mr. strzok: may i respond? >> the time is controlled -- at the conclusion of his time, the gentleman will be allowed to briefly answer on anything that was left unanswered by mr. walker. said when i was asking about documents received by the fbi, you said you did not personally received documents, but the fbi did. you also said the fbi got documents from a different source in september. different source from whom? mr. strzok: different source from mr. or. rep. walker: so mr. or did not and you the dossier? mr. strzok: mr. or didn't hand me anything. mr. or provided information to the fbi. rep. walker: say that again? mr. strzok: he provided some of myts of reporting that understanding originated from mr. steele. >> so he did give the fbi information relative to the dossier? and another source and -- mr. strzok: i never personally received the dossier. the first time i'm aware of the fbi having that information was in mid-september. my understanding was that came into the fbi. >> one more time, bruce or gave the

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 now recognizes the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. byrman started the hearing saying i wish the hearing was not necessary. sorry if i don't believe that. he wants this hearing, and it isn't ne

mr. strzok. >> mr. chairman, i appeal the ruling of the chair that you have just made on that -- on whether the -- >> you have not stated a valid point of order. >> that is your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable -- >> point of order. yes it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is exactly what he's requesting. he's appealing it. that requires a vote to either sustain it on overrule it. >> the gentleman from new york has not cited a rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that's your ruling and he's appealed it. >> mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney-client privilege which cannot be overridden and is a rule of the house to the extent that witnesses have the right to an attorney-client privilege in this house. >> mr. strzok -- >> that is what this witness is asserting. attorney-client privilege and he has been advised not to answer the question. >> the gentleman woman will suspend. the gentleman has

mr. strzok, to be clear, mr. gates is swearing under oath that -- in his guilty plea, that he conspired with mr. manafort in criminal activity; is that correct? from what i'm reading? >> ma'am, i'm not familiar with the statement of facts, but i'll stipulate to what you're reading. >> so in a few weeks, mr. manafort's trial date is set to begin. and the special counsel team of prosecutors will present their evidence. and i cannot imagine how anyone in this body or in this country, with the exception of mr. manafort and his co-conspirators, would ever want in any way, shape, or form, to halt this trial from going forward. can you think of any reason why anyone would want to halt this trial from going forward, mr. strzok? >> i am not aware of any. >> thank you. and i yield back. >> will the gentlewoman yield? >> i yield to mr. cummings. >> i yield to the gentleman, mr. meadows. >> i thank the gentleman. i thank the gentlelady. mr. chairman, in the spirit of transparency, and i think we all want transparency here, i

mr. strzok. but the special counsel, mr. mueller, removed you from the investigation when he saw the texts. >> that's true, sir. he did. let me go back to answering your question, if i may. in terms of political speech, that is radically different from any sort of protected category of race, gender, and ethnicity or other categories. political speech, political thought is protected. the courts have recognized and the constitution recognizes we all have political beliefs. and so when it comes to the expression of that political belief, that is something that this body under the hatch act enumerated the categories of what was prohibited and expressly stated if it is not prohibited, then it is expressly encouraged. so i would tell you that no one in here, it's an impossible definition to say people must not have political opinions. everyone does. of course, they do. the test is whether or not that is left behind when you're doing your job. to your question of whether or not i would express that in front of a jury, of course i w

mr. strzok -- >> mr. chairman, i insist on my point of order and i insist on appealing the ruling of the chair. >> mr. strzok, knowing the advice -- >> point of order, mr. chairman. i believe there's been a point of order raised. we have a rule to answer mr. nadler's -- >> it's not a point of order. >> you can't just repress it -- >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> mr. strzok -- >> mr. chairman, i appeal the ruling of the chair that you just made on whether you have -- >> you have not stated a valid point of order. >> that's your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable -- >> point of order. yes, it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is exactly what he's requesting. he's appealing it. that requires a vote to either sustain it or overrule it. >> the gentleman from new york has not cited a rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that's your ruling. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney/cli

mr. strzok, are you familiar with the guide known as diog? >> yes. >> this is a policy manual sets forth rules you are to follow to pursue an investigation, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and you agree that the diog guidelines applied to your investigation of president trump and the 2016 election, correct? >> yes, sir. >> and the diog policy, 8.1, requires all fbi employees shall comply with policies, quote, isn't that correct? >> i believe that's absolutely true, i don't know the cite. >> you're aware of that? >> yes. >> now, you no doubt are aware the doj issues investigation guidance instructions, correct? >> yes. >> now, specifically doj gui guidance dated march 12th states federal quote employees are entrusted with authority to enforce laws of the united states, and with responsibility to do so in a neutral and impartial manner. this is particularly important in election year, end of quote. are you aware of this guidance? >> i am not, but i believe it and adhere to it, yes. >> i just want to make sure because this is really important because a

mr. strzok. mr.when he did testify in front of the senate judiciary committee was asked about fusion. no one from fusion spoke with the fbi. is there 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 the

mr. strzok -- >> mr. chairman, i insist on my point of order and i insist on appealing the ruling of the chair. >> mr. strzok, knowing the advice -- >> point of order, mr. chairman. i believe there's been a point of order raised. we have a rule to answer mr. nadler's -- >> it's not a point of order. >> you can't just repress it -- >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> mr. strzok -- >> mr. chairman, i appeal the ruling of the chair that you just made on whether you have -- >> you have not stated a valid point of order. >> that's your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable -- >> point of order. yes, it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is exactly what he's requesting. he's appealing it. that requires a vote to either sustain it or overrule it. >> the gentleman from new york has not cited a rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that's your ruling. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney/cli

mr. strzok -- >> mr. chairman, i object. >> would you object -- >> no. >> i would observe then that the minority -- the chairman says there was an agreement not, you know, on the conduct of that hearing. minority was not party to that agreement. 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

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 were not answered by the witness on the advice of his counsel and i presume through the fbi and we will note those questions so that we can address them at a future time because i find it stunning that they are not allowing you to answer those questions, mr. strzok. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. the chairman started this heari

mr. strzok -- >> mr. chairman, i appeal the ruling of the chair that you have just made on whether -- >> you have not stated a valid point of order. >> that is your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable -- >> point of order, yes, it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is exactly what he's requesting. he's appealing it. that requires a vote to sustain it or overrule. >> the gentleman from new york has not cited a rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that's your ruling. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney/client privilege which cannot be overridden and is a rule of the house to the extent that witnesses have the right to an attorney/client privilege in this house? and that is what this witness is asserting. attorney/client privilege, and he's been advised not to answer the question. >> the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman has not raised the attorney/client privilege. he has stai

mr. strzok -- mr. strzok -- >> the gentleman from georgia controls the time. >> mr. strzok -- >> it's over. the time is up. >> may i respond sir? >> there was no question to respond to. the answer is from the department of just. >> may i comment to what is a misstatement? >> briefly. >> from your answer, what i took that to be is in the event of a failure, an individual should be read out. you're conflating that with an out of scope or failure. it's not my understanding that out of scope requires somebody to be read out. i'm not a security professional. you appear to -- >> so you're out of seat with an answer that was received from the department of justice. that is an interesting answer that you just gave that you may have been out of seat. now the question is policies procedures failed or not failed, this is a serious investigation that i take seriously. if you were read out, you should have been read out. that is my final statement. i yield back. >> the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. >> i look forward to a couple of extra minutes as each of my republica

mr. strzok. mr. simpson when he did testify in front of the senate judiciary committee was asked about fus n fusion. no one from fusion spoke with the fbi. is there any what that contradicts the e-mail i'm referencing with you. >> i don't know. i can tell you i have not spoken to mr. simpson. >> all right, i thank the chairman and the gentleman from south carolina for yielding. >> the chair would note several of the questions asked by the gentleman were not answered by the witness on the advice of his council and i presume through the fbi. we will note those questions so we can address them at a futher time because i find it stunning they are not allowing you to answer those questions. chair now recognizes mr. gutierrez for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, the chairman started this hearing by saying i wish this hearing wasn't necessary. well, sorry if i don't believe that. of course he want this is hearing and it isn't necessary. now, i think there are hearing that are necessary an

mr. strzok, mr. strzok -- >> failure required read out. >> the gentleman from georgia controls the time. >> mr. strzok -- >> the time is over. mr. chairman, the time is up. >> may i respond, sir? >> there is no question to respond to. the answer is from the department of justice. i read you the answer. >> may i comment to what i believe is a misstatement? >> briefly. >> sir, from your answer, what i took that to be is in the event of a failure, an individual should be read out. you are conflating that with a out of scope or failure. it is not my understanding that out of scope requires somebody to be read out. it may be. i'm not a security professional, but you appear to -- >> so you're out of sync right now with the answer received from the department of justice. that is an interesting answer that you just gave that you may have been out of sync. the question now becomes is policy procedure failed or not failed. this is a serious investigation which i take seriously. if you should have been read out

mr. strzok. mr. chairman i appeal the ruling of the chair you have just made on whether you -- >> you have not stated a valid point of order. >> it is your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable. >> point of order, yes, it is mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is exactly what he's requesting. he's appealing it. that requires a vote to either sustain it or overrule it. >> the gentlemen from new york has not cited a rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that's your ruling. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney/client privilege, which could not be over ridden, and is a rule of the house to the extent that -- >> -- to an attorney/client privilege in this house. that is what this witness is asserting. attorney/client privilege, and he has been advised not to answer the question. >> suspend. gentlemen has not raised the attorney/client privilege. he has said that he has been instructed by

mr. strzok. >> mr. chairman, i appeal the ruling of the chair that you have just made on whether the -- >> you have not stated a valid point of order. >> and that is your ruling and a appeal it. >> that is not an appealable -- shl >> point of order, yes, it is, mr. chairman. he's appealing it. that requires a vote. to either sustain it or overrule it. >> the gentleman from new york has not cited a rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that's your ruling. >> that is the ruling of the chair. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney-client privilege, which cannot be overridden, and is a rule of the house to the extent -- >> the gentle woman will suspend. >> and that is what this witness is asserting. attorney-client privilege, and he has been advised not to answer the question. >> the gentle woman will suspend. the gentleman has not raised the attorney-client privilege. he has said that he has been instructed by the fb

mr. strzok to do that. >> sir, i appreciate that offer. i'm struck listening to your statements and i know the history of the fbi. i certainly want the fbi to be something that you'd leave to be the defense of. that's something that we're working hard to become. i appreciate the offer. thank you. >> when it comes to the fbi i asked years ago to have a hearing on the fact that we don't know or track how many crimes are committed by fbi informants. we haven't had that hearing but we spent time on fast and furious because we were putting guns, introducing guns into the hands of criminals. every day with snitches and informants, they allow people to deal drugs in the african american community, we still have not had that hearing. let's at least keep our eye on things that are affecting all of our communities and this just isn't one of them. the unfortunate part is, i think, you know, we've been unable to keep tunnel vision on the things that are important around we've allowed ourselves to get distracted by something that the investigation will

mr. strzok, you worked as a

mr. strzok. i, too, like my colleagues, were disappointed to read the text messages knowing that you had a serious career anded had done a lot of good work and the questions it would raise, but i also appreciate that you have come here today and have owned them and have apologized for them. finish but i i want to focus on your work as an investigator in counterintelligence. in your experience, do counterintelligence investigations take longer when subjects to investigations tamper with other witnesses? >> yes. >> in your experience as a counterintelligence investigator, do counterintelligence investigations take longer when subjects lie to investigators? >> frequently, yes. >> and as a counterintelligence investigator, do intelligence investigations take longer when subjects or witnesses refuse to cooperate and you have to go through the subpoena process? >> yes. >> you're here and you're not taking the fifth. >> that's correct. >> did you consider taking the fifth? >> no. >> why not? >> i've don

mr. strzok, you have not stated a valid point of order -- >> and that is your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable -- >> point of order, yes, it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is what he's requesting. he's appealing it that requires a vote. >> that was just a taste of it. let's bring in one of the congressman involved in the exchange, democratic david cicilline represents the state of rhode island. first off, give our viewers an idea of what was going on right there. peter strzok was refusing to answer a question saying the fbi instructed him not to talk about the investigation into russian meddling that started in the summer of 2016. why the animosity between democrats and republicans over his answer? >> the fbi has a well established policy that precludes members of the fbi from discussing an ongoing criminal investigation. the republicans on the committee know this, mr. strzok invoked that and said he's been directed not to answer questions about the ongoing criminal investigation related to the trump campaign's collusion with russian in the preside

mr. strzok. >> mr.f the chair you just made on whether -- >> you have not stated a valid point of order. >> it is your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable. >> point of order, yes it. is appealing of the rule of the chair is exactly what he is requesting. that requires a vote. either sustain it or overrule it. >> the gentleman from new york has not cited a rule of the house being violated. therefore it is not a point of order. >> that's your ruling. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney/client privilege which cannot be overridden and is a rule of the house to the extent that witnesses have the right to an attorney/client privilege in this house and that is what this witness is asserting. attorney/client privilege and he has been advised not to answer the question. >> the gentleman has not raised the attorney/client privilege. he says he has been instructed by the f.b.i. not to answer the question. >> by lawyers. >> now, he knows the advice i

mr. strzok -- >> the gentleman from georgia controls the time. >> mr. strzok -- >> mr. chairman, the time is up. >> may i respond, sir? >> there was no question to respond to. the answer is from the department of justice, i read you the answer >> may i comment to what i believe is a misstatement -- >> briefly. >> sir, from your answer, what i took that to be is in the event of a failure, an individual should be read out. you're conflating that with out of scope or failure. it is not my understanding that out of scope requires somebody to be read out. it may be. i'm not a security professional. >> you're out of seat with an answer that was received from the department of justice. that's an interesting answer that you just gave. the question now becomes is policies and procedures failed or not failed? this is serious investigation. if you were to be read out, you should have been read out. that's my final answer, statement, not a question. i yield back. >> the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes. >> i look forward to a couple extra minutes as each o

mr. strzok and ms. page, you didn't find document or evidence that they had improper considerations including political bias directing affecting. that is directly affecting. i said did they indirectly affect it. he said, yeah. why? because he said you were the lead investigator, the lead investigator of the hillary clinton. you were the liaison if you were. the flow of information from the investigative team. i sketched kind of a diagram of how this works as you were describing it earlier today. you were the gate keeper of information. lisa page was providing counsel to andrew mccabe. on the russian investigation, you were the head guy. now we have accumulation of bias information that indicates some kind of mental state of bias and we got it that you are the head guy on this. that is what the inspector general said under oath in testimony not too many weeks ago. >> if i may respond. >> there is no question before you. >> there are some inaccurate things. >> you're out of order. you've been out of order

mr. strzok. the chair recognizes mr. gutierrez for five minutes. >> thank you very much. >> the gent leman started the hearing by saying i wish this hearing is not necessary. sorry, i don't believe. obviou of course he wants this hearing and it is necessary. there a there are 3,000 children separated from their moms and dads and the government don't know where they are and can't bring them together. that's something that the judicial committee should be investigating. we start a policy in this country where we ban, ban muslims from coming in and we make a religious test. sounds to me something that the committee should take of. we have 16 women who have come forward to say that the president of the united states have attacked them. what does the committee do? no hearings and one of the members of this committee had to resign in disgrace because he asked one of his staffers for a million dollars if she would these are all things and issues that are on the american people's minds. we don't want to talk about those issues.

mr. strzok and ms. page, you didn't find documentary testimony, evidence that they had improper considerations, including political bias directly affecting. i said, that's directly affecting, because they -- you said they weren't the sole decision makers. i said did they indirectly affect it? you said, yeah. why? because he said you were the lead investigator. the lead investigate effort of the hillary clinton investigation. you were the liaison, if you will. you were the flow of information from the investigative team. i sketched a diagram how this works, as you were describing it earlier today. you were the gate keeper of information. lisa page was providing counsel to andrew mccabe. on the russia investigation, you were the head guy. now we have a cumulation of biased information that indicates some kind of mental state of bias. and at the other end of this, you're the head guy on these. that's what the inspector general said. under oath, in testimony, not too many weeks ago. >> sir, mr. chairman, if

mr. strzok, you have not stated a valid point of order -- >> and that is your ruling and i appeal it. >> is not an appealable -- >> point of order, yes, it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is what he's requesting. he's appealing it that requires a vote. >> that was just a taste of it. let's bring in one of the congressman involved in the exchange, democratic david cicilline represents the state of rhode island. first off, give our

mr. strzok, are you objecting to the question? and if so, please state your objection. >> mr.irman, two things. one, i do not believe i am here under subpoena. i believe i am here voluntarily. second, i will not, based on direction of the fbi to me, based on that, i will not answer that question. because it goes to matters which are related to the ongoing investigations being undertaken by the special counsel's office. >> mr. strzok, you have not stated a valid legal basis for not responding to a question directed to you by a member of the united states house of representatives, and you are overruled. >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> your -- let me continue. your testimony is essential to this hearing and to our oversight and information gathering functions with regard to the actions taken, and decisions made by department of justice and the federal bureau of investigation in 2016 and 2017. i am specifically directing you to answer the question in response to our subpoena. notwithstanding your objection. >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> mr. strzok, please be advised that

mr. strzok. i will a listen for a bit and get your perspective. [video clip] you were successful in arresting and prosecuting numerous individuals for espionage and other crimes against the united states of america, isn't that correct? >> it is part of a large of number combatant, -- of a large number of competent, talented folks, yes. and you gained a lot of knowledge about russian spying activities, their methods and sources as they operate in the united states and in other allied nations, isn't that correct? >> it is certainly true within the united states and to a lesser extent overseas. >> and you have used your skills to keep america safe? >> i have, sir. it is my proud duty to have done so. more to your lot career than a few emails, isn't that correct? and a few text messages? >> that's correct. >> so to boil it down to that is a disservice to you. the republicans here being so desperate to find a way to discredit the mueller investigation by discrediting you as a person, i think rather than they doing that, we should be honoring you for th

mr. strzok. >> mr.he ruling of the chair you just made on whether the -- >> you have not state ad valid point of order. >> that is your ruling. i appeal it. >> that is not appealable -- >> point of order, yes it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is exactly what he is requesting. that is appealing. requiring a vote, either sustain it overrule it. >> the gentleman from new york has not cite ad rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that is your ruling. he appealed it. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney/client privilege which can not be overridden and is a rule of the house to extent that right to attorney/client privilege in this house. that is what this witness is asserting. attorney/client privilege. he has been advised not to answer the question. >> gentle women will suspend. the gentleman has not raised the attorney/client privilege. he has said that he has been instructed by the fbi not to

strzok, are you kidding? >> now recognizing the member from missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman and special agent strzok, i just continue to be amazed that my colleagues in the majority are more interested in your text messages than they are about the leader of the free world doing everything possible to undermine the western alliance. it just amazes me, special agent strzok as a counter intelligence specialist, you know all too well the pervasive, constant and growing danger that the russian federation poses to this country, our allies and to democracy in general. it is appalling that my colleagues in the majority continue to relitigate the 2016 election while the president does more damage in the western -- to the western alliance than the sum total of all previous russian and soviet leaders could have dreamed of. and it is remarkable that mr. trump accused our trusted ally germany of being, and i quote, "totally under the control of russia." i would say that the president is half right. someone is totally under control of russia. but it is not germany. you know, the p

mr. strzok, mr. mccabe, mr.e upper echelon senior exclusives related to the hillary clinton case as well as the russia collusion case -- >> and the gop said that's bunk, jimmy, and they'll prove it. did they do it today. >> here's the other thing. everything that happened today was rehearsed. we did this behind closed doors. >> but they wouldn't release the transcript. no we know why. >> now we have it out in open form. you and i talked about this earlier. it's not that there's a criminal act. it's the fact that mr. strzok, in my mind, damaged the fbi, damaged the brand, and reduced the confidence of the american people in the fbi as an institution. why? because as you pointed out on the whiteboard, poor judgment decisions. people can say, if you exhibited poor judgment here, how can we trust you in these other instances? >> all right. is that good enough for you, laura coates? then i have a second point i want to make about whether strzok helped or hurt his situation today. but in terms of what we found out abo

mr. strzok, a couple of questions about that. the original may 2nd draft of the statement that directory comey, characterized mrs. clinton's actions as grossly negligent, is that correct? >> that is my recollection, yes. >> are you aware gross negligence was changed to extremely careless and the eventual statement? >> yes. >> do you recall the june 6th, 2016 meeting attended by you, and lisa page, to discuss the language of the statutes on whether to use grossly negligent or something else in the draft statement, what was discussed at that meeting? >> i don't remember that specific meeting, there were a variety of meetings with a bunch of people that included discussion of this concern. >> did the alternative phrase extremely careless, but the meeting? >> i did at some point, i don't know if it was during that meeting or at another one. >> whenever it happened, who brought it up? >> somebody within our office, the general counsel dead, one of the attorneys. >> you don't member who did it? >> it was a legal issue that one of the at

mr. strzok could give his answers, i hate no one. i do not hate the administration, the president, my colleagues, in fact i love this nation and i honor this nation. and so i believe that it is important that we stand on the force of truth and the constitution. in the overside of these two committees it is unfortunate that none of these committees, judiciary or oversight, have decided to pursue more precious or more important issues than asking about hillary clinton's e-mails which have been well documented that there was no criminal impact and in essence she was vindicated by the inspector general's report and other reports. unfortunately this has become a fishing expedition. we have not investigated the children being stolen away from their families, nor have we looked at our president meeting with mr. putin, getting his annual performance review while offending our nato allies. foreign policy scholars are aghast that president, one who famously refused to release his briefing materials, will be meeting with mr. putin and in additi

mr. strzok. >> i've talked to fbi agent it's around the country. you've embarrassed them, you've embarrassed yourself and i can't help but wonder when i see you looking there with a little smirk how many times did you look so innocent into your wife's eye and lie to her about lisa page. >> mr. chairman, that's outrageous, this suggestion i somewhere in the dark chambers of the fbi would disregard and do this couldn't happen. the proposition that is going on, might occur anywhere in the fbi, deeply corrodes what the fbi is in america society, the effectiveness of their mission and it is deeply destructive. >> strzok struck back and wept on li -- went on like that over nine hours. a spectacle on capitol hill as two republican-led parties did not get that they want grilling fbi agent peter strzok over megs sent during the president's campaign. he defended himself and the fbi against accusations of some sort of deep state conspiracy within the justice department. it was absolutely incredible. we're g

mr. strzok, you are under subpoena and are required to answer the question.the question? if so, please state your objection. >> mr. chairman, i object. >> the gentleman does not have standing to object. >> point of order. >> no point of order here. >> point of order to be heard. >> gentleman state his point of order. >> my point of order is that intentionally or otherwise this puts m strzok in an impossible position. he's still an employee -- >> gentleman. >> we have a problem with this policy should take it up with the fbi, no the badger mr. strzok. >> the gentleman's point of order is not well taken. >> it's right on point. >> no it's not. mr. trustrzok, are you objectino the question? >> mr. chairman, two things. one i do not believe i'm here under subpoena. i believe i'm here voluntarily. second, i will not, based on direction of the fbi to me, based on that, i will not answer that question. because it goes to matters which are related to the ongoing investigations being undertaken by the special counsel. >> mr. strzok, you have not stated a valid legal b

mr. strzok for not answering questions. i remember him asking mr.annon in our house intelligencee investigation questions that mr. bannon refused to answer. republicans on the community refused to hold him in contempt. if we are truly interested in getting answers that witnesses refuse to answer, then we should subpoena mr. bannon just like their doing mr. strzok, of course they voted against that. interestingly, he didn't vote while he was present in the hearing. >> brian: i think beyond a shadow of a doubt, you know he called out the president once and said if you're innocent, act like it. i think he's as good as it gets well.ms of preparation as lisa page is coming in friday, 1:30. what questions do you have for her that might be different than what you have for peter strzok? >> i think were putting our priorities o in the wrong direction, were going to spend hours again with ms. page. there are many other individuals involved in both closing the hillary clinton investigation and opening the rush investigation and to make sure this is not limited

mr. strzok gave his answers. i hate no one. i do not hate the administration, the president, my colleagues. i honor this nation. so i believe it is important that we stand on the force of truth and the constitution. in the oversight of these two committees, it is unfortunate that none of these committees, judiciary or oversight, have decided to pursue more precious or more important issues than asking about hillary clinton's e-mails, which have been well documented that there was no criminal impact, and in essence she was vindicated by the inspector general's report and other reports. unfortunately, this has become a phishing expedition. what we have not done is investigated the children being stolen away from their families. nor have we looked at our president meeting with mr. putin, getting his annual performance review while offending our nato allies. foreign policy scholars are aghast that this president, one who famously refused to read his briefing materials, will be meeting with mr. putin. in addition, we're wasting time

strzok. please. >> it may lead to something. >> are you kidding me. >> thank you mr. chairman and special agent strzok, i continue to be amazed that my colleagues are more interested in your text messages than they are about the leader of the free world doing everything possible to undermine the western alliance. it just amazes me as a counter intelligent specialist, you know all too well the prevasive growing danger that the russians pose to this country. it is appalling that my colleague in the majority continue to relitigate the 2016 election while the president does more damage in the to the western alliance than the sum total of all previous russian and soviet leaders could have dreamed of. it is remarkable that mr. trump accused our trusted ally germany of being and i quote "totally under the control of russia." i would say that the president is half right. someone is totally under control of russia but it is not germany. you know the president should look ento the mirror and explain why virtually every decision he makes and every word -- >> you have been watchin

mr. strzok. i will a listen for a bit and get your perspective.deo clip] you were successful in arresting and prosecuting numerous individuals for espionage and other crimes against the united states of america, isn't that correct? >> it is part of a large of number combatant, -- of a large number of competent, talented folks, yes. and you gained a lot of knowledge about russian spying activities, their methods and sources as they operate in the united states and in other allied nations, isn't that correct? >> it is certainly true within the united states and to a lesser extent overseas. >> and you have used your skills to keep america safe? >> i have, sir. it is my proud duty to have done so. more to your lot career than a few emails, isn't that correct? and a few text messages? >> that's correct. >> so to boil it down to that is a disservice to you. the republicans here being so desperate to find a way to discredit the mueller investigation by discrediting you as a person, i think rather than they doing that, we should be honoring you for the wo

mr. strzok.us paying attention in washington it felt he wasn't taking it seriously and i wish i saw more of an earnest effort to get to the bottom of the entire question at hand here on both sides. i think the republican congressmen, some were engaged in political theater to help appease their base and i do wish that, you know, mr. strzok had taken it just a little bit more seriously. i just don't think anyone did themselves favors. >> what do you think, peter, in terms of lisa page expected to continue her testimony on monday? you had meadows engaged, republicans in the closed-door testimony, reacting more favorably to her testimony than strzok's so far? >> we don't know what her testimony was and it wasn't a media circus. what is the committee looking for other than destroy the mueller investigation. 12 indictments of russian officers that hacked and influenced the united states election. this is national security issue. this isn't an issue about infidelity or intent. there is now indictments a

mr. strzok, you are under subpoena. and are required to answer the question. are you objecting to the question, if so, please state your objection? >> mr. chairman, i object. the gentleman does not have standing to object. point of order. >> no point of order here. >> point of order should be heard. >> i move to subpoena steve bannon. >> the motion had to be heard immediately. >> the motion is not germane. >> motion made to table. >> laura: i need a pepto-bismol. then they tried to change the subject altogether. >> there are 3,000 children separated from their moms and dads and the government know where the moms and dads are. that seems like something they should be investigated. >> we have not investigated the children stolen from their families or looked at our president meeting with mr. putin. >> mr. strzok, you are before this committee for one reason to serve as a monumental distraction. they need to identify a villain. mr. strzok, tag, you're it. >> laura: no, you're it. all these games, hijinks, games, circus. stay with me here. the hearing went from ci

mr. strzok, you are under subpoena. you are required to answer the question. are you objecting to the question if so please state your objection? >> sir i object. >> no point of order. >> i moved to subpoena steve bannon. the motion has to be heard immediately. >> i move to move that. >> laura: i need a pepto-bismol, that was very dramatic. democrats just tried to change the subject altogether. >> there are 3,000 children separated from their moms and dads and the government doesn't know where their moms and dads are. that seems like something the committee should be investigating. >> what we have not done is investigate the children being stolen with from their family. nor have we looked at our president meeting with vladimir putin. >> mr. strzok, you are before this committee for one reason to serve as a monumental distraction. they need to identify a villain. mr. strzok, tag you are it. >> laura: no, you are at. all of these games. stay with me here. there were moments when the hearing went to circus, to a complete sideshow. >> i've talked to fbi agents aro

listen to this. >> sir, it's as frustrating to me as it is to you, i would love -- agent strzok. >> mr. chairman, may the witness be permitted to answer. >> the gentleman will suspend. >> if it's so frustrating, answer the question. if you'll allow him to, i'm sure he will. >> he has never answered the question. >> well stop interrupting him. >> the witness can't be directed not cottoner if with his attorney. >> the fbi is not his attorney. his attorney is seated behind him. >> he's an employee of the fbi. >> there were moments where you all were doing more talking and sort of haggling over this than he was. here's my question to you. you've meet with peter strzok twice, once yesterday in this very public fiery hearing and about two weeks ago behind closed doors and you're fighting to have these behind closed doors transcript released to the public. why? what would we see in that one that differed from what we saw yesterday? >> i don't think you'll see a lot that differed. peter strzok was questioned by the committee for 11 nourse a closed-door session and yesterday for eight and a hal

mr. strzok wanted it to be offered. that is what we missed in the overall hearing as well as the connection to the administration, to the campaign of a long series of involvement with russia from donald trump at the trump tower to the dirt on hillary. that should have been the collective impact of this hearing, not an attack on peter, or not an attack on individual members or an attack on the american constitution. >> congresswoman sheila jackson lee, thank you. i appreciate your time. >> thank you for having me. >> joining me now, congresswoman bonnie watson coleman, a new jersey democrat, who is on the oversight committee. she was also in the thick of it at today's hearings. thank you for joining us this evening, congresswoman. >> thank you for having me. >> i want to play this fiery moment that you had with trey gowdy. here it is. >> starting with the political death penalty, an impeachment is not the logical way a neutral -- >> you know, point of order. >> we're demanding equal time. >> mr. chairman, if you can't co

mr. strzok says that the hearing itself is another notch in vladimir putin's belt and his attempt to divide americans. do you agree with that? mr. ryan: no. reporter: [inaudible] mr. ryan:, no i don't. reporter: thank you, mr. speaker. picking up on -- mr. ryan: see, get your follow-up this way. reporter: president putin. the president will be meeting face to face with putin next week. do you think that is a good idea and what is your counsel for the president as he meets privately? mr. ryan: i don't have a problem with face to face meetings but the president and i have talked about in this a number of times. vladimir putin is not our ally and our friend. i've made that clear. i think most of us feel that way. you just have to look at what they tried to do to our democracy and to other democracies around the world. they do not share our interests. they thwart our interests. engaging with him on that is constructive and good. but i think we should be really clear about who we're dealing with. reporter: i want to go back to something from a couple of weeks ago because we didn't get to talk to

mr. strzok.ar that i imagine. >> my experience, i can think of examples, not that i participated in, where members if there's an on-going case say and field office wanted to enlist the public's help and would talk to the media about getting a lead on a kidnapper. there are times that might occur, i want to be careful to frame what i said. >> you would never talk to anyone outside of the fbi about the russia investigation at all. >> i have never spoken to any member of the media about the russia investigation. >> have you spoken to anyone who is not in the media and is not part of department of justice or the fbi about the russian investigation. other than witnesses. >> the u.s. intelligence community. >> all right. so you talked to the cia? >> the u.s. intelligence community. >> would that include the cia? >> potentially, i don't think i can answer specifics of who i talked to. >> i'm going to ask questions you can't answer that are not specifics about the investigation. in doing so i need you to