abuses of power at the fbi are why we have a term limit for the directors of the fbi. it is that term limit is not there to protect the fbi's independence. it is there to protect the people from the abuses that j. edgar hoover committed because he became too independent. he was accountable to no one. j. edgar hoover feared -- was feared by presidents, senators, and congressmen. while the director originally was selected by the attorney general, in 1968, congress made the position subject to presidential appointment and senate confirmation. in 1976, the congress established a nonrenewable ten-year term for the director. the senate judiciary committee published a committee report on that bill limiting the ten-year term in 1974. it took a couple of years for the bill to pass the house. i want to quote from that report. the purposes of the bill is to achieve two complementary objectives, the first is to insulate the director of the fbi from unique pressure being exerted upon him from superiors in the executive branch. the second is to protect against an fbi director becomi

of the fbi at work. their job is to counter foreign intelligence operations inside the united states. in the donald heathfield and tracy leanne foley case you see that work unfolding completely undetected with this incredible level of intrusive surveillance on these spies over the course of a decade. i mean this must be hard to do without being found out, right? it's unbelievably cinematic. this case of the russian illegals this spy ring which was uncovered in 2010 really is what led to the tv series "the americans oixts in real life in this case, there was a side plot to donald heathfield and tracy leanne foley specifically because their son who's were born in toronto in the '90s, those sons apparently had no idea before their parents were arrested in 2010 that their parents had been spies or that they were russian that became there dramatic battle in canada when the boys sued to try to get their canadian citizenship back. they were like we don't care that you were born here. the boys were like maybe but

the fbi has a culture. it is in our culture, it is in our training, it is in our policy and everything we do is dedicated to the pursuit of the facts where they lay and applying the law to those facts. there is no room for personal belief. it is something that is. >> culturally that doesn't occur. were it to occur, it would be noted and stopped. and in addition to that culture, we have policies, we have procedures, we have laws, we have guide llines that are designed to provide outside checks and balances, to provide for outside review, to provide for any number of ways that the individual actions of any agent, any analyst, any support personnel are not acting in any way other than official policies and procedures. so, when i tell you, again as i did personally what i believe in what i did, i understand why people may or may not have doubts or believe that, but then i would turn and say, look at the entirety of the rest of the organization, of the men and women who make it up, of all the things in place to e

the fbi in mid september, the first time i'm aware of the fbi having that information, the first time i saw it was in mid september. my understanding was that came into the fbi. that's when i became aware of it and when i first read it. bruce orr gave the fbi documents relating to or part of the dossier, is that accurate? >> mr. orr gave the fbi documents which i believe included material from mr. steele. >> the gentleman may briefly answer the question that the gentleman felt he didn't have an opportunity to answer with mr. walker. >> yes, sir. thank you. when you bring up an integrity issue -- it's interesting, you and the gentleman from texas raised this in a way that almost approaches -- it is insulting. >> the gentleman may answer the question. >> i'm saying i am here under oath. i am not lying. i have never lied under oath and i never will. the insinuation -- not even the insinuation, the direct comment that you somehow say you have an integrity issue is insulting. i take offense. it is incorrect. nothing i have said -- >> i never mentioned your personal life. i just simply said

but i have every faith and confidence in the fbi and the agents of the fbi in what we do every single day. rep. demings: i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to discuss the laptop discovery. you have explained there was a significant delay in the time that information was discovered in which hundreds of thousands of emails were discovered, potentially pertinent to the hillary clinton email investigation. there was a delay and you have explained in the past that the delay was caused simply because you were too busy. what were you doing that caused you to be so busy? mr. strzok: i wouldn't call it a significant delay. to answer your question, in the fall of 2016 as the deputy assistant director of counterintelligence, i had the responsibility -- i was trying to explain what i was doing. i was busy overseeing thousands of cases, every espionage case in the fbi, every economic espionage case in the fbi. you asked a question. may i answer? rep. hice: i'm going to reclaim my time. were you involved in the russia investiga

the fbi has a culture. it is in our culture, it is in our training, it is in our policy and everything we do is dedicated to the pursuit of the facts where they lay and applying the law to those facts. there is no room for personal belief. it is something that is an anathema to us. it is something that doesn't occur. and were it to occur, it would be noted and stopped. and in addition to that culture, we have policies. we have procedures. we have laws. we have guidelines that are designed to provide outside checks and balances, to provide for outside review, to provide for any number of ways that the individual actions of any agent, any analyst, any support personnel, are not acting in any way other than official policies and procedures. so when i tell you, again, as i did, personally what i believe and what i did, i understand why people may or may not have doubts or believe that. but then i would turn to, and say look at the entirety of the rest of the organization. of the men and women who make it up. of

they're not helpful but i have every faith and confidence in the fbi and the agents of the fbi and what we do every single day. >> thank you so much. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to discuss a little bit the wienner laptop discovery. you explained there was significant delay from the time that information was discovered in which obviously hundreds of thousands by your own words, hundreds of thousands of e-mails were discovered potentially pertinent to the hillary clinton e-mail investigation. there was a delay there. you have explained in the past the delay was caused because you were too busy. what were you doing during october of 2016 that caused you to be so busy? >> sir, i wouldn't call it a significant delay, i don't think it was caused because i was too busy. the answer to the question in fall of 2016, i was deputy assistant director of counter intelligence division. >> you explained -- what were you busy doing. >> i was trying to explain. i was busy overseeing thousands of cases, every e

the fbi in mid september, the first time i'm aware of the fbi having that information, the first time i saw it, was when in mid september. my understanding is that was -- that came into the fbi, that's when i became aware of it and when i first read it >> one more time, just say it, bruce orr gave the fbi documents relating to and supporting or part of the dossier, is that accurate? >> mr. orr gave the fbi documents which included material that i believe originated from mr. steele. >> thank you. >> the gentleman may briefly answer the question that the gentleman felt he didn't have an opportunity to answer with mr. walker. >> yes, sir, thank you, i wanted to address when you bring up an integrity issue. it is interesting you and the gentleman from texas raised this in a way that almost, you know, approaches -- it is insulting. >> the gentleman may answer the question. >> sir, i'm going to respond. i'm here under oath. i'm not lying. i have never lied under oath. i never will. so the insinuation -- not even the insinuation the direct comment that you somehow say you have an integrity i

going into the fbi. developments, and we are asking the question, or even a questio question, very simply, is this the beginning of the end of the special counsel because this is obviously an fbi that is rife with corruption and bias, turned into an absolute assault of subversion against the president of the united states. >> well, i think the credibility of that whole thing, i think it is shot. the fact of the matter, when you have that type of bias, when you have bruce ohr acting like a political operative in in the justice department, feeding his opposition research to people like strzok and the fbi, and they are launching a counterintelligence investigation, and they puffed it up past the election. that is really unprecedented. it was abuse of the surveillance powers, from the powers of the government. and lisa page is not going to come tomorrow, or she is going to be held. i think she is going to show up. she will have to answer questions as well, and i think we are finally starting to make progress

when you learn that the fbi. you see that work unfolding completely undetected with this incredible level of intrusive surveillance on these spies over the course of a decade. this must be incredibly hard to do without being found out, right? it's also unbelievably cinematic. this case of the russian illegals, this spy ring which was uncovered in 2010, it really is what led to the tv series "the americans." in real life in this case there was a side plot to donald heathfield and tracy leanne foley specifically because their sons who had been born in toronto in the '90s, those sons had no idea before their parents were arrested in 2010 that their parents were spies or russian. the boys sued the canadian government to try to get their canadian citizenship back. canada was like, we don't care that you were born here. you're russian. the boys were like, maybe, we don't speak russian. we've never been there. so please can we be canadians again? this is the kind of stuff that for obvious reasons ends up making good movi

jones had with the fbi? >> i'm not and i don't know if that's accurate or not. >> i'm going from the intelligence report that the majority issued from the house intel commence it too tee. >> i'm not aware of that meeting. >> have you ever spoke with daniel jones? >> no. do you know mr. jones at all? >> i do not. >> all right. i want to go back to one more question i asked you the first round, mr. strzok. mr. simpson when he did testify in front of the senate judiciary committee was asked about fus n fusion. no one from fusion spoke with the fbi. is there any what that contradicts the e-mail i'm referencing with you. >> i don't know. i can tell you i have not spoken to mr. simpson. >> all right, i thank the chairman and the gentleman from south carolina for yielding. >> the chair would note several of the questions asked by the gentleman were not answered by the witness on the advice of his council and i presume through the fbi. we will note those questions so we can address them at a futher time because i fin

chairman. >> the fbi has instructed mr. strozk that he can answer additional questions. >> agent strozk -- >> there is time to get answers to the questions -- >> the fbi approved. >> has the fbi given you permission to say if glen simpson is the name you use when you say simpson? >> i don't believe they have given me guidance. my most recent understanding is in response to the question of whether the fbi received documents. >> has the fbi given you information to tell me whether you knew nelly orr worked for fusion at the time you were meeting with her husband? >> to my knowledge the fbi has not directed me or allowed me to respond to that. >> i yield back. >> the committee will stand in recess until immediately after this series of votes. >>> i'm wolf blitzer in the situation room. we have been watching today's deeply partisan congressional hearing. peter strozk the fbi agent who sent anti-trump text messages repeatedly insisted his personal opinions had absolutely no impact on any official actions he took during the invest

the fbi in mid september, the first time i'm aware of the fbi having that information, the first time i saw it was in mid september. my understanding is that was -- that came into the fbi. that's when i became aware of it and when i first read it. >> one more time. bruce ohr gave the fbi documents related to and supporting or part of the dossier? is that accurate? >> mr. ohr gave the fbi documents which included material that i believe originated from mr. steele. >> thank you. >> the gentleman may briefly answer the question that the gentlemen felled he didn't have an opportunity to answer. >> i wanted to address, when you bring up an integrity issue and you and the gentleman from texas raised this that approaches -- it's insulting. >> the gentleman may answer the question. >> sir, what i'm saying, i'm here under oath. i'm not lying. i never lied under oath and i never will. so the direct comment that you somehow say that you have an integrity issue is insulting. i take offense. it's incorrect. nothing i -- >> i never mentioned your personal life. i simply said the amount of time you

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

he wasn't speaking we as the fbi. again, people can believe whatever they want about this. >> it was weird. the texts are weird. >> one congressman pointed out that there were many, many republicans at the time that said worse things about president trump. >> but he is an official of the fbi investigating candidates and he is also under the provisions of the hatch act, he is not supposed to be -- >> he was trying to draw personal views and professional -- >> what part of today was bad for vladimir putin? >> nothing. >> none of it. his goal is to divide americans from within. this was a spectacular showing of success. >> and i think that was his intention in the hack in the first place. it wasn't necessarily explicitly to elect donald trump. >> no, no, no, i think he hit the laottery on that. i think it's to sow discord and he's been successful doing that. >> and that predates trump. >> whatever you think about trey gowdy, he is retiring, he's leaving, he's leaving the congress. he's a very excitable and hot tempered gu

he has said that he's been instructed by the fbi not to answer the question. now -- >> by lawyers. >> he knows -- he knows the advice i have just given him. if he would like, i'll restate it. but knowing this, will you answer the committee's question as directed or do you refuse to answer the committee's question? >> point of parliamentary inquiry, mr. chairman. >> that ruling was not in order. >> point of parliamentary inquiry, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from south carolina has the time and parliamentary inquiry is not in order during the gentleman's time. the chair is instructing the witness to answer the question, and the question to you is -- >> mr. chairman -- >> will you answer the committee's question as directed or do you refuse to answer the committee's question? >> mr. chairman, i move to adjourn. >> second. >> you're not recognized for that purpose. >> mr. chairman, i think you have no choice but to recognize such a motion. >> i do not have -- >> are you just going to make up rules as we go along? >> the motion is not in order during the time co

we're the fbi. we need to aggressively review the allegations. >> do you think james comey leaked out about the re-opening of the hillary e-mail investigation because he needed a quote insurance policy to cover his back for predetermining that hillary clinton was innocent in the e-mail investigation before it ever enbegan? >> i don't think director comey leaked anything that i'm aware of with regard to the clinton investigation. i certainly do not think he, i, or anybody else viewed any investigation or any step in the sense of what you're saying we needed to do something to prevent any particular action at all. >> with respect to the clear bias of donald trump in your text messages and your clear prejudice against the trump voters. by the way, i'm one of those hillbillies from appalachia, that you reference in your text, you were in a supervisory role at the fbi. what would you do if you found a text from a subordinate of yours that exhibited the same type of bias that you had towards a group of peo

i think it would indicate the fbi -- some of that is a hypothetical. i think the fish wou i think the fbi would approach that from the perspective if there were people in the campaign working with russia, there would be very little more important than getting to the bomb of it. american people, i think expect that. frankly, any presidential candidate who might have that going on in the campaign would wrant to know about that and have the fbi get to the bottom of it. but any actual collusion or cooperation would be amongst the gravest threats of the democracy. >> chairman? >> thanks. mr. strzok, i want to follow up on a couple of the questions chairman gowdy asked. of the yo . your texts and e-mails made it like you had come to an collusion long before. you also have appeared to the impeachment at the beginning the russia case. does the fbi normally make such decisions on whether to recommend prosecution or exoneration so far ahead of the facts coming to light. >> typically doj makes prosecution decisions in cases. >> do they normally make such decisions

the fbi has a culture. it is in our culture, it is in our training, it is in our policy and everything we do is dedicated to the pursuit of the facts where they lay and applying the law to those facts. there is no room for personal belief. it is something that is. >> culturally that doesn't occur. were it to occur, it would be noted and stopped. and in addition to that culture, we have policies, we have procedures, we have laws, we have guide llines that are designed to provide outside checks and balances, to provide for outside review, to provide for any number of ways that the individual actions of any agent, any analyst, any support personnel are not acting in any way other than official policies and procedures. so, when i tell you, again as i did personally what i believe in what i did, i understand why people may or may not have doubts or believe that, but then i would turn and say, look at the entirety of the rest of the organization, of the men and women who make it up, of all the things in place to e

no one from fusion spoke with the fbi. ny way that contradicts what is in the e-mail that's been referencing with you? >> i don't know. i can tell you, i have not spoken to mr. simpson. >> i asked you that the first time. i thank the chairman and i thank the gentlemen from south carolina. yield back to the chairman. >> the chair would note several of the questions were not answered by the witness on the advice of his counsel and i presume through the anybody. we will note those questions so that we can address them at a future time because i find it stunning they're not allowing you to answer those questions, mr. strzok. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the chairman started saying i wish the hearing wasn't necessarily. sorry i don't believe that. it isn't necessary. there are hearings that are necessary. we see them every day. there's 3,000 children separated from their moms and dads and the government doesn't know where their moms and dads are and

jones had with the fbi? >> i am not and i don't know if that's accurate or not, but i'm not aware. >> i'm going from the intelligence report that the majority issued from the house intelligence committee. >> i'm not aware of that meeting or who that is. >> have you ever spoke with daniel jones? >> no. >> do you know mr. jones at all? >> i do not. >> all right. i want to go back to one more question i asked you the first round, mr. strzok. mr. simpson, when he did testify in front of the senate judiciary committee was asked about fusion. no one from fusion ever spoke with the fbi. is there any way that that contradicts what's in the e-mail that i've been referencing with you? >> i don't know. i can tell you i have not spoken to mr. simpson. >> you've not spoken to mr. simpson. >> i asked you that the first time. all right. i thank the chairman and i thank the gentleman from south carolina for yielding. i yield back to the gentleman. >> the chair would note that several of the questions asked by the gentleman w

no one from fusion ever spoke with the fbi. does that contradict female that i've been working with you? >> i'm not spoken with him. i think the german and the gentleman from south carolina for yielding. >> the chair notes that several questions asked by the gentleman were not answered by the witness on the advice of his counsel and i presume through the fbi and we will know those questions to address them at a specific time because i find it stunning they are notti allowing you to answer those questions. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you very much mr. chairman they started this hearing by saying i wish this hearing wasn't necessary. i'm sorry if i don't believe that. he wants this hearing and it isn't necessary. there are hearings that are necessary and we see them every day. there's 3000 children separated from the imams and that's and the government doesn't know whether moms and dads are and can't bring them together. that seems like something the judiciary committee should be investigating. we st

the fbi has a culture. , it is in our training, it is in our policy, and everything we do is dedicated to the pursuit of the facts where they lay and applying the law to those facts. there is no room for personal belief. it is something that is and a national ma to us. it is something culturally were to occur. were it to occur it would be noted and stopped. in addition to that culture, we have policies, we have procedures, we have laws, we have guidelines, that are designed to provide outside checks and balances, to provide for outside review, provide for any number of ways that the individual actions of any agent, an any analyst, any support personnel, are not acting in any other way than official policies and procedures. if i tell you, again as i did, personally what i believe and what i did, i understand why people may or may not have doubts or believe that, but then i would turn to say, look at entirety of the rest of the organization, of the men and women who make it up, of all the things that are in pl

strzok knows chris swecker, who spent 24 years with the fbi and retired as the head of all the fbi criminal investigations. and mr. swecker wrote, he said, the ig report presents jarring evidence of political bias by the fbi against republican presidential candidate donald trump but fails to add it all up to come to the inevitable conclusion that political bias was there. this is like saying one plus one equals zero. mr. strzok, do you have any reason to think that mr. horowitz or mr. swecker have some sort of bias or animosity toward you? >> sir, i disagree with mr. swecker's conclusions. i can't speak to mr. swecker's motivations of bias whatsoever. and i know of no bias by the inspector general. >> i also share a columnist wrote, quote, the earth-shattering finding on strzok by the inspector general confirms a seven zhecitizenry's fears, a high ranking government conspiring to affect the outcome of a u.s. presidential election. let me ask you this. mr. strzok, you know that judges who have even minimal bias are required to recuse themselves from a case. do you think that fbi agents have

do you think that's an accurate representation of peter stzok within the fbi. >> i was listening in the "newsroom" when he said that. i shook my head. no way louie gohmert is talking to fbi agents around the country, it harkens to what the press secretary said, setting that aside -- >> just for a little historical, this is not the first time louie gohmert has made comments based on what he said were conversations with former fbi people or fbi people, we did a whole interview with him about a terror baby conspiracy he said fbi agents were concerned about. >> it's pattern. no way someone can prove that. we can't sit here and fact check him, no way we can. he's an elected representative. i set that aside, i don't believe him. as to what fbi employees think about peter stzok that is something we can talk about generally as an issue that devised them. this is someone in a senior position in the fbi entrusted with an incredible responsibility and failed the organization with incredibly terrible judgment. that said, it doesn't appear that judgment impacted the investigation for political reaso

no one from fusion ever spoke with the fbi. so here is what i am having troubleund he steering when glen no one spoke with the fbi. how is that i got a copy of the dossier from simpson? >> sir, i can tell you. he never had contact with mr. simpson,z with mr. corn. sir., >> chairman. order. >> gentlemen have a few more seconds sense he was interrupted? >> well, i mean, this is the frost racial that every single this committee feels is when agent wanted it. the american people feel he won't answer questions. reference in the e-mail, and won't tell me who they are. unbelievable. that is where it is frustrating. i yield back. respond?man, may i >> briefly. sir, it is as frustrating to me as it is to. he can tell you, sir. i would love -- u know what? may the witness be permitted to answer? >> if it is so frustrating, answer the question. amif you allow him to, i sure we il. >> he has never answered the question. interrupting him. >> stop badgering. on.e are about to move the gre ohio's time has expired. we are about to move on. he c

did you work on russia primarily when you were in the fbi? >> at that period early on, yes. >> are there some things you can tell us about the russian that's maybe we should know before the president meets with mr. putin, his very good friend and the man he cannot say anything bad about? >> sir, i can speak to my experiences as a national security professional in the fbi. the russians are top rate adversary in terms of their foreign intelligence service, in terms of how competently they are able to use their intelligence service to achieve their foreign policy and national security goals. many of which you referenced. their desire, the threat from nato trying to undermine the western alliance, trying to minimize the role and influence and leadership of the united states around the world, attempting to minimize and undermine the extraordinary greatness of our democracy, to make it seem pedestrian and nothing special and on par with their clep tock contrasy and near dictatorship they have to make it seem less. that's my intelligence perspective.

the fbi needs to be collapsed in on itself. the agency interested joining new investigative division of marshall service. they need to be vetted and lateral over. the fbi as we know it needs to go away. it has zero credibility. people in the country don't trust, they're watching what's going on. they're seeing the abuse of authority and this corruption and they have lost their integrity. they have lost their, the authenticity of genuineness of what they once were. lou: i want to go to, it has to be i think something, the prescription you're laying out or something equally or perhaps more dramatic and dress dick has to be done because -- drastic has to be done, i don't know how we recover from this. anyone who cares about this country, their families, their children, their grandchildren. this is not institution, the department of justice you want anything to do with being responsible for endorsement of laws that work against the american citizen, that works against decency and honor and fidelity to the constitution. this is a, th

jones had with the fbi? >> i am not and i don't know if it is accurate or not but i am not aware. >> i am going from the intelligence report of the majority issued from the house and intelligence committee. >> i am not aware of that meeting. >> have you spoke with daniel jones? >> no. >> do you know mr. jones at all? >> no, i do not. >> all right. >> no one from fusion ever spoke with the fbi, is there any way that contradict of what's in the e-mail that i have been referencing with you? >> i don't know. i can tell you i have not spoken to mr. simpson. not spoken to mr. simpson. i asked you that the first time. i thank you the chairman and the gentleman from south carolina, i yield back to the sent l mgentl. >> several of the questions asked by the gentleman were not answered ton advion the advise counsel. we'll note those questions so that we can address them at a future time because i find it stunning that they are not allowing you to answer those questions mr. strzok. the chair recognizes mr. gutierrez for

and they were -- and had ben part of the conduit go that material to go into the fbi. these are extraordinary developments and tonight we're asking the question, our evening question is very simply. is this the beginning of the end of the special counsel? because this is a -- obviously n fbi that is rife with corruption and the bias turned into an absolute assault against the president of the united states. >> ron: i think the credibility of that whole thing, i think it is shot. the fact of the matter is when you have that type of bias, when you have bruce ore acting like a political operative and feeding opposition research, people like strzok and the fbi, they're launching a counterintelligence investigation and obviously they puffed it up past the election and special counsel. that is really unprecedented. it was an abuse of the surveillance powers and the counterintelligence powers of te government and lisa page is goig to come tomorrow or -- i think she's actually going to show up, so she's going to have to answer questions as well and i think we're finally startin

you just can't be that way and be in the fbi. and remember, he's not just any fbi agent. know the democrats at the committee want people to think that, listed he had nature say in the decisions on the course of these cases and in fact he had a major say and everybody working for him and of the morale of people and their own attitudes. you cannot lead and have this attitude, and you cannot tell me that he was withholding what he felt about all these things. just do do not buy that. >> brian: what about this, bob mueller gets rid of peter strzok but never told him what the reason was. he ends up in human resources from the fourth most powerful person to human resources and he's not even curious why. >> at one of the problems brian in washington, d.c., and not just in this case, nobody had a certain level of human kids with anyone. so i can buy off on that, that mueller said, goodbye. this is one of the reasons we are sitting here today. people at a certain level like james comey and andrew mccabe don't feel like they need to talk and communicate with people about some of the

the fbi is a creation of this body, congress created the fbi with its constitutional authority. today you are here under subpoena, also an exercise of congresses constitutional constitutional authority, which takes precedence? fbi policy or the united states constitution? >> always the united states constitution, my impression is that i am not here under subpoena, i am here voluntarily. not for the session today. >> a subpoena was issued and the service of which was accepted. >> that is not my understanding, sir. >> in supreme court case just last year, the court reviewed whether statements made by a juror that indicated racial bia bias, the racial bias exhibited by a juror provided an exception to the role that jury deliberation must remain confidential because it's necessary "to ensure that our legal system remains capable to coming ever closer to equal treatment under the law that is so essential to a functioning democracy." he referenced that all the text and questions were simply personal opinions and in no way reflected your intention to act on your opinion. yet if you made

for the first time ever the fbi has pub cli released a fisa request. the more than 100 page surveillance warrant application is on trump campaign foreign policy add visor carter page, listing him as an agent of foreign power. it is heavily redacted but lays out why the fbi was able to conduct surveillance on page in 2016. carter page reacting for the first time on cnn this morning. >> i've never been an agent of a foreign power in any -- by any stretch of the imagination. i sat in on some meetings but to call me an adviser i think is way over the top. >> and now we are finally get to see some of the facts. the truth behind the previously classified document that triggered the memo wars on capitol hill. where both sides of the aisle released their own contradictory summaries of the warrant. republicans accusing the fbi of abusing its surveillance powers and now after the release of the document, president trump believes republicans are vindicated. cnn is covering the story from all angles shimon prokupecz is standing by in washington with a break down of

congress created the fbi with its constitutional authority. today you are hereunder subpoena, i know you've come voluntarily in your opinion but you're under subpoena and also in exercise of congress's constitutional authority. which takes precedence fbi policy or the united states constitution? >> sir, always the united states constitution. my understanding is i am not hereunder subpoena, that i am here voluntarily. i understand a subpoena was issued for my prior closesed interview. >> a subpoena was issued, and service of which was accepted. >> that's not my understanding, sir. >> in a supreme court case handed down just last year, the court reviewed whether statements made by a juror that indicated racial bias required the piercing of jury deliberation. justice kennedy wrote the opinion of the court racial bias held by a jury provided an yks sepgs to the rule to make sure our legal system can come close to the ever promise of equal treatment under the law that's so central to a functioning democracy. on several occasions you referenced all t

i called the fbi. i had obtained the memos and i asked for a comment if they would talk to me about the memos and about their interactions with steel. i had learned that they were investigating the allegations in the memo. i got a no comment from them. no help, nothing. after the election, i wanted to pursue this further, and i sent someone i know in the fbi a copy of the memos and said can you authenticate these documents? can you now talk to me about your interactions with steel? again i got nothing. i did this solely as a journalist. i know it is hard for jim jordan to get that, but i was just trying to figure out what was the full story behind these memos as many journalists do in such cases. and for all that, he just comes up with a deep state conspiracy theory that involves me. i'm kind of flattered. >> one small point in the peter strzok e-mail. he mentions there is a difference between the version that you had and another version that the fbi had. what was that difference? >> yeah. as if that re

page firmly denies the fbi's claims. ke tapper today asking page about his kremlin ties. >> but you did advise the kremlin? i just want to make it clear, you did advise the kremlin back in 2013 or 2012, somewhere in there? >> jake, that's -- it's really spin. i mean, i -- i set in on some meetings, but to call my an adviser, i think, is way over the -- over the top. >> except in a 2013 letter, you wrote, it says, quote, over the past half year, i have had the privilege to serve as an

that's who we are as the fbi. the suggestion that i would cast aside all of these procedures and safe guards and somehow be able to do this is astounding to me. it simply could not happen. the proposition that's going on and it may occur anywhere in the fbi deeply corrodes what the fbi is an american society defective in their mission and it is deeply destructive. >> you can feel the heat from here. joining us now, cnn senior, who's been following this here, manu, what's your big take away from all the testimonies that we have heard? >> this is one of the most contentious hearing that i have ever covered in capitol hill. both sides going after each other in an unusual dark and personal terms. at times disrupting the flow of this hearing because of questions that each side's views are out of order. democrats pushing back of what they believe and republicans over reach. one key aspect of this hearing, peter strzok in willingness to answer questions of the issues of the russia investigation. he said he was instructed

the answer came back from the fbi that it was the procedure. so the next question i have is after the polygraph at what time you said you were out of scope. when would that have been? >> my recollection is 2016 timeframe. after that e-mail but i don't know when. within a month or two. >> are you also aware in publically stated version of the i.g. report that there have been serious questions and issues regarding lack of polygraph procedures in the department of just skice and fbi that was brot out by the inspector general? >> i'm not aware of the conclusions. >> one of the general concerns is when you are out of scope and this is the answer from department of justice you should have been read out of s.c.i. my concern is during this timeframe you were involved in two very high profile would what have been or getting ready for s.c.i. information in which you were not read out of. this is a concern. i have no further questions. >> i think you misstated the conclusion there. i think you said that -- >> mr. strozk, the gentleman from georgia control

the first is an fbi agent who appears to have exercised incredibly terrible judgment. there is no question about that, as you read through these text messages, that this is not the type of behavior we would expect from law enforcement officers. that's on one hand. he'll have to answer for that. on the other hand, you have a congress, a congressional committee, conducting an investigation, the results of which they have drawn. besummer muching his reputation. and somewhere in the middle is the american people just trying to get answers and trying to decide what is going on here, and do we have confidence in the way our law enforcement officers are conducting themselves. i don't have high confidence going into this in this highly polarized environment that we're going to see a fair and impartial inquisition. >> you've read the ig report. remind us what the ig found about peter strzok. >> that seems like months ago now. but it wasn't that long ago that the inspector general's office essentially found that the prosecutors that were actually handling the clinton e-mail probe

they know the fbi have protocols. but this was about fear. this was about asking questions they know mr. struck was not permitted to answer and shouldn't. it would be teenagers to the investigation, endanger our national security if counter intelligence investigations or people talked about it in the middle of it. there's an obvious reason you don't do that. they know it. this was ongoing effort to try to continue to undermine the investigation. >> congressman, appreciate your time. thank you very much. joining me now is former fbi supervisory special agent josh campbell. gloria, have you ever seen anything like this before? did you see this hearing other than a partisan shouting match? >> no, it was a partisan shouting match. i think i'd have to go back to the benghazi hearing where hillary clinton testified for 11 hours in 2015. i think, you know, you could compare it to that. but the bottom line here is that nobody, none of the republicans were able to prove in any way, shape or form that peter struck influenced the fbi in anyway to go easy

you can't be that way and be in the fbi. he's not just an fbi agent. know democrats and the committee want to make sure people think that but he's a deputy assistant director of the counterintelligence division, he had a major say in the decision over the course of these cases. he had a major say of everybody working for him and the morale of people and their own attitudes. you l cannot lead and have this attitude and you can'tat tell me the way he feels about all of these things, i just don't buy that. >> brian: bob mueller the head of the fbi for yearsve gets ridf peter strzok but never tells him what the reason was. from the fourth most powerful person, he's not even curious whyou. >> one of the problems in b washington, d.c., and it's not just in this case, nobody at a certain level communicates with anyone. i i can buy off on that that mueller might have said it's nice knowing you but you've got to leave, i can see that happening because that's the way they talk there. that's one ofoo the reasons we e sitting here today. at a certain level like a j