how is mr. gowdy recorded? >> mr. gowdy passed? >> the clerk will call the roll -- the clerk of the judiciary committee will call the roll of members who have not yet been recorded. >> mr. issa? >> yes. >> mr. gowdy. mr. buck. >> aye. >> ms. roby. mr. rothis. >> aye. >> miss bass. mr. jeffries. >> i've been asked by the minority and the majority counsel to advise members their votes will only be counted once. if they're on both committees. and the clerk of the oversight -- >> mr. chairman, point of order. on what basis would that rule be, since we -- each committee is voting separately. on that. >> procedurally, we have agreed to one unified vote. the clerk of the oversight and government reform committee will call the roll of those members who have not voted. >> mr. gowdy. mr. amash. ms. fox. mr. herd. mr. mitchell. mr. clay. mr. gomez. >> the gentleman from missouri. >> no. >> the gentleman from missouri votes no. >> mr. clay votes no. >>> the clerk will report. . >> the clerk will suspend. the gentleman from texas is recognized.

chair, how is mr. gowdy recorded? >> mr. gowdy passed. >> the clerk will call the roll -- of members who have not yet been recorded. >> mr. isa votes yes. mr. gowdy. mr. buck. mr. buck votes aye. miss bass. mr. jeffreys. >> i've been asked by the minority and the majority counsel to advise members that their votes will only be counted once. if they're on both committees, and the clerk of the oversight -- >> mr. chairman, point of order. on what basis would that rule be, since each committee is voting separately on that? >> procedurally we have agreed to one unified vote. clerk of the oversight government reform committee will call the roll of those members who have not voted. >> mr. gowdy. ms. fox. mr. hurd, mr. mitchell. mr. clay. mr. gomez. >> just responded. >> the gentleman from missouri. votes no. >> mr. clay votes no. >> the clerk will report. >> the clerk will suspend. gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hurd of texas votes aye. >> mr. hurd votes aye. >>> folks, this is peter strzok's hearing between -- before two

chair, how is mr. gowdy recorded? >> mr. gowdy mapassed. >> the clerk -- >> pass is not a vote. >> the clerk of the judiciary will call the vote of the members who have not yet been recorded. >> mr. issa? >> yes. >> mr. gowdy? mr. buck? >> aye. >> miss roby? mr. rothfess. >> aye. >> miss bass? mr. jeffries? >> i've been asked by the minority and the majority counsel to advise members their votes will only be counted once, if they're on both committees. and the clerk of the oversight and the -- >> mr. chairman, point of order. on what basis would that rule be since each committee is voting separately on that? >> procedurally we agreed to one unified vote. the clerk of the oversight committee will call the roll of those members who have not yet voted. >> mr. gowdy? miss fox? mr. herd? mr. mitchell? mr. clay? mr. gomez? >> the gentleman from missouri. >> no. >> the gentleman from missouri votes no. >> mr. clay votes no. >> the clerk will report. the clerk will suspend. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hurd of texas vo

>> mr. gowdy, two answers to that. one, with regard to how many interviews had or had not been conducted, i have been directed by counsel for the fbi not to answer that question. second, sir, i think it's important to take those texts in the context of how they were written and what they meant. >> and someone may ask you that question, agent strzok, but i didn't. i asked you how many people you interviewed before you wrote it. if you want to get into context, let one of my other colleagues do that with you. here's what i want to know. who's the "he" in he's not? >> he is then candidate trump. >> so, when you said, no, donald trump's not in connection with a question going to become president, what's the "it"? >> chairman gowdy -- >> what's stop it? >> that text needs to be taken in the context. >> i'm asking, look, if you want to have a debate over a two-letter word, we're going to have to do that some other time. what and who did you mean by "it"? >> mr. gowdy, as i've stated, that text was writt

chair, how is mr. gowdy recorded? >> mr. gowdy mapassed. >> the clerk -- >> pass is not a vote. >> the clerk of the judiciary will call the vote of the members who have not yet been recorded. >> mr. issa? >> yes. >> mr. gowdy? mr. buck? >> aye. >> miss roby? mr. rothfess. >> aye. >> miss bass? mr. jeffries? >> i've been asked by the minority and the majority counsel to advise members their votes will only be counted once, if they're on both committees. and the clerk of the oversight and the -- >> mr. chairman, point of order. on what basis would that rule be since each committee is voting separately on that? >> procedurally we agreed to one unified vote. the clerk of the oversight committee will call the roll of those members who have not yet voted. >> mr. gowdy? miss fox? mr. herd? mr. mitchell? mr. clay? mr. gomez? >> the gentleman from missouri. >> no. >> the gentleman from missouri votes no. >> mr. clay votes no. >> the clerk will report. the clerk will suspend. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hurd of texas vo

he refused to answer questions of mr. gowdy. mr. e sincere interest have in getting bottom of what happened. so i move under rule 11, to bring mr. bannon to this committee. mr. chairman, is in receipt of devin nunez's letter to our committee recommending the judiciary committee continue on the house intelligence committee's investigation into russia. i move now consideration for mr. bannon to be subpoenaed. >> refuses for contempt proceedings to occur. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman -- >> i object to consideration of the motion that is being made. the -- >> yield back to mr. cummings. but the motion has to be heard, immediately, mr. chairman under rule 11. >> gentleman will suspend. >> motion is not germain. the gentleman from maryland mr. cummings. >> i move to table the ruling of chair. i move to overrule the ruling of chair. >> mr. chairman, table the motion. >> motion made to table appealing of chair. all those in favor of tabling the appeal, respond by saying aye. those opposed no. in opinion of the air, eyes have it. i. >> mr. c

before we begin, without objection, the mou that mr. gowdy and i entered into will govern the proceedings. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. >> mr. chairman, i want to express my appreciation to the staff for preparing all sorts of parliamentary objections which we will not use. but i appreciate the chairman's consulting with us on the mou and pursuant to our conversation, i do not object. >> chair thanks the gentleman. chair recognizes himself for purposes of an opening statement. i wish this hearing were not necessary. many children grow up wanting to become fbi agents, to catch bad guys and protect the american people. i have little doubt that our witness today has done that very thing during his many years serving as an fbi special agent. special agent's mission is a vitally important mission to which we dedicate some of our best and brightest. however, this is precisely why our joint investigation is such an anomaly. we want the fbi and the department of justice to be off the front pages and to return to doing what they a

chair, how is mr. gowdy recorded? >> mr. call the roll. >> that's not a vote. >> it will call the roll of members who have not yet been recorded. >> mr. issa votes yes. mr. gowdy, mr. bucks. ms. roby, mr. rossette. ms. bass. mr. jeffries. >> i've been asked by the minority and the majority counsel to advise members their votes will only be counted once if they're on both committees. and the clerk of the oversight -- >> point of order. on what basis would that rule be since each committee is voting separately on that? >> procedurely we have agreed to one vote. we'll call for the members who have not voted. >> mr. gowdy. mr. amash. ms. fox. mr. hurd. mr. mitchell. mr. clay. mr. gomez. >> the gentleman from missouri. he votes no. >> mr. clay votes no. >> the clerk will report. the clerk will suspend. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hurd of texas votes aye. >> mr. hurd votes aye. >> the gentleman woman from north carolina. >> mrs. fox votes yes. >> clerk will report. >> mr. chairman 38 members voted aye, 31 members vo

questionsou think the by mr. gowdy and mr. goodlatte affected the hearings in such a way as the tone and nature it took? guest: i think they were direct. they were trying to move through some answers here. the interesting thing was that chairman goodlatte started on yesterday. there was a fact that the basis for not answering the questions was not a legal objection, i have just been told by the fbi that i do not need to answer this for whatever reason. i think that is something that will be asked hard as time goes on. it was not coming from his own attorney, it was coming from the fbi, saying we prefer you not answer this. our guest will be here until 8:00. you can ask him or off hearing and what he learned from it. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can post on twitter as well. this is from hank johnson yesterday, and his exchanges with mr. strzok. i will a listen for a bit and get your perspective. [video clip] you were successful in arresting and prosecuting numerous

mr. gowdy mr. gowdy appears to have a sincere interest in getting to the bottom of what happened and so i move to bring mr. bannon to this committee. >> the motion is not jermaine and the -- >> i table to move the ruling of the chair. >> then they had a vote to rule on that. and then i want you to take a quick listen to how the democrats reacted after strzok basically was trying to explain himself. watch. >> the suggestion that i in some dark chamber somewhere in the fbi would somehow cast aside all of these procedures and 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 within the fbi deeply corrodes what the fbi is, in american society, the effectiveness of their mission and it is deeply destructive. [ applause ] >> the -- the -- >> dana: and so i used to work on capitol hill and i've covered it for a long time, have you ever seen members of a committee applaud a witne

>> mr. gowdy, as i've state that had text was written late at night in shorthand -- >> i don't care when it was written. i don't care whether it was long hand, cursive. i don't care about any of that. i want to know what it meant, agent strzok. >> it would be his candidacy of the presidency -- >> it's not that tough. >> -- would not vote him into office. >> right, right. we hadn't gotten to the will yet. if you were kicked off when he read the text, shouldn't you have been kicked off when you wrote them? >> not at all. >> well, it wasn't the discovery of your text mr. strzok, it was the existence of your bias that got you kicked off. >> no, it wasn't. i do not have bias. my personal opinions in no way ever -- >> then why did you get kicked off? >> mr. gowdy, my understanding of why i was kicked off was that based on the understanding of those texts and the perception that they might create was something that -- >> hold on a second, act strzok. perception. you're saying it was the perception that 1

now, that's -- that's a stretch for me and mr. gowdy, with all deference to mr. wdy, the reason they haven't finished their investigation is this involves a foreign nation and intelligence and not just was somebody taking money from the cookie jar. >> joyce vance -- >> it's pretty complicate and had it takes a little bit of time. it does take time. >> a little bit or a long time. joyce vance, the last word on gowdy and i what we saw here. >> gowdy's questioning of rosenstein is interesting because we know the mueller investigation has already produced indictments. the one of the campaign managers is sitting in prison awaiting trial. as representative gowdy well knows, it is entirely possible mueller has taken more to the grand jury. there are sealed indictments that haven't yet been made public and mueller has, in fact, already taken the evidence that gowdy is complaining doesn't exist, to a grand jury. one suspects that this russian troll farm indictment that's already public will have an american component, perhaps involving stone or other close advisors of the

right, mr. gowdy? you agree that, congressman, don't you? we're changing the subject? okay. we also heard peter strzok explain in his own words what information he was working with in those frantic last few days of the campaign. the start of the investigation. the nature of the information that had come into the fbi about russia's actions and where that information had come from. >> during your june 2016 -- excuse me. june 2018 interview, i noticed some concern in your voice when recalling the 2016 campaign seens. specifically october 2016, and specifically as it relates to the state of the trump-russia investigation. why were you so concerned that what was happening at that time? >> well, trying to keep this at a level, not talking about open investigations -- >> only your -- >> yes, ma'am. the predicating information, the information we had which was alleging a russian offer of assistance, a member of trump campaign, it was of extraordinary significance. it was credible. from an incredibly sensitive source. as we looked at what that represented, the key time was coming int

." >> mr. gowdy, as i stated that text was written late at night in shorthand -- >> i don't care when it was written, long hand, cursive, i don't care about any of that. i want to know what "it" meant, agent stzok. >> it would be his candidacy and my sense the american population would not vote him into office. >> we invited congressman gowdy to come on the broadcast. he said no and so did the other congressman gohmert as well. a member of the judiciary and intelligence committee as he questions peter stzok this evening. you had trey gowdy back in april said congress has quote proven itself unable to conduct investigations. do you think the system is broken? >> good evening, anderson. i actually right after the 2016 legislation wrote bipartisan legislation to have an independent investigation. i foresaw then we should have elder state commissioners do it. i think this demonstrated today why we need an independent commission. >> anyone watching today's hearing saw something, it was certainly contentio

>> mr. gowdyas i've stated that text was written in short -- >> i don't care whether it was long hand, cursive. i don't want to quo what it meant. >> it would be his canned danes for the presidency and that the american people would not vote him into office. >> we invited him to come on the broadcast. he said know. so we have others. joining us now congressman eric swalwell, a democrat from california and a member of the judiciary committee as he questioned peter struck this evening. you had trey gowdy who said back in april congress has quote, proven itself incapable of conducting investigations. do you think the system is broken? >> well, good evening, anderson. i actually right after the 2016 election wrote bipartisan ledge slagds slagz to have an independent commission. i foresaw then this would be too hot for commission. i think this demonstrated today why we needed an independent commission. >> anyone watching today's hearing saw something that was -- i mean it was certainly contentious, at

questionsou think the by mr. gowdy and mr.dlatte affected the hearings in such a way as the tone and nature it took? guest: i think they were direct. they were trying to move through some answers here. the interesting thing was that chairman goodlatte started on yesterday. there was a fact that the basis for not answering the questions was not a legal objection, i have just been told by the fbi that i do not need to answer this for whatever reason. i think that is something that will be asked hard as time goes on. it was not coming from his own attorney, it was coming from the fbi, saying we prefer you not answer this. our guest will be here until 8:00. you can ask him or off hearing and what he learned from it. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can post on twitter as well. this is from hank johnson yesterday, and his exchanges with mr. strzok. i will a listen for a bit and get your perspective. [video clip] you were successful in arresting and prosecuting numerous ind

mr. gowdy. yes. mr. labrador? mr. collins? mr. desantis. yes. mr. buck? mr. ratcliff? yes. ms. roby? mr. gates? mr. johnson of louisiana? mr. biggs? aye. mr. rutherford. aye. miss handle. yes. mr. nadler? ms. lofgren? ms. jackson-lee? no. mr. cohen? yes. mr. johnson of georgia? mr. cohen votes no. mr. johnson of georgia? no. mr. deutsche? no. mr. gutierrez? no. ms. bass? mr. richmond? mr. jeffries? mr. cicilline? no. mr. swalwell? mr. lieu? no. mr. raskin? ms. jayapal? no. mr. schneider? no. ms. demings? no. has every member voted who wishes to vote? >> mr. chairman? >> the gentle woman is recorded as no. we're going to wait another minute or two for the ranking member. so are you recorded? the gentleman is recorded. mr. chairman? how am i recorded? the gentleman from louisiana is not recorded. >> mr. johnson votes yes. mr. chairman? the gentleman from california. >> no. >> mr. swalwell votes no. >> chairman, may i make a parliamentary inquiry? >> the gentle woman will state her parliamentary inquiry? >> mr. chairman, i'm trying to inquire of the basis of the emergency and the

. >> mr. gowdy, those personal expressions of my observing the political process of the presidential primaries had no bearing on my actions of any investigation to include the investigation of secretary clinton, her or anybody else. >> you couldn't think of a single person that would not vote for hillary clinton for president. >> the committee will reconvene and the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. issa for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. strzok, you were part of the hillary clinton e-mail investigation, that's correct? >> yes. >> and in that investigation, you were part of the decision for her to -- and her lawyers to go through e-mails that were produced during -- exclusively used, if you will, during her time as secretary, go through and determine which ones were government and which ones were not, both the classified and unclassified, is that correct? >> i was not. >> you were not involved at all. >> that's correct. >> okay. but you're aware of it. >> i'm aware o

may have been an agreement between mr. gowdy and mr. goodlatte but at no point were we asked. >> stated on the record. >> stated as a decision, as a fact. we were not asked. we agreed to nothing because we were not asked. and we think that the transcript were to be released for the reasons stated and if the witness doesn't object, i don't know why the majority should object. i yield to mr. meadows. >> if the gentleman will yield, in earnest, i will be glad to work with my colleagues on the other side of aisle about releasing all relevant information. if we're talking about full transparency, let's talk about full transparency in a variety of other things. it's interesting we want to release one thing but yet we're somehow allowing peter strzok to suggest that there's a whole lot of things that are off the record. but i will work in earnest with my colleagues. >> i appreciate the gentleman, and let me simply say that we are not disrupting a legitimate investigation into the investigation. the republican investigation -- >> but it is a re

a number of members, including mr. gowdylvement with russians during the campaign and the administration, he refused to answer, was never brought in for contempt proceedings as threatened with mr. strzok. i wanted to be sure the public saw the deep, deep inconsistency which i think illustrates this is all an effort to protect the president and nothing more than that when our ballot box and our democracy needs more protecting than ever. >> david? >> i wanted to ask you what you would say to a member of the public watching this whose conclusion was this is all politics. i don't know about peter strzok, but this is a circus. there is that feeling in the country. lot of people fear that's going to undermine mueller's investigation, or get swallowed up in this political environment. how do you think that can be prevented? >> it was the wrong hearing, wrong priorities. children are still separated at the border. this is the committee that has jurisdiction to do something about it, they did nothing for those children yesterday. dav

i will begin by recognizing the chairman of the oversight committee, mr. gowdy. >> mr.irman, agent strzok, the fbi investigation into potential russia inclusion with the trump campaign began on july 31st, 2016. you drafted the originating document. you approved the originating document. you were the point of contact on the originating document. and the fbi has represented to congress that nothing from an investigative standpoint with respect to russian collusion and the trump campaign began before july 31st, 2016. but ten days before the investigation even began, ten days before you drafted the originating document, approved the originating document, was the point of contact on the originating document -- ten days before the investigation began, which the department you worked for says nothing was done before july 31st, you said trump is a disaster. i have no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be. and because you struggled a couple of weeks ago with a word i thought we had a commonly accepted definition, i'm going to go ahead and give you the definition of dest

the court will call the role. >> mr. gowdy? >> yes. >> mr. gowdy votes yes. mr. duncan. mr. issa. mr. jordan. mr. jordan votes yes. mr. sanford. mr. amash. mr. gossar. mr. gossar votes yes. mr. dejarlet. ms. fox. ms. fox votes yes. mr. massey. mr. massey votes yes. mr. meadows. mr. meadows votes yes. mr. desantis. mr. desantis votes yes. mr. ross. mr. walker. mr. walker votes yes. mr. blum. mr. blum votes yes. mr. heiss votes yes. mr. russell. mr. grossman. mr. grossman votes yes. mr. herd. mr. herd votes yes. mr. palmer. mr. palmer votes yes. mr. comber. mr. comber votes yes. mr. mitchell. >> yes. >> mr. mitchell votes yes. mr. gianforte votes yes. mr. cloud. mr. cloud votes yes. mr. cummings. mr. cummings votes no. ms. maloney? ms. maloney votes no. ms. norton? ms. norton votes no. mr. clay? mr. clay votes know. mr. lynch? mr. lynch votes no. mr. cooper? mr. connolly. >> nay. >> mr. connolly votes nay. ms. kelly. ms. lawrence. >> no. >> ms. lawrence votes no. ms. watson coleman. ms. watson coleman votes no. mr. christian morthy. >> no. >> mr. christian morthy votes no. mr. race

bannon in our house intelligence investigation, he refused a number of times to answer questions of mr. gowdy. reporter: democrats emphasis that strzok and other kept rur rusrussia invest investigation s in the campaign. >> if you wanted to harm and interfere with the election of president trump. you could have leaked information that the investigation was ongoing. but none of that came out. reporter: it got personal. >> i can't help but wonder, i see you looking there with a smirk. how many timies did you look --w many times did you look so innocent in your wife's eye. >> that is outrageous. >> the fact that you machine shawn thaminnesotamentionthat gd -- >> to your credibility. >> you lost your credibility, a new low in united states congress. what a shame. charles: fbi page agreed to a closed door deposition friday, you will benefit of knowing strzok's testimony in advance. lou: great reporting. catherine herridge. fbi agent peter strzok, grilled by our next guest on his encounters with justice department official bruce orr who was in contact with krischristopher steel. his wife nelly orr,

there may have been an agreement between mr. gowdy and mr. goodlatte but at no point where we asked. >> it was stated on the record in the hearing. >> it was stated as a decision, as a fact, as a fait accompli. we were not asked. we agreed to nothing because we were not asked. and we think that the transcripts ought to be released for the reasons stated. and if the witness doesn't object, i don't know why the majority should object. i yield to mr. meadows. >> if the gentleman will yield. in earnest, i will be glad to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about releasing all relevant information. i mean, i think we're talking about full transparency. let's talk about full transparency in a variety of other things. it's interesting, we want to release one thing but yet we're somehow allowing peter strzok to suggest that there's whole lot of things that are off the record. but i will work in earnest with my colleagues. >> i appreciate the gentleman. let me simply say that we are not disrupting a legitimate investigation into the

mr. gowdy's -- >> sir, yes, thank you. and if i may just briefly to mr. king, sir, right? be first, i am asserting to you that my personal belief does not, did not constitute bias. every american has political belief.ld every single one, and i would submit to you that the vast, vast majority of those people are not biased individuals. so that is a comment i'd like to make to you. >> by your testimony, i'm free from that allegation for myself for life, mr. strzok. [laughter] >> mr. chairman, if i can respond to you. my mentions of the word "impeachment," if you look at the selective texts that you've chosen andys you expand that lok to others, you will see that in no way did i prejudge that outcome. in fact, what you've conspicuouslyok omitted is a statement i made of expressing concern i'm not sure there's a big there there. what that clearly demonstrates, sir, is i had prejudged nothing. i was looking at one potential outcome, being impeachment, i was smiewtlelyth looking at the polar opposite outcome, that there might be no criminal activity whatsoever. and i think it's

i'm a dentist so i read bo body language very, very well and i watched you comment in actions with mr. gowdy. you got very angry in regards to the gold star father. that shows me it's innately a part of you and a bias. >> sir, i disagree. i don't know if you're saying this experience is like being at the dentist, if that's what you're suggestioning. >> ladies and gentlemen, the congress of the united states of america, our leaders, we voted them in. playing politics and trying to discredit the russia investigation days before president trump's face-to-face meeting with vladimir putin. one thing is for sure, if russia intended to sow discord in this country, mission accomplished. joining me now is sheila jackson lee, a texas democrat on the committee at the hearing today. appreciate your time. as chris said and anderson said we invited the republicans on, none of them chose to come on. did we learn anything new today? >> thank you for having me. i wish the republicans had come on because truth is non-partisan and i truly believe that in these hearings we should give the american people hope.

number one, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty and as mr. gowdyointed out yesterday, during this investigation, you know, the perceived, the perceive of bias, you know, along with connections to the clinton campaign from these people involved in the investigation are truly damaging the reputation, not just of the fbi, the investigation, itself as well. and so i think it's important to get to the bottom of what's going on here. i think it will be very interesting to figure out and find out what you know, what rest of these text messages, you know, unfortunately behind closed doors will happen. trish: why wouldn't mueller ask? >> i think robert mueller probably has a lot more important things to be focused on than personnel discussions. he clearly made a decision to remove peter strzok from the team when these came out. he took action. and, i hope -- trish: is that because he had to? because once the public knew about it, it is a little tainted here? >> i think it is because he is a honorable man, like many republicans said he was before his investi

because mr. gowdyo force peter strzok to answer questions but we say the same play out with steve bannon. but there was no interest to force a contempt proceeding on him. it shows the inconsistency. it shows that republicans are more interested not in the answers but using their questions to undermine bob mueller's probe and not interested in protecting our democracy. >> and you told anderson cooper last night, look, i wouldn't have peter strzok work for me. i would have removed him. you are not a supporter of his. at the same time here is how the president's lawyer rudy giuliani described all of this last night on fox. >> this guy is a really bad guy. and the reason the democrats look so bad is they were stupidly defending him. that whole thing, well, i'm innocent, i'm innocent because i didn't leak illegally. >> he said it is stupid of the democrats to be defending hi in. are you worried about the optics of this for your party? >> no, and when i worked as a prosecutor, i had cases where police office

. >> and long before that, mr. gowdyral prosecutor, so i don't think there's much credence in what he's saying. here's why, alex. he should know that these types of investigations, white collar investigations with lots of documents and lots of witnesses take lots of time. so yeah, sure, you could simply close it but that's not justice. justice is pursuing these lead to their logical conclusion. what i think he's doing here is posturing, plain and simple. >> i want to get to an op-ed that jonathan tortuurley wrote. he says, rosen skin could appoint and supervise mueller, given his own role as a key witness in the underlying subject matter of the investigation. indeed, both mueller and rosenstein were eyewitnesss to critical periods in the firing of comey. should rosenstein recuse himself? >> on the surface it seems rod played some role in the firing of comey and therefore he's a witness. but i also know rod, we served as attorneys together, is a very up front guy. he discussed this with senior ethics officials at the depa

here is something that my colleagues, mr. gowdycliffe from texas who did the fisa warrants in his career and have the opportunity to look at the use in quite detailed, he continually makes a point, which is a very good one that it is not so much how wrong it is and what they put into the fisa applications, that is really bad. but what is even worse is the exculpatory evidence that they left on the cutting room floor. so for example, there is something really important, if you have the information that you have with bruce ohr, who is at the heart of this, because his wife was working for fusion gps. that information, he knew that christopher steele did not like trump and did not want trump to win.n. the fbi had that. >> sean: and put it together. >> that's right. >> sean: what you did is to help this democratic republic survive, i actually worry about this abuse of power, i worry about a corrupt media, we are not going to stop on thiser program. thank you for all you have done mr. chairman.ia thank you. when we come back we have bre

i know it's easy for mr. gowdy to try to diminish carte page, but he was only one of five or donald trumrmer policy advisors during the campaign. the other george papadopoulos, they're trying to say he was just a coffee boy, even though he was involved setting up meetings with headsov state witr thp campaign, and paul manafort, the head of therump campaign, donald trump tried to diminish and they was only there for a short time. so this was part of what does, downplay those having interactions with the russian shift attention elsewhere, but the reality is there is an extraordinary and worrying and disturbing number of donald trump both high-level and lower-level campaign people from michael flynn and manafort to the president's on son to papadopoulos and page meeting with the russians and then lar lying about it. s woodruff: congressman, several other thi ask you about, a lot breaking late today. -- theone, the preside white house press secretary sarah sanders saying the president is seriously considering revoking

i watch you comment in actions with mr. gowdy. you got very angry in regards to the gold star father. that shows me that it's innately a part of you in a bias. >> sir, i disagree. i don't know if you're saying this is like being at the dentist -- >> i would -- >> i'll tell you what you see in my response is a genuine passion for the united states of america. what you see is a passion as a patriot. what you see is a genuine anger at people -- >> gentlemen from arizona controls the time. >> if you're in a jury box and somebody sees these texts, you're removed from the jury box, are you not? >> i can't -- >> you are. by the way, you are. the last comment. this morning you are a smart individual. we're not a democracy. we're a constitutional republic. that's why we have two ways both from a democracy voting and then from the -- where we have the electoral college. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. strzok, you've tak

there may have been an agreement between mr. gowdy and goodlatte but at no point were we asked -- >> stated on the record in the hearing. >> it was stated as a decision, as a fact. we were not asked, we agreed to nothing because we were not asked. and we think that the transcript ought to be released for the reasons stated and that if the witness doesn't object i don't know why the majority should object. i yield. >> if the gentleman would yield, in earnest, i will be glad to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about releasing all relevant information. i think if we're talking about full transparency, let's talk about a fuel transparency. it's interesting we want to release one thing but yet somehow allowing peter strzok to suggest there's other things off the record. i'll work in earnest with my colleagues. >> i appreciate the gentleman, and let me simply say that we are not disrupting a legitimate investigation into the investigation. the republican investigation -- >> it is a release -- >> -- trying to disrupt th

however, to mr. gowdy, i would say, when you lie to investigators, when you tamper with witnesses as paul manafort has done, and when you refuse to sit in the chair even when you've been given the questions that the fbi wants to ask you, it's going to take longer. so if you do that, we could finish it the hell up. >> is the president going to testify this year or not? >> no, i don't think he would ever do that. no. i don't see him ever doing that. he's never met the truth in his life, and he does not want to meet this investigation team. >> thank you so much. michael schmidt, great reporting as always. congressman swalwell and barbara mcquade. >>> democrats are facing a five-alarm fire now when it comes to the supreme court. even president obama is out there warning about this and warning his party personally. >>> plus new reporting that white house chief of staff john kelly is on his way out the door. it's no wonder trump's apparently decided that his own instincts -- think about that. his instincts are b

>> well, so mr. gowdy has issues as well because if you take the time to read through this, you'll see that the dossier is not the bulk of what's being relied upon. secondly, the fbi traditionally uses asset sources, informants. as long as you characterize them and say, look, here's the good story about this informant. we've relied on him in the past. he reported accurately in the past. here is the issues with this informant. when you lay that out, there is nothing wrong with using information, hearsay, secondhand information in this affidavit. >> natasha, what's the goal here? >> to discredit the mueller investigation. i think that's clear. we have donald trump saying that the entire probe is rigged and was based from the very beginning on this dossier, which of course is not true. but i think that it's important to note that this entire thing started just based on bad faith. i mean, nunes drafted this memo with the help of trey gowdy who saw the underlying fisa application and nunes did not. even though

>> mr. gowdy, so two answers to that. had or had not been conducted, i have been directed by counsel for the fbi not to answer that question. i don't recall writing that text. what i can tell you is, that text in no way suggested that i or the fbi would take any action to influence the candidacy -- >> agent strzok, that is a fantastic answer to a question nobody asked. >> joining me now, democratic strategist and former exec tiut director of the new york state party and susan del percio. great to see you both and have you with me. susan, inspector general's report saying no bias when it comes to hillary clinton's e-mail. how much of this in your thoughts is playing politics? >> all of it. if you watch those hearings, i will not be surprised that if congress' ratings went from the teens, favorable rating, down into the single digits. it would not be shocking. it was a horrible display of our legislature. the republicans treated him poorly. the democrats made their speeches, but what was unbelievable is strzok is not a symp

and i watched you comment in actions with mr. gowdy. you got very angry in regards to the gold star father. that shows me that it's innately a part of you and a bias. >> sir, i disagree. i don't know if you're saying this experience is like being at the dentist, if that's what you're suggesting. what you see in my response is a genuine passion for the united states of america. what you see is a passion as a patriot. what you see -- >> i've got two more questions. >> gentleman from arizona controls the time. >> two more questions for you. if you're in a jury box and somebody sees these text messages, you're removed from the jury box, are you not? >> sir, i can't -- >> by the way, you are. and the last comment. this morning you are a smart individual. we are not a democracy. we are a constitutional republic. that is why we have two ways, both from a democracy voting and thens from where we have the uh -- electoral college. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana mr. johnson for five m

>> mr. gowdy my testimony is -- i don't recall writing that test. >> do you deny writing the text. >> what i can tell you -- what i can tell you is that that text in no way suggested that i or the fbi would take any action to influence the candidacy of -- >> your testimony is bob mueller did not kick you off because of the context of your text, he kicked you off because of some appearance that -- >> my testimony what you asked and what i responded to that he kicked me off because of my bias and i'm stating to you that -- it was done based on the appearance. if you want to represent what you said accurately i'm happy to answer that question but i do not appreciate what was originally said being changed? >> i don't appreciate an fbi investigator working on two major investigations in 2016 with a major level of anmust. >> harris: you know that we like it spicy here on overtime time and we served you tomorrow and hillary clinton, her anymore coming up a lot and alexandra, alexandra i'll go to you firs

and i watched you comment on actions with mr. gowdy. you got very angry in regards to the gold star father. that shows me that it is innately a part of you and a bias. >> sir, i disagree. i don't know if you're saying this experience is like being at the dentist, if that's what you're suggesting, i would tell you, sir, what you see in my response is a genuine passion for the united states of america. what you see is a passion as a patriot. what you see is -- >> i have two more questions. >> gentlemen, arizona controls the time. >> i have two more questions for you. if you're in a jury box and somebody sees the text messages, you're removed from the jury box, are you not? >> sir, i can't -- >> you are. by the way, you are. and the last comment, this morning, you're a smart individual. we are not a democracy. we are a constitutional republic. that is why we have two ways both from a democracy voting and from where we have the electoral college. >> the time of the gentleman expired. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr.

investigation of this breadth when i compare it to the two and a half year investigation chaired by mr. gowdy, it is remarkable. one other thing. you looked at the hearing today and half the republicans would not permit the witness to answer questions. they just cast aspersions on his character, they made speeches and kept coming back to the same expressions from political opinion in his texts to his girlfriend. but again, the inspector general found that there was no evidence what soever that their political opinions influenced the decisions in the investigation in any way and again, remember, that mr. strzok was removed from the investigation very early on. not because he did anything terribly wrong, but because i assume because mueller, mr. mueller being wise in the ways of washington knew that his investigation if it went anywhere would be subject to unfair accusations and besmirching and wanted to remove a possible target and he did. but they're using that anyway. >> one of the controversies that arose during the hearing today was whether or not the previous testimony by mr. strzok, he t

and i watched you comment and actions with mr. gowdy.y in regards to the gold star father. that shows me that it's innately a part of you and a bias. >> sir, i disagree. i don't know if you're saying this experience is like being at the dentist if that's what you're suggesting. but i would tell you, sir, what you see in my response, what you see in my response is a genuine passion for the united states of america. >> i'm a dentist, so i read body language very, very well. is that in the same vein as i'm not a dentist, but i stayed at a holiday inn last night, and i can gladly do your dentures. crazy. anyway, he followed it up with this. >> we are not a democracy. we are a constitutional republic. that is why we have two ways both from a democracy voting and then from -- where we have the electoral college. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> what say? first of all, a representative -- a constitutional republic is a form of democracy. and, yes, we have the popular vote, and we have the electoral vote. my 12-year-old knows all of