oversight committee, a joint hearing with fbi official peter strzok testifying on his texts and the fbi investigation into the 2016 elections and the hilary clinton e-mail investigation. that hearing will resume once house votes are done. and we will have live coverage of that here on c-span 2 when the committees gavel back in. until then, we're going to show you some senate floor debate from earlier today on the nomination of president -- the nomination of brett kavanaugh to be the next supreme court justice. >> madame president, as we all know the federal bureau of investigation is a component of the department of justice. it is frequently described as the premier law enforcement agency in the country. the fbi's investigative authority has only grown and grown tremendously since its creation almost 100 years ago. the bureau now covers everything from kidnapping to counterintelligence, public corruption to bank robbery and maybe a lot of things in between. its power is very substantial. and its jurisdiction is far-reaching. very important agency. because of that, the fbi is subject to

the gentleman from florida controls the time. >> the fbi ethics integrity program policy, fbi code of conduct states that employees shall conduct their personal activities in a manner that does not impede their performance or tarnish the reputation of the fbi. do you agree with that? >> do i. >> you have blamed the media, the washington community, the president, everybody. you say it's just not you. so my question is do you believe in any way that your personal texts done on federal property have in any way tarnished the reputation of the fbi. >> sir, i take responsibility for sending those texts. those texts have caused as i've said now an immense amount of damage. >> has it tarnished the reputation of the fbi? >> yes, sir. >> it has, hasn't it? >> yes. >> to take it even further on page four of the ethics handbook it states -- >> while you're looking for that reference, i would tell you -- >> the time is controlled by the gentleman from florida. >> the state department has defined disgraceful conduct as conduct which if it were to become widely known would embarrass the perpetrator

that's the job of the fbi. that's the job that fbi agent peter strzok was in charge of for the fbi. fbi started an investigation into that matter in the summer of 2016. that meant peter strzok was in charge of that because you have his career. he was very well placed to do that work, right? intimately familiar with russian intelligence operations and russian intelligence efforts inside the united states. in his role at the fbi, he was literally the lead person in the entire u.s. government in charge of stopping russian operations inside the united states. and he had decades of experience in that and awards and indictments and dramatic international spy swaps to show for it. that work also apparently gave him some feelings about russia. and we know something about how he felt about russia and its government and its intelligence operations in part because reporters and the public have been given access to strzok's personal texts, texts that he wrote to a woman at the fbi with whom he was having an affair. as the fbi investigation into russian interference started up, it was just start

in the fbi. every case -- sir, you asked the question. >> i am going to reclaim my time. were you involved in the russian investigation at that time as well? >> aspects of that were one of the many things. >> you were involved with it. inspector general horowitz expressed concern that so many individuals from the clinton investigation were assigned to the russian investigation, people like you. who made that decision for people from midyear team to go to the russian investigation? >> sir, i was deputy assistant director of counter intelligence division. i am number two. if there's something large going on in ci, chances are i am going to have a role in it. it isn't working the case, the decision to assign me was certainly made absolutely by my boss. >> how many other people went to the russian case? >> sir, i can't get into the specific numbers. i can tell you of senior managers several of senior managers were involved, but this is one of the points i disagree with the inspector general, he doesn

fbi agents like mr. strzok should not comment on or even acknowledge the existence of an ongoing criminal investigation. a single decision not to -- i'm sorry. a single decision to deviate from that protocol can cause lasting damage to our republic, as anyone who has read the inspector general's report and his conclusions about mr mr. comey's deviations from that protocol must acknowledge. when we reach that impasse, mr. chairman, i hope you will think back to the statements you made about interference with the special counsel earlier in this congress and consider the consequences of our words and actions here today. the majority keeps telling us over and over again that there was bias in the clinton investigation, bias in the russian investigation, and that bias must never again affect an investigation at the department of justice. the rules that prevent mr. strzok from answering some of the questions today are designed to accomplish precisely that, to prevent congress and the public from injecting bias

which takes president, fbi policy, or the fbi constitution? >> always the united states constitution? >> sir, always the united states constitution. my understanding is i am not here under subpoena, that i am here voluntarily. i understand the subpoena was issued for my prior closed interview but not for this session today. >> a subpoena was issued and my understanding, sir. >> in a supreme court case, just last year, the court reviewed whether statements made by a juror requires jury deliberation. the opinion of the court holding that racial bias exhibited by a juror provided an exception by the rule that jury deliberations must remain confidential, to ensure our legal system remains capable of coming ever closer to the promise of equal treatment under the law that is so central to a functioning democracy. you have referenced that all the questions were simply personal opinions exchanged with a close confidant and no way reflected your intent to act on your opinion. yet, if you made these statements while on a jury, it is hard to imagine that

fbi agents like mr. strzok should not comment on or even acknowledge the existence of an ongoing criminal investigation. a single decision not to -- i'm sorry. a single decision to deviate from that protocol can cause lasting damage to our republic, as anyone who has read the inspector general's report and his conclusions about mr mr. comey's deviations from that protocol must acknowledge. when we reach that impasse, mr. chairman, i hope you will think back to the statements you made about interference with the special counsel earlier in this congress and consider the consequences of our words and actions here today. the majority keeps telling us over and over again that there was bias in the clinton investigation, bias in the russian investigation, and that bias must never again affect an investigation at the department of justice. the rules that prevent mr. strzok from answering some of the questions today are designed to accomplish precisely that, to prevent congress and the public from injecting bias

fbi attorney? >> isn't the privilege that of the fbi, and shouldn't the fbi counsel be solicited on that point? >> mr. chairman, my counsel has reiterated that counsel for the fbi has directed that i may not answer that question. >> mr. strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing, and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation. >> point of order, mr. chairman. will the committee also consider contempt for mr. ban none, who refused to answer mr. gowdy's questions when he was under subpoena? >> that is not a proper inquiry. >> parliamentary inquiry. >> that is not in order. the gentleman from south carolina controls the time. >> agent strzok, just so the record is clear, because there's been a little while, i didn't ask you the content of those interviews. i didn't ask you the names of who you interviewed. i asked you wheth

fbi agents like mr. strzok should not comment on or acknowledge the existence of an ongoing criminal investigation. the single decision to deviate from the protocol can cause lasting damage to our republic. his conclusions about mr. comey's deviations from that protocol we must acknowledge. i hope that you will think that on the statements that you made on interference of the special counsel earlier in this conference and consider the actions and consequences. the majority keeps telling us over and over again, there was by susan -- buys in the content investigation -- bias in the clinton administration. the rules that prevent mr. strzok from answering some of the questions today are designed to accomplish precisely that. to prevent congress and the bias politicsct into the special counsel's investigation or into any other investigation. when the special counsel's job is done, i invite all of us to join in examining his findings. until then, i hope we can treat our guests with common courtesy and leave th

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 mov

every espionage case in the fbi. every economic espionage case in the fbi. every case that having to do -- >> were you involved? >> you asked the question. i need to answer. >> i'm going to reclaim my time. were you involved in the russia investigation at the time as well? >> aspects of that were one of the many things under my supervision. >> inspector general horowitz expressed concern that so many individuals from the clinton investigation were assigned to the russia investigation, people like you, who made that decision for people from the mid year team to go to the russian investigation? >> sir, i was deputy assistant director to counterintelligence division. i'm the number two. if there's something large going on, chances are i'm going to have a role in it. so it isn't an agent on the street working the case. the decision to assign me was certainly made absolutely by my boss, assistant director and probably above him. >> how many other people went to the russian case >> i can tell you of the senior managers, several of the senior mo mogs -- senior mana

to documents that senator mccain passed along to the fbi. that is extraordinary. >> this big circle that of the going on, all media outlets and people were given the fbi information it looks like about it dossier information but the fact that bruce ohr, fourth ranking official in justice department, his wife was working for fusion gps we know that bruce ohr in september of 2016 giving parts of the dossier to the fbi. that is significant. this is the dossier that the whole case was built on, they took to secreter court to get secret worth to spy on carter page, they done tell court that christopher steel was fired by fbi and dossier was pare paid fy the clinton campaign, other key element we learned that peter strzok was kicked ouch of mule f mueller's team, bob mueller did not ask him any questions. this investigation started with i think with this bologna dossier, now at end they are getting rid of peter strzok there is smell there too, that is the problem. lou: well, a problem that seems to be now again unyou under your questioning in part

i focus on fbi policy. that direction from the department, if it's enforced, i readily accept and i -- >> you understand why federal employees are supposed to be politically neutral? >> yes. >> everything he says -- and you're anti-trump text statements are not politically neutral, correct? >> i believe from the perspective of investigating and a politically neutral way, i did that -- >> once again, your text statements are not politically >> that's correct. yes. >> okay. your investigation activities were in fact taking place in an election year, correct? >> yes. >> you in fact stated that you intended to stop trump from becoming president in a clear violation of the fbi dioag and doj guidance, is that correct? >> that is incorrect, sir. >> it wouldn't. it shows a strict bias. ant politically charged. let me give you a better situation. then candidates trump made some comments on the travel ban, did he not? >> i recall a variety of comments. >> you have a good memory. it was used against him by all the low

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 pe

witness's decline nation to answer it as against the instructions of the fbi pursuant to fbi policy, which is necessary, so as not to allow us to subvert an ongoing criminal investigation, he is right. he should not answer the question. >> the gentleman has not stated a valid point of order. nonetheless, the united states supreme court has recognized that it is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent action. it is their unremitting obligation to respect the dignity of the congress and its committees and to testify fully with respect to matter within the province of procedure investigation. >> mr. chairman, you know -- or we all know -- that if we were to ask a question of a witness about a military secret, if it we were to ask him how does the h bomb work? he could not answer that question. >> gentlemen has not stated -- that is a classification issue, no the an issue of whether or not this is a valid question. >> i appeal the ruling of the chair. >> he's ruled. it's not a point of order. >> that

in the fbi. top-rateshens are adversaries in terms of the foreign intelligence service and terms of how confidently they are able to use the intelligence the foreignchieve poll say the national security goals many of which referenced the threat from nato trying to underloon the western alliance trying to the role and influence of leadership of the world and andmpting to minimize undermoon the extraordinary greatness of our democracy to seem pedestrian and nothing special and on par with and nearocrisy dictatorship to make us seem less. my intelligence perfective i wouldn't presume to get to a foreign get to a foreign poll. >> i they engage in asat social security nation? >> political rivals? yes. >> and arrest of journalists for maybe just talking and writing about thing that's the state doesn't believe in. >> yes. a not america. >> not at all. >> well, that is unfortunately what the mueller investigation lacking into is russian collusion to influence the influence thed politics and you have dedi

that is who we are as the fbi. and the suggestion that i in some dark chamber somewhere in the fbi would somehow cast aside all of these procedures, all of these safeguards and somehow be able to do this is astounding to me. it simply couldn't happen. and the proposition that that is going on, that it might occur anywhere in the fbi deeply corrodes what the fbi is in american society, the effectiveness of their mission and it is deeply destructive. >> mr. chairman, i have a motion. i have a rule 11 motion. >> but the only thing missing there was a quoting of one joseph welch by saying "have you no deechcency, sir." trey gowdy ripped into strzok for a text message about stopping trump's candidacy. here's more from strzok. >> you need to understand that that was written late at night off the cuff and it was in response to a series of events that included then candidate trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero. and my presumption based on that horrible, disgusting behavior that the american population

>> my direction from the fbi is the fbi received materials from -- >> mr. ohr -- >> congressman -- >> this is amazing. this is amazing. nellie ohr works for fusion. works for glenn simpson. and she's giving documents -- >> regular order, please. >> let us bring the director of the fbi to answer those questions. the gentleman cannot answer. asked and answered. >> the american people -- >> he cannot answer. >> the gentlewoman -- the regular order is -- >> i understand, mr. chairman. regular order. >> the fbi has now instructed mr. strzok he can answer additional questions and mr. -- >> agent strzok -- >> i have question to get the answers to the questions. >> the fbi approved. has the fbi also given you permission to say if glenn simpson is the name you used in the e-mail where you say simpson? >> i don't believe they have given me guidance. my most recent understanding of my guidance from the fbi is in response to the question of whether the fbi received documents from -- >> has the fbi -- >> yes, we did, and that's all i'm authorized to say. >> has the fbi

he is still and employee of the fbi and fbi counsel has instructed him not to answer the question. >> gentleman, if you have a problem with this policy you should take it wake up the fbi, not badger mr. stzok. >> earlier tonight, carl bernstein compared today's hearing to what mccarthy had. gloria, does all this back and forth and partisan bickering and substance of the hearing or lack of substance, does it cloud mueller's investigation in any way in your opinion? some look at this and say it's designed to cloud it or raise in other people's opinions, raise legitimate questions about the investigation. >> this is about government for the base instead of government for all the people of the country and legitimate inquiry. we have one shot in this country at establishing that there is legitimate inquiry into what happened in the last campaign, the role of the russians and the role of the president of the united states and those around him. that is mueller's investigation. we have only one entity, the republicans on the hill and the base intent on undermining that investigation. that doe

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

people or fbi people.e did an interview with him with a terror baby story that he was concerned about. >> i set that aside. i don't believe him. on the other side what fbi agents and fbi employees think about peter struck, that's something we can talk about genuinely as an issue that divides them. this is someone who was in a senior position in the fbi who was entrusted with incredible responsibility and failed the organization through incredibly terrible judgment. that said, it doesn't appear that judgment impacted the investigation for political reasons. so i think, you know, at the hearing today showed these people will be held to account. but at the end of the day i don't think that's something people will look back in hindsight and say this person threw an election because of a political bias because that's not something you do in the fbi. people know that. >>> other news tonight, there's a lot of it, president trump left the nato meetings in belgium touting a big accomplishment with the allies. how t

i have never seen that in the fbi and fbi agents and fbi employees usually get along, they are out thereetting around everybody. but when you start calling people deplorable and going to walmart and text message that people smelled, he didn't explain any of that. you just can't be that way and be in the fbi. and remember, he's not just any fbi agent. i 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 anyon

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. >> yo

phones, on official fbi time. other than that, you never crossed that line. i'm sure there are 13,000 fbi agents out there that are beaming with pride at how clearly you've drawn that line. agent strzok are you starting to understand why some folks out there don't believe a word you say and why it's especially troubling that you, of all people, are at the center of the three highest-profile investigations in recent times that involve president trump and that you were in charge of an investigation, investigating, gathering evidence against donald trump, a subject that you hated, that you wanted to "f" him, to stop him, to impeach him? and do you see why that might call into question everything you've touched on all of those investigations? chairman, i'm done with this witness and i yield back. >> mr. chairman, if i can respond. >> briefly. >> sir, well, there's several questions and i'll answer them all briefly. >> there are several statements. i only heard one question. >> well, fair enough. first, i understand wh

device or official fbi time. go ahead and do that. >> sir, many of them did. i would say of the 50,000, sir -- >> no, i'll give you a chance at the end. what you really meant to say was that when you said you never crossed that bright, inviolable line, what you meant to say was except for 50,000 times. except for hundreds of times of day where i went back and forth, expressing my personal opinions about "f'ing" trump and stopping trump and impeaching trump on official fbi phones on official fbi time. oe other than that, you never crossed that line. i'm sure there are 13,000 fbi agents out there that are beaming with pride at how clearly you've drawn that line. a r you starting to understand why some folks out there don't believe a word you say and why it's especially troubling that you of all people are at the center of the three highest profile investigations in recent times that involve president trump and that you were in charge of an investigation investigating, gathering evidence against donald trump, a subj

no one from fusion spoke with the fbi.any 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 an

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

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, t

>> my direction from the fbi is i may tell you the fbi received material. >> this is amazing. this is amazing. >> nelly orr -- >> let us bring the director of the fbi to answer those questions. the gentleman cannot answer. asked and answered. he cannot answer. >> the regular order. >> i understand, mr. 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 r

jones had with the fbi? mr. strzok: i'm not, and i don't know if that is accurate or not, but i am not aware. not aware of that meeting or who that is. >> have you ever spoke with daniel johns? mr. strzok: no. >> to you know mr. jones at all? mr. strzok: i do not. one more to go back to question i asked you in the first round. mr. simpson when he did testify in front of the judiciary committee was asked about fusion. no one from fusion ever spoke with the fbi. is there any way that contradicts what is in the email that i have been referencing with you? mr. strzok: i don't know. i content you i have not spoken to mr. simpson. thank the chairman and i thank the gentleman from south carolina. >> the chair would nose at several of the questions as by the gentlemen not answered by the witness on the advice of his counsel, and i presume through the fbi. sowill note those questions that we can address them at a future time because i find it stunning that they are not allowing you to answer those questions. the chair no

the fbi has a culture.e, 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 p

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 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 mad

fbi received documents from -- >> has the fbi -- >> -- mr. or and the answer is yes. >> sir to my knowledge, the fbi has not allowed me to respond to that. >> all right. i yield back. thank you. >> the committee will stand in recess until immediately after this series of votes. [inaudible conversations] >> earlier today deputy attorney general rosenstein announced that mueller has indicted 12 russian intelligence officers in the 2016 hacking of the democratic national committee. mr. rosenstein is overseeing the special counsel's investigation into the last presidential election. and you can see his news conference tonight starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span 2, on c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. >>> on monday, the president meets with russian president vladimir putin. the two leaders are expected to meet privately with just translators present. and then hold a working lunch as well. watch c-span for updates on the u.s. russia summit and follow all our coverage on-line at c-span.org. this week current and former elected

strzok, what is the fbi's -- what is the fbi's policy -- oh, let me say one other thing. it is -- i observe this because you said you couldn't answer. but it's obviously prudent of mr. mueller in finding these texts and hearing about all these text messages to think that they might be subject to incorrect interpretations and publicity and in order to avoid the kind of attacks on this investigation that we are seeing from republican members of this committee and from the administration, to ask you to leave that investigation, having nothing to do with your competence or fairness in the investigation, but simply to somewhat insulate that investigation from unfair attacks. would you think that might be a correct -- >> yes. >> thank you. now, mr. strzok, what is the fbi's policy with respect to an agent commenting publicly about an ongoing investigation. >> we don't do that. >> sorry? >> we do thought do that. >> why is that policy in place? >> for a variety of reasons. one, i think it is inherently unfair to the subject of that investigation. it can tend to skew the conduct

lawyers but he can't talk to the fbi lawyers directly. look, this is serious business. this is about protecting national security related information. and information about the integrity of ongoing investigations. and strzok should have been permitted to consult with fbi lawyers. the efforts by congress to engage in this rig ma roll designed to make political points at the expense of the fbi's credibility and important work they're doing here i thought was a moment of embarrassment for this body. >> frank, you used to be known as the fbi, the former assistant director for counterintelligence. how do you think that the folks back at the fbi, and i'm not suggesting they're sitting in their office desk watching this, but they're going to see clips of it. they'll watch it on the evening news. what's going to be their feeling about walking away from this and what happened today in front of that committee? >> they likely are watching with great entrance. the counterintelligence professionals in the fbi who are watching are probably coming to th

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

memos reveal those reporters offered fbi agents and d o.j.icials a code pertaining to manafort's storage facility, a possible violation of the criminal justice process. joining us tonight i am pleased to say victoria toensing and joe degenova, the founding partners of the same law firm. great to have you both with us. i know you were impressed, joe, that i said your last time twice in succession. >> great to have you here. >> great to be with you. >> let's start with manafort and the campaign between the department of justice, the fbi and national left wing media. >> the grand jury information which is illegal, in return go reporters giving them informatin about their supposed target. we have a client, i'll be really fast about it, billy walters who the fbi first of all. >> lou: big time gambler. >> and a humanitarian, businessman and gives lots of money to charity. >> lou: right. >> he was under investigation go insider training. the fbi comes back and tries to get a member of a board of directors of another company to testify against billy.

i thought peter strzok did the fbi some good. he just sounded like an fbi guy. spoke with such passion about what the bureau is and does. and i thought the republicans on the committee just turned this into a show trial and did more to discredit the gop effort to undermine mueller's investigation than any event that we've seen. that's really the, my takeaway from yesterday, this is, this long show trial-like grilling leaves the republican argument, that this is all political and outrageous a lot weaker than it was. so that's -- we'll see where they go from here, but i think most people looking in to that would have just shaken their heads and said, i don't know. that doesn't sound right, what trey gowdy is saying. doesn't sound right to me. >>> still ahead on "morning joe" -- actually i want to grab katty kay. we'll talk to you about what happened in london, but do you have reflections from watching these hearings? >> you've had two incidents you wonder what is going through the minlts of vladimir putin watching what's going on here in the united states and at t