mr. strzok had -- not just mr. ok but the others listed that have been referred for discipline, probably indirectly affected not only the information the decision-makers had, but the decisions that were made. would that be accurate? i know neither of you were there, but do you think that might be accurate? >> congressman, i think i'm going to let the inspector general's report speak for itself. >> the testimony, not his -- >> i wasn't here when he testified. >> it was -- i didn't expect you to be watching. as riveting as it was. so that leads me to a series of questions related to what's going on here. and we move into the last investigation, ongoing investigation. mr. rosenstein, the scope letter, who wrote the scope letter for mr. mueller's -- the scope of his duties would be? >> i don't know exactly who wrote it, but i'm responsible for it. >> you signed off on it probably? >> correct. >> and have you turned an unredacted copy over to any congressional committee? >> not as far as i know. >> okay. and why is that?

mr. strzok's private life. we know about his text messages. we know nothing about the leaks from fbi personnel who are actively taking steps to sway the election to mr. trump. you didn't include an investigation in those reports, is that correct? >> that's correct. we were not able to speak to work we have ongoing. >> i would hope the investigation is i don't know going at some point. you report to us. because it was generally accepted around here that leaks were going to mr. guliani during the campaign. in fact, mr. guliani based so on tv. the president says this report totally exonerates him and says there's no collusion with the russians. inspector general horowitz, did your report even consider the question of collusion? >> our report is focused on the fbi and department's handling of the clinton e-mail investigation. it touched on the russia investigation as we laid out here when we found the text messages in the july-august time period and the decision that was made in october about whether to proceed or not proceed with the wiener laptop

mr. strzok and ms. page, for example? mr. horowitz: what we were rying to do is we were focused on the very specific investigative decisions we looked at and what was significant about -- now talking about the pre-july announcement decisions was that strzok, page and others were not the sole decision makers there but team decisions and many cases prosecutor decisions as op on owesed to the individuals who wrote the emails. we are not saying that in every single decisions. there are hundreds of decisions being made and in fact, we did not find no bias with regard to the october events. senator cornyn: well, director comey was clear that he expected hillary clinton to be the next president of the united states? mr. horowitz: he described that with respect to the october events, weiner laptop. senator cornyn: in 2016, he decided there would be no recommendation to prosecute, correct? mr. horowitz: he started drafting on may 2. senator cornyn: wasn't until july 5 where he said that the evidence did not rise to the point where any

mr. strzok in an open hearing. this is a bad idea. i think mr. rzok will be asked initially about the august 8, 2016 message. you'll recall it was nine days before that that he opened up on papadopoulos and six days after that statement that he said there was an insurance policy against the trump presidency. one thing that we would like to get to the bottom of, july 31 is truly the moment when the trump investigation with russia began or whether or not there was intelligence collected on the trump campaign previously. those are questions that mr. strzok is uniquely qualified to answer. i hope we learn more tomorrow. >> neil: so congressman, just to be clear here, there was a threat of a subpoena for him to tomorrow. he volunteered, he came. so someone decided it would be best that this be a closed-door affair. but it's your hope just to clarify here in the next appearance, it's not that, right? >> i hope all appearances are in the open. opposed the andrew mccabe deposition behind closed doors. i don'ts think that's served the country well, this is

mr. strzok and mr. strzok blew it off. so my point is why wouldn't we go outside the fbi to look at the servers and this data? >> let me -- my understanding was there was some contact with other agencies, but i'd have to go back and just refresh -- >> i would love to know exactly who that is and who they were, because my understanding is that there's something peculiar in that regards. there were other people that noticed something totally different than what the findings that you're showing. >> right. okay. now i want to go back to this comment in regards. who told comey that reasonably likely was the proper way to explain the results for the intrusion analysis? >> i don't recall as i sit here. i'd have to go back and take a look at the report. >> do you feel that you delphed in -- you delved deif enough into this issue? >> we looked at the fbi analysis. we don't do an intrusion analysis as an ig. we look at the fbi. >> mr. strzok responded to the reasonably likely formation when reporting back to comey, did he not? >> ye

mr. strzok. so, the fact that director mueller didn't spend a lot of time questioning him, i think that was probably appropriate because that was the inspector general's job. but i would also point out that i don't think it took director mueller very long after seeing those text messages to decide what was the right thing to do. >> thank you. i yield back. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, for his questions. >> thank you. last month i wrote to both of you regarding the apparent outing in the media of a confidential human source involved in the early stage of the russia investigation. i understand that while i was on the floor just now, one of my republican colleagues said the goal to quiz you about his identity again today. in my letter, i asked that you, quote, investigate this case for potential violations of the intelligence identities protection act, as well as other statutes and department guidelines designed to protect the lives of covert operatives and confidenti

mr. strzok's private life and we know about his text messages, but we know nothing about the leaks from fbi personnel who are actively taking steps to sway the election to mr. trump. you did not include investigation of those leaks in your report, is that correct? >> that's correct for the reasons that we noted, that we're not able to speak to work we might have ongoing. >> i would hope that the investigation is ongoing and at some point you report to us. because it was generally accepted around here that leaks were going to mr. giuliani during the campaign. in fact, mr. giuliani basically said so on tv. now, the president says that this report totally exonerates him and says there is no collusion with the russians. inspector general horowitz, did your report even consider the question of collusion? >> our report consisted of the department's handling of the clinton investigation. it touched on the text messages in that july-august time period, and then the decision that was made in october about whether to proceed or not proceed with the weiner laptop. that was the sum and total. >> but th

mr. strzok? stated that is correct. seven days later, it was a concern to us, referencing an insurance policy. >> according to the report, beyond mr. strzok and lisa page, there were other employees involved in the hillary clinton email investigation that showed animus. for example, they called president trump a f-ing idiot and they called his supporters a slur for the mentally disabled which i will not use in this committee. >> that is correct. >> does -- >> it undercuts confidence precisely as we said. >> you referred to former congressman anthony weiner's seized laptop. it's correct the fbi discover the presence of thousands of emails related to the clinton investigation on september 27, 2016. how long did deputy director mccabe and director comey know about the emails that were potentially relevant to the clinton administration and do absolutely nothing about it? >> deputy director mccabe was aware on september 28, the next day. and was notified on multiple ways on multiple occasions, as well on september 29. there

mr. strzok was put in charge of this a week before. strzok and page and the rest of them knew about this months in advance. they were well-aware of what they were doing. >> dana: no doubt michael horowitz and chris wray, the fbi director, will get questions about this from republicans and possibly democrats when this hearing gets under way in just a moment. your thoughts on what devin nunes just said. >> it's hard to take devin nunes seriously talking about bias investigations when he's ran one of the most bias investigations ever between running to the white house when he thought there was intelligence that he should share with the white house. he lost his security clearance as a result of it. he only puts out reports from his committee that represent true republicans. the bigger concern here is everything is politicized, including law enforcement. law enforcement enforces the law. you shouldn't be forced to implement political agendas. that's what we see with the hearing, that's what we saw with donald trump going after the fbi, the d

mr. strzok was put in charge of this a week before. strzok and page and the rest of them knew about this months in advance. they were aware of what they were doing. they opened the investigation, maybe not officially. they were doing a lot of bad things they have not done before that late july date. >> what does your committee want now? >> first ovulates the continual bad faith. this was delayed and delayed. we got this response. the response is inadequate. they don't answer the question about whether or not they imply they were. they refer that question to the director of national intelligence. i remember james saying he wasn't aware there was an investigation going on. they have to let us know, first of all what human source was used. were they informants and being paid. when did this investigation start? if they actually used sources before the start of the investigation that raises the most serious questions. also there was the issue that this was given to the fbi and director. who is responsible? is the fbi director responsible? i

mr. strzok. the fact that director mueller didn't spend a lot of time questioning him, i think that was probably appropriate because that was the inspector general's job. i don't think it took director mueller very long after seeing those text messages to decide what was the right thing to do. >> thank you. i yield back. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler for his questions. >> thank you. last month i wrote to both of you regarding the apparent outing in the media of a confidential source in the early stan stages of the russia investigation. one of my republican colleagues had the gall to quiz you about his identify again today. in my letter i asked that you investigate this case for the potential violations of statutes and guidelines designed to protect the lives of covert sources. last month you testified before the senate that a day that we can't protect human sources is the day the american people stat becoming less safe. can you further and briefly explain? >> congres

mr. strzok. so the fact director mueller didn't spend a lot of time questioning him, i think that was probably appropriate because that was the inspector general's job. i don't think it took director mueller very long after seeing those text messages to decide what was the right thing to do. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, for his questions. >> this month i wrote to both of you regarding the apparent outing in the media of a confidential human source involved in the early stages of the russia investigation. i understand that while i was on the floor just now, one of my republican colleagues had the gall to quiz you about his identity again today. in my letter i asked that you, quote, investigate this case for potential violations of the intelligence identity's protection act as well as other statutes and department guidelines designed to protect the lives of covert operatives and human sorturces, closed quo. last month you testified bef

mr. strzok said. this is back in that august time period again. august 26th, 2016, peter strzok says just went to a southern virginia walmart, i can smell the trump supporters. this is what -- this is what ticks americans off more than anything else i'm convinced about all this clinton investigation, all this russia investigation is this idea that there are -- there are two 70s rules or two standards. one set of rules for us regular folk who shop at walmart, but a different set if your name is clinton, comey, lynch, mccabe, or if your name is peter strzok. and the arrogance and the condensation and the elitous attitude, that's what ticks people off. as they look at all this and see what strzok said throughout these investigation, that's why their confidence is shaken and that's why they're so mad. that's why we got to get some answers from mr. rosenstein and mr. wray about this whole ordeal. i yield back. >> the gentleman from ohio yields back. the gentle lady from new york is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. horowitz for your service.

mr. strzok and his texts as evidence to sabotage or discredit the mueller investigation.hat was clear. >> the house is set to vote today on the resolution by republican congress member mark meadows calling on the justice department to provide russia and clinton records by july 6th. meadows says if rod rosenstein does not comply, he should be impeached. >>> bill shine has accepted a position in the administration and is expected to become deputy chief of staff in charge of communications. we're told shine and the president are not personally close, but do know each other well. sean hannity is a close friend of shine's and has been pushing him for communications director for months. shine stepped down from fox under fire last year for how he handled sexual harassment claims at the network. >>> al lly -- allies are concerd the president is being too kind to western adversaries. can we expect the same when the president meets with vladimir putin? we are going live to moscow. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz xr is right for you. xelj

mr. strzok setting up a june 9 meeting at trump tower where the president's son, son-in-law and campaign chairman met with individuals seeking to offer dirt from the russians on hillary clinton? did he set that up? or was he involved in that in any way? >> i have no personal knowledge about that. >> did mr. strzok ask candidate trump or write a speech for candidate trump in the summer of 2016 to invite the russians to do further hacking, was that part of any finding that you had? >> not to my knowledge. >> do you find it, director wray, unhelpful that the president would tweet in the manner that he did this morning and the public comments he's made where he doesn't acknowledge that russia interfered in our election. yet you're tasked with trying to counter russian interference in our election? >> congressman there are a lot of opinions out there about a lot of things including on twitter. i'm not a twitter guy. and our folks aren't really, either. we're focused on trying to make sure we get our work done. >> and the country is counting on you as we go into the midmid. >> the councilman f

mr. strzok and his texts as evidence to sabotage or discredit the mueller investigation. that was clear. >> the house is set to vote today on the resolution by congress member mark meadows calling on the justice department to provide russia and clinton investigation records by july 6th. pedestrian o meadows says if rod rosenstein does not comply, he should be impea impeached. >>> senate allies believe the president is being too safe with the allies. can we believe the same when the president meets with vladimir putin? we will go live to moscow straight ahead. ou havalaumatiry, we have a short amount of time to get our patient to the hospital with good results. we call that the golden hour. evaluating patients remotely is where i think we have a potential to make a difference. (barry murrey) we would save a lot of lives if we could bring the doctor to the patient. verizon is racing to build the first and most powerful 5g network that will enable things like precision robotic surgery from thousands of miles away as we get faster wireless connections, it'll be possible to be

mr. strzok, miss page, were absolutely outrageous.s he didn't want to see trump become pred but that has nothing to do with the conduct of the investigation. the fact is the fbi investigation from what the inspector general says was carried out faithfully and mistakes from the top down as well these record prejudicial statements by two members of the leadership. i want to go back to the report about the eye quinn fmt i'm handling it response pli prng frn greg brower, former fbi official under james comey. what do you make of the report, though, faulting your snachlt y you. it appears that the d.o.j. did a very thorough, professional jobs. its findings are not all that surprising. the they did found he did detroit from sfrchl who watched him deliver himf spbt that are a matter of debate now. secondly, the report found that despite his deviation from d.o.j. policy, jim comey and the fbi was not. >> i don't think that surprises us, most of us who knowsfwlcht i'm hoping that the work is infished. snl and i know that director wray at the f

mr. strzok. we reached an agreement with him after we issued a subpoena because his earlier promise to appear was not materializing, so we issued a subpoena and then we agreed to a n it back interest voluntary interview, and he came, as is the prerogative, the .b.i. was allowed to have counsel present as well. we went through a lot of lot of things, a ut we also were stymied time and time and time again, because f.b.i. counsel instructed him not to answer because it it, an she called ongoing investigation. >> we have an ongoing here as well. that investigation is based upon the book, sitting between two of you. long time to get that done, and we've worked very hard long time before that and we continue to work on that and r. strzok was expected to answer questions regarding his nvolvement in both of these investigations, not from the standpoint of the substance of investigation but from the standpoint of what his role was with ontemporaneous time ome of the most unbelievably vulgar textsbiased th

mr. strzok, he had a bias state of mind. >> as i said from reading the report, not only mr. strzok but a number of those that you found concerning comments expressed remorse, said that they intended for these to be private conversations and then said it didn't have anything to to with the way they did that job. is that correct? >> that was their explanations. >> you said you don't have any different evidence than that. you're not saying you believe it or not. you don't have different evidence. >> correct. >> i think that's a lot difference than saying there's no bias personally. secondly, you said i believe somewhere in the report that with regard to the charging decisions since that decision was made not by those that you found the bias from but from others and this would be prosecutors, not fbi correct? >> correct. >> that you felt that whatever bias they had at least as to the charging decision did not flow through, even though -- can you say that that's true even though in this case the director of the fbi gave a charging recommendation? >> yeah, i would use the same lang

mr. strzok?rst of all, we have thousands of texts, conversations between he and low is a page that raise huge questions about the meaning of those texts. for example, he says to lisa page, we're not going let that happen with regard -- we're going to stop it with regards to the election of donald trump as president of the united states. who is we? that's a big question. does that relate to the so-called insurance policy that he references in another text? there's a ton of information that we need from mr. strzok. we've been requesting him from the department for some time now. if he's not produced, we're prepared to issue a subpoena in short order. >> neil: we'll see what happens with that. let's get the read on this with did williams, attorney. it's interesting because while i did get a chance to look at this thing, what is fascinating in the report are all the other people that had bad things to say about donald trump who, you know, were not named peter strzok or lisa page. all of these individ

mr. strzok not to answer our questions. we asked questions that were totally in the scope of the russia investigation when the f.b.i. was doing it before may when bob mueller was named special counsel and mr. strzok refused to answer the question on the advice of f.b.i. counsel i can't answer that question. he can answer it, some rule the f.b.i. has they won't let congress get in that information while there is an investigation going on. >> bill: slow it down just a second. what do you think you conclude right now from 11 hours of questions and answers? >> the conclusion is simple. there is a resolution on the floor today telling mr. rosenstein seven days to turn over to congress what we asked for. it was a continuation of the justice department not giving congress a separate and equal branch of government the information we're entitled to get to get answers for you, press and more importantly the american people. that's the problem and what mr. rosenstein will have to answer for and mr. wray today in our hearing. >> bill:

mr. strzok not to answer many questions.this time i can't get into the details but it's a serious concern. >> martha: can you characterize his demeanor for me? is that fair to ask? >> one of the things that i can say is that he has answered many questions regarding the hateful nature of many, many texts that he exchanged with lisa page, and in doing so, his answers to end his explanations for those answers, those questions about that hateful attitude, are not believable. >> martha: if you are referring to the texts among many breeds that he would stop president trump and also, the other pivotal text message where they discussed an insurance policy against what they saw was an unfortunate possibility that president trump could become president. did he refer to those as an intimate conversation? >> i cannot comment on the substance of his answers but i will say that he had many, many other texts that are now available to the public where he uses many hateful comments and obscenities, not just about then candidate trump and now

mr. strzok's personal devices or accounts. i thought never the inspector general or fbi looked at their personal devices. i sent a letter to you, director wray, this morning on this topic, but i wanted to ask you, how can the fbi conclude no classified material was on their personal devices if you didn't even look at their devices? >> mr. chairman, first, as to your letter, i haven't obviously seen your letter of today but i'm happy to take a look at it and make sure we're being responsive to you on that. on the second part of your question, and the words in our response to the inspector general's report, i don't think we're attempting to characterize some independent investigation of our own, but rather to refer to the language in the inspector general's report and to clarify that the findings that we're reactioning to did not themselves identify any passage of classified information. >> during the course of the review, you found that several of the people investigating secretary clinton were using personal e-mail, were doing

mr. strzok when he said we're going to review the report and think about further disciplinary actions. as you noted, the ig also concluded that a, they were even more aggressive than some of the other fbi agents and prosecutors in pursuing the clinton e-mail case and that they did nothing, they took no actioning that the ig could find that in any way influenced the conduct of this investigation or when went after mr. trump. the president will say there's a deep state conspiracy proven by one e-mail and you know, i think they were again, it was unfortunate but they were like a lot of other people in america saying oh, my god, we can't let this happen. >> thanks for being with me tonight. >> thanks, chris. >> my interview with a former staffer of a child detention center holding it kids as young as 4 years old to get a rare account of what he describes as prison-like conditions. he joins me next. >> don't you have any empathy, come on, sarah, you're a parent. don't have you any empathy for what these people are going through. >> brian, gosh. >> settle down. >> seriously. seriously. >> i'

mr. strzok and ms. or in the tank for clinton and hated trump.hose two people start an investigation against the trump campaign because they had a political bias? or was it based on legitimate evidence? how would you like this guy supervising a confidential informant against the trump campaign given his bias and given his dislike for president trump? he should be the last guy to go to court to get a warrant on anybody associated with the trump campaign. my question is what role did they play in the russia investigation? >> martha: it follows up on their text messages, which i would imagine he's going to say those are just -- i was being funny, i was just kidding around. i didn't like the president but it had no bearing whatsoever on my actions. but talking about the insurance policy, talk abou him. and then, late spring of 2016, all these efforts to try to poke for soft places within the campaign to see if they pick up on this stuff began it appears. >> july 31st they clear clinton. let me tell you this, if you had done what she had done with her

mr. strzok, i didn't. >> works for you. doesn't work for us. >> there are 115,000 people who work for me, sir. >> mr. rosenstein, did you threaten staffers on the house intelligence committee? media reports indicate you did. >> media reports are mistaken. >> sometimes. but this is what they said. "having the nation's number one law enforcement officer threaten to subpoena your calls and e-mails is down right chilling." did you threat on the subpoena their calls and e-mails? >> no, sir, and there's no way to subpoena phone calls. [laughter] >> i'm reading what the press said. >> i would suggest you not rely on what the press says, sir. >> i didn't ask if there's no way to do it, i asked if you said it. >> i said what? >> what i just read you. >> no, i do not. >> who are we supposed to believe? staff members who we worked with who never misled us or you guys who we caught hiding information from us, who tell a witness not to answer our questions, who are we supposed to believe. >> thank you for making clear it's not personal,

mr. strzok and ms. page were not handled at the time the fbi learned about them, resulting in their continued assignment as key players in the clinton investigation and the mueller/russia investigation. mr. mccabe appears to not have been forthright with congress during an interview conducted by the committees concerning his knowledge of meetings and actions taken by mr. mccabe and his team. the fbi's top counterintelligence official was unaware of possible evidence indicating mrs. clinton's private e-mail server had been penetrated by a foreign adversary and unaware of relevant legal process obtained during the investigation. documents show significant criticism of mr. comey expressed by multiple current and former fbi agents. the fbi intentionally obscured the fact president obama had communicated with mrs. clinton's private e-mail address by editing mr. comey's final press statement, replacing the president with the euphemism senior government official. finally, top fbi officials, including mr. mccabe

mr. strzok a little nervous. >> why is it our job to prove strzok's bias. i have a better idea.trzok, you come before congress and the american public and prove to us your manifest animus against donald trump didn't affect your decisions. >> trey is exactly right. we have been requesting he be produced as a witness for quite some time. if that agreement is not reached we'll shortly issue a subpoena for him to appear. kennedy: is he in legal trouble and could anybody else go down with him? joining me, former defense attorney emily canpagno. there are so many questions for peter strzok. i hope he appears before some legal body to answer for the texts in question. what would you ask him? >> i will say we definitely have more teeth and here is why. i was struck today by wray's comments. he was going to hold the group of outliers accountable. but the reality of the fbi intern discipline system is bowing to precedence. it relates to a penalty table of offenses. there is aggravating and mitigating factors. and there is also a lower standard of evidence there it's preponderance. while t

mr. horowitz, does peter strzok like the president? >> i can only speak to what his text messages say and they're obviously not positive comments about the president. >> february and march of 2016 peter strzok said trump is abysmal, an idiot, hillary should win 100 million to 0, sound likes he hates the president. >> his text messages would leave that as the implication. >> your report says strzok ran the clinton investigation on a daily basis, is that accurate? >> that's correct. >> peter strzok he was the lead investigator on the russia investigation, that is true? >> that's my understanding for the time period he was on it. >> he ran the clinton investigation, runs the russia investigation, hates the president but your report says while his bias casts a cloud it didn't impact final decisions. >> it didn't impact the prosecutors' final decisions. >> let's look at a few other things peter strzok had to say. may 4th, 2016, the day after president trump secures the republican nomination, mr. strzok says now the pressure really starts to

mr. strzok should be working at fbi headquarters is a question a lot of us are asking. >> laura: the ig did not say he found no bias. he said there was no documentary evidence that bias produced certain decisions. there is another report coming down the pipe. that could end up being loaded with evidence of such bias, because that's about looking into the informants that were used in the trump campaign and the potential fisa abuses, fbi handling of, the russia probe.us i want to go back to you, bob, thinking that the ig, trump was annoyed, he petered out at the end, that's what donald trump said. i think this other report could be really important in seeing what happened to place individuals or encourage individuals to try to penetrate these lower level people inside the campaign. >> i think it's impnt for two reasons. one is what you talked about, we'll find the basis for this russia investigation, whether or not it was the dossier, the research generated investigation totally or not, but more importantly, we'll lay it side by side with the ig report that just came out. it will provide some

mr. strzok should be working at fbi headquarters is certainly a question we're asking. >> the ig did not say he found no bias at the fbi. he said that there was no documentary evidence that bias produced specific decisions. and we've got to remember, there's another ig report coming down the pike. that could end up being loaded with evidence of such bias because that's about looking into the informants that were used in the trump campaign and maybe the potential fisa abuses, the fbi handling of the russia probe. i want to go back to you, bob. thinking the ig -- trump was annoyed today. he petered out at the end. i think this other report could be really important in seeing what happens to placed individuals or encouraged individuals to try to penetrate these lower-level people inside the campaign. >> we'll find the basis for this russia investigation, whether or not it was the dossier originally or the opposition research generated investigation totally or not. but more importantly, we'll be able to lay it side by side with the ig report that just came out. it'll provide context. in the

mr. strzok, that he had a biased state of mind. >> as i understand, not only mr. strzok but a number of those you found concerning, comments that saidssed remorse, that they intended for these to be private conversations, and then said they did not have anything to do with the way they did their job. correct? >> that was their explanations. >> what you are telling us is you do not have different evidence? >> correct. >> i think that is a lot different than saying there is no bias, personally. secondly, i believe you said somewhere in the report that, with regard to charging decisions, since that decision was made not by those who had the bias but from others, and this would be prosecutors, not fbi agents, correct? >> correct. >> that you felt whatever bias they had come at least as to the charging decision, did not flow through. can you say that is true even though in this case the director of the fbi gave a tragic -- charging recommendation? sameah, i used the language you did, senator, which is we did not see evidence of that in a documentary or testimony we rece

mr. strzok is the counterintelligence agency at the center of trump bias accusations at the fbi when it wasout he had been sending antitrump text messages to his girlfriend lisa page. unbelievable. former nsa contractor reality winner reportedly entering a guilty plea over leaking classified information to news outlet. winner was charged under espionage act after she alleged handed over highly-sensitive material involving russian involvement in 2016 hearing. plea hearing on tuesday in augusta, florida military. hit by alabamaers, flashes contemporarily blind pilots, officials say all incidents in and around east china sea where the chinese military operate. here is a big story, uber drivers hitting it big-time, ride-hailing service said drivers made $600 million in tips since instituting tipping last year, people give more on friday, saturday and sunday. tracee: i wonder why, over the weekend. supreme court cleared the way to collect taxes on internet purchase, major prize advantage, e-commerce mother chapts had -- merchants, resource group mitch roschelle of price-waterhouse cooper. who ar

mr. strzok and miss page and mccabe spoke of. >> sean: the fix in for hillary clinton.ged an investigation and the same people start the sledge harm on donald trump to destroy him. does that render everything illegitimate? if you are an attorney for any of these guys, do you not go to a judge and say, this is predicated on a prejudices that exited from the get go. none of this should be admissible? >> absolutely. the u.s. supreme court said the integrity of the investigation is also the issue. we know these same people have that same agenda. there is no question about it. >> sean: sarah carter, you have some breaking news about general flynn. nobody thought he lied. but he was charged for lying. >> yes. he pleaded guilty. he was strong armed according to the sources i spoke to. he lost million dollars trying to defend himself. >> sean: lost his home. >> yes, his family was threatened. a lot of reasons why general flynn would just want this over with. this was a flimsy charge. according to comey himself behind closed doors the agency did not believe he was lying. then yo

mr. strzok, i didn't. >> works for you. doesn't work for us. >> there are 115,000 people who work for me, sir. >> mr. rosenstein, did you threaten staffers on the house intelligence committee? media reports indicate you did. >> media reports are mistaken. >> sometimes. but this is what they said. "having the nation's number one law enforcement officer threaten to subpoena your calls and e-mails is down right chilling." did you threat on the subpoena their calls and e-mails? >> no, sir, and there's no way to subpoena phone calls. [laughter] >> i'm reading what the press said. >> i would suggest you not rely on what the press says, sir. >> i didn't ask if there's no way to do it, i asked if you said it. >> i said what? >> what i just read you. >> no, i do not. >> who are we supposed to believe? staff members who we worked with who never misled us or you guys who we caught hiding information from us, who tell a witness not to answer our questions, who are we supposed to believe. >> thank you for making clear it's not personal,

mr. strzok. i don't know why he's there either. i don't think he will be there much longer. people don't seem to realize he has some hearings ahead of him within the agency. i doubt he'll be there. the texts that he sent that we all read was absolutely un forgivable. not okay by any stretch of the imagination. charles: gina, where do you think this goes from here? >> i don't know. you know, as to rick's question about them being left leaning, i don't know how you extrapolate anything else from what we know because, charles, where is the one text from anyone who wasn't supporting hillary outwardly in that last election. everything we saw was anti-trump from the very beginning. >> i don't think the director was supporting her. >> also, if i could also say regarding strzok, what strzok has, he's got something on somebody her he wouldn't still be there. he needs to go. >> there's a process. charles: that's what you -- that's your assumption. >> that's what i think. charles: listen, at this point everyone has opinions and those s have been enhanced in the last 24 hours from the s

mr. strzok was just happily put in charge of this a week before. strzok and page and the rest of them all knew about this months in advance. they were well aware of what they were doing. they had opened this investigation, maybe not officially, but they were doing lots and lots of bad things that they have not shown congress before that july, late july date. and that's really what we've been investigating here the whole time. and they would help themselves a whole lot if they complied with our subpoenas and gave everything over to congress and, look, here's the bottom line. mr. rosenstein, the deputy attorney general and director wray hav to decide whether or not they want to be part of the clean-up crew or they want to be part of the cover-up crew. that's really the decision that they have to make for themselves here. the best way they can be part of the clean-up of this mess is give us all the documents this week so that we can put this behind us and let the american people begin to heal. >> maria: well-said. i think we should point out that that

mr. strzok. it reflects negatively on the entire fbi, which i think is very regrettable. far assive understand the ig report, there was no political bias that had any decisions that were made. >> in the clinton e-mail investigation, they haven't ruled yet on the mueller investigation. we will find out about that going forward. thanks so much. >> thanks, john. plaque psoriasis, or psoriatic arthritis, little things can be a big deal. that's why there's otezla. otezla is not an injection or a cream. it's a pill that treats differently. for psoriasis, 75% clearer skin is achievable with reduced redness, thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and for psoriatic arthritis, otezla is proven to reduce joint swelling, tenderness, and pain. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. tell your doctor if these occur. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, o

mr. strzok is dirtier. he's going to go in tomorrow and he is going to live. he's going to give explanations that are untruthful. he says that when lisa page asked him, he is not speaking about president or candidate trump. he can't win, can he? he can't have him as president. and strzok says, no, we will stop it. now he is claiming that there is an explanation for her, we will stop him. i can't wait to hear it. >> you know we don't like you are to people i wouldn't want to mess with in court room. i kind of agree but then there is the insurance policy. then there is a loathsome human being. then there are the actions. now it's real. and there are some superior believe that he's doing it from noble causes, but really, he is almost attempting a coup, because someone was guilty of crimes that he pushes under the rug. they go full force sledgehammer on the other candidate. at that to me is influencing an election and collusion. >> let's be very clear about this. this is not a complicated case. at the fbi of the senior levels of the obama administration and the de

mr. strzok and lisa. omg, trump is an idiot. trump is a disaster. have no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be. omq, this is blank terrifying. there is no way he gets elected. but i'm afraid we can't take that risk. it's like an insurance policy. lisa page says trump is not ever going to become president, right? right? and strzok says no. no, we'll stop it. >> these are devastating comments. and they have got to be the subject of very pointed questions whether it's an inspector general or congress. it's not something where you can accept an made denial at face value. you have got to cross-examine pretty deep live what this plan was, what mccabe's role was, what was he referring to? it's kind of historically different moments in law enforcement to see these times of text messages. he needs to couple with an answer that holds the water. water. what he says this was a whole bunch of bias but it doesn't affect the end result. part of that is the model of an inspector general review. they accept there are two different opinions a prosecutor can

mr. strzok a lot of protections like civil service protections that prevent you to be fired because of words that you uttered of a political nature. >> neil: even if you're at the fbi. >> sure. he was demoted from intel to mueller. mueller learned about the texts. she was demoted. who cares what his opinions are. friday he was frogged, they took his gun and badge away from him out of the building. we don't know why. what we do know, he has civil service protection and can only be fired for cause. andrew mccabe was fired because the attorney general was satisfied that mccabe lied under oath. telling your girlfriend that you can't stand trump and trying to do something about it as reprehensible is protected speech. he must have been removed from the building. for some reason we don't know. >> neil: not from his job. >> i doubt that. he can be fired from the upper echelon positions but not as a baseline fbi agent because these civil service protected. that would require a cause like they found for andy mccabe. >> neil: if they fired me, i would glue myself to my desk. >> they would have to get

mr. strzok won't have a job by the end of the day. >> i hope not. >> when they talk about heads rolling ->> yeah. a text saying we're going to stop trump. second of all, if you're over there at the fbi or you're at doj and you're being accused of putting a spy in the trump cam page and you listened in on the trump team's phone conversations left and right, do you think it's smart to go running out there and say we're going to now get the e-mails and texts of a co-equal branch of government? does he not understand they're using the police powers of the state that looks overtly political and we're disgusted by this? i don't care whether it's symbolic or real, it has to stop. it's not appropriate by anyone in the executive branch. >> there's people in the meeting that said yeah, rosenstein threatened them saying he was as the acting attorney general going to subpoena their e-mails and phone calls. >> and think through the conclusion. what would he do with that information, rod rosenstein? >> leak to it "the new york times." >> so why do all of this now? what is the point of doing it now? >>

strzok texted about the meeting. >> you asked mr. mccabe. >> he said he did not recall. >> senator graham said it reeked of political bias and the inspector general's conclusions are off-base. >> i'm glad you found what you found. i'm not buying that the clinton email investigation was on the up and up. >> first public testimony from inspector general michael horowitz and fbi director christopher wray divided along party lines. >> director ray has a mess to clean up. i think he probably knows that. >> the inspector general found no evidence of political bias in the fbi's investigation. of secretary clinton or in the decision not to pursue criminal charges. >> horowitz testified he's been asked to investigate james come comey. >> we received a referral on that from the fbi. we are handling that referral and we will issue a report when the matter is complete. >> democrats pressed on leaks in the fall of 2016 former new york city mayor rudy giuliani. >> can you assure the american people there are no ongoing leaks from any office of the