sir in that sound byte where peter strzok strzok talks about his

he gave it to peter strzok, and strzok and page decide we have to change it.nd they sit down at a computer and make the changes, but he doesn't seem to remember much about that either. >> what if any -- we are the smelly people, that irredeemable writ deplorable is that like our bibles, and we believe in god and the second amendment. what if anyone else did this? >> they would be behind bars already. it's personification of the arrogance and power and corruption. he is in complete denial, he didn't fool anyone today. he was pompous and pretentious with a smirk on his face the whole time. >> sean: and narcissistic. >> he refused to answer some of those questions but the truth in the end it will come out and he will be held accountable. >> let's get those documents so that the american people can see what's going on. the 19 pages of the final application of the fisa, the letter was delivered in june. and they are sworn to secrecy, the doj will not allow them to talk about it. let's get that back to the american people and we will get justice. >> sean: thank you

today peter strzok's luck ran out. there are a number of things he said that are not supported by evidence. they could possiblily be false testimony and they are in conflict with other testimony we have had from rod rosenstein, the lead up in the monologue talking about bruce orr's involvement. you have one part of the doj saying he wasn't involved and you have testimony today that he is. we have long suspected that. i can tell you, the american people know that there was one particular witness today that had a hard time with the facts. >> sean: so -- congressman gates, i know this is the main question i get from people. so hillary clinton had a rigged investigation and they allowed her to continue because he was the favored one. he thought it was 100 million to none because smelly people like me wouldn't vote for donald trump. when do we get justice? when do we get to the bottom of the fisa abuse scandal? jim jordan got information on that today. when does the truth come out and when are these people held responsible

the man of the day peter strzok, peter strzok till recently was the head of the counter intelligence division at the fbi which means he was literally the person in the u.s. government in charge of countering foreign countries intelligence operations in the united states. like, say, for example, if the russians or someone mounted a massive efforter to the swing our election and buy themselves a pet u.s. president in the process. peter strzok would lead the counter intelligence division of the fbi in the effort within our government to find that out, to investigate it, and to stop it. part of the fallout of the russia investigation and the republican backlash against that investigation is that peter strzok's career has been dismantled and the president and republicans who support the president have held peter strzok up for public scorn as a terrible person. that's one of the ways he'll go down in history when this is said and done. america was hit by a massive russian intelligence operation that infected our democracy. right? that was designed to sway an election the way russia wanted

and then peter strzok has filled them with glee. he were super excite to berate peter strzok over his texts to lisa page. the problem is it is easier to beat up on a guy who isn't there able to explain exactly what he met. >> if i may, what is important is that these texts represent personal beliefs like would you find on my personal phone. what they donal represent is any act, any consideration that we need to do this or not do this. i forget who i said this to earlier this morning, you need to read the texts in the context of what was going on at the time. when i make the comment about trump having no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be, that came on the heels of a speech where candidate trump said he didn't know whether or not the united states should honor its commitment to mutual defense under nato. >> i appreciate that. thank you very much. that's not briefly. >> may the witness be permitted -- >> no, no, no. >> he should be per noticed answer his question. >> i told the gentleman he could answer briefly. >> he has

>> the fbi looks bad because peter strzok looks worse. thought we could go in and start rebuilding and beginning the trust of the american public as a result of this hearing. it actually got worse. you see very clearly not just he took in this case but what really hurts and something that i never saw it in 30 of the fbi, that is this disdain and contempt for what i think is the american public in general. i've never seen that in the fbi. they usually get along and out there with everybody but when you start calling people deplorable and you go into walmart's and you text message that people smell, he didn't explain any of that. you can't be that way and be in the fbi. he's not just an fbi agent. i know democrats and the committee want to make sure people think that but he's a deputy assistant director of the counterintelligence division, he had a major say in the decision over the course of these cases. he had a major say of everybody working for him and the morale of people and their own attitudes. you l cannot lead and have this attitud

liz: peter strzok was in on that meeting changing the words about hillary clinton's gross negligence.another heated moment congressman louie gomez when asked her strzok about cheating on his wife. >> you have come in here and said i have no bias and you do it with a straight face and i watched you and the private testimony you gave. i told some of the other guys he is really good. he is lying and he knows that we know he's lying. he probably passed the polygraph. >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman you have embarrassed him and you have 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 eyes and lie to her. >> mr. chairman this is outrageous. liz: your reaction here. >> just after that moment a democratic congresswoman shouted out lou ecom or did you forget to take your medicine? for him to bring that up is fair game. there were tax between him and his parimore and louis gohmert had a right to do that. i guess they are just trying to set a new standard one that they don't themselves abide

republicans and democrats clashing on capitol hill today to the nth degree as they grilled fbi agent peter strzokweren't yelling at strzok, the lawmakers were yelling at each other over the rules. for example. >> what rules are we following that would dictate such an answer by you? >> we are following the rules of the committee. >> can you cite the role? >> known. >> can you share with us -- the gentleman rule is not in order. >> it's going to be tough for me to get through it if i keep getting interrupted. >> every time he got on a roll some one would scream something out. he's got such a rich military background, you did keep your composure. congressman, thanks for joining us. you focused on the code of conduct and you've zeroed in on the fact that you have a phone that belongs to government and you are texting lisa page. hillary clinton has to get -- of the people who vote for him smell and are ignorant. so this is going back and forth. did he say that was within the code of conduct for the fbi? >> he repeatedly claimed he violated nothing according to the policies. and his own personal moral

us of who peter strzok is, why you've called him and for.you're looking guest: well, peter strzok, as you may recall, was involved in of secretary ion hillary clinton's e-mails. agent, nother f.b.i. lisa page, had been involved in the ationship and in investigation of that investigation, it was discovered number of ad quite a text messages using government phones between them, which talks dislike of president -- then candidate, now the dent trump, as well as investigation. host: so what are you looking to hear? actually not 'm clear what we're going to be looking to hear from him specifically. we conducted two weeks ago, an of our hearing, deposition peter strzok by members of the ouse judiciary and oversight committee, in which time he really expounded on and you can hours, expanded on everything. think the purpose that chairman trey gowdy and to bring to the public what happened in that deposition. context with s in the investigation, how important is tomorrow's event? clear how not really important this is going to be, it's optically important to the to have ns to be able this hear

remind us who peter strzok is, why you've called him and what you're looking for. >> well, peter strzok, as you may recall, was involved in the investigation of secretary hillary clinton's e-mails. he and another fbi agent, lisa page, had been involved in a relationship and in the investigation of that investigation, it was discovered that they had quite a number of text messages using government phones between them, which talked about their dislike of president -- then candidate, now president trump. as well as the investigation. >> so, what are you looking to hear? >> well, i'm actually not clear what we're going to be looking to hear from him, specifically. we conducted, two weeks ago, an 11-hour hearing, deposition of peter strzok, by members of the house judiciary and oversight committee, in which time he really expounded on, and you can imagine, 11 hours, expounded on everything. i think the purpose that chairman gowdy and chairman goodlatte are calling this is to bring to the public what happened in that deposition. >> and put this whole thing in context with the investigation. h

our top story is peter strzok, exposed on capitol hill.he exposed fbi agent, he turns angry as lawmakers grill him over his efforts to cover up for hillary clinton and take down president trump. >> the dossier was not part of it. when did you learn that the dossier was funded by hillary clinton and the democratic party? >> i cannot -- i do not think that is an accurate representation. so i cannot answer that question. so hillary, come on. it's a political document, correct? >> i cannot comment. >> lou: republican congressman both played key roles in the hearings, and both congressmen join us here tonight. president trump emerging triumphant from the nato summit, on the part of nato members to increase spending and now, the president is in the united kingdom and on the way to helsinki soon as the president is reshaping the european quarter in ways that his predecessors in the oval office could never imagine. we take up the historical significance of this trip. ed rollins, our top story, a bombshell just moments ago, and peter strzok's testi

david, what should congress do to extract those documents and what would you ask us to peter strzok when he appears? he is supposed to. >> there is a whole set of questions. i think it is playing out like a circus now. his lawyer was boasting that strzok wants to public publicly testify. they allowed him to appear behind closed doors. there is no reason for them to do that. they have the upper hand. now his lawyer is saying it is a setup. we need to know about that meeting in that office. that happened with strzok, page, with the agenda of stop trump. it is tremendously important and a great service to the country. the documents they are after, including andrew weiss' emails. let's see what the people who we know who has an agenda, let's see what their email said. he is after those. documents are power. this is a vitally important source. we need transparency. the american people should all demand them. congress is doing a great service to the greatest degree, to get stuff from peter strzok. the risk is to make peter strzok the bad guy. he is a bad apple. it is a culture that he represen

repeatedly interrupting the hearing and the questioning of peter strzok. even apologized to peter strong during the hearing. >> i want to apologize to you for the way you have bin treated by this commit -- been readed by this committee. >> they they don't have the facts on their side, they resort to attacking law enforcement. >> this investigation is a joke. it's a fraud. this hearing is a kangaroo court. it's a 3-ring circus. >> we should be honoring you for the work you have done over the past 22 years to keep this nation safe. >> if i could give you a purple heart, i would, you deserve one. liz: did they even read the text of what peter strzok was saying? >> i would be offended if they weren't such knuckleheads. you had my congressman ted lu up there. this guy is so dumb, i'm sprietd he remembers to breathe. they were just simply trying to shut down the inquiry. everybody say the. all america saw it. and peter strzok came off like a combination between paul lynn and the guy in the silence of the lambs. it was creepy. liz: eric, peter strzok was talking

peter strzok she will not be able to use that tomorrow in the closed-door deposition setting, i don't think he is assert those questions and saying fbi counsel recommend i not answer this we, with strzok did several times, that will kno will be a big dife tomorrow. lou: i would like for this audience to see part of the democratic response to a disgraced fbi agent testifying before your committee, judiciary and oversight today, and just see how what you were up against as they try to disrupt and stall the proceedings. if we could just show a little bit of it. >> if i could give you a purple heart i would. you deserve one. >> let me begin by congratulating witness on his completely correct statements of key first amendment law, that people are entitled to political opinions. >> i am so sorry for treemght yotreatmentyou have errorred re. >> this is about for american public. >> mr. strzok, you not about you, they want to damage and destroy our democracy, one of the ways they did it, is by taking an institution like the fbi. >> if anyone should be pissed at fbi because you helped this unf

his lawyers public statements about peter strzok's eagerness to clear his name are evidence of that. strzok's lawyer telling "the washington post" "peter strzok's political conviction that a trump presidency would be disastrous for american national security is not based on his bias, it was based on information that was available to him." after the office of inspector general report was published which referenced strzok's personal texts, strzok came out guns blazing at republicans trying to downplay the importance of the russia investigation and to still play up hillary clinton's e-mails instead. lawyers saying "not every fbi investigation is of equal importance to u.s. national security. there's simply no equivalence between an investigation of the possible mishandling of classified information a relatively commonplace occurrence in the fbi's washington field office and credible evidence suggesting that the presidential campaign of a major party candidate was actively colluding with a hostile foreign power in a way that could undermine the integrity of an american presidential electi

i'm kind of flattered. >> one small point in the peter strzok e-mail. he mentions there is a difference between the version that you had and another version that the fbi had. what was that difference? >> yeah. as if that really matters. i got the -- a set of documents, you know, shortly before the election. the buzzfeed set that came out in january 2017 included memos that steel kept writing after the election that i never saw until the buzzfeed version came out. so there is one really big difference. buzzfeed has more because they obviously got the set of memos at a later point. what that means, i don't know. it certainly doesn't tell you that the deep state was doing anything notorious. >> correct me if i'm wrong, but i think we just proved how easy it is to get at the truth of these situations if you are willing to ask the right person the right question. >> yeah. but we don't want any of that, lawrence. what we want is to figure out how devilishly david corn could manage to both give the fbi the dossier and get the dossier from the fbi. we also have

katherine harris joins us with new develop on anti-trump, peter strzok peter strzok and lisa page and it's almost 2:40 a.m. in london until her laptop crashed this morning. her salon was booked for weeks, having it problems? ask a business advisor how to get on demand tech support for as little as $15 a month. right now, save $300 on our hp 2-in-1 laptop bundle at office depot officemax whenshe was pregnant,ter failed, in-laws were coming, a little bit of water, it really- it rocked our world. i had no idea the amount of damage that water could do. we called usaa. and they greeted me as they always do. sergeant baker, how are you? they were on it. it was unbelievable. having insurance is something everyone needs, but having usaa- now that's a privilege. we're the baker's and we're usaa members for life. usaa. get your insurance quote today. but he has plans today.ain. hey dad. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong. we are reporting l

peter strzok is a deputy assistant director of the human resources division of the fbi. mr. the fbi for approximately 22 years, prior to his current assignment, he was a deputy assistant director in the counterintelligence division. it was his assignment in that division that brings him before the committees today as we continue our investigation. you're written statement will be enter into the record in its entirety and ask you summarize your testimony in five minutes to help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on the table and the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red, five minutes have expired. mr. strzok, you may begin. >> chairman goodlatte and gowdy, ranking members nadler and cummings. thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committees again, this time in an open hearing. i testify today with significant regret, recognizing that my texts have created confusion and caused pain for people i love. certain private messages of mine provided ammunition for misguided attacks a

kennedy: so much more to discuss with peter strzok's testimony. thomas massie is on the oversight committee. what did you think? >> i was there for three hours of it. i think the biggest takeaway happened when i yielded five of my minutes to jim jordan. he connected the dots in a way that has never been made apparent until today. that is this is false narrative out there that the fbi just came into possession of this dossier, this fake dossier somehow through media leaks or circuitous path. but what jim jordan did by talking to peter strong. and he had to consult his lawyers multiple times on whether he could answer this. it showed the dossier went from nellie ohr to her husband bruce ohr who worked at the doj directly to the fbi. this was straight from fusion gps to the deep state. there was no intermediary. kennedy: several democrats tried to bring up the trump-russia connection. i can't remember how it was. at one point i completely glazed over. but it was a democrat talking about the hotel meeting as though that were the biggest refer laying a

don't stop with peter strzok here. the risk is to make peterer strk the bad guy so he is a bad apple. it is a culture that he represents. no one told him to stop doing this at the justice department when he was doing it. it is a culture. >> jason: good point. kayleigh, the president took th> spotlight of the country to great falls, montana.s he is now traveling back in the country where he will announce the supreme court pick at 9:00 p.m. on monday night. peter strzok hearing happening on tuesday. we see people climbing the statue of liberty. talking about the resistance movement.hi you been watching this up close and personal. contrast what is happening with the republicans and the message of what donald trump is doing, versus the flailing we see with democrats. >> it is quite a contrast. at the republican party, we celebrate the achievements that are happening every day. let's put this in the context of the nomination.. put aside the economy that is roaring. hitting historic heights. put aside the historic north korea

bombshell from peter strzok. we'll have analysis of the raucous hearing from a top lawmaker, rudy giuliani and more. and a bombshell from john soloman that the fbi may have received multiple versions of the russian dossier. mr. soloman will be here to explain. and across the pond, president trump is in england tonight and we'll have footage of what the british folks really think about this president. and michelle malkin joins us about an interview that president trump gave to a uk newspaper. but first when a trump hating fbi investigator struck out. that's the focus of tonight's angle. barnum & bailey would have been proud. there may not have been elephants or jugglers or trapeze artists flying through the air. but for hours and hours and hours today, former fbi investigator peter strzok was walking a tight rope that republicans desperately tried to knock him off of. >> you're asking us to believe when you say tv trump and stop trump and impeach trump those are personal beliefs and when you say those things, you

i think peter strzok did not come across particularly well. kind of snooty, indignant. and everything that works well for a witness. and i like gohmert a lot. i thought that the exchange gohmert and strzok, i did think that was good. i wouldn't have wanted to be one of the republicans when that went down. >> it was a wild day. reading the text is one thing, but to have him sit there and say i said i was going to stop trump, i didn't mean the fbi. it wasn't credible, just like his expo nations were not. the idea that he is doing this. he did act with bias as they had said. how he was focusing on trump russia collusion. here's the thing, we pressed him. he would not answer these questions. what was the basis for the collusion case? he won't tell us. he barely talked about the dossier. that is the troubling thing. you have the bias on this investigation. he even said ten months after it, there is nothing here. i am worried that there is nothing here. >> laura: there were a lot of interesting moments. ten hours. some of the people on the committee, that was difficult. i want

peter strzok is a deputy assistant director of the human resources division of the fbi. mr. ok has worked at the fbi for approximately 22 years. prior to his current assignment, he was a deputy assistant director in the counterintelligence division. it was his assignment in that division that brings him before the committees today, as we continue our investigation. your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety, and we ask you summarize your testimony in five minutes to. to help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on the table. when the light turn reds, it signals your five minutes have expired. mr. strzok, you may begin. >> chairman goodlatte and gowdy, ranking members, thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committees again this time in an open hearing. i testify today with significant regret, recognizing that my text versus created confusion and caused pain for people i love. certain private messages of mine have provided ammunition for misguided attacks against the fbi. an institution that i love deeply and have served

it is not the democrats role to defend peter strzok.is doing aim mickable job of that over the next five hours -- trish: do you believe him? do you believe him? >> absolutely i believe him. more importantly -- trish: i'm not biased at all? didn't mean anything? >> more importantly i believe that the independent ig report that was a year-and-a-half in the making of professional department of justice people, republicans in fact leading that charge, that investigate this and cleared that of any political bias. >> you know what though? trish: that and something i i can sell you -- >> year-and-a-half, 500 pages, trish. >> if you're willing to believe there is no bias in this, i have oceanfront property in st. louis i love to sell you. >> it will be under water pretty soon. trish: kevin, think you're being a little naive. i think it is very clear how a lot of people felt about this president when he was running for office. >> sure. trish: a lot of people in d.c. felt that way. a lot of people in the fbi felt that way. we know that because the

the actual manager was peter strzok.rangen file agent and he was not a trump supporter. he said blank trump, impeach trump, trump supporters smell. to say agents are conservative while the guy is prosecuting trump and giving a path to hillary clinton. you gloss over that fact as thought it's meaningless. you are really good at it. i'm impressed. >> the fact that is being glossed over is hillary clinton is not president because of the actions of the fbi. judge jeanine: that's baloney. philippe, stop. the only reason is jim comey went out and mouthed off is because the southern district nypd was going to turn him in for not doing anything on the laptop of the dirt bag anthony weiner. why is the mueller investigation, only a 48 approval where last moisture was 55. the american people aren't buying this anymore. >> as much as dan wants to compliment plea for the job i do. you guys are fantastic. you pelt mueller every single day. i respect the effectiveness of protecting the king. look at mueller's timeline. the notion that

peter strzok's damning text messages. they have decided that peter strzok's text messages have made him part of an apoplectic campaign. they're snarky towards hillary clinton and bernie sanders and loretta lynch and eric holder and lots of other people besides not to mention his swearing tirades against the cheating mother fing russians. the only active figure he expresses any positive feelings about is john kasich, okay? but strzok was involved in the initial stages of the investigation because he was the lead counter intelligent agent at the fbi. when this came under the purview robert mueller removed him from the special counsel staff as soon as he found out he expressed personal opinions in his personal texts. that happened last july. republicans have nevertheless seized on peter strzok. they think they're going to use him to make the whole russia investigation look so terrible that maybe they can get the whole thing shut down altogether or something. a couple of problems with that strategy which we are going to see i

publicans hammering fbi official peter strzok over his bias text messages of hillary clinton. s testimony and bringing in fbi

peter strzok wants to move past this. there's still questions that need to be answered going forward. i think that's going to continue on and these investigations are going to continue. we'll see more testimony perhaps from lisa page here also. >> we'll be watch requesting cover it. >>> when we come back the fire hearing on capitol hill comes days before donald trump's face-to-face meeting with putin. (harmonica interrupts) how they could save 15% or more by... (harmonica interrupts) ...by just calling or going online to geico.com. (harmonica interrupts) (sighs and chuckles) sorry, are you gonna... (harmonica interrupts) everytime. geico. 15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance. ayep, and my teeth are yellow.? time for whitestrips. crest glamorous white whitestrips are the only ada-accepted whitening strips proven to be safe and effective. and they whiten 25x better than a leading whitening toothpaste. crest. healthy, beautiful smiles for life. i do. check out the new united explorer card. saving on this! s

what a mess. >> even though it was peter strzok in the hot seat. what struck me, there were two more powerful players in that world working to protect peter strzok having to answer any questions. one was the fbi. there was a lawyer who sat behind him the entire time directed him not to answer anything that had to do with the russia investigation. this is the fbi continuing to obstruct congressional oversight. and the other were democrats with a whole new strategy for shutting down oversight. interrupt and call points of order. jesse: this an actual strategy. they get in there beforehand and say when something gets to the heart of what the republicans are getting at, and it's starting to look really dicey for peter strzok, we'll start screaming, calling for order, saying all kind of ridiculous things and causing mayhem to distract and prevent punches from being land. but you mentioned before about these lawyers sitting in the background. he was asked, are you biased, are you biased? he said i'm not biased. the republicans said prove that you are not

agent peter strzok was interviewed for more than 10 hours. a most unusual and largely self-serving definition of bias. agent strzok despite the plain language of his texts and emails and despite the inspector general's report and despite common sense doesn't think he was bias. he thinks calling someone destabilizing for the country isn't bias. he thinks promising to protect the country from someone he hasn't even begun to investigate isn't bias. he thinks promising to stop someone he is supposed to be fairly investigating from ever becoming president isn't bias. he thinks talking about an insurance policy to keep someone from becoming president isn't bias. that is for one of the folks he was investigating. he has a different set of rules for others that he is investigating. agent strzok thinks saying someone he is allegedly investigating should be elected president 100 million to 0 before he ever interviews her. he doesn't think that's bias. agent strzok thinks pronouncing someone innocent before bothering to interview more than 30 different

how do you think peter strzok did in defending himself and did he help or hurt the agency?n analyst i'll leave it up to the american people to make up their own mind as far as who they believe but an important calculus, an ingredient we have to look at is credibility. when you look at peter strzok sitting before congress, this is someone who has proven what we know, that fbi agents are human beings and not infallible. this is someone that few would question he exercised bad judgment in the decisions he made but the question came down to was what he did politically motivated and did it impact the election? the inspector general said although we're undecided as far as the political calculus, it doesn't appear that impacted the investigation. that was the key point. the second of which being this was his opportunity to finally speak for himself. he's been caricatured, lambasted by the president, house republicans over the course of many months so the american people got to see and hear from him. what is interesting alisyn, is when you compare him, the person sitting at that wi

what about peter strzok? he didn't come out as might have been expected -- contrite, very sorry about what he did. and, remember, it was his texts that got him in all this trouble. instead he came out swinging. >> this isn't just me sitting here telling you. you don't have to take my word for it. at every step, at every investigative decision, there are multiple layers of people above me, the assistant director, executive assistant director, deputy director and director of the fbi and multiple layers of people below me, all of whom who were involved in all of these decisions. they would not tolerate any improper behavior in me any more than i would tolerate it in them. that is who we are as the fbi, and the suggestion that i in some dark chamber in the fbi would somehow cast aside all of these procedures, all of these safeguards and somehow be able to do this is astounding to me. it simply couldn't happen, and the proposition that that is going on, that it might occur anywhere in the fbi deeply corrodes what

peter strzok sat through a

peter strzok would lead the

agent peter strzok fiery hearing. >> i heard some testimony of peter strzok and i thought it was a disgraceto our country. >> reaction to his testimony has been swift and largely broken down along partisan lines. republicans are offering nearly universal condemnation in line with the president. but many democrats are coming to his defense. blaming the gop colleagues for the circus -like atmosphere that prevailed at the hearing. >> character assassination, demagoguery, connecting dots that are not meant to be connected. generalizing an isolated incident, cherry picking facts. sometimes fabricating facts, which is the new low in the united states congress. what a shame. >> going forward republicans are now worried about what impact the hearings will have on the ongoing robert mueller investigation. here is congressman ratcliff later today on sunday morning features. >> they cannot walk to a courtroom with peter strzok as a star witness within 10 minutes of seeing the texts, the jurors will have reasonable doubt in her mind. it is the credibility of peter strzok and lisa paige will be a primar

we're talking about peter strzok. he was fired from the russia investigation by the special counsel robert mueller after he was caught sending anti-trump texts to an fbi lawyer he was having an affair with. republicans believe the texts prove strzok was biased against trump while investigating possible collusion, but strzok has been defiant. he has been defensive throughout all of this. i want to get immediate reaction from all of this. gloria borger, you're among our experts. you've been listening to every word said over these past three hours or so. it got really, really tense. >> well, it was really tense and very partisan. you had in mr. strzok a very defiant person who said, look, just because i sent these texts saying we'll stop trump doesn't mean that i conducted any investigation any differently than i would have otherwise. i mean, the charge from the republicans is that they believe it is clear that he was in a rush to clear clinton and then go after donald trump. his response to that is, you know, these were

peter strzok making his first public comments. >> peter strzok is a deputy assistant director of the on of the fbi. >> mr. strzok has worked at the fbi for approximately 22 years and prior to his current assignment he was a deputy assistant director in the kou counterintelligence division. it's his assignment that brings us before the committee today as we continue our investigation. your written statement will be entered in the record entirely an we ask your summarize your testimony in five minutes to help you stay within the time, there's a timing light on the table. when it switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red it signals your five minutes have expired. mr. strzok, you may begin. >> chairman goodlatte and gowdy, thank you for the opportunity to testify before your committees again this time in an open hearing. i testify today with significant regret recognizing that my texts have created confusion and caused pain for people i love. certainly private messages of mine provided ammunition for misguided attacks against t

and peter strzok either appears friday or will be held in contempt. >> that's right. and it's very revealing all the information we have received today about lisa page the fact that the marshals had to go to her house. >> sean: three times. >> she was trying to evade the marshals apparently. they finally got her and now she is just refusing. there's a different set of rules of family for lisa page and peter strzok and hillary clinton, and for all of these players that were involved in this. a different set of rules that we would not be allowed to get away with. i think what's really fascinating here is they could push for contempt but remember even with eric holder, i mean, he was in contempt but nothing ever really happened. the american people were frustrated and, she either comes tomorrow which i think is the best option and testifies with peter strzok, or friday, and, it would be behind closed doors. >> sean: let's go to the point that sarah is making here. i would no sooner defy a congressional subpoena. it wouldn't work out well for me or for anyone watching thi

>> peter strzok and congress.take of cross-examining asking one question too many, allowing him to say we will stop it, who won, the american voters. >> americans lost across the board. that's the big conclusion in all this. i don't know how the united states benefits from anything that happened yesterday. >> david, let you end this with was it putin who won and what about in the united states? what about in that hearing room yesterday, who won the day? >> i saw only losers. i don't think even vladimir putin had a good day. this is a sad spectacle. snapshot of america in 2018 and not effective. >> eugene robinson, we'll be reading your column entitled trump administration on kidnapped children. someone should go to jail. where are they, by the way. thank you both. still ahead. thousands of protesters are gathering in london as president trump holds talks with theresa may. looking similar to the size of his inaugural crowd, with a baby trump blimp. we'll talk to former adviser for prime minister may. "morning joe"