than doing something about social media, you went straight to impeachment. >> wrong. that's incorrect, sir. >> well, i tell you what -- >> mr. chairman, the time is expired. >> we'll revisit the issue. >> may i respond to your question, sir? >> you may when we revisit the issue. >> point of order. >> may i respond now? >> mr. chairman, the witness is permitted to answer the question briefly. >> the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> as the chairman has repeatedly said today. >> the gentleman from louisiana -- >> is the witness not going to be permit today answer the question? >> mr. chairman, i'm going to object to your not permitting the witness to answer the question you asked him. >> one moment while i find out who is next on the democrat side. eight mr. chairm >> mr. chairman, that is not the question. >> sir, you asked if i went directly to impeachment rather than russia. i would like to respond to the question that you asked -- >> we're going to come back to it. >> he should be permitted to answer the question.

>> you're dying to respond to it now. as long as you do respond to the question. >> yes, sir. >> my immediate concern was absolutely having to do with russia and everything related to that. my concern was what russia was doing on social media. my concern was what russian intelligence officers were doing in the united states. my concern was what the government of russia might or my not be doing with members of the trump campaign. it was broad and robust. that was my response. >> that's wonderful. let me tell you, that would have been a longer text. i get that. it would have taken a lot longer for you to actually type that, but you didn't. >> regular order -- >> are you going to pontiff indicate nonstop? >> the gentle lady from michigan is recognized. >> thank you. mr. strzok, during your 11-hour closed door interview with our committee, republicans asked you more than 200 questions on the special counsel's and the fbi

investigation of the trump/russia collusion and interference with the 2016 election. at one point you described how the special counsel's investigation had -- and i quote -- credible allegation that the government of russia had offered assistance to elements and matters of the trump team on the election. is that correct? >> i believe so. i don't have a copy of the transcript, so i will -- >> and subsequently rep meadows followed up with this question. he stated, and i quote, there was evidence that russia was trying to do it. there was no evidence the other way around. do you recall that? >> i don't remember that specific exchange, ma'am. >> you told, and i'm going from the transcript. you told rep meadows that you understood his question, but could not answer in an

unclassified setting. it appears from your transcript, sir, that you interpreted his question as, quote, whether or not there were any reciprocation of that by members of the trump team in offering their assistance back to russia. you later continued to explain, and i'm quoting from your transcript, as whether or not there was information about whether elements of the trump campaign were themselves engaging in that. i can't answer that in an unclassified setting, and furthermore, i don't think the fbi or special counsel would want me commenting on ongoing investigations. so, just to be clear, the question of whether the trump campaign was trying to collude with russia calls for a classified response and a response that would involve

information that's part of an ongoing investigation. is that right? >> yes. >> thank you. i certainly would not want you to reveal any classified or sensitive investigative information in this setting. we have repeatedly gone back and forth with that, and i don't understand why we have to repeat things repeatedly to such an intelligent group of people. back in march, chairman gowdy stated on national tv, and i quote, and if you believe as we have found that there's no evidence to collusion, you should want special counsel mueller to take all the time and have all the independence he needs to do his job. chairman gowdy also stated, and i quote, when you're innocent and the allegation of collusions with the russians, there's no evidence of that, you are not

innocent of that, act like it. if president trump and his allies want us to believe that there is no collusion with russia, and that's what this is about, i would suggest that they take chairman gowdy's recommendation and begin acting like it. and i yield back my time. >> gentle lady yields back. gentleman from idaho is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in your opening testimony today, you stated that, quote, not once did my personal bias interfere with my judgment. there is no evidence of bias in my professional actions. close quote. let's explore that statement for a second. can you please define -- because i'm really confused. can you define -- what's your definition of bias? >> i think, sir, bias depends on the context in which you're talking about. with regard to political opinion, that is allowing your beliefs to get in the way of the honest independent pursuit of facts. >> allowing your own beliefs to get in the way of your actions

is that correct? >> of your honest open -- >> please give me an example of a situation when bias would interfere with your aspect -- your professional judgment. >> it's difficult to answer a hypothetical. i'm not going to interview a witness. i am going to destroy evidence. i am going to prevent somebody from taking an investigative step. it's a difficult -- >> has there ever been a time when your professional actions or you believe that you had bias, that you needed to move on from an investigation at any time? >> no. >> no. has there been a time in your career that you recused yourself from a professional action? >> no. >> okay. so, you'll be surprised what i actually believe that the russians tried to destabilize our economy -- our way of life, our government. i think they have been doing it for a long time. i'm curious if this is the first time that russia tried to interfere with an american

election. >> i am aware of times where they, you know, going back to the '60s and '70s where they planted evidence where they were seeking to introduce items of information that were false in newspapers. i am not aware of any direct outreach to members of a presidential, either the candidate or his media team. >> did they attempt to interfere in the 2012 elections? >> i'm certain they did, yes. >> do you recall president obama telling russian president medvedev he would have more flexibility to negotiate on missile defense after the 2012 election? >> i don't remember that, sir, no. >> he said that in a hot mic. why wasn't that investigated? >> sir, because, one, there were no allegations to my knowledge. again, i was not in the position -- >> this is the president of the united states telling the russian president that he was not going -- he was going to

have more flexibility and he was going to do certain things. do you recall during the debates when president obama objected to candidate romney that the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy book, the cold war is over, do you remember that? >> i don't, but -- >> okay. you were not interested in russian interference with our elections in 2012, but you were interested in russian interference in 2016? >> that's not true, sir. >> and you were not interested in the actions of a president who was saying that russia was no longer a foreign power that we needed to be concerned about? >> sir, i disagree with that statement. >> you don't even recall those statements, so i don't know how you can disagree with them. >> you were characterizing my interest in their interference and i can respond to that. >> that's fine. how can you assure the american people that you're not lying today? >> because, one, as i said before, i'm doing it under oath. i am telling you, having spent 26 years putting on a gun,

putting my life at risk for this country, i am not lying to you right now. if you don't want to take my word for it -- i get people might be hesitant. i would say look at the record. look at everybody who has worked with me. look at what the i.g. said and absolutely fine with that. >> you don't mean it when you said trump supporter smell, you didn't mean it when you used the word impeachment, you did not mean it when you said republicans were hill billies, you were not telling the truth in those moments? >> i disagree with that, sir. i said i didn't mean it when i talked about people, you could smell the support of hill billies. that was a poor choice of words. i did not say i did not believe in i am 350e67ment. my explanation for impeachment was different. as i considered it, that was on the far end of what might be occurring. what i said was the opposite. >> i understand. finally, democrats have made assertions today that are just not true. first, that the i.g. found no

bies b bias in your actions. this is not true. the a.g. said, quote, we were deeply troubled by text messages sent by strzok and page, that indicated decisions were impacted by bias or consideration. >> read what you said. potentially create the appearance. that says nothing about active bias. that is a hedged description which i can tell you doesn't exist. >> moreover, as we assess in strzok's decision to prioritize the russian investigation over following up on the mid year related investigative lead discovered on the weiner laptop in october 2016, these text messages led us to don conclude we did not have confidence strzok's decision was free from bias. >> yes, sir. >> you did -- there was no decision that there was no bias. they just cannot find whether there was bias or not. and the -- moreover -- >> mr. chairman, regular order. >> they did not investigate the

russian investigation in the i.g. report, so there's going to be still pending -- >> mr. chairman, the gentleman is out of time and yields back. i didn't hear a question. >> i don't agree. he was asking me whether i believed the i.g. report indicated there was an act of bias or not. >> they're afraid to hear you answer. i'd like to ask the witness be permit today answer the question. >> may i respond? >> sure. >> let's look at the facts of the laptop. facts of the laptop are within hours, literally less of four hours of learning of that laptop. i assigned agents to go in and check -- >> mr. chairman, that wasn't -- >> within a day they had done so. and these were folks unrelated to -- >> gentleman from idaho has yield it back. if you want to give a short response to a question, he does not believe he asked, you're welcome to do it, but just keep it short. >> speak clearly into the mic to raise the mic, please. >> absolutely. sir, i would take issue.

i do take issue with the i.g.'s conclusion there. the i.g. said something that they could not exclude the possibility that it played a role and what i would point you and point them to are the facts. the facts are these. within hours of learning -- hours -- of learning of the weiner laptop, i assigned seasoned supervisory agents and analyst s to follow-up on that. within a day of getting that information, they had gotten in touch with new york to determine new york had not completed the processing and they were going to get back together when that occurred. so, the notion that anything was back burnered is belied by the fact that literally within 24 hours of learning of that information, i had assigned people who, by the way, had nothing to do with the russia investigations to follow-up on the matter. >> you've been given a chance to answer. the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> mr. strzok, the investigation into possible trump russian collusion in the 2016 election has result ed in 23 indictments, correct? >> i don't know the number, but it's sizeable. >> it's resulted from in 18

individuals who have been indicted, true? >> i don't know the number. >> three entities have been indicted, correct? >> i'll accept your reputation. >> the investigation has identified at least 75 different criminal acts, correct? >> again, sir, i haven't tallied them up. >> there have been five ggt pleas, true? >> i believe that's correct, sir, but i'm not certain. >> trump's campaign manager paul manafort has been charged with conspiracy to defraud the united states of america, correct? >> he's been charged. i don't know the specific crimes. >> he's sitting in jail right now as a result of alleged witness tampering, correct? >> yes, sir. >> trump's former national security advisor michael flynn has pled guilty to lying to the fbi, correct? >> yes, sir. >> trump's deputy campaign manager rick gates has been indicted for conspiracy to defraud the united states, correct? >> sir, he's been indicted. i don't know the charges. >> george papadopoulos, a former trump campaign national security advisor, has pled guilty to lying to federal investigators about his contacts with russian

spies during the campaign, fru? >> certainly with russians. i don't know how to characterize those russians. >> now, the fbi publicly disclosed information about the hillary clinton e-mail investigation 11 days prior to the election in 2016, true? >> yes, sir, i believe that's right. >> but the fbi maintained confidentiality about the trump-russia criminal investigation during the entire duration of the trump presidential campaign, correct? >> yes, sir. >> so, if you really wanted to stop donald trump from becoming president, you could have revealed the criminal investigation into the trump campaign to the american people prior to the election, true? >> yes, sir. >> mr. strzok, you are before this committee for one reason, to serve as a monumental distraction. there is a criminal investigation into the trump campaign and possible crimes related to the 2016 presidential

election involving collusion with russian spies to sell out our democracy and high jack the presidency. my colleagues in the cover up caucus don't like that criminal investigation and, therefore, they need to identify a villain. mr. strzok, tag, you're it. here's what's so ironic about that characterization. vladimir putin is a thug and a dictator who high-jacked and interfered and attacked our democracy. but apparently he doesn't meet the republican villain test. our so-called commander in chief continues to play footsie with him. kim jong-un murders his people and has threatened nuclear annihilation against american

cities, but apparently he doesn't meet the republican villain test. the administration continues to engage in fake negotiations with him. david duke and neo-nazis apparently for some, don't meet the republican villain test. oh, that's right, i forgot. there are fine people on both sides. roy moore, an alleged serial pedophile, apparently doesn't meet the republican villain test. he was the nominee of your party for a seat in the united states senate. but we're supposed to believe that agent peter strzok, a former army officer, who has served the fbi with distinction,

yes, made some mistakes, is the graves existential threat. how dare you turn a blind eye to that parade of degenerates i just listed. this investigation is a joke. it's a fraud. this hearing is a kangaroo court. it is a three-ring circus. it is not even meritorious of an investigation by ace ventura pet detective, let alone 75 members of the united states congress. let's stop wasting taxpayer dollars and get back to the business of the american people. >> gentleman from new york yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

gentle >> gentle lady from north carolina is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to yield my time to you. >> thank the gentle lady from north carolina. agent strzok, on march 14, 2017, i think we're, what, a couple of months into the presidency. see if you can recall this text you received. finally two-pages away from finishing atpm. do you know the president resigns in the end? what is atpm. >> i think it's a reference to all the president's men. >> do you recall how you replied? >> generally i feigned surprise and said something to the effect we should be so lucky or fortunate. >> lucky, lucky in what way? >> sir, that he would resign as president.

>> you wanted him to resign two months into his presidency? >> sir, my sense was and personal belief was i was not pleased with the direction and things being done with the presidency. >> i thought you trusted the american people. i thought that was what you said in august of 2016, that the american people would stop him and then they didn't stop him and here we are in march and all of a sudden not trusting the american people any more. >> sir, what i utterly trust the american people. what i worry about is when the government of russia puts their finger on the scale and somebody other than americans -- >> how many indictments have there been for collusion with russia? >> i can't answer that. >> you worked on the investigation. >> collusion is not a crime. i don't know where that term came from. >> you're right, it's not. it's not. conspiracy, coordination, collusion, a lot of people use those words in the same way. how about we say conspiracy? >> sure. >> how many americans have been

indicted for conspiring with russia to impact the 2016 election? >> none so my knowledge. yet. >> and we'll be happy to get mr. nadler as a witness in next week's hearing if he wants to help you answer that. so, you wanted president trump to resign two months into his presidency. >> no, sir, i think i read that text as a snarky comment about a book being read and a comment made. it is a conversational text exchange. it is not a desire for something to occur. >> maybe i missed it. help me. god, that we should be so lucky. >> yes, sir, skpand i think you would accept as an intelligent man when people are texting in conversation, you say things that are hyperbole or not literal -- >> usually, agent strzok, not when i was supposed to be dispassionately neutrally

investigating someone, i actually did not. but let's go. let's go. we already passed the who gives an f, one more a.d. versus investigation leading to impeachment. i think we established there is a school of thought you can be impeached if you're not a current office holder. you can be barred from holding office in the future. but you did not engage in any impeachment analysis in your 2016 investigation with secretary clinton. you saved all of that for candidate trump. so, i want to go to another text. you and i both know the odds are nothing. if i thought it was likely, i'd be there, no question. now, this is the day after mueller was appointed. when you said be there, are you talking about on his team? >> yes, sir. >> i hesitate, in part, because of my gut sense and concern. there's no big there there.

so in addition to disappointing the hell out of my democrat colleagues that someone who is investigating russian collusion didn't think there was any there there, why would you be concerned? why would you not be ecstatic that there was no collusion? why the word concern? >> sir, i don't know what i meant -- concern to me seems like there is a lot going on and a lot presumptive that there may be something like impeachment. sir, you have to pick, which one do you want? >> i'm either convinced there is impeachment or i'm convinced what you just read, there is no there there. the reality is if you look at it, it's fact i was looking at this with an open mind and saying i don't know whether there is -- >> agent strzok, with all 9 universe of options, that's not the one i picked. with all the universe of options, you looking at something with an open mind is not the one i picked. >> that is the obvious one to conclude from that e-mail. >> i'll tell you the one i

picked. the one i picked, and it breaks my heart to say this about an agent for an agency that i have tremendous respect for, you as a counter intelligence officer had no interest in participating in a counter intelligence investigation that was not going to lead to impeachment. >> no, sir. >> that's how i read it. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, mr. chairman you are assuming someone else's position. chairman, you are coming to conclusions on someone else's viewpoints in the hearing. allow the witness to respond. >> i'm sure it's my time and the gentle lady is not recognized. i hesitate because of my gut sense there is no concern there is no big there there. >> sir -- >> what were you concerned wasn't there? >> sir, my concern was not knowing, given these allegations, what existed. whether on the one hand there was no criminal activity whatsoever towards the middle, that there were individuals kind of pursuing their own agendas for their own self-enrichment,

or on the far end there might be an impeachable offense. >> why wouldn't you investigate it? >> i answered your question. >> my question is why would you not want to investigate that? >> sir, i did want to investigate that. that is not what you're reading. what you are reading is my trying to decide what i want to do with the course of my career and whether to stay as a deputy assistant director in the counter intelligence division where i have oversight of a wide variety of threats around the globe, or whether i want to remove myself and go work on something in the special counsel's office that is very specific that is going to take -- i don't know how long it was going to take. sir, but to your point -- to your point -- >> you're leaving out an important word, agent strzok, impeachment. >> regular order. it is now a minute and a half over. mr. chairman -- you're going on and on and on. >> there's no quicker i can go. >> a point of order. your time is up. >> impeachment, add four big words of no big there there.

and the reality is, you know full well i said both. and you know why i said both. why i did that and what i am telling you under oath is that i did not know what existed. i had prejudged nothing. that was all to be determined. and that is a logical way for investigators, attorneys and -- >> with the political death penalty, impeachment is not the logical way a neutral dispassionate -- >> point of order. we're demanding equal time. >> if you can't control yourself, how do you expect this committee to control itself? you have been out of control since you've been on this committee. why don't you leave it alone? this is not benghazi. >> the the gentle lady from new jersey is recognized. >> you're recognized. congresswoman. you're recognized. >> well, hallelujah. first of all, mr. strzok, i want to thank you for your service.

secondly, mr. strzok, i think you made a big mistake by putting those text messages on your person -- on your business phone because then you opened up your personal phone and here we are talking about this mess when it really isn't important because the other thing that i know, mr. strzok, is that even if you do have biases, you did not influence the outcome of this investigation. the i.g. found that the out come of this investigation was predicated upon evidence and information. the other thing i know is that no matter how much you disliked hillary and/or donald trump, you didn't have anything to do with either one of them getting elected. you have nothing to do with the president of the united states disgracing this country every single single solitary day when he embraces our enemies and sucks

up -- embrace our enemies and is disrespectful to our allies. you have nothing to do with the fact the president of the united states has declared higher tariffs in the name of security to this nation against our closest friend and neighbor canada, but no one on this side of the aisle has opened their mouth. you have had nothing to do with the president enriching himself with his emoluments and carving out opportunities for his daughter so that she's not negatively impacted with her brands in china while this side of the aisle says nothing. you've had nothing to do with the fact that puerto rico is still under water and without any kind of electricity in so many places while this side of the aisle that's a part of the oversight committee has forgotten what its mission is. but nonetheless, you have been

here and you have tried to answer their questions. and i have never seen my colleagues so out of control, so angry, and so desperate to protect a president that we all know is not fit to be president. so, i want to leave you this opportunity. is there any question on the table, mr. strzok, that you have been asked that you would like to clarify? because i can give you two minutes and 25 seconds to have your say uninterrupted. >> congresswoman, i deeply appreciate that time. i do want -- everybody is watching this and making up their own mind. and what i would tell you is, one, i'm sitting here telling you the truth. and two, independent of me, i cannot express to you my love of the fbi enough.

the men and women who make up that work force, their ethics, their integrity are unmatched anywhere in the world. and i think that's important, one, because it is who we are. two, that none of them would accept any of the behaviors that are being alleged any more than i would accept it in him. and three, this entire exercise comes at a cost. we are doing things that are going to in the future tear down the underpinnings of what represent law and order in this country. and there is not a robust thick wall there. i think people don't appreciate how tenuous the balance of the rule of law versus chaos is. and when we as a people engage in activity where we take institutions wholesale, whether it's the fbi or the u.s. intelligence community and compare them to nazis, we destroy things that, one, we may

not see for years and years and years. and once we break those down, the amount of time it takes to fix is going to be ten fold. and i cannot stress enough that i ask all of you to take deeply your responsibility to maintain our system of government -- >> thank you, mr. strzok. i need to say in closing, if anybody should be pissed at the fbi because you all helped this unfit man become president of the united states by not revealing to the people that he was under investigation and his campaign, it should be me. they should be applauding you, kissing you and giving you all awards because, but for you, we would have had a legitimate president elected. i yield back my time. >> gentleman from new york is recognized. >> mr. chairman, as you are aware under house rules, minority members have a right to demand a day of hearings to allow witnesses to testify on the subject of today's hearing.

as you also know during the course of today's hearing, the majority opposed representative swalwell's motion for steve bannon's testimony. on behalf of the government reform committees, i am delivering a letter to chairman goodlatte and chairman gowdy formally invoking our right to call a minority day of hearings so steve bannon may testify. and i ask unanimous consent to insert a copy of that letter to the hearing record. >> without objection. gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. strzok, i appreciate you being here. thank you, and, sir, i take this very seriously. there's been a lot of talk about texts, a lot of talk about your bias, nonbias, your opinions and your willingness to elaborate on that. i have some questions that will not require you to have to be elaborate or anything. they'll be simple straightforward questions because as i have been looking through this and talking to the current fbi, deputy attorney general, reading through some things, some things have popped up that i think at least need some clarification.

when was the last time you were subject to a polygraph? >> approximately two or three years ago. >> two or three years ago. to your knowledge, have you ever failed a polygraph or found to be out of scope? >> i have never failed one. i was out of scope prior to my last polygraph. >> and that would have been at what time, you said two to three years ago. can you be more specific? >> sir, i think we can cut to the chase. i think there is an e-mail that talks about people being out of scope for a polygraph which generated my last polygraph. >> don't worry, we're going to cut to the chase. so, you want to go ahead and say january 2016 when you received a text or e-mail, correct? >> sir, if that's the date. >> we'll take that as a stipulation. >> not to my recollection, no. >> you received your e-mail in january and you stipulated to your polygraph was out of scope in january 2016. to your knowledge, how long was your polygraph out of scope? >> sir, i don't know.

i recall the penultimate, the second to last polygraph i had was i was washington field office. 2008, 2011. by out of scope, polygraphs have a five-year span of effectiveness or validity. we had several people we were trying to including me we were trying to get red into an intelligence department. they read some names, me and others were out of scope which happens because polygraphs were -- the line for polygraph -- >> i understand. i'm in the military, mr. strzok. i understand the delays in them. you have a secure job and one that is highly sensitive. so, the question is again, i would assume to answer your evasiveness, you did not know how long you were out of scope, is that correct, yes or no? >> that's fair, sir. i was trying to recreate by recollection. >> do you know how long you were out of scope?

>> i do not. >> what steps were taken to bring you into scope? >> i went and had a polygraph. >> okay. was this after the january 16 letter that you received? >> it would have been afterwards. yes. >> if you were out of scope, when was the last time you accessed classified information? >> last -- night before last preparing for this. >> do you currently -- you currently have what classification? >> i have a top secret clearance with some mesiac compartments. >> during the time you were out of scope, did you have access to sci? >> yes, sir. >> are you aware that it is fbi procedure that a failure or out of scope polygraph -- does not terminate a top secret, however a failure of this would require you to be read out of sci access, although you could maintain your top secret? this was a direct answer from a question that i posed and was received within the last week. were you aware that you should have been read out of any sci

information when you were out of scope? >> sir, i believe i used the word failure which implies in my mind a failed poly. i was not aware a failed or out of scope polyrequired removal from sci. >> i understand that. if the answer came back from the fbi that is the procedure. after you did your polygraph at what time, you said you were out of scope, you were brought in. when would that have been? >> my recollection is the 2016 time frame, but after that e-mail, but i don't know when. within a month or two, i think. >> are you also aware in the publicly stated version of the i.g. report there has been some serious questions and issues concerning polygraph information and lack of polygraph procedures in the department of justice and fbi that was brought out by the inspector general? >> i'm not -- generally aware there was a report but i'm not aware of the conclusions. >> one of the general concerns

on this is that when you were out of scope -- and this is the answer that came back from the justice department. you should have been read out of sci. my concern is during this time frame, you were involved in two very high profile, what would have been or at least getting ready for sci information which you were not read out of. this is a concern, it's nothing else from that question. i have no further questions. i am finished and i yield back. >> i think you misstated the conclusion there, sir. i think you said -- >> mr. strzok, mr. strzok -- >> failure required read out. >> the gentleman from georgia controls the time. >> mr. strzok -- >> the time is over. mr. chairman, the time is up. >> may i respond, sir? >> there is no question to respond to. the answer is from the department of justice. i read you the answer. >> may i comment to what i believe is a misstatement? >> briefly. >> sir, from your answer, what i took that to be is in the event of a failure, an individual should be read out. you are conflating that with a out of scope or failure. it is not my understanding that out of scope requires somebody to be read out. it may be.

i'm not a security professional, but you appear to -- >> so you're out of sync right now with the answer received from the department of justice. that is an interesting answer that you just gave that you may have been out of sync. the question now becomes is policy procedure failed or not failed. this is a serious investigation which i take seriously. if you should have been read out you should have been read out. that is my final answer, statement, not oppose. i yield back. >> the gentleman from rhode island, mr. scicilini is recognized. >> i look forward to a couple questions as each of my republican colleagues have had. >> serving on this committee has been one of the greatest honors of my life. but the conduct of this committee today has been, for me, tremendously sad, embarrassing, and really dangerous to our democracy. i want to apologize to you for the way you have been treated by this committee. and for the american people who are watching, you ought not wonder why they have lost confidence in congress and are circumstance of the kind of circus that they saw being

conducted in this room today. because rather than focusing on urgent issues like family separation, reasonable efforts to reduce gun violence in our communities, considering legislation to reform our broken immigration system, passing legislation to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, addressing the inability of americans who fall behind in their student loans to discharge that debt in bankruptcy, or oversight of the many conflicts of interest and corruption in this administration, we're having yet another hearing on the hillary clinton e-mails. what you should understand, mr. strzok, is the reason my republican colleagues will not let you answer a question is because they're not interested in your answers. this is about promoting a narrative. you're a prop so they can promote a narrative in an ongoing effort to distract from the serious investigation of the special counsel that is closing in on the trump inner circle. this is a campaign to under mine

that work and sadly, they'll do whatever is necessary to do it in concert with the president. attack the fbi, attack the department of justice, undermine the rule of law. and so your e-mails are a perfect foil for this effort. they're not interested in hearing your context and your explanation because it's not about you. it's about protecting the president. my colleagues have acted more like they're on the defense team for donald trump than exercising their very serious oversight responsibilities as members of these two committees. robert mueller was praised to the heavens by everyone, republican and democrat alike when he was appointed. now he's a villain. what's the only thing that's changed? 19 indictments. five guilty pleas and the circle is closing in. so, i accept your sworn testimony about the difference between bias and the actions you took. we don't have to take your word for it alone, though i do. the i.g. report of 500 pages, interviews, review of documents

comes to the same conclusions. we find the decisions made were consistent with the analytic approach described above. we find these specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments made by 9 agents and prosecutors. and these judgments were all reasonable. there is a big analysis done. 500 pages. that's the same conclusion, the same representation you made today. but don't be frustrated because they're not interested in that. this is about promoting a narrative. we know, of course, mr. strzok, the intelligence communities conclude russia interfered in our elections. it was directed by vladimir putin for purposes of helping donald trump and hurting hillary clinton. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> do you have any reason to doubt the assessment of our intelligence agencies that made it with high confidence? >> no, sir. >> thereafter the senate intelligence committee, a republican led committee, came to the same conclusion, isn't

that right? >> yes, sir. >> the president of the united states and members of the administration continue to deny that the russian government interfered in our elections. in fact, just as recently as june 28, russia continues to say they have nothing to do in meddling in our elections. >> yes, sir. >> even secretary nielsen said i do not believe i have seen that conclusion the specific intent was to help president trump win. >> i don't recall heeraring tha but -- >> in addition to that, you know about a trump tower meeting where there was a discussion between members of the trump campaign and russian operatives, correct? >> i am aware of that. >> and the president -- >> sir, i would not characterize it one way or the other as operatives or not. but i am aware. >> in that meeting there was a discussion about some dirt that the russians had on hillary clinton, correct? >> media reporting has indicated that. >> and the president then issued a statement in which he light about that meeting and said it was about an adoption discussion, correct? >> those statements have been made. again, i'm relying on what's been reported in the media, not

fbi or special counsel investigation. >> mr. strzok, can you tell in the time we have remain, what raises eyebrows for you about members of a presidential campaign meeting with a foreign adversary of the united states to talk about dirt about their opponent and then lying about the nature of that meeting? what should we -- why should that concern the american people? >> sir, i don't want to comment on any specific fact pratt eaat anything that relates to an ongoing investigation. i hesitate and i don't want to do that in this context. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to note for the record we have had zero hearings on the presidential election, zero hearings about our democracy to secure the elections coming up in november. we have had hundreds of hours devote today hillary clinton's e-mail. this committee has failed in its spont responsibilities to secure our election which is a responsibility we have to the american people.

when we raise the issue we're going talk about hillary clinton's e-mail. shame on you. history will judge you harshly for this behavior. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman -- >> you did not ee vince bias, your actions were motivate the by bias. he disagreed about the insurance policy text. you provided information similar to what you did today. he found your explanation to be persuasive. you're aware of that, correct? >> i am not aware of that with regard to the text. >> he did. he testified when we had him in here in june in response to my questioning. he also said that your explanation for how you handled the anthony weiner laptop, you delayed, you didn't take action initially. he said your explanation for that, he did note that in the report, was not persuasive. you're aware of that, correct? >> sir, i'm aware of facts rebutting that, that he has rebutting that specific assertion. >> he testified to us that he

was not persuaded by your explanation for why you focused on the trump-russia collusion and let the weiner thing sit. then he testified in front of our committee that it was reasonable to infer that your actions involving weiner's laptop, the fact that you didn't pursue that aggressively, that it is reasonable to infer that it was because of the bias that you evince in your text messages. are you aware of ha? >> i'm not, but i'll accept your representation. >> the clinton charging decision was not necessarily due to bias. he said that the weiner is absolutely a fair game to infer that. and then there obviously continuing to investigate the genesis of this russia interference case. do you also know that rod rosenstein, on june 28th when he testified in front of this committee, he said you were biased. are you aware of that in response to my questions? >> i'm not. >> yes, he did. he also says the bias that you

evince does undermine the integrity of your investigative actions and causes the american people to lose confidence in the institution. do you know he said that? >> i don't, and he's -- >> he did. i guess the idea there is no bias here -- i don't think your explanations have been credible and i think that if you acted so appropriately, mueller removed you from the team. you're now at human resources which is obviously a demotion. you are now one of the subjects of an ongoing i.g. investigation, correct? >> no, sir. >> you're not -- your conduct is not being reviewed by horowitz about what you did or did not do with russian collusion? >> i am unaware of being -- >> i bet your conduct is at issue there. let me ask you this. you opened up the counter intelligence investigation on 31 july. was that because of the george papadopoulos information? >> sir, i can't get into the guidance that the fbi has provided me about answers i can provide, that gets into a level

of detail that i can't -- that i've been directed not to provide. >> you answered some questions. i think this has been a little bit of convenience. you answered some questions about there was grave concerns and all of this stuff about why you were doing it. you didn't do that. the dossier, was the dossier a part of why you opened up the investigation? >> no. but, sir, none of this is convenience. it has been based on what the department has worked out with chairman goodlatte about what is permitted or not. this is not a function -- >> the dossier was not part of it. that's important. when did you learn the dossier was funded by hillary clinton and the democratic party? >> i cannot -- i don't think that is an accurate representation and the fbi has directed me not to answer that question based on the investigation. >> so hillary, dnc september to perkins who sent to fusion who paid -- come on. it was a political document, correct? >> the matter is closed. i cannot comment. the fbi has directed me to not answer that question based on the -- >> would it be fair to say the

dossier -- what would you say, a political document opposition research or legitimate intelligence? >> sir, i would very much like to answer that question. >> okay. >> i have been directed by the fbi that i may not get into that based on operational requirements or equities. >> so here's the issue i think we have. we see the bias that you did. your explanations for why you said what you did really aren't credible. we're trying to get to the genesis of why open up a counter intelligence investigation against the opposing party's campaign? i'm with you about focusing on russia and holding them accountable. but you tried to rope in the other party's nominee. there was also a lot of bias. we can't get any answers to the questions of what the genesis of any of this was. and -- let me finish. may 18 chairman gowdy mentioned, my concerns there's no big there there. so this had been going on for at least ten months. i think it was going on before july 31st. and there you are, mueller is appointed and you can't even identify any reason to suspect that there was collusion between

trump's campaign and russia. there was no big there there, after ten months. so that's the concern, is that somebody like you who said we'll stop him, who said we needed insurance policy, that you let that bias -- you wanted there to be something there. you wanted it to be true. and that, i think, influenced your actions. you can prove us wrong by providing information. i'd like pre-july 31st. i'd like information what you used to open up the counter intelligence investigation. i want to know whether there was foreign intelligence involved or funneled through the state department. these are all questions if we put those out and answer them, then a lot of us would be able to then make, i think, the american people can make a judgment. i'm going over my time. i yield back. >> mr. chairman -- >> time of gentleman has expired. briefly. >> you asked why i couldn't explain why i case would be opened. i don't think that's accurate. when you looked at the comey's

statement when he said the fbi opened a case into allegations whether russia had made an offer of assistance in the potential involvement of members of the trump campaign. i cannot envision a scenario where that would not be a reasonable predication to open an investigation. >> well, it's papadopoulos, that's not what they had. you didn't quite get there. if it's papadopoulos, that's weak. >> i think the characterization was that it was a credible source of information stands on its own. i don't think anybody in this committee would argue that, one, it was inappropriate to open that, and two, that it wasn't absolutely -- >> we have questions about whether it is appropriate because we don't know the underlying information. we read in "the new york times" from leaks because papadopoulos said at a bar -- >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> i'm trying to respond. >> regular order, regular order. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman -- >> mr. chairman, there is not -- there is a second element of

question -- >> no. >> you raised the question whether i agreed with the inspector general that i had acted in any way that was biased. >> you had an opportunity to answer that earlier. >> i did not to this congressman. i did not. >> the gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you, mr. strzok. mr. strzok, on july 3rd, your lawyer, mr. goldman, made the following statement to chris cuomo on cnn regarding you, his client. on fox news they talk about him as the center of this anti-trump kabal that was determined to throw the election against trump. none of this has a shred of truth. do you agree with this statement, sir? >> i do. >> and in a june 19th op-ed in "usa today" your lawyer said regarding the russia investigation, what we call the russi russia collusion investigation, that you and your team went out of your way to prevent leaking and actively ensured that news

reports did not overplay the seriousness of the investigation. is that true, sir? >> yes. >> now, tell us why it's so important to prevent leaks from the fbi to journalists or to others? >> leaks are terrible. they undercut things in a variety of ways. they can up-end investigations, they can lead to incorrect assumptions, they can let witnesses, subjects know that they're being investigated, they can lead to wild speculation, destruction of evidence, disclosure of classified information, any number of really bad, adverse things. >> got it. the doj ig's report has this to say about your involvement in the decision to inform congress about the weiner laptop. strzok explained that the decision to search a search warrant for the weiner laptop was known to many people beyond the midyear team and this raised a concern that this information could leak. is this statement from the i.g.'s report true?

>> yes. >> now, could you unpack that for us a little bit. first of all, you said, according to the i.g.'s report, that the search warrant for the weiner laptop was known to many people beyond the midyear team. could you explain whether any of those people would be in the new york field office? >> so the -- my recollection is that the investigation of the crimes against mr. weiner was handled by the southern district of new york or maybe the eastern district. i think it was sdny. >> so the people to whom you're referring are the people in the new york field office, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and you had concerns about their actions if director comey did not inform congress about this weiner laptop? >> i did not have concerns about new york. my concerns were just general, that the more people who are aware of something, the greater chance that it leaks out somehow. but those concerns were not

specific in my mind to new york. >> okay. let me ask you about this. in a report -- in that same report, attorney general loretta lynch recalls a conversation with then director comey in the final days of the 2016 election. quote unquote, he, referring to comey, said it's clear to me that there's a cadre in new york that have a deep and visceral hatred of secretary clinton and he said it is, quote unquote, deep. are you aware of this concern? >> i was aware of some of the press reporting and some people expressing that concern, yes. >> was one of those people director comey? >> a person having that concern? >> yes. >> yes. >> could you explain to me a little bit about that and how that in your view affected the revelation of the warrant for weiner's laptop?

>> you'd have to ask director comey that. there was discussion and i remember some of it was in the context of reporting from mr. giuliani and others talking about connections to new york. but again, i don't want to scapegoat new york because a lot of people were aware of it and there were concerns just about the number of folks. but with regard to mr. comey, my recollection is that he was aware of those concerns but i was not privy to discussions he had with the attorney general or other concerns he might have had outside of my presence or conversation. >> now, with regard to mr. giuliani, on october 25th, then trump campaign advisor rudy giuliani promised a, quote unquote, pretty big surprise coming up in the campaign. on october 28th, giuliani claimed to be in contact with former agents and a, quote unquote, few active agents who obviously don't want to identify themselves. let me make sure i have this right. there was a concern that there was a deep and visceral hatred toward secretary clinton in the new york field office.

at the same time mr. giuliani says that he's having contacts with agents, active agents. what is -- can you give us your take on this and your comments on this particular issue? >> i recall that comment. i recall it caused me a lot of concern. >> and why? why did it cause you concern? >> because while it's certainly possible that mr. giuliani is exaggerating or engaging in some sort of puffery, the reality is that also given the things that were going on, given the timing that the laptop was there and he was talking about that in the context of a big surprise, it caused me great concern that he had information about that. >> in other words -- >> that he should not have had. >> that he should not have had. >> correct. >> through a leak? >> through an unauthorized disclosure, sure. leak, yes. >> thank you, sir. >> the members are advised that there are votes on the floor of the house, four votes. mr. strzok, you probably have a

good 45 minutes to -- all right. members are advised that this will be the last one so if you want to head to the floor for votes, but the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massey. >> mr. chairman, i yield my five minutes to the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. >> just a couple questions. agent strzok, in earlier round you said you never talked to glenn simpson, right? >> correct. >> and you never talked to nellie orr? >> correct. >> and you wouldn't say whether you knew if nellie orr worked for fusion, is that correct? >> my understanding from my direction of the fbi is i am not permitted to answer that question. >> okay. but you did say you talked with bruce orr, fellow department of justice employee and nellie orr's husband? >> yes. >> but it is common knowledge

that nellie orr worked for fusion in the summer of 2016, is that right? >> i don't know if it's common knowledge or not. >> it's been in all kinds of reports. >> it is now, absolutely. >> press reports. all right. you met with bruce orr in 2016 and 2017, so the time period that we're focused on. >> to the best of my recollection, yes. >> and you won't tell me what you guys talked about. >> i can tell you we talked about operational matters that he was involved in, but the fbi has directed me not to give you -- >> specifically you can't get into specifics and details. did bruce orr give you any documents? >> sir, same answer. i would like to answer that question, but the fbi has directed me not to get into -- >> you can't -- my understanding is, mr. chairman, the discussions we've had with the fbi, he's allowed to tell us those kind of pieces of information. i'm not asking what the documents were, i'm just asking did bruce orr ever hand you documents. >> i understand full well what your question is, sir. i would love to answer it. my understanding is when it come to operational details whether or not we collected evidence or

didn't, i'm not permitted to answer that. sir, i would love to answer that question. all these -- >> you understand where i'm coming from, right, agent strzok? >> sir, i understand your frustration and what i'm here to tell you is i think the answers would set you at ease. >> you understand we got an e-mail from you briefing everybody on the team, all the key players, baker, page, moffa, prestep and andy mccabe and in that e-mail you say the dossier that you are now looking at that buzzfeed is printing has differences from the one given to us by corn and simpson. earlier today i asked you who corn and simpson is and you wouldn't answer that. it's kind of funny to me because yesterday david corn tweeted out he's the corn in your e-mail. so the guy himself has identified himself. we all know it's david corn. the other name is simpson. so you have this and we're wondering how the dossier got to or if -- more importantly, if the dossier got to the fbi

through media sources, not just through christopher steele. of course we know nellie orr worked for the guy you're mentioning, glenn simpson. she worked for him. the whole time. you've never had conversations with her, but you did have a lot of important conversations on operational matters and ongoing investigations with her husband, bruce orr, who also happened to be reassigned at the department of justice and you've said that -- well, you won't answer the question whether mr. orr has given you documents or not. so i'm just wondering if of that the route. was that the route the dossier went? glenn sichsmpson to nellie orr, her husband and then to you. that's my frustration. >> i understand your question. i understand your frustration. i understand the absurdity of something produced that you're reading that i've been directed not to answer questions about. the best i can -- >> more importantly that you wrote. >> i'd like to answer you and i'm afraid it's an answer that would both reassure you and

disappoint you. >> we're going to be asking mr. chairman, if it's okay with you, we're going to be asking the fbi and the department of justice to give us those documents that may or may not have been exchanged between mr. orr and agent strzok. i think that's something this committee would like to have and see what those -- if in fact there were documents, what the heck they were. i've got a minute, i'll yield it to -- >> sir, you're going to love this and it's going to upset the vote. i have been instructed that the fbi has now told me that i can answer questions about the receipt of the document so i will defer, mr. chairman -- >> how convenient. >> the gentleman may proceed with his questions and you may answer. >> may i confer with counsel briefly to see if this is completely unbounded or if there are any limitations on what i may say. >> let's ask the one you've been told you can answer. >> let's hear the answer to this one. >> which question, sir. >> the one on the table about the documents. >> the documents we received from a