adhere to strict conducts. judgment, the ig found that the use of official device to send messaging and political commentary demonstrated extremely poor judgment. and the powers of government are drawn from the people's consent. the executive branch draws law enforcement powers from that consent and from the trust willed powers. we have heard a lot about ethics, patriotism and service. i am mindful of the words of cries from luke. you should know a tree by its truth. i yield back my time to you mr. chairman. >> thanks gentlemen. and the gentleman from arizona mr. biggs is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, you have worked as a criminal investigator for at least 20 years, is that correct?

>> primarily ci work. we differentiate criminal. >> you are familiar with criminal investigation, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you understand you are looking for a couple of areas, to see if there is an act. >> right. >> you are also looking for culpable mental state. intentional, knowingly, reckless. >> almost always, yes. >> and you would agree, that sort of some statement against interest, most of the time, the culpable mental state of intentional or knowingly, that is done through circumstantial evidence, correct? >> i don't know -- >> trust me it is. you have got to prove that the

intended, not only every element of offense or knowingly did that offense. and there is a jury instruction that goes forward that says no there is no qualitative difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence, you would agree with that, right? >> i am not an attorney. >> well you have been in the court several times, you sound like an attorney. >> legal temprms, i don't have e ability to -- >> trust me on that. >> i will accept that. >> and then this morning, you said, and this has been a theme, i don't know how many times you have said it, but i wrote down the one quote you said quote, my text messages are not indicative to bias. do you still hold to that position? >> i do. >> okay. now, as we go forward here, when the fbi is trying to put together circumstantial evidence of a culpable mental state, they

are looking at things such as text messages and communications between people for whatever reason, you agree with that? >> i would, yeah. >> and so that indicates someone's mental state thaw are going to take before a jury where you are going to say beyond a reasonable doubt we can demonstrate either intentional or knowing by this series, this accumulation of circumstantial evidence, right? >> rephrased question, sir. >> okay. this is not hard. when you are trying to prove a culpable mental state, most of it is coming from circumstantial evidence, unless you have a confession. so taking a accumulation of evidence and this adds up to intentional or knowingly. >> agreed. >> one of the things that has been made evident here, is that your statements and

communications with ms. page wasn't a one off. it wasn't two. it wasn't three. this is a whole series. it is a whole series that goes on not for a day or a week, it goes on for a long period of time. is that not true? >> it is true. >> so when people begin to say, was there biesas, on the part o peter strozk, they are going for a whole accumulation that you made. so when the inspector general comes in and i asked him the question, and i said, look, you have said, regarding mr. strzok and ms. page, you didn't find document or evidence that they had improper considerations including political bias directing affecting. that is directly affecting.

i said did they indirectly affect it. he said, yeah. why? because he said you were the lead investigator, the lead investigator of the hillary clinton. you were the liaison if you were. the flow of information from the investigative team. i sketched kind of a diagram of how this works as you were describing it earlier today. you were the gate keeper of information. lisa page was providing counsel to andrew mccabe. on the russian investigation, you were the head guy. now we have accumulation of bias information that indicates some kind of mental state of bias and we got it that you are the head guy on this. that is what the inspector

general said under oath in testimony not too many weeks ago. >> if i may respond. >> there is no question before you. >> there are some inaccurate things. >> you're out of order. you've been out of order all day. >> when dispersions are cast. >> allow the witness to answer. >> everyone will suspend. and the time of the gentleman has expired. and the chair recognizes the chair from wisconsin. >> may i respond to the gentleman that just spoke? >> no you may not. the gentleman from wisconsin has the time. >> you have said the witness will be permitted to respond is that changed? >> there is no question directed to him. >> that is not true mr. chairman, he has a response. that was the procedure, and now you are changing it. >> the gentleman is completely

out of order. >> the time, no you are out of order. >> the time belongs to the gentleman from with is which sc may proceed. >> i beg of you to allow the gentleman and the end of the long hearing to be able to explaining conflicts in representation that have been made by various persons on the panel. >> it seems to me on advice of counsel, a lot of the things that we are going to find out today we not going to find out. when i look at this area, around washington d.c., i look and we had a candidate run for president who ran on the promise to drain the swamp. when i look at the election results, i see a monolithic

mindset that can be illustrated in the election results in the area. given as a country as a whole, half for wanting to drain the swamp. and some didn't. prince george county, 8%, arlington, virginia 17%. in wisconsin, 72 counties. there is not one county in which you have that, everybody voting together. i want to dig into which you hang around with. at the time where mr. mccabe, who i believe was ms. page's boss. at the time his wife ran for congress, a state elected position, you referred to people who lived in a county just

beyond washington d.c. more normal. you referred to them as this county louden cut is being gentrified but is still hillbillies. it doesn't surprise me these people in the swamp. it wouldn't surprise me if somebody inadvertently got ahold of e-mails and people were saying that, and the news news room in msnbc, it disappoints me that they were saying it in the fbi. but, i'm going to ask you, in the areas in which people you congregate in your business, how you obviously talked about politics, how many people do you run into say in the washington office, who overtly are

supporting president trump. >> when you say in the office, a couple of things, i certainly do not view the people of louden county as hillbillies. i regret that statement. when you say the office, i understand what you mean as around the office. >> people who you work with on a daily basis. >> i don't know who they support. >> it is apparent in the e-mails that you exchanged with ms. page, you were not shy about sharing your political experience. >> my sense, the fbi including

me is a very conservative typical organization. they believe in law and order and a strong national defense. >> when it comes to me, drain the swamp or otherwise. >> i'm sorry? >> in areas which i have worked in the past prior to politics, i can almost tell you, or have an opinion on where people come down on these issues. you are not shy talking about politics. in the social circle you hang around with, maybe you get at home, do you run into people who would have voted for president trump. people who you know? >> yes. yes. >> we rattled off the percentage of people voting for president trump in the surrounding counties, looks like overall, less than one in six. could you comment again on your comment largely ignorant hillbillies and there are a lot of people who think like you, in this swamp.

it is not unusual, probably a lot of lobbyist feel that way, congressional staffers. could you comment in general on the political viewpoint of the people who work in the washington office with you? >> most fbi agents tend to be strongly conservative. strongly law and order. strongly national and it was. up and until the current date, strongly republican. i couldn't tell you what people did or didn't vote for, because we don't tend to talk about that. >> i guess i'm out of time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. gomez for five minutes. >> mr. strzok, you have been on the hot seat for a number of hours. thank you for being here. and thank you for trying to answer the questions to the best

of your ability. i want to give you 45 seconds to respond to any of the comments that you made. >> i appreciate that. with regard to the ig and what they found, to be clear, the ig report found no act of bias by me or anybody in the fbi. and he said in his testimony, my understanding is the same. two, the ig found and stated in the report that i was amongst the most aggressive people in the hillary clinton investigation. they are written down and there are no two ways to try to spin out of those and i don't want to take your time so i will try to do it in 15 seconds, the insurance policy text, that text represents a debate on information we received. and if something is that

sensitive, you take objectiactit and we take risk. we roll slow, the more aggressive you are, the more you put it at risk and some people said that. said hey, look, every poll is saying candidate trump is likely not to win. every republican said. that some people said as a result of that, let's not risk this source. what i advocated for, is look, we are the fbi, we need to investigate. while it isn't likely, that he will be elected, we need to make sure we will take care of america. if candidate trump is elected there might be people we need to be investigating that might be nominated for important national security positions. everybody in america would want to know that. candidate trump would want to

know that. >> thank you. >> that's the meaning sir. >> thank you so much. i got sworn in july 11, 2017. i am one of the most fresh members of congress. it was about a year ago yesterday. and i was excited to be on the oversight committee because i believe that congress has responsibility to be a check on the executive branch. but that is when it is being honest in its purpose. i don't believe our committees led by the majority has been honest in its purpose. if it has been, it would be treating request by the minority with as much importance as their own. so i have a question, it is a rhetorical question, why has the oversight committee and judiciary committee refused to

subpoena on every topic than this one. in order to turn it out for the midterms. and to protect a president that has no moral authority to lead this country. and so, it is kind of em brae embarrassing. i have been watching this farce and circus for the last five hours. what are people thinking? grown men and women shouting over each other. and insulting one another. they try to dress it up by saying the gentleman from north carolina, and the gentle lady. it is all a farce. we have asked for subpoenas for a variety of issues. department of justice with h

holding documents on citizen. department of homeland security and department of justice with holding documents on gag orders and whistle blowers. the list goes on. and the american people should ask why. and the reason is they are not interested in finding the truth or making sure that we hold this administration accountable. it is all for tossing red meat to their base. you know what, we should never talk ill about anybody in any particular part of our country, but this president has lowered that standard. he questions immigrants, the allegiance of judges and the fbi and that in my opinion is

insulting and we need to grow up and show the american people that we are here to act as responsible branch of government. and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. strzok, when i hear you talk about your passion for america, i believe you. i can see that passion. when you talk about your love for the fbi, i see it. i believe it. when you talk about your faith in the american electorate, i believe that. now, what concerns me, is you said that you didn't trust the elections, quote, you didn't trust the election after russia put their finger on the scale. remember saying that earlier? >> i don't believe that is exactly whey said sir.

i think i said something slightly different, but i recall your exchange. >> that was the meaning, right? >> i don't think that was the meaning. the meaning was i was concerned that russia had attempted to do that. >> you specifically said russia had put their finger on the scale. >> i don't recall. >> you can find it later, but i wrote it down. >> i would be happy to tell you what i felt. >> do you think that justifies then, you, mr. mccabe, lisa page, to correct that wrong thaw perceived was done by the fbi? >> that never happened and that would not happen. >> let me ask you, the ig's report that i have right here, you said the political bias did not impact your professional actions, you said that earlier in this meeting as well.

let me give you background. in a text message set on augu august 15th, you wrote to lisa page, there is no way he gets elected, but i am afraid we can't take that risk, it is like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you are 40. was there anyone else in that meeting? >> i'm sure there was, i don't remember who. >> so you don't remember who all was in the meeting. >> there were an inordinate number of meetings, we're the government. i don't remember who was there. >> at least two of those people are no longer working for the fbi. >> i don't know if mr. mccabe was there.

we had had a briefing to the director, and sometimes the director will stay behind with his senior staff and if we have other matters to discuss, we will go down to the deputy's office and wait for him to return. he may have been there, he may not have been there, i don't recall. >> mr. mccabe is no longer working for the fbi, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> what about lisa page? >> that is correct. >> anybody else? >> possibly mr. baker. but i don't recall. >> let me ask, did you present the original fisa application? >> no. sir, i assume you are talking about the original fisa application, i did not.

>> were you in the courtroom? >> no. >> and there were three renewals, correct? >> i am not sure that i can discuss that information. >> okay. mr. rosenstein was here, and he declared he signed that renewal. and apparently because of the information that was in that renewal, he would not admit that he actually read the document. do now he of any falsehood, any half truth, any misinformation that was in that third renewal that would preclude him from being able to say he read it and he signed it and approved it?

>> i have no information about the deputy attorney general and what he did or didn't do and why he did or did not do anything. >> you said political bias didn't affect your work, but the fbi and doj was both add mon nished in the prosecution of senator stevens. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the witness can answer the question. >> okay. do you know they are undergoing training right now for political bias, is that correct. >> i understand that was a recommendation in the ig report. >> the time has expired. the chair recommends the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. strzok, despite your a

assertations, on page 424 of the inspector general's report, he said we -- five employees of whom you are above, listed above violates the fbi's code of conduct. are you under review of the fbi for professional responsibility? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. in january, 2014, the inspector general sent out a letter and indicated he received two sworn declarations from one intelligence community element. these declarations cover several dozen e-mails classified information determined to be at the confidential secret and top

secret levels, were you aware of the letter? >> what was the date? >> i don't recall it now. we had a team of anywhere from 20 to 60 people. >> i understand that you can't know everything. and i get it. and i also want you to understand that i am not going to be necessarily in an attack mode. i want to get some answers. >> absolutely. >> this is a very, very serious problem, this raised by the letter whether it is confidential, secret, or top sk secret. and you are former military, correct? >> yes, sir. >> you can understand the danger posed for our men and women. on march 4, you sent the text that hillary clinton should win.

at what point in there was the memo changed from gross negligence to extremely careless. >> i'm not going to give you a break down of what occurred before. >> and i understand you have been here a long time and so have we, but it was in may. >> okay. >> and what it appears here and it is in the context of the need to finish the mid year investigation is that donald trump had just won the primary. it was obvious that he was going to be the republican nominee and i believe you when you say you are a patriot and you care deeply about the country and i can see how you and your colleagues concluded that was in the best interest to change it from gross negligence to extremely careless because you couldn't comprehend a president trump or in your mind, the danger that that might pose to the country. >> that's not what happened,

sir. >> well something happened to change this from gross negligence to extremely careless. >> i can tell you what happened. >> i know what the inspector general said, he said it was not prosecutable because it was not in the code. don't have anything in the criteria for extremely careless. trying to give you credit for your patriotism and your desire to do what is best for the country, our history is replete of people who have made decisions that they thought was the right decision at the time. the text messages and the fact that clearly there is a bias. and i get it, we all have biases, it is what we do with them and how we act on them and how we are able to compartmentalize these things that determine the course of things, really, the course of

history. and in the last few seconds here, i want to tell you, that i appreciate the fact that you sought forgiveness of the family, and severely damaged the reputation of the fbi. and we are not here about the fbi. we are about here about what you did. i can't imagine what your family is feeling going through this. and i am not going to question your integrity. but i will say this. i hope you take this as constructive. as i watched your body language and facial expression, it is almost as if you enjoyed this, and it is a competition for you. in many respects. and i am not saying your problem is a lack of integrity, it is a problem with hub rous.

>> mr. chairman, the gentleman may briefly respond. >> sir, i appreciate your prayers. i can tell you when you look at happened in the investigation, everything was done by the book. and you can assure yourself and your constituents and everybody you are talking to when you look at both investigations, notwithstanding what decisions were made, at high level to say something, to not say something, everything was done by the book. all of that was found, all of that was detailed in director comey's statement. >> in regard to that, i want you to understand. >> the gentleman's time has

expired. >> mr. chairman, parliamentary inquiry. >> the witness has attempted to answer the gentleman's question. >> and he was allowed to. >> just a moment please. the question that was asked and the witness was not allowed at that time to give the clarification. >> the gentle woman has not stated a parliament inquiry -- >> which was not written at the time. >> the gentle woman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you for being here. i have found your testimony today to be quite remarkable in

its disingenuousness. i think we would all agree that everyone does have personal viewpoints, that is true. but agent strzok, there is a big difference between someone expressing his or her political views generally and someone leading an fbi investigation making highly negative and explosive comments about the actual target of that investigation. would you agree? >> that is a yes or no. >> rephrase the question. i don't understand. >> you have an awesome talent for filibustering. you might want to think about running for the senate. you were the lead investigators, one of the lead investigators and made highly negative and explosive comments about the actual target of investigation. that is different than somebody

expressing his point of view. your assertion that your statements do not constitute bias is absurd. the facts are this. the fbi inspector general testify before this body that you did indeed exhibit bias and further in his report he detailed numerous examples of investigative steps that were not quote by the books as you just testified. what i also find stunning is someone in your role with the responsibilities that you have engage in grossly unacceptable and unethical behavior. and now, truly ironic, did i hear you say you are in a senior position in the hr in the fbi? >> yes, ma'am. >> that is ironic.

what action would you take? >> ma'am, if they were sending personal opinion about a political matter, that is their business. given my experience to date, i would caution them against doing that on a government device, that is separate and distinct from an individual that was not a political candidate that did not have the first amendment attached to it. >> suppose that you found out that one of your direct reports was having an extra marital affair with the colleague or someone outside of the bureau, what action would you take? >> if it was against the fbi regulations in terms of somebody in their chain of command which is inappropriate and not allowed i would tell them and report that. if it was permitted in the regulations i would say look, i

am aware of this and take into consideration what you are doing and the appearance of that. >> so obviously you understand the gravity of the trance ge transgressions. and engaging in what you have been engaging it. it opens up to exploitation and blackmail. given the fact that you have and currently hold a high level clearance. >> they were well aware of it. >> when did they become aware of it? >> when it was made very public by the media after it was leaked. >> so it was in the press. >> your premise, that it makes it susceptible to blackmailed. i never could have been blackmailed or coerced by the nature of that relationship. >> you were asked a question about that. there is a reason that security

clearances ask those questions. did you ever advise mr. mueller about your relationship with ms. page? >> why? >> it didn't strike me as relevant. >> you have a lot to learn about human resources. wow. it is absolutely relevant. there should have been conversations, i find it interesting that there was no discussion that the two of you shouldn't both be together on that investigation. no reasonable person could not be concerned about your actions in this investigation. so thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to thank you for your testimony and your service. it has been a long day. and i admire your resume. i came from a similar background.

i went to a catholic high school and catholic college and i remember going to holy cross and having people say, the graduates from harvard and yale make the laws and the graduates from holy cross enforce the laws. and i take pride in that. take pride in that education reinforced your ethical beliefs in a difficult world where we make mistakes and it is part of our humanity. i must say i am discouraged today to have listened to much of this hearing on many levels. many of the people on the other side of the aisle are friend, good friends. it reminds me what it must have been like to sit through the mccarthy hearings. i am troubled by the fact that someone in your background did what you did.

but you and i both believe in redemption. so i believe that you have acted in that way today. i want to comment in a question specifically for one case. so there has been a persistent conspiracy theory about hillary clinton e-mail investigation in one of your former colleagues, the executive assistant director for the fbi branch. he left the fbi because he was upset that -- quote going sideways or nowhere by design. he responds in testimony in front of our committee and said these allegations were completely false quote-unquote nonsense. totally inaccurate. almost the whole thing is nonsense. and i would have to read it again to definitively say.

he continues i love every minute i spent in the fbi. one bad day in 25 years and that was on 9/11. and i think it was a bad day for a lot of people and for this country. i didn't leave because i was disgruntled or sideways. it was the right time for me. i don't know who they used to source this thing. further said explaining the clinton case, he said quote, i fully recognize right at the gate that it was a political bomb shell, that we, meaning the fbi were an aa political information. going to conduct a thorough investigation. which we did.

you know if the evidence existed, he would have pushed it for prosecution. and about you, he said, quote, there was no indication that he exhibited any bias while he was conducting the investigation while he was working for me. 110 miles per hour, we were always looking for new ways to uncover. at no point in time during my management of this case, did he exhibit anything that would provide any slight indication of some of those things that were, you know, posted and put out to the media end quote. do you have any comments on your former colleague comments. >> i deeply appreciate them. he is an extraordinary agent with a heart of gold and i appreciate them. >> and just in closing, curious,

and not to be redundant, but really want to sort of reiterate, you were nonpartisan in your comments and criticisms which i think is fair. my dad used to be a state support court judge in massachusetts and one of my siblings put a bumper sticker on his car and he went ballistic. is there one thing that you could encapsulate what the bureau could learn from this to make sure no one sits where you are. >> i deeply regret certainly the appearance that they created and all the way, that manifested itself out. personally with regard to the bureau. at the end of the day we are judged on our actions and what i

do with regard to my personal matters is my own business but i would say i take some comfort that when i look at my actions in the work place, they are proper. that they are correct, they were done for the right reasons and done in the right way. and so whenever i get ups and downs in this experience, i look at that record of work and it gives me considerable comfort that it was done right and well >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. strzok, you were the lead investigator in the clinton investigation. were there any other searches for e-mails with the clinton e-mail route that would have held data collected to 702 or other fisa authorities?

>> i would have to think about that. >> were there -- >> rephrase the question. >> servers that were used or devices that were searched. were there searches done on the data warehouse system that would obtain data pursuant to fisa or 702. >> when you say data warehouse system, you were referring to fbi systems. >> correct. >> i believe there were. >> do you know if anything was found? >> not offhand i don't. >> it is not referenced in the ig report. investigators learned late in their review. that may have included information relevant to the mid year investigation but ultimately did not do so.

furthermore, unnamed fbi attorney one went so far to say the review of the material was necessary to complete the year and even began to draft a memo about it. and per the ig you thought the e-mails would have been a logical investigative step. who stopped it? >> i don't know. it was levels above me. my understanding was it was outside the bureau. >> did you object to that? >> i disagreed. i wanted to search it. we are getting close to classified information. >> did you send an e-mail or a memo to that effect that you said we need to search this? >> i don't recall what the nature was. >> as a counterintelligence officer, did you know if any other nondoj government officials had reviewed the classified materials in question in this case? >> i don't know. >> did any non doj person

communicate with fbi or mid personnel about this material? >> i can't answer that question without providing -- >> did you know anywhere in the mid year team ever briefed anybody it is white house -- >> i don't know. >> would not have the material -- >> those are two different questions. there is an investigative question which i, as the leader of the team sh, which included senior investigators had a desire to do some. >> this was happening in may of 2016, was there a rush to wrap this up? >> this was not happening in may of 2016. >> according to the ig report, this was coming out in may of

2016. >> may have been aspects of the discussion, but my recollection is that it was broader than that. >> it said learned late in their review. >> i think that says that is when the ig learned about it. if i am not mistaken in the reading. i don't remember specifically when it came up in the context of mid year. >> you were the lead investigator at mid year. >> yes i was. >> during mid year exam did the -- including any e-mails that would have used aliases. >> yes. >> did any of those e-mails contain classified information? >> with president obama? >> between mrs. clinton and president obama. >> i don't believe so. but i would have to verify that.

>> do you know if any e-mails was intercepted by any foreign actor. >> i don't know. >> on page 149 in the ig report noted that they found evidence that you advocate -- and search warrants the mid year team decided to go with. who specifically had the authority to not use compulsory process. >> i am certain the ig did not use the phrase kid glove. the decision rested with the prosecutors. >> did anyone outside of the mid year team suggest not to use an aggressive report? >> there is a constant debate between the agents and attorneys. >> anybody outside the mid year

team? >> not that i have known. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman may answer the question. >> the chair recognizes the chair from kentucky for five minutes. >> mr. strzok, hillary clinton has said publicly that fbi director james comey cost her the election. do you share hillary clinton's opinion? >> sir, i don't know. i read a lot of pollsters and speculations but i don't know. >> it is an important question because you think about hillary clinton making a statement like that about the fbi and the fbi director as well as the statements that president trump has made about the fbi and those are the two leaders in each party. i think it does matter, out of curiosity, are there any recordings of the interviews of the clinton e-mails investigation?

>> no, sir, i don't believe we recorded any of the interviews. >> to the best of my recollection, i would need to review the case file. >> is that normal for an investigation of that size? >> yes. >> mr. strzok, did you consult with james comey before he made the decision to go public days before the presidential election with the fact that the fbi was going to re-open the investigation into hillary clinton's e-mail once it was determined that anthony weiner had access to the e-mails did you consult with james comey before he made the decision. >> i was present at meetings were that was discussed. >> do you think that was the right decision? >> sir, that is a difficult question. i think for all of us it was a 5149 proposition. i came out with that decision comfortable with doing so.

>> did ms. page consult with james comey. >> you would have to ask her. >> we hope to get to ask her questions. do you think that james comey leaked out -- let me back up. in a text message from you to ms. page, you referenced insurance policy. what did you mean by having an insurance policy in case i would assume president trump won the election. >> sir, i appreciate that question because it has taken very much, i understand it is ambiguous and people have taken it out of context. the insurance policy was an analogy is that you do something when something is not likely to happen. you are probably not going to die before you are authori40, b have a policy anyway. members of the campaign may have been working in cooperation with

the russians and some saying this sensitive source of information that is so sensitive, so vulnerable, we shouldn't put it in danger because sometimes you go out and do investigation, whether it is a drug sniff or intelligence source, it can cause significant harm. all of the pollsters, saying it is not likely president trump is going to be elected so don't worry about it. i had a different view. i said you know it doesn't matter whether he is going to be elected. we are the fbi. we need to do our job. >> let me ask you this. you have answered the question -- >> i want to finish up. >> do you think james comey leaked out because he needed a quote insurance policy toc cove his back for pre determining that hillary clinton was innocent even before it began.

>> i don't think james comey leaked anything. i don't think he, i, or anybody else viewed that we needed to do something to prevent any particular action at all. >> with the respect to the clear bias of trump, and your clear prejudice of the trump voters, and by the way, i am a hillbilly from appear lashia, that you referenced. what would you do if you found a text from one of your subordinates that exhibited the type of bias, how would you handle that scenario. >> if i found a text from a subordinate that was expressing

an opinion, it was appropriate. if your request -- i would bring that subordinate in and counsel him. that is apples and oranges. not all the same. >> i believe this is a bad day for the fbi and i believe that we have an overwhelming majority of quality fbi agents and intelligence agents across the united states and across the world. but it is unfortunate that when reading the inspector general's report and sitting here listening to the testimony and watching the reaction of your colleagues behind me with rolling their eyes and frowning faces, it is discouraging as a member of congress that we have tried this hard to get information. the american people want to know, and this russia investigation is going on for a long time. and many believe it is a witch

hunt. and it needs to be wrapped up. and from what we have heard today, there are a lot of problems with the lead agent. i yield back. >> does the gentle woman from texas desire a couple of minutes to make any closing remarks. >> thank you for your indulgence. this has been a long day. let me thank the federal bureau of investigation. the after math of 9/11, i was in congress, let me thank the fbi and mr. strzok for their service. let me say this and then conclude my remarks. i want it to be clear that general flynn in his offense,

asked the russian ambassador from refraining. following a whistle blower then said he referred to this to mr. flynn. that the sanctions would be quote ripped up to allow money to start flowing to one of flynn's business projects. did you have anything to do with any comments by general flynn? >> this is not for asking questions. >> i will leave that on the record. i thought it would be good to clarify it. but let me finish my remarks. in the concluding comments, mr. strzok, i believe this hearing in its long period of time show no bias regarding the final reports of hillary clinton's e-mails. she was vindicated. nothing changes the russia

interference in our election. no questions were asked by the republicans by the interference, the gop in many instances would not let you, mr. strzok in answering the questions. the hearing did not give the american people the important answers they needed and that was how did we secure our elections in 2018. that unfortunately plays into putin's hands. it also did not respond or did not answer. what would you do when white house officials did not get their own clearances. when our country is attacked, i want to make sure that the fbi and not the kgb shows up. we need to do a better job in answering the concerns of children snatches away from their parents. today you stood the test of

time, at least you have admitted fault and certainly admitted that you would have wanted to do things in a better way as i glean from your testimony. it cannot take away your service to the united states military, your service to the fbi and your willingness to offense your deference and your concern about the continuation of the fbi and its service to its nation. mr. chairman, i hope the judiciary committee and oversight chairman is not pre , present, but in any event that we will take up the issues. and solve problems that are important to the democracy, security. i thank you and i yield back. >> many member on the other side of the aisle have attempted to denigrate this investigation and this hearing today.

one going so far in calling it stupid. aren't just about reviewing the 2016 election, however important that is. this is a bigger matter. our investigation and this hearing goes to a larger global and existential issue of equality under the law. for my democratic colleagues to call this stupid denigrates the importance of founding principles. i venture to guess that most americans don't view equality under the law and fair and unbiased investigations as stupid. mr. strzok, this has been a lengthy hearing so thank you for your time today. it has been extraordinarily frustrating in trying to get answers to many important questions. you have refused to answer many questions on the advice of the fbi. you have said you cannot answer

questions on advice of counsel. so we are struck with a situation where you have not answered questions from congress under the cover of the fbi or special counsel mueller. we have a constitutional right to have answered the questions posed to you. the fbi director reports to the deputy attorney general. the fbi is a component to the department of justice. so at the end of the day, deputy attorney general rosenstein who has oversight is where the buck stops. we now consider the department on the line in addition to the fbi for failing to permit you to answer questions that don't even go to the substance of any

investigation but have focused on your involvement in the process of those investigations. this is unacceptable. congress has been blocked from conducting its constitutional oversight duty and the american people have not received answers on why our chief law enforcement agency and agents and lawyers operating within them permitted improper bias to permeate three. has been severely undermined today. this is not over and you as well as future witnesses are on notice that full some answers are expected promptly. with that, this hearing is adjourned. >> as you have been watching fbi

agent peter strozk's hearing. that was chair judiciary bob goodlot giving his closing. this has been going on for nine hours. and now it is time for "all in" with me, chris hayes. >> political belief does not equate to bias and we have to go to the evidence. >> the ridiculous spectacle on capitol hill. >> are you going to make up rules as we go along? >> and why the president should be thanking peter strozk. >> but for you, we would have had a legitimate president