. >> well, not just an agent of the fbi, a current agent of the fbi. very often we resist having folks -- line folks like pete strzok testify in front of congress. i think what happened today is a good illustration why. this is not about policy or getting to the truth, this is about both sides posturing and trying to score political points and having an active fbi agent in the middle of their shooting match. >> was peter strzok basically not -- because the fbi put so many parameters about what he could say and what questions he could answer, was he sort of had his hands tied behind him or he had come across as really not -- there were times he came across as not being forthcoming. is that the fbi putting too many clamps around him if he was put in this situation? >> that's a fair question, chuck. he was hamstrung. that wasn't his doing, that was the doing of folks at the general counsel's office at the fbi and his superiors. again, that's why you don't want line folks testifying. you particularly don't want them testifying when there's an ongoing crimi

hands of the fbi. so when they observe -- if their identity is put at risk, clearly that's a risk to that individual source, but every other potential source out there, every other person in washington, d.c. or beijing or moscow, wondering about approaching the fbi to give them information is going to look to how well or how poorly the fbi protects their information and protects their identity as they weigh whether or not to take that extraordinary risk to work with the fbi and work with the united states of america. >> mr. strzok, the report criticizes your political texts and concern they raise your political views may have impacted your decision in the summer and fall of 2016 to prioritize the trump russia investigation over the reopening of the clinton e-mail investigation. i understand from your transcribed interview with the committee that you dispute that finding. >> i do. >> you told us during your interview that you immediately assigned agents to follow up on the weiner laptop. and we know tha

spoke the fbi. you say in the e-mail, we got a from simpson?r >> mr. chairman, order. have regular order and revisit that question. now the chair recognizes the committee from south carolina. >> thank you. >> july 31st, 2016 and august. >> chairman. regular order. this is regular order. >> the gentlemen refused to answer the question earlier. i havebeen advised and been advised by the fbi that you may answer the question in and now going to answer the question. >> mr. chairman, republicans have controlled the time now the time goes the democrats? >> well, the j will be recognized shortly. >> thank you. july 31st, 2016 and manyt 6th, 2016 how witness interviewed did you conduct part of the russia trump alleged collusion investigation. >> i. >> don't recall. i will have to check the case file. waited all that time for that mean? >> yes, sir. early similar to what you said a couple of hours ago. >> sir, i am telling, you i would reject the characterization that i refuse to answer anything. i want to an

we're the fbi. we need to aggressively review the allegations. >> do you think james comey leaked out about the re-opening of the hillary e-mail investigation because he needed a quote insurance policy to cover his back for predetermining that hillary clinton was innocent in the e-mail investigation before it ever enbegan? >> i don't think director comey leaked anything that i'm aware of with regard to the clinton investigation. i certainly do not think he, i, or anybody else viewed any investigation or any step in the sense of what you're saying we needed to do something to prevent any particular action at all. >> with respect to the clear bias of donald trump in your text messages and your clear prejudice against the trump voters. by the way, i'm one of those hillbillies from appalachia, that you reference in your text, you were in a supervisory role at the fbi. what would you do if you found a text from a subordinate of yours that exhibited the same type of bias that you had towards a group of pe

tarnished the reputation of the fbi? >> yes. >> it has. to take it further, page four of the handbook, it -- >> while you're looking for that reference -- >> time is controlled by the gentleman from florida. >> the state department has described the conduct as conduct which were to become widely known would embarrass discreditors or the perpetrator of the -- and the united states. my concern is that we've seen little or no remorse here other than saying i wish i never sent those texts out because it hurt my family. as an elected member of congress, i have an obligation to make sure that we maintain the quality of trust in our government. after what we've seen today, i understand why the federal has a low level of trust from the american people. my question to you is, having been there, having now been here, how do we reinstate the trust to the american people? how do we make sure this never happens again? >> first, i don't think the american people have lost the faith in the fbi at all. what the fbi does day in and day o

fbi am the fbi director as well as the statement that president trump's made recently about the fbi and those are the two leaders of each party in the last presidential election. i think it does matter. out of curiosity are there any recordings or interviews of the clinton e-mail? >> no sir i don't believe we recorded any interviews. >> some of the interviews were recorded. >> to the best of my recollection i would need to review the case but i believe so. >> is abnormal for an investigation of that size? >> yes. >> mr. strzok did you consult with james comey before he made the decision to go public with the fact that the fbi was going to reopen the investigation to hillary clinton's e-mails once it was determined that anthony weiner had access to the e-mails and potentially had access to classified information? did you consult with james comey before he made that decision? >> i was present at the meetings when that decision was discussed >> do you think that was the right decision? >> i think for all of us it was a 51-49 proposition. i came out of that decision comfortable in doing

hands of the fbi. if their identity is being put at risk, clearly that is a risk for about personal source. every other potential risk out there wondering about approaching the fbi to give information is going to look at how well or poorly the fbi protects the information and identity, as they weigh whether or not to take that risk to work with the fbi in the united states of america. >> the inspector general reports criticizes your political text messages and raised concern about your political views may have impacted your decision in the summer and fall of 2016 per -- to prioritize the russia investigation over the reopening of the clinton email investigation. i understand from your transcribed interview with the committee, that you discrete spare signing. you told russia during the interview that you immediately signed agents to follow up on the laptop. we know that you are a team player in the fbi's actions, such as sending a letter about the reopening of the clinton investigation shortly before th

the witness' declination to answer it is against the instructions of the fbi pursuant to fbi policy, which is necessary, so as not to allow us to subvert an ongoing criminal investigation. he is right. and should not answer the question. >> the gentleman has not stated a valid point of order. nonetheless, the united states supreme court has recognized that it is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to cooperate with the congress in its efforts to obtain the facts needed for intelligent legislative action. it is their unremitting obligation to respect the dignity of the congress and its committees and to testify fully with respect to matters within the province of proper investigation. >> mr. chairman? i will -- mr. chairman, you know -- or we all know that if we were to ask a question of a witness about a military secret, if we were to ask him how does the h bomb work, he could not answer that question. >> the gentleman has not stated -- that is a classification issue, not an issue of whether or not this is a valid question for which -- >> i appeal the ruling of the chair. he's ru

in the fbi. and he said in his testimony, my understanding is the same. two, the ig found and stated in the report that i was amongst the most aggressive people in the hillary clinton investigation. they are written down and there are no two ways to try to spin out of those and i don't want to take your time so i will try to do it in 15 seconds, the insurance policy text, that text represents a debate on information we received. and if something is that sensitive, you take objectiactit and we take risk. we roll slow, the more aggressive you are, the more you put it at risk and some people said that. said hey, look, every poll is saying candidate trump is likely not to win. every republican said. that some people said as a result of that, let's not risk this source. what i advocated for, is look, we are the fbi, we need to investigate. while it isn't likely, that he will be elected, we need to make sure we will take care of america. if candidate trump is elected there might be people we need to be

and investigations by the fbi? >> not to my knowledge. >> okay. now, you mentioned the hatch act. >> yes. >> under the hatch act the fbi is prohed, is it not, from inquiring as to the political opinions of people it's hiring? >> i don't know the hatch act well enough to tell you. >> i'll say that's the case. the government may not under the hatch act inquire as to political opinions of people that it's hiring for a non-exempt position and to do so would be improper. i must say that i think that all of these inquiries about your political opinions as revealed by these text messages are irrelevance and wrong unless it can be shown -- as it has not been shown, definitively not the case in the hillary investigation and not shown in the russia investigation that they affected any decisions in the investigation. let's leave it at that on that point. mr. strzok, what is the fbi's policy -- let me say one other thing. it is prudent, and i'll observe this because you said you couldn't answer. but it's obviously prudent of m

>> isn't the privilege that of the fbi and shouldn't the fbi counsel be solicited on that point? >> mr. chairman, my counsel has reiterated that counsel for the fbi has directed that i may not answer that question. >> mr. strzok, in a moment, we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question at the conclusion of the day, we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation. >> will the committee also consider contempt for mr. bannon who refused to answer mr. gowdy's questions when he was actually under subpoena? >> that is not a proper point of order. >> parliamentary inquiry. >> a parliamentary inquiry is not in order while the gentleman from south carolina controls the time. >> agent strzok, just so the record's clear, because it's been a little while, i didn't ask you the content of those interviews. i didn't ask you the names of who you interviewed. i asked you whether or not you interviewed anyone from july 31st until august 8th and i find it interesting tha

hands of the fbi. so when they observe -- if their identity is put at risk, clearly that's a risk to that individual source, but every other potential source out there, every other person in washington, d.c. or beijing or moscow, wondering about approaching the fbi to give them information is going to look to how well or how poorly the fbi protects their information and protects their identity as they weigh whether or not to take that extraordinary risk to work with the fbi and work with the united states of america. >> mr. strzok, the report criticizes your political texts and concern they raise your political views may have impacted your decision in the summer and fall of 2016 to prioritize the trump russia investigation over the reopening of the clinton e-mail investigation. i understand from your transcribed interview with the committee that you dispute that finding. >> i do. >> you told us during your interview that you immediately assigned agents to follow up on the weiner laptop. and we know tha

by the fbi. >> i think i'm aware of the what the fbi told you, but right now the gentleman from ohio controls the time. >> you wrote this. that was the question. >> so -- >> do you see the -- [inaudible conversations] ou>> congressman, here's the -- >> doro you see the front -- the from lewin? it says from peter strzok. did you write it? >> i did write this. >> all right. let me ask you a couple questions about it. it has differences by what was begin to us from corn and simpson. >> sir, to answer that question, and i would love toi answer tht question and every part of me and you'd know why because you have this information, i have been -- i cannot answer that question --? >> you wrotet about it, it's nw public. who's corn, who's simpson? >> >> based on direction by the fbi, o sir, i am not able to answer questions about ongoing investigative matters. >> i just want to figure this out. i want to figure this out, agent strzok. you're referencing three copies of the dossier, the buzzfeed copy you

the ranks of the fbi to at one point become chief of the counter espionage section of the fbi. is that correct? >> yes. >> and your career at the fbi culminated with your appointment as the deputy assistant director of the counterintelligence divisio division. and during your career, did you lead a counterintelligence operation that was called operation ghost stories? >> i do not lead it, i was one of the many agents who started that investigation and a pair of the subjects early on that i was one of the case agents on. and you worked mo eed on many counterintelligence agencies? >> that is correct. >> and operation ghost stories was a counterintelligence investigation of a network of united states-based russian spies working as covert agents of russian intelligence the agency known as svr. and it was about agents who assumed false identities living in the united states on long-term deep cover assignments, correct? >> that's correct. >> you've investigated a number of those kinds of intelligence -- you've presided a number of those types of investigations during your time with t

this is the first time that the fbi admitted. that it's good to get that information out today. >> sean: the hesitation. >> well, yeah. he hesitated. he didn't want to answer your question. >> it took me three rounds to get it out of him. but i tell you what, this investigation started flawed with the dossier and matt gates had great questions. it's flawed on the back end as well. he didn't ask peter stoke about these text messages that show hi his animus against president donald trump. he didn't get to the fact that peter strzok wrote all these terrible things about our president. it was flawed from the time it started and flawed at the end. >> sean: just like andrew wiseman who overturned the supreme court and four innocent people sent to jail for a year and are excoriated by a judge for withholding exculpatory evidence. there is no team that can be fair with a pit bull like. that at the heart of this was hillary's investigation rigged? and was this a specific attempt to basically steal an election, pretty much? the smelly peop

dossier to the fbi. i think that a significant because remember, lou, this was the dossier that the whole case was built on. it is what they took to the courts to get the secret warrants to spy on them. they did not tell them anything about it, they did not give them information, they did not say that he had been fired by the fbi, and they did not tell the courts that the dossier was paid for by the clinton campaign. the other key element in the hearing was when we heard that peter strzok was kicked off of robert mueller steam. he did not ask him any questions. he did not ask him about his bias and some of the crazy things that he said in these text messages. what started off with the dossier, now at the end, when they are getting rid of peter strzok, there is all kinds of stuff to smell there too. >> lou: it is a problem that seems to be now again, under your questioning in particular, it is a problem that looks like it may be headed for the first time towards a resolution. tomorrow, lisa page, strzok's

abuses of power at the fbi are why we have a term limit for the directors of the fbi. it is that term limit is not there to protect the fbi's independence. it is there to protect the people from the abuses that j. edgar hoover committed because he became too independent. he was accountable to no one. j. edgar hoover feared -- was feared by presidents, senators, and congressmen. while the director originally was selected by the attorney general, in 1968, congress made the position subject to presidential appointment and senate confirmation. in 1976, the congress established a nonrenewable ten-year term for the director. the senate judiciary committee published a committee report on that bill limiting the ten-year term in 1974. it took a couple of years for the bill to pass the house. i want to quote from that report. the purposes of the bill is to achieve two complementary objectives, the first is to insulate the director of the fbi from unique pressure being exerted upon him from superiors in the executive branch. the second is to protect against an fbi director becomi

money to the fbi agents, why don't you reveal the republican members of the fbi that give money to republicans? why don't you reveal the republican members of the fbi that are in and state very clearly when they apply have a voter registration they reply as republicans? they don't because that is not what this is about. what this is about is for the american public. it's really not about you. they want to damage and destroy our democracy. one of the ways they do it is by taking an institution like the fbi and destroying it. that i think is really regrettable. okay, kremlin, another good day for you. you influenced the election. you won that one and now you want to destroy our institutions. congratulations, kremlin and congratulations to everybody that is helping them. >> the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just have a couple of questions for you and i would like to yield the balance of my time to chairman goudy. in light of the last round of questioning it is fair to say that you wanted to stop president trump from being elected in your own words? >> no, s

did the president currently appoint you 100% to your position as the director of the be fbi -- fbi? sir.es, i they talk about the 13 angry democrats running the investigation, are you one of those democrats that my colleagues keep referring to? >> of course i'm not working on the special counsel investigation. >> but you are the head of the fbi. are you a democrat? did the president reach over to the democratic party as president have an picky because he wanted to have a democrat in his administration? >> congressman, i'm trained to do this job a politically -- apolitically. >> are you a democrat? >> no i'm not. >> mr. rosenstein, are you not a democrat -- are you a democrat? >> what was the person pres purposf appointing dealer special counsel? conducting the investigation in a way that the american people would have confidence. congressman: was our country attacked by a foreign government in order to influence the 2016 elections in the united states? was our country attacked, mr. rosenstein? rosenstein: we have the assessments of the intelligence community and an indictment that w

and decisions by the fbi? >> not to my knowledge. >> okay. now, you mentioned the hatch act. >> yes. >> under the hatch act, the fbi is prohibited, is it not, from inquiring as to the political opinions of people it is hiring? >> i don't know the hatch act well enough to tell you. >> well, i'll say that that is the case. the government may not under the hatch act inquire as to political opinions of people it is hiring for nonexempt positions. and to do so would be improper. and i must say that i think that all these inquiries about your political opinions as revealed by these text messages are irrelevant and wrong, unless it can be shown, as it has not been shown, as was found definitely not to be the case in the hillary investigation and has not been shown in the russia investigation that they affected any decisions in the investigation. let's leave it at that on that point. mr. strzok, what is the fbi's policy -- oh, let me say one other thing. it is prudent, and i'll observe this, because you said you could

the fbi investigation. there ought to be hell to pay if there's anything that happened that was really untoward or prejudicial in terms of the conduct of that investigation and leadership and how decisions were made that affected all the essential decisions. what we heard today actually from peter stzok were some nuanced accounts that we have not quite heard about the conduct of the investigation, and of all things, despite his personal irresponsible, and his undermining of the investigation or certainly the appearance that he gave by his own actions, what we learned today, there were safeguards in that investigation, that he had the ability in fact to hurt donald trump, as did the investigators and the leadership of the fbi. they did not take that shot. what we learned today, between the lines, is this was an investigation of objectivity, some difficult calls, some not very competent moves made, particularly by comey, as we know, and at the same time, reason to believe that there was integrity despite the

and -- lou: so where is the check on the fbi? >> the problem, i worry that the checks and balances in the system are designed for a system that's more modest than the one we now have. lou: smaller government as part of it? >> doesn't need to be small but needs to be limited. we want it to be big big things we needed to do, but it has to be checked. lou: i don't understand people can talk about the number of fbi agents that we have. >> about 13,000 there bs. lou: you have 30,000 -- there abouts. lou: think when we were in struggle against markism and leninism and how fewer we have, how much more effective they were. we have unquestioning acceptance of an fbi, no one knows what the heck they do in law enforcement anymore, they don't do much in point of fact of the they interposed themselves, in homeland security department between the first-responders, that is local law enforcement, where they used to be in support of law enforcement. it is a screw-up of massive proportions. add to that the toxic corruption that is represented thro

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

at the front pages constantly and see things about the fbi that putting the fbi and the justice department in question on the front page. well, i would submit to this committee that the people who are putting that on the front page is this committee and the people who will not accept what the investigator general said that there was no bias involved in the actions of you or others that were investigated. there was -- found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations rather we determined they were based upon the facts, the will you and past department practice. with that as a fact, there is no reason for this hearing. no reason at all. but it puts it on the front page again and again and again. and as you said earlier, the russians are loving it. because this is what they want. this is what they want. you would think it was benghazi. it was a never-ending television show from congress that got nowhere except tried to influence the people that watch fox news and that is what this is about. and this is really unfortunate and as th

and the fbi. i'm not exactly sure what the republicans want to shut down. do they want to shut down the special counsel's upcoming trials against campaign manager paul manafort? one of these trials is scheduled to begin here in virginia in the eastern district later this summer. related to it, on february 22nd, a grand jury in virginia approved a set of 32 counts of tax, financial, and bank fraud, charges against paul manafort. on february 16th federal grand jury in the district of columbia separately approved five other charges, including, and i quote, "conspiracy against the united states." this indictment coming forward, i'd like to quote from it. the defendant, paul manafort together with others, knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud the united states by impeding and impairing the lawful functions of government agencies, mainly the department of justice and department of the treasury. and to commit offenses against the united states of america. since this indictment, gates has plead

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

see things about the fbi that's putting the fbi and the justice department and questions on the front page. the people who are putting that on the front page is this committee and the people who won't accept what the investigator general said that there was no bias involved in the actions of you or others that were investigated. there was found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were effected by bias or other proper considerations. they were based on the prosecutors assessment of the facts, the law and past department practice. with that as a fact, there's no reason for this hearing, no reason at all but it puts it on the front page again and again and again. as you said earlier, the russians are loving it, because this is what they want. this is what they want. you'd think it was benghazi. it was a never ending television show from congress that got nowhere except trying to influence the people that watch fox news and that's what this is about and this is unfortunate and as they say, you can put lipstick on a pig but this is nothing but a ruse to try to get to the mu

peter strzok had no business being inside the fbi and was the wrong guy to be inside the fbi. the inspector general said, and there are probably 200 investigators working on this investigation. >> only one guy in charge. >> of which he was one. peter strzok went around and organized the conspiracy with 200 other fbi investigators? that is such a silicon spir si lame brain theory. >> you know this, but -- i'm not indicting all of the investigators. >> this is an investigation that was handled, headed by a republican head of the fbi. and the actions that he took before the election hurt hillary clinton and helped donald trump. >> wow. but this is strzok spin. james comey wanted to take down hillary clinton and s port donald trump? that's crazy. you came out starting to talk about it. appreciate that. >> find me a republican consultant that will say james comey's aks before the election helped hillary clinton. >> you talk about intent, i'm not talking about whether or not it helped. we'll have to leave it there. >> you put words in my mouth. i said it and the fbi hurt hillary cli

the fbi. i certainly want the fbi to be something that you immediately leap to the defense of and i think that's something we're working very hard to become. i appreciate the offer and 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. >> the time has expired. >> then we know that where there's smoke, there's fire. and we ought to allow the process to play out. with that, i vesurrender the remainder of my time. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from florida mr. ross is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, gentlemen. mr. strzok, i thank you for being here. you're the reason we're here and actions by you are the reason we are here. i know that my colleague from pennsylvania, representative marino had shown you this

the fbi. >> a lot of people have text messages, mr. strzok. >> yes, sir. and again, my impression, not stated by him, but my impression was based on the appearance of those messages, and in part of a desire by him to avoid even the appearance of any potential bias, that he asked me to return. that's a question for him. >> but he kept everyone else. >> sir, i don't know the staffing sdizs that were made by director mueller after i departed. >> including 13 democrats. >> sir i don't know the aff affiliation of the people on the team. >> but he was concerned enough about your texts to remove you, but you never felt concerned enough to remove yourself? >> that's correct. >> mr. strzok, you're going to get asked other questions here that relate to your transition from the investigation of ms. clinton into the beginnings of this investigation into the trump campaign and the alleged collusion with the russian government. now, mr. strzok, the fbi is a creation of this body. congress created the fbi wi

the fbi deeply corrodes what the fbi is in american society, the effectiveness of their mission, and it is deeply destructive. [ applause ] >> who's applauding? who's booing? this is all about what you see through your partisan lens. that's why the hearing was supposed to be different. they were supposed to establish facts that make their case in this showdown with strzok about the fact that his bias led to bad actions in this probe that make it a witch hunt. what did they find? really four things, okay? strzok screwed up by sending those texts. he exhibited bias against trump. that's true. it's really just one text, okay? this text came back to haunt him all day long. trump's never, ever going to become president, right, right? no, he won't. we'll stop it. he tried to explain it away by saying the american people would vote against him and he wouldn't win. it wasn't that compelling. and he admitted -- strzok -- the texting was wrong on several levels. one of them means that he arguably violated the fbi's code of conduct. strzok didn't have a great rebuttal for that either. now, beca

the witness' declination to answer it is against the instructions of the fbi pursuant to fbi policy, which is necessary, so as not to allow us to subvert an ongoing criminal investigation. he is right. and should not answer the question. >> the gentleman has not stated a valid point of order. nonetheless, the united states supreme court has recognized that it is unquestionably the duty of all citizens to coop

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

in the fbi. when they bring him before the american people and you realize it is not true, they furiously try to gag him. >> all right. >> in terms of procedure, yesterday was a very confusing hearing and interesting to watch you behind peter strzok trying to talk to him and coach him through as his legal adviser. could you explain your role vis-a-vis fbi lawyers and what ground you cover versus what the fbi who also has a stake with their own lawyers in terms of this, can you flush that out in terms of how it plays out in the hearing? >> sure. the republicans after his closed interview went out and falsely said that pete on the advice of counsel refused to answer questions. that's not true. pete was instructed by the office of general counsel of the fbi that he could not answer certain questions. i'm pete's personal lawyer. i never told him not to answer a single question. the fbi has a policy which is long-standing which everybody knows that you're not supposed to talk about on-going investigat

confidence in the integrity of the institution of the fbi or the u.s. justice department. >> look, the fish rots from the head down. at certain point even the rank-and-file becomes even negligent or complicit. there comes a point when you realize what your leadership is doing, the games they're playing, the way they abuse the process and the authority. you can't say that it doesn't have an impact on the overall organization and that is, that is the larger, deeper problem. this is corrosive course of conduct. it is criminality. it will have an impact on the country. we have to address it and fix it now. lou: how do we do it, chris? i'm sorry. go ahead. >> i've already said that the there should be an investigative division created within the u.s. marshals service. the fbi needs to be collapsed in on itself. the agency interested joining new investigative division of marshall service. they need to be vetted and lateral over. the fbi as we know it needs to go away. it has zero credibility. people in the country don't trust, they're watching what's going on

i didn't mean the fbi. it wasn't credible just like his explanations were not credible to the inspector general. he was not a credible witness and his explanations didn't hold water. the idea he is doing this -- and he did act with bias with the huma abedin e-mails and focusing on trump/russia collusion. and he would not answer these questions. what was the basis for the collusion case? you won't tell us about pop daopoulos and barely talked about the dossier. you have the bias but then you have this investigation which we still have no there there. he said ten months after it, i'm worried there's nothing here. >> laura: there were a lot of interesting moments but for ten hours you could have gotten at some of these points but there are so many people on the committee. that was difficult. i want to get to richard. throughout the hearing, strzok did insist he had no bias but the ig report said the following, when one senior fbi official, peter strzok, who was helping to lead the russia investigation at the t

and really, it gives us an inside look at some of what the fbi was thinking, some of what the fbi was believing. and certainly the way they characterize carter page is significant. they call him possibly a foreign agent. the different ways in which they describe in which he was communicating with the russians and what they perhaps were trying to do to him. it says that this target -- he's the target of this application in the fisa court. then it goes on to say that the fbi believes page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the russian government. and by that point, as we know, the fbi had, along with intelligence partners, certainly, there was a lot of concern that the russians were trying to somehow influence certainly the trump campaign and others and perhaps cause harm to hillary clinton. but most significant, i think, fred, is finally how they describe carter page. and here's how they say that the fbi believes that the russian government's efforts are being coordinated with page and perhaps other individuals associated with candidate number one's campaign. and that is t

. >> to the fbi give give you -- >> the fbi is not directed me or allowed me to respond. >> i yelled back. the bigger the committee will stand in recess until immediately after this series of votes. >> jesse: that was peter strzok, the fbi agent, lead investigator on the clinton email probe, lead investigator on the trump-russia probe. a lot of people are accusing him of bias and he denied bias all day long, girl there on capitol hill for hours by a joint house committee. let's to get around the table. that was a marathon today, very contentious. >> greg: i felt like i was unemployed on the sofa watching back-to-back episodes of jerry springer. that was like parliament without the wigs. this whole event reveals how little wisdom there is in this world. there is so much noise, so little wisdom through those are all smart people. they are not dumb people, but the environment, the politics and the spotlight turns everybody into idiots. and i say all of them. not just strzok. we are never going to get to the truth because he has 30 lawyers there. 30 democrats are there white knighting ev

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 in living color over the next 24 hours including starting tomorrow morning. one problem they've got is what his actual job was at the fbi. he ran counter intelligence in this country at the fbi. destroying him says something about congressional republicans' view of the value of counter intelligence at the time when there is an active concern about that for a lot of americans for a lot of obvious reasons. that, of course, won't stop them, but that brings us to the other big problem they've got with trying to make

the answer came back from the fbi and justice itself that that is the procedure. the next question i have is after the 2016, you did your polygraph at what time. you said you were out of scope. you were brought in. when was that? >> my recollection is the 2016 time frame after that e-mail. i don't know when. within a month or two. >> are you also aware in the publicly stated version of the i.g. report there's been serious questions about issues concerning polygraph information and lack of polygraph in the department that was brought out by the inspector general? >> i'm generally aware there was a report. i'm not aware of the conclusions. >> one of the concerns on this, when you were out of scope, you should have been read out of sci. my concern is during this time frame, you were involved in two high profile or getting ready for sci information which you were not read out of. this is a concern. it's nothing else from that question. i have no further questions and i'm finished and i yield back. >> i think you misstated the conclusion there, sir. i think you said --

and the oet fbi. i don't understand why the mother operation is still going on giving the corruption evidence that strzok admitted to. were not talking about bias, were talking about corruption. a senior fbi official wanting to direct an investigation a certain way to target a politicala opponent. on top of that, we have mr. mueller seemingly disinterested in this corruption. hent kept it from the american people for months that he had to remove strzok because of his corruption, if i were congress i would call him in and ask some questions about how he is managing hison investigation and the evidence of bias and corruption with his team that is still undermining the credibility of the entire justicemi department. >> brian: i understand you got emails and text messages today, what did they say? >> they show communications, we had to sue to get the records. the justice department and the fbi want to take two years to get them over to us. they are from 2015, they show thee relationship between page and s

the legal counsel the fbi is giving him. he is still an official of the fbi. why haven't the transcripts been released in. >> democrats do want to release the transcripts so republicans can judge for themselves. my republican friends don't want to do that. they must have something to hide. >> is there anyway you can get the documents released? >> there is talk we will do it as long as it is within the rules. >> where is this heading? >> i think it is heading towards an enormous fracture in our governance and here in the legislative branch. i have never witnessed anything like i witnessed today. it was not a proud moment. this hearing was conducted like a russian political show trial with all the trappings, connecting dots that aren't meant to be connected, taking one isolated incident and generalizing without justification, demagoguery, badgering of a witness. asserting that a witness had committed perjury in the middle of a testimony under oath. these are unprecedented and taken to a new level. no american can be proud of w

hand the fbi. if their identity is put at risk clear it's a personal risk. but every other potential source out there, every other person in washington, d.c., or beijing or moscow, wondering about approaching the fbi to give information is going to look to how well or how poorly the fbi protects their information and protects their identity as they weigh whether or not to take that risk. >> mr. strzok, the instructor general report criticized your text messages and raise concern that your political views may have impacted your decision in the summer and fall of 2016 to prioritize the trump/russia investigation over the reopening of the clinton e-mail investigation. i understand from your transcribed interview with the committee that you dispute that finding. >> i do. >> you told us during your interview that you immediately assigned agents to follow-up on the laptop. you were a key player such as sending the letter about the reopening of the clinton investigation shortly before the election this cl

. >> the fbi, the people still gainfully employed at the fbi at the highest levels should be answering those questions and they're not and i think it's so interesting that peter strzok, you know, even today, is still blaming congress for doing its constitutional responsety of oversight. he is blaming them for tearing america apart when actually they're doing their job. they're doing what they are supposed to be doing. what is really terrifying here, even, put strzok aside, the top levels of the fbi, they're still blowing off congress, they're still saying somehow this is all congress' fault, congress is doing what it is supposed to be doing. stuart: charles, you probably can't see it, on left-hand side of the screen, we have video of peter strzok arriving in the testimony room, this was moments ago. by the way, charlie, as you know, president trump meets russia's president vladmir putin, comes up monday next week. the president says election meddling will be on the agenda. listen to what the president had to say . >> our allies and our ad very says are overseas -- adversaries overseas.

in fact, that's the i.g. report criticized the fbi for doing. so they know he can't answer them, but they continue to ask that question. we spent 11 hours of a deposition of him and 8 hours in hearings. this is judiciary committee. we should be focused on the family separation policy, focused on driving down the cost of prescription drugs, comprehensive immigration reform, common sense gun safety legislation. but, no, today we spent 8 1/2 hours talking about the clinton e-mails in an ongoing effort to distract from what's an ongoing and serious investigation of the president and his inner circle. >> not only was a chaotic from the start there was a point when congressman louie gomer directly referenced struck's affair saying, quote, how many times did you look innocently into your wife's eye and lie to her about lisa page? where do you think that was going and was that in your opinion over the line? >> it was very much over the line. but the republicans made it clear they weren't serious in hearing the answer to any of these questions. mr. struc