew the conduct of that investigation, witnesses in other investigative avenues. it can skew potential jurors when a case is taken to prosecution. i can think of any number of reasons why we don't do that. >> thank you. are you familiar with the inspector general's report on the fbi's handling of the clinton investigation? >> i am. >> and that report was highly critical of director comey, was it not, for, among other things, departing from protocol and commenting publicly about an

ongoing criminal investigation? >> it did say that, yes. >> it was critical of him? >> yes. >> for doing that. and although some people have said that they don't agree with the decision not to charge mrs. clinton, in fact the departure from protocol was -- or the first depart from protocol, i should say, was director comey's commenting on his opinion about her handling of various e-mails and so forth, after deciding, after she wasn't charged, his protocol, departing from that. was that not one of deviations from protocol cited in that report? >> yes. >> thank you. has the fbi asked you to adhere to the policy of not commenting on ongoing criminal investigation, namely the russia investigation, today? >> yes. >> how so? >> my understanding is the general counsel of the fbi met with chairman goodlatte and his staff and came up with an approved list of topics that i might speak about and that

outside of that list, that i was not to discuss anything have to do with ongoing investigations. >> thank you. i will simply observe that asking you or anybody else like mr. rosenstein to comment on ongoing criminal investigations is against policy and is liable to taint those investigations and to damage the reputations of people or to even endanger the safety of informants as you have said. mr. strzok, you're an experienced counterintelligence official. can you explain why, briefly, because i think you touched on this in mr. cummings' questions, why the investigation into russia's attack on our elections and other infrastructure is important to our national security? >> i think it's extraordinarily important because of what it represents. the selection of our nation's leader, of the chief executive, of the person who is charged with the defense of the united states, the national security of the united states, whether that's militarily or economic, there is no greater responsibility in the land.

and the way we do that, the underpinning of what we are in america, the election, is the process by which we do that. so the idea that not only a foreign nation but an advanced hostile foreign nation would be inserting themselves clandestinely in that process to undermine the will of the united states is terrible. >> thank you. is that why you thought it was important to prioritize, i think it was in october of 2016, the russia investigation, and leave mr. weiner's laptop to someone else, you asked to look into it? >> the first reason i did is because the director told me to. the director said it was our top priority, relayed from him and the a.d. the second thing was, yes, when you look into allegation of resources, based on threat to national security, the russia investigations were a much greater impact than mishandling of classified information investigation. >> thank you. the first reason was the director told you to? >> yes, sir. >> thank you.

how frequently does the fbi engage in counterintelligence operations against foreign powers? >> every day. >> all the time? >> yes, sir. and this is how frequently does the fbi investigate a possible conspiracy between a presidential candidate or a campaign and a hostile foreign power? >> this is the first i can remember in my lifetime. >> is it fair to say we are in unprecedented territory? >> speaking from my experience, that's fair. ny experien-- my experience in . >> is it fair to say the country faced and is still possibly facing a grave threat from a hostile foreign power? >> it is. >> thank you. i think that is correct, mr. strzok. we know that russia, after successfully interfering with our last elections, is actively working to disrupt the elections in 2018. we are told this by all of our intelligence agencies all of whom stand by the 2017 assessment that the russian government waged a complex campaign to influence the 2016 election to the benefit of president trump. last week, the senate

intelligence committee on a bipartisan basis confirmed this assessment. and the director of national intelligence testified before the senate intelligence committee about an even more urgent threat. quote, there should be no doubt that russia perceived that its past efforts were successful and views the 2018 u.s. midterm elections as a potential target for russian midterm operations, close quote. and what is the majority's response to this problem? to launch an investigation into hillary clinton's e-mails and to do as much as they can to undermine special counsel robert mueller who is running perhaps the most consequential national security investigation of this generation. when they aren't bullying you and ms. page, mr. strzok, republicans are usually taking aim at deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. just as they insist on asking you questions about an ongoing investigation, questions you cannot answer, the majority insists on demanding some of the most sensitive information in the deputy attorney general's possession, documents he can't provide for the same reason.

they want copies of scoping documents that lay out the special counsel's exact lines of inquiry. such a disclosure would be dangerous and unprecedented. republicans are in effect demanding that doj violate the very policies the inspector general criticized the department for violating in 206. -- 2016. this is incredible inappropriate and dangerous and we are forced to ask ourselves why. why have house republicans been so dismissive of russia's attacks on the united states? why are republicans so intent on destroying public confidence in the justice department and in the special counsel's investigation? why have they abandoned house rules to pick totally unnecessary fights with you, mr. strzok, with lisa page, and with deputy attorney general rosenstein? the obvious answer is because they are scared, because president trump is scared, because the special counsel's investigation is operating in a breakneck pace and has already produced five guilty pleas and

criminal charges against 20 individuals and entities. because accountability is coming one way or another. and they are scared and they are trying to undermine the investigation and to distract attention. now, i must say the basis of many of these questions that we are hearing today of mr. strzok by the majority, by the republicans, is the 11th hour interview with mr. struzok. i now call upon the majority to release that transcript in full today. this will show that this is the entire joint investigation is at best a partisan distraction from more important matters. but the witness before us today, mr. strzok, testified, not under confidentiality, not under confidentiality rules, but in private, for 11 hours, there is nothing that prevents the majority from releasing that transcript. selective portions of that transcript have been leaked by members of the majority,

misleading portions, taken out of context. and i don't know if "demand" is the right word, but i'll demand it insofar as i can, that the transcript be released in full so that people can see it, see the testimony today, and can make better judgments. and i ask the chairman now to order the release of that transcript. will the chairman do so? >> not today. >> will the chairman ever do so? >> you can direct your questions to the witness. that's your time to do that, and not to discuss this. >> i will observe that the chairman will not answer the question and that this is part of the continuing evasion and attempt at obfuscation, because -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> no. not at the moment. i will when i finish the sentence. because we know the pattern. and the pattern is we're not

releasing transcripts except parts of them that may create -- that may convey the impression, false or true, that we want to convey. there is no legal reason why this transcript should not be released. there is only a partisan reason why this transcript should not be released. there is no valid reason why it should not be released. if there was a purpose to our inquiries, to our spending 11 hours, there's no reason they shouldn't be released. i'll yield now. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and i would just say it is very customary in investigations to keep transcripts of private interviews until the conclusion of the investigation. this investigation certainly hasn't concluded. and it is very appropriate that the questions that were asked and the answers given are not shared. >> reclaiming -- >> with other potential witnesses. >> reclaiming my time, i will observe that many of the same questions are being asked today, number one. but number two, given the fact

that selected portions of the transcript have been leaked, i think that changes it. i'll yield to mr. cicilline. >> i was going to inquire, i've been trying to get the answer to this question, to the extent that this transcript is available to all of us, i intend to release it. i can't find any prohibition that makes us unable to release it in our rules. we now have the same witness after 11 hours in a public hearing. the notion that we somehow have to keep this secret while pieces are being released is doing a real disservice to the american people. i'm asking the ranking member, is there any reason i can't release it as a member of the committee? >> will the member yield? i'm not aware of any. i would have to look at the house rules and all. i will yield. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. it is correct that both members on the republican side and the democratic side have used quotations from the transcript for the purpose of interviewing

and the hearing. that is a legitimate use of the transcript. >> reclaiming my time, some members have also used it for the purpose of talking to the news media. and that may or may not be an appropriate use. but be that as it may, the transcript should be released. i yield back. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i'll yield to the gentleman from maryland. >> i would like to ask the ranking member, if it's legitimate within the rulings of the committee and the house of representatives for members to release certain portions of the overall transcript, is there anything that would prevent us from releasing the entire transcript? >> i'm unaware of anything that would -- off the top of my head, that would prevent a member from releasing the transcript. but that's off the top of my head. i wouldn't want to say that definitively. >> mr. chairman, are you aware of anything that would preclude us from doing that?

>> why he, tyes, the decision me chairman of the committee. >> mr. chairman, i'm not in the practice of having the chair of the committee making decisions for me. is there a rule that prohibits me this afternoon from releasing this transcript? if it's just your preference, that's not sufficient. >> the chair of two committees are conducting an investigation. we will decide when transcripts of private interviews are going to be released. >> reclaiming. >> no one on this side of the aisle has released it other than to ask a question based upon it in a hearing. >> reclaiming my time. >> we could release it as part of this hearing. >> i will observe that some members have released parts of the transcript by being quoted in the media, not for questions here. does the gentleman from rhode island still want time? >> i just have a unanimous consent request. i ask unanimous consent that the transcript of this witness be made an official part of this record in its entirety. >> i object. >> objection is heard.

the gentleman from -- >> roll call vote. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. again, mr. chairman, this is of tremendous interest to the american people. there is an effort here to sort of characterize this witness's behavior, much ado has been made of it. we had an 11-hour hearing in which this witness has testified. he's now testifying consistently before the american people. there seems to me no good reason other than a personal preference of some, apparently, that this transcript not be released. and i would say to the chairman respectfully, if there is no prohibition, the fact that you would prefer we not is insufficient to persuade me and i think mr. raskin. and we intend to release this transcript, unless someone presents us with some rule under our house proceedings or this committee that prevent us from doing it. we'll give you until 5:00 this afternoon to present that. otherwise we intend to release the transcript. >> reclaiming my time. i'll simply -- i want to

associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from rhode island. i would agree with him. i think it would be a public service to release these transcripts. that's why i demanded they be released. there is no good reason not to. and at this point i think i'll yield back the balance of my time. >> so the chair wants to respond to the gentleman from rhode island. first of all -- >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> first of all, there was an agreement in the interview that it was private, confidential, and that it would not be released. so that is not going to take place under this set of circumstances. >> reclaiming. >> good day, i'm andrea mitchell in washington, while we watch this hearing. just to explain, they are now arguing, democrats versus republicans, over whether some of the lengthy transcripts from 11 hours of private testimony of peter strzok can be released as part of this hearing. so it is an argument over who controls those records and

whether it is the republican chairs of these two joint committees or whether the democrats should have some say. the democrats wanting the transcripts to be released, the republicans objecting. continued partisan bickering over peter strzok, former deputy head of fbi counterintelligence. we'll rejoin the hearing. >> if you object to the release of the transcript of that hearing? >> no, i would not object. >> thank you. i will observe, then, that the minority, the chairman says that there was an agreement on the conduct of that hearing. the minority was not party to that agreement. there may have been an agreement between mr. gowdy and mr. goodlatte but at no point where we asked. >> it was stated on the record in the hearing. >> it was stated as a decision, as a fact, as a fait accompli. we were not asked. we agreed to nothing because we were not asked. and we think that the transcripts ought to be released for the reasons stated.

and if the witness doesn't object, i don't know why the majority should object. i yield to mr. meadows. >> if the gentleman will yield. in earnest, i will be glad to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about releasing all relevant information. i mean, i think we're talking about full transparency. let's talk about full transparency in a variety of other things. it's interesting, we want to release one thing but yet we're somehow allowing peter strzok to suggest that there's whole lot of things that are off the record. but i will work in earnest with my colleagues. >> i appreciate the gentleman. let me simply say that we are not disrupting a legitimate investigation into the investigation. the republican investigation is intended to and is trying to obstruct the investigation into the russian interference in our election by the special counsel. that's what's really at stake. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back.

all right. so now that the chairman and the ranking member have had ample time to ask questions and i think that the gentleman from new york has the record, we are going to move, because we have 72 more members who have questions to ask, to strict adherence to the five-minute rule. and we'll begin by recognizing the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me observe that, you know, there have been all kinds of complaints about leaking transcripts and things like that. one of the reasons we're here today is because there has been a flood of leaks out of the justice department about what is going on. it's barely a day goes by when you can't pick up the newspaper and find out it's rumor this and rumor that. and then we have a witness from the fbi that comes up here and says, oh, no, we can't talk about that here to the congress, which has constitutional oversight responsibility,

because it's against our rules. well, i hope there would be a few prosecutions of people out of justice that have been leaking this stuff to the various news media. now, i want to get to looking at statutes. you look at rules. i've been looking at statutes. and somehow along the line, in the report on the conclusions of the clinton investigation, the word "gross negligence" was changed to "extremely careless" in determining mrs. clinton's handling of classified information. now, gross negligence would mean that it would subject her to criminal liability. extremely careless would have the opposite effect, it would not. so i would like to ask you, mr. strzok, a couple of questions about that. the original may 2nd draft of the statement of director comey

was making, he characterized mrs. clinton's actions as grocery negligent; is that correct -- grossly negligent; is that correct? >> that's my recollection. >> are you aware that gross negligence was changed to extremely careless in the eventually statement? >> yes. >> okay. do you recall that the june 2016 meeting attended by you and mr. ribiki, ms. moyer, mr. moffa, and lisa page, discussed the language of the statute, whether to use grossly negligent or extremely careless? >> sir, i don't remember that specific meeting. there were a variety of meetings with a bunch of people that included discussion of this concern. >> did the alternative phrase "extremely careless" come up at the meeting? >> it did standpoiat some point. i don't know if it was that meeting or some other. >> whenever it happened, who brought it up?

>> my recollection, sir, somebody in the office of general counsel, one of our attorneys. >> okay. you don't remember who did? >> no. it was a legal issue that one of the attorneys brought up. >> okay. now, immediately after that meeting, metadata shows that r ratified the statement on june 6th. is this when the phrase was changed? >> sir, i'm aware as well of that metadata. my recollection is working with a group in my office because it was the largest office and taking -- >> was it your computer that put the change in to the statement? >> based on my subsequent review of that metadata, i believe that to be true. >> okay. and who has access to your computer? anybody besides you? >> no. my secretary had access to parts of the -- to parts of it.

>> why was the change made? >> my recollection, sir, and i'm not an attorney, my recollection was that attorneys within the fbi had raised the concern that the use of "gross negligence" triggered a very specific legal meaning. >> criminal. criminal. >> exactly right, in a legal context, "grossly negligent" is used in various statutes, particularly one of the mishandling statutes in 793, to talk about a criminal -- element of the criminal offense. sir, if i may, quick, i promise -- >> this change was hillary's get out of jail free card, right? >> absolutely not, sir. >> well, hillary hasn't been prosecuted. so if she wasn't grossly negligent but was extremely careless, you know, then there's no criminal standard involved. with grossly negligent, there is. >> sir, i think there are a lot of things i would disagree with in that assertion. first, she received no get out of jail free card.

we pursued the facts. >> she got a get out of the white house card when the voters cast their votes. >> sir, i've heard that a lot and i can tell you there's nothing further from the truth. >> trump won. that's the truth. >> sir, with regard to that decision, there was concern from the perspective that a legal definition of that term, people would draw an inference that it was necessarily talking about a particular subset of a statute. >> my time is just about up. that rates four pinocchios. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, may i respond? >> the gentleman may respond. >> sir, what i can tell you with regard to that decision is there was concern about the use of the word "gross lly negligent" and . director comey wanted to convey the elements of a crime and whether or not his use, particularly when lawyers looked at that, whether they would interpret that as his saying she did or did not commit any particular statute. my recollection is the lawyers, based on that, looking at the

way grossly negligent has been defined, looking at the statute where it occurs, it was not what he wanted to say. ultimately he made the decision to change that wording and convey what it was he did want to say. and that all of those discussions were generated based on a legal discussion of the use of that term as a legal definition, not as an indicia of violation of any particular statute at all. >> the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, ms. lofgren, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. strzok. i think it would be easier going back to the last question, if you were simply able to indicate to your knowledge whether the evidence would have supported the use of gross negligence. and apparently the decision made by the lawyers in the fbi was that that was not the case, and therefore that term should not be used. i just want to talk at a more

macro level about what's going on here. you know, one of the things i try and do is to imagine how i would feel if various things had been done or said about a member of the my own party who was president and how i would react, because i think it's important to try and understand that. and when you take a look at the texts that you sent, i think you've acknowledged that it would make people who were supporters of trump uneasy about your intentions. and i think that was reflected in the inspector general's report. i think obviously that brought suspicion of you and the fbi among people who were trump supporters. the fact that you also had highly critical texts of the attorney general, eric holder,

of governor martin o'malley, of senator bernie sanders, i mean, isn't really relevant, they were not, to the best of my knowledge, subject to an investigation. and so, you know, it was important that the inspector general go in and take a look to find out for us, for this committee, and for the american people what really happened. and he did. he went in, he spent a lot of time, i interviewed many people. here was his conclusion. he did chastise you, and i understand you accept that admonishment, but found that there was no evidence whatsoever of political bias in the decisions made in that investigation. and a direct quote, we do not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations were made. now, you know, to listen to some of my friends, you would think that the fbi, which i had always felt was a rather -- made up of

conservative law enforcement people, had magically been transformed into a left wing organization. that's not my understanding. and in fact, if you take a look at the people who were in charge, i mean, you've got mr. wray, who was appointed by president trump, who is not a democrat. mr. comey, who was appointed by mr. trump, he is not a democrat. i happen to know that robert mueller is not a democrat. so these are not political decisions made by political operatives. they should be following the evidence. and i would just like to note that if you had wanted to harm and interfere with the election of president trump, you could have leaked information that the investigation was ongoing. but none of that came out.

as a matter of fact, we asked the leaders of the department of just and the fbi about whether there was an investigation of mr. trump prior to the election and we were told they could not comment on it, which was in fact the appropriate response. you should not comment on a going investigation. if you find something, you have an indictment. if you don't find something, you say nothing. that's where mr. comey erred. he violated that policy and he damaged the campaign of one of the candidates. and the rest is history. so i just think that this hearing, this extraordinary hearing, i've been here, a member of congress for 24 years, it's the first time we've had this kind of event, a circus, really, of trying to really investigate the investigators when that's already done. i would urge that we make sure

that the actions we take do not create further divisions in our country. you know, president trump tweeted a few months ago, quote, the top leadership and investigators of the fbi and the justice department have politicized the sacred investigative process in favor of democrats and against republicans, something which would have been unthinkable just a short time ago. is that tweet supported by the inspector general's report, mr. strzok? >> no. >> no, it is not. i would hope that those of us on the committee who believe in the rule of law, who understand that our country will be damaged if we allow political divisions to attack our law enforcement agencies, to undercut investigations, that we will be harming our country in a way that our enemies, including

russia, hope we would do. that's why they interfered in our election, to cause us harm, to create division among the american people and among us here in the halls of government. so i would ask that we take yes for an answer. the inspector general did investigate this matter. he found out there wasn't political influence. and we wait for the results of mr. mueller's investigation. i pray that we find that our president was not involved. that would be great news for our country. and if that's mr. mueller's finding, i will accept it, not investigate it. i hope that we can put our partisanship at the door, step back from the precipice that we are finding ourselves now. and i would hope that this hearing, which i think serves no good purpose for our country, could be brought to an end. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the time of the gentlewoman

has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to associate myself with the outstanding opening statements made by chairman goodlatte and chairman gowdy, which were two of the finest opening statements i've heard in my years in congress and expressed my views completely. let me say while mr. strzok will stubbornly not admit what almost everyone else knows is extreme bias, i find it amazing that he can sit here and say that he was not biased in a way that clearly colored and affected his investigations. and if you don't agree with that, i want to read the words from mr. horowitz, the inspector general of the justice department, who wrote that the clinton investigation, quote, was, the way it was conducted, quote, was inconsistent with typical investigative strategy

and gave rise to accusations of bias and preferential treatment, unquote. then i would guess that mr. strzok knows chris swecker, who spent 24 years with the fbi and retired as the head of all the fbi criminal investigations. and mr. swecker wrote, he said, the ig report presents jarring evidence of political bias by the fbi against republican presidential candidate donald trump but fails to add it all up to come to the inevitable conclusion that political bias was there. this is like saying one plus one equals zero. mr. strzok, do you have any reason to think that mr. horowitz or mr. swecker have some sort of bias or animosity toward you? >> sir, i disagree with mr. swecker's conclusions. i can't speak to mr. swecker's motivations of bias whatsoever.

and i know of no bias by the inspector general. >> i also share a columnist wrote, quote, the earth-shattering finding on strzok by the inspector general confirms a seven zhecitizenry's fears, a high ranking government conspiring to affect the outcome of a u.s. presidential election. let me ask you this. mr. strzok, you know that judges who have even minimal bias are required to recuse themselves from a case. do you think that fbi agents have some sort of -- that they're special people who shouldn't be held to the same high standards that judges are in deciding whether to recuse themselves? >> sir, i would absolutely say that fbi agents, judges, all are

expected, that whatever their personal beliefs, that they set those beliefs aside in their pursuit of the truth and the application of the law. >> so you don't believe that you were entitled to a lower standard and used that? >> i believe i am held to the highest standard and that i abided by that. >> but you told chairman goodlatte that you did not think you should have recused yourself in this case. >> sir, i would say that's entirely consistent. i believe that all of my personal opinions were never taken in account in anything i did in an official act. i think that is appropriate and is in keeping with the highest standards of the fbi. >> well, i think that since both the clinton and trump investigations had and have some tremendous political ramifications, i think the ethical, fair, just, and proper thing would have been for you to recuse yourself and to move on to other work. there were many other cases that you could have worked on that you had never expressed any bias, were there not?

there were all kinds of cases. >> sir, i completely disagree with you. i don't think it would have been either necessary or required for me to recuse. i think every day, with the clinton investigation, with the russian influence investigation, with the thousands of other investigations, when i walked in the door, the entirety of my action was dedicated to pursuing the facts wherever they lie. >> you know that -- >> and applying the law. >> many times judges have defendants who appear before them who after they are found guilty, they apologize, say they're sorry, trying to get probation. yet many times people think those apologies are said more in hopes of getting probation and in regret that they have been caught rather than in sincere apology. do you feel that you should apologize in any way to the american people for the things that you have expressed, this extreme bias that you expressed, do you have any regret as to calling trump supporters, saying that they smelled, and things of

that nature? >> sir, i think i expressed -- a couple of things. one, i don't agree with your characterization of my views as bias. i think what i clearly articulate, and i can understand those concerns, and i hope when you heard me in my opening statement, when i talked about my regret to the people, the harm and the hurt to the people that i love and my family, when i talked to the way these texts have been used against the fbi, when i responded to questions about using a turn of phrase, about smelling when i should have said hearing or seeing or whatever the case may be, that yes, those were not intended as direct animus towards any set of people. and i hope people understand that i do sincerely regret that. so -- >> the time of the gentleman has spider. >> -- i'll say it again and i hope you hear that. >> the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york, ms. maloney, for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. strzok. for months the republicans have increasingly used their

congressional oversight authority to undermine special counsel mueller's investigation. they have even called for his investigation to be shut down. and why? it's concerning national security and it seems to be successful. the special counsel has now obtained five guilty pleas and indicted 18 others. and included in these indictments and confessions and guilty pleas, michael flynn pled guilty to lying to the fbi. rick gates pled guilty to conspiring against our country. george papadopoulos pled guilty to making false statements to our country and the fbi. so i'm not exactly sure what the republicans want to shut down. do they want to shut down the special counsel's upcoming trials against campaign manager paul manafort?

one of these trials is scheduled to begin here in virginia in the eastern district of virginia later this summer. and related to it, on february 22nd, a grand jury in virginia approved a set of 32 counts of tax, financial, and bank fraud, charges against mr. manafort. and on february 16th, a federal grand jury in the district of columbia separately approved five other charges against mr. manafort and mr. gates, including, and i quote, conspiracy against the united states, end quote. and in this indictment that is coming forward, i would like to quote from it. it says that the defendant, paul manafort, together with others, including gates, knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud the united states by

impeding, impairing, obstruction, and defeating the lawful governmental functions of government agencies, namely the department of justice and the department of treasury, and to commit offences against the united states of america, end quote. now, since this indictment, gates has pleaded guilty and he's now cooperating. and included in his statement of offense, quote, manafort engaged in a variety of criminal schemes. and gates is part of that work for manafort, knowingly and intentioned conspired to assist manafort in criminal schemes, end quote. so i would like to ask you, mr. strzok, to be clear, mr. gates is swearing under oath that -- in his guilty plea, that he conspired with mr. manafort in

criminal activity; is that correct? from what i'm reading? >> ma'am, i'm not familiar with the statement of facts, but i'll stipulate to what you're reading. >> so in a few weeks, mr. manafort's trial date is set to begin. and the special counsel team of prosecutors will present their evidence. and i cannot imagine how anyone in this body or in this country, with the exception of mr. manafort and his co-conspirators, would ever want in any way, shape, or form, to halt this trial from going forward. can you think of any reason why anyone would want to halt this trial from going forward, mr. strzok? >> i am not aware of any. >> thank you. and i yield back. >> will the gentlewoman yield? >> i yield to mr. cummings. >> i yield to the gentleman, mr. meadows. >> i thank the gentleman.

i thank the gentlelady. mr. chairman, in the spirit of transparency, and i think we all want transparency here, i would offer for the chairman's consideration this body's consideration, releasing the full transcripts that we had in the 11th hour, breaking with two different conditions. one is, is that we have the opportunity to interview miss lisa page first, since those text messages were back and forth between two witnesses. and the second that we can scrub that transcribed interview for any personal relevant information that might be embarrassing before we do that. >> if the gentleman yields. >> yes, i yield to the gentleman. >> thank you. spirit of the gentleman's recommendation is taken, is well taken, and we will definitely

take that under advisement. >> i would also hope we give the fbi the opportunity for redaction of anything that would impact on the nation's national security. i think that is extremely important. >> reclaiming my time, it's my understanding the gentleman does accept that, the gentleman from north carolina? i want to thank him for trying to work these things out and -- full transparency. i think that's important. i think the american people and this committee would appreciate it. thank you. >> will the gentleman yield for a question? >> i yield. >> does the gentleman from north carolina's suggestion relate solely to testimony of agent strzok or under the same guise of transparency, would we apply that same process and that same standard to the previously unreleased testimony of andrew mccabe, who was examined in a similar environment? >> yield to the gentleman. >> we need to look at all tr

transcribed interviews. i thank the gentleman for his question. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. >> i now yield my time to my friend and colleague from texas, mr. radcliffe. >> i thank my colleague for yielding. agent strzok, on may the 9, 2017, president trump fired fbi director jim comey. that same day, you and fbi lawyer lisa page exchanged quite a few texts on the topic. at 8:14 p.m. on that day, you texted miss page and said, quote, and we need to open the case we've been waiting on now while andy is acting, end quote. is that andy mccabe, the former deputy director of the fbi who has since been fired and criminally referred by the inspector general? >> it is. >> in what case are you receiving to opening now that

andy is the acting director of the fbi? >> sir, to get into that would relate to ongoing investigations which consists of the department's policy on ongoing investigations and based on the special counsel equities, i'm not authorized to discuss ongoing investigations. >> okay. well, let me see if i can give you a question you can answer. you sent four more texts to miss page and her first response to you at the bottom of that page you're looking at is, quote, we need to lock in, and then there's a black mark where someone's name's been redacted. in a former, chargeable way, period, soon, period. whose name's been blacked out? >> sir, i don't know. i need to see the original list or original text. >> you don't know? okay. well, i don't know either. here's what else i don't know. i don't know if the person whose name has been redacted as -- i don't know if they're black or brown or white -- >> i don't know either, sir. >> i don't know their religious beliefs. i don't know their sexual orientation. i don't care.

here's what i do know. i know that decisions about when and whether to open investigations and when and whether to charge people with crimes aren't supposed to depend on who's sitting in the director chair or on political decisions or on the political agendas of fbi agents and lawyers. so, if a trump-hating fbi agent and a trump hating fbi lawyer who have talked about f-ing trump, impeaching trump, within hours of president trump firing their boss, if they start opening an investigation now that andy is acting and that some person needs to be locked in in a formal chargeable way soon, i know, as a former u.s. attorney, that if, in fact, that's what happened, i know whoever is the subject of that case that was open, now that andy is acting, and whoever you and miss page talked about needing to be locked in soon in a formal chargeable way, well, they would have had their civil liberties violated. they would have been deprived of due process.

so my next question to you, you wouldn't answer. my second question to you you couldn't answer. let's go for a third question. on page 400 of the inspector general report, someone tells the inspector general, quote, there is a bright line, a bright and inviable line between which you think personally and believe and the conduct of your official business. who said that? >> i believe i did, sir. >> you did say that. >> and i heard you say similar things last week. you said it very clearly. you said it very unequivocally in your opening remarks. that you never crossed that inviable line in 26 years. earlier today in response to a question, you said, i took my personal belief out of every official action. so you're asking us to believe that when you say things like "f" trump and stop trump and impeach trump, that those are

just personal beliefs and that when you say those things, you never crossed that line, that bright inviable line, and allowed to impact your official conduct? that's really what this comes down to, that you're asking us to believe, isn't it? >> sir, i am asking you to believe and i'm offering you evidence. >> yes, well, you have -- >> -- your report -- >> -- you've made it crystal clear -- >> -- anything found there's been no active bias found anywhere. >> you have under oath been as clear as a bell on that. you've said it over and over again it and because of that, i'm almost embarrassed to ask you this question. of the approximately 50,000 text messages that i've seen with your personal beliefs like "f" trump, stop trump, impeach trump, go ahead and confirm on the record that none of that occurred on an official fbi device or on an official fib time, sir, go ahead and do that. >> sir, many of them did -- >> oh, they did, okay, so really -- no, i'll give you a chance at the end. so what you really meant to say

was when you said you never crossed that bright inviable line, what you meant to say was except for 50,000 times. except for hundreds of times a day where i went back and forth, expressing my personal opinions about f'ing trump and stopping trump and impeaching trump on official fbi phones, on official fbi time. other than that, you never crossed that line. i'm sure there are 13,000 fbi agents out there that are beaming with pride at how clearly you've drawn that line. agent strzok are you starting to understand why some folks out there don't believe a word you say and why it's especially troubling that you, of all people, are at the center of the three highest-profile investigations in recent times that involve president trump and that you were in charge of an investigation, investigating, gathering evidence against donald trump, a subject that you hated, that you wanted to "f" him, to stop him, to impeach him? and do you see why that might

call into question everything you've touched on all of those investigations? chairman, i'm done with this witness and i yield back. >> mr. chairman, if i can respond. >> briefly. >> sir, well, there's several questions and i'll answer them all briefly. >> there are several statements. i only heard one question. >> well, fair enough. first, i understand why people might think that particularly based on the misrepresentations of extreme folks in the media, conspiracy theorists, folks in this body and elsewhere, and that's why i'm to be here publicly. people calling for the release of my private interview, so people can judge for themselves who i am, what i said and the facts, and that's something that's being spun or misrepresented and some 10:00 talk show or some other place. so absolutely, i can understand that, and i'm glad that the facts are coming out. to your earlier point, i never, and i'm unaware of any case being open that represented some

violation over civil liberties or a removal of due process rights. i have never done any activity, opened any case with regard to that. when you look in the context of what had occurred, sir, during the time that director comey had been fired, where the president said initially that had occurred because of a memorandum written by the deputy attorney general looking at his conduct in the clinton investigation and then days afterward pivoting and telling lester holt it was because of the russia investigation, a huge burden had been taken often his shoulders. we all were very concerned about from an investigative standpoint the pace and severity and the unprecedented nature of facts and events that were unfolding. >> i did say briefly -- >> i appreciate that, mr. chair. wrapping up -- >> mr. strzok, in that regard though, prior to -- >> -- before things changed were very important to us. >> pointed to your response, however, and in the interest of full transparency, and to mr. radcliffe's point, were you

authorized to -- the release of all of the other text messages that have not been released to the congress to this point? >> sir, i would authorize the use of any work-related text messages that are out there. >> ah, but the question is what's work related and what is not. >> that's right, sir, and i would not -- i would not accept or agree to the release of nonwork-related text messages. >> even though your testimony is you would never let your work interfere with your personal opinion. >> that is exactly my test -- >> how we going to know that unless we see text messages? >> the inspector general, very carefully, an independent body, went exhaustively through the entire body and found, sir, there were no acts of bias, there was nothing demonstrable -- >> the deputy inspector general works for an entirely different entity than the u.s. congress. will you authorize that for the