tv FBI Director Says Hes Investigating Any Links Between Trump Campaign and... CSPAN March 21, 2017 1:00am-2:30am EDT
>> in general, sure, somebody could always be pretending to be something they're not. >> i yield back at this time. >> mr. schiff is recognized for 15 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a couple of questions and i'll pass it to mr. quigley for answering something into the record. >> can i ask you an estimated time. i'm not made of steel, i may have to take a quick break. >> would you like to do that now? >> if you can. i didn't know how much longer you planned to go. >> i think we want to keep going until members have asked all their questions. >> ok. just a quick rest stop? >> yes, we'll break for about ten minutes? >> that's plenty. [indiscernible]
enough to open an investigation because of someone travels? or someone has their photograph taken or they attend a conference. i imagine you get so many leads -- as many people writing to you with information that they are convinced that it is a crime. if you investigate every thing that is sent to you, you would be squandering your investigative resources. and correct meg if i'm wrong, and order for you to open an investigation, you need to see credible information or evidence that someone has either committed a federal crime or become an agent of a foreign power. is that accurate? >> we get a lot of referrals which ones align with the threats that the fbi is trying to prioritize, because we have limited resources. >> even when those criteria are met, that in itself may not be
enough because you have so many cases you need to investigate and you have to prioritize. >> correct. >> you mention it would not be appropriate to be telling reporters that stores they are writing are accurate or inaccurate when they may involve an investigation. that's not appropriate thing for you to do. >> correct, especially if the story involves classified information. >> you would be disclosing classified information potentially in what you're confirming or by rebutting a story that was inaccurate you may be suggesting other stories that contain classified information are then accurate? >> correct. >> it is inappropriate for you to be batting down inaccurate stories, would you also agree if it's inappropriate for you to be batting down inappropriate stories, would you also agree it's inappropriate for the white house to be asking the fbi to be
rebutting stories they don't like? >> that's one i don't want to answer, mr. schiff. i don't want to talk about communications between the executive branch. that's not something the fbi can or should do. >> if you were appearing before the senate for confirmation and they asked you as director of the fbi if you were asked by the white house to refute or acknowledge press stories that they liked or didn't like, what would you tell the senate in your confirmation hearing? would that be appropriate for your office? >> i would figure out what was the right things for the fbi to do and then do that thing. >> that right thing would be not to be in the business of confirming or denying stories about classified information?
>> correct. that's what the right thing is for the fbi. >> let me recognize mr. quigley for the purposes of entering something into the record. >> thank you. i'm reminded of what black said only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. i respectfully ask to enter a march 8 article entitled jeff sessions likely met russian ambassador a third time. >> i now yield to mr. swallow. >> thank you, ranking member and thank you, again, to our director and admiral rogers. director, would you agree that the fbi when it's considering a counterintelligence investigation views contacts between u.s. persons and say russia differently than it would view contacts between u.s. persons and the uk or france or germans? >> yes, very much so. >> that's because they're a foreign adversary. >> correct. >> and so to land on russia's radar is somebody that they may want to recruit, would you agree that being a business person, a prominent business person is something that would be attractive to them? >> could be. might depend on what industry you were in. >> could also be a politician be something that would be attractive to them? >> sure. >> and how about somebody who
does business with russians, would that be attractive to them? >> could be. would depend on other things as well, though. >> and we were starting to discuss this, efforts to recruit include investing in a u.s. person, is that correct? >> efforts by russia to invest typically in their trade craft? >> yes. >> that can be one of the ways in which they cultivate a relationship, sure. >> if you're a u.s. person with a business, could it include investing in your business or being a partner in some of your endeavors? >> lots of different ways someone could try to establish a relationship. >> and going back to compromise, could we assume that any prominent u.s. person traveling to russia would probably be covered by russian surveillance? >> depend on how you define prominent, but they have an extensive surveillance operation of foreign visitors, so no matter who you are, you ought to assume it. whether that's true in reality it's harder for me to know that
for sure. >> russia is attempting to recruit and persuade individuals that we've discussed before, just as foreign adversaries are because they want to get ... influence policy -- >> correct. >> in many cases it could be if that position is in a position of power that they could be in a position to influence policy in the united states? >> influence policy, supply them with information that's useful to them, and maybe other purposes. >> now, with respect to your counterintelligence investigations, would it be important for you if you were concerned that a u.s. person had financial entanglements with a foreign adversary to see that person's tax returns? >> that's a hypothetical i really want to avoid answering, but the answer is it would depend really a whole lot of circumstances. >> that would be one of the pieces of evidence that you would consider looking at?
>> maybe. maybe. you might be able to get the picture you need from other financial records that are more readily available. >> and you're aware, director, president trump has refused breaking with the tradition of the past 40 years to show the american people his tax returns? >> not something i want to comment on. i'm aware of it from the media. >> now, russia also in their efforts to recruit individuals and develop individuals preying on or following someone's financial distress is also an avenue they may pursue, is that right? >> potentially, if it offers an avenue for leverage on someone. >> right. and director, would you consider six bankruptcies that an individual may have as a point of leverage? >> i can't say. i don't know. >> and director, you're aware that president trump had six prior bankruptcies? >> it's not something i'm going to comment on. >> director, when your agents
are conducting a counterintelligence investigation with respect to a foreign adversary and their efforts to recruit or cooperate with a u.s. person, would you look at the u.s. person's travel to that country? >> as part of evaluating whether there's an elicit relationship? >> yes. >> sure. >> are you familiar that president trump travelled at least three times to russia. >> that's not something i'm going to comment on. >> you aware that his son donald trump jr. traveled at least six times to russia? >> same answer. >> donald trump has said a number of times that he has had nothing to do with russia. and i want to ask you, director, if you're familiar with deutsche bank and its $300 million loan to donald trump and his organization? >> not something i'm going to comment on. >> director, are you aware that deutsche bank has been investigated and fined over $400 million by new york state to stop the corrupt transfer of 10 -- of more than $10 billion out
of russia. >> generally from press accounts. >> so an individual's association with the bank that has had dealings with russian money laundering, that would be something that would be a red flag for a counterintelligence investigation i would asnum. -- i would assume. >> that's a hypo i don't want to answer. >> director, would a u.s. business person who is associated with the foreign adversary having tenants in their office building that do business with that foreign adversary, would that be a red flag that a counterintelligence agent would look at? >> i can't answer that. >> are you aware that in trump tower were two tenants who ran a high stakes illegal gambling ring that was run out of trump tower? >> same answer. >> and are you aware that the prosecutor in that case was u.s.
attorney preet. >> same answer. >> are you aware that u.s. attorney was recently fired? >> yes. >> by the president of the united states? >> well, i don't know who fired him. i know from press accounts that he was asked to leave. >> director, are you aware of felix sader a former soviet official and adviser to the trump organization? >> i'm not going to comment on that. >> director, outside of mr. sader's relationship with the trump organization, are you aware that the fbi knew of mr. saber because of a $40 million stock fraud case that was prosecuted by the federal government. >> same answer. >> director, would a u.s. person having multiple trademarks in addition to the other relationships that i just described be a red flag for a counterintelligence investigation if those trademarks were in russia? >> multiple trademark -- >> registering trademarks in a foreign adversary's country?
>> i don't know what to make of that. >> ok. were you aware that donald trump had six trademarks in russia? >> not going to comment on that. >> were you aware that donald trump tried to market his trump vodka brand in russia? >> same answer. >> were you aware that donald trump ran miss universe 2013 out of moscow? >> same answer. >> are you aware that donald trump jr. said on a number of occasions that russian money is pouring into the trump organization and that there's... -- there is a disproportionate cross-section coming from russian money? >> same answer. >> so hypothetically speaking, would a foreign adversary and its oligarchs having a disproportionate cross section of company's revenue coming from that country, would that be a red flag for a counterintelligence agent? >> i'm trying to be helpful but i'm not going to answer a hypo. >> i understand. thank you, director. director, are you familiar with a 2004 home purchase by president trump in palm beach county for about $40 million? >> not going to comment on that. >> are you familiar with a 2008 sale of that same property for
129% increase at about $98 million? >> same answer. >> are you aware that the buyer in 2008 was a russian businessman? >> same answer. >> and under the earlier hypothetical, would a foreign adversary's oligarch purchasing a home in the united states for 129% more than the home was purchased four years before, would that be a tool that a foreign adversary would use to try to recruit, develop or bring somebody on to their side? >> same answer as before. >> you said that it's likely or somebody should assume they're being surveilled when they were in russia. would you assume that donald trump was being surveilled in 2013 when he was in moscow? >> i'm not going to answer. i was trying to confine my answer to prominent people should assume, not students and all those people who might go there for a brief holiday. i don't think i would ask them to assume that. >> right.
would it be safe to say that if donald trump was doing something he shouldn't be doing while he was in russia, the russians probably saw it? >> same answer as before. >> would bit safe to assume if a prominent person was doing something they shouldn't have been doing while they were in russia, the russians probably saw it? >> i would stick to what i said before prominent people should assume. >> mr. director, was donald trump under investigation during the campaign? >> same answer as before, i'm not going to answer that. >> is he under investigation now? >> not going to answer that. please don't overinterpret what i said as the chair and ranking know, we have briefed them in great detail on the subjects of the investigation of what we're doing, but i'm not going to answer about anybody in this forum. >> director, from our perspective on the committee, the dots continue to connect
president trump, his team, people in his orbit to russia. and the questions that we have it's quite simple, are these merely 100 different coincidences or is this a convergence you're seeing deep personal, financial, political ties meeting russia's interference in our campaign. i'm wondering with your extensive counterintelligence expertise and donald trump was candidate, do you consider this -- these number of connections between well-connected russians and donald trump the trump organization, the trump family, and the trump campaign to be a coincidence or convergence? >> i'm not going to answer. >> from your perspective, director, have you ever seen in the history of american politics or at least since you've been alive, any political candidate have this many connections, personal, political and financial to a foreign adversary? >> same answer. this past election we were attacked by russia. it was nearly invisible.
thanks to the hard work, we know the attack came from russia. it was ordered by vladimir putin . he saw to help donald trump and take down hillary clinton. the most disturbing finding for me and my committee members is russia intends to do this again. i see this as an opportunity for everyone on this committee to not look in the rearview mirror but look forward and do everything we can to make sure our country never again allows foreign adversaries to attack us. director, you and admiral rodgers would agree, it is not only russia that is sharpening knives to go at our allies, it is other countries who have similar capabilities. the best thing we can do is unite around this investigation and have a parallel independent commission to make sure we get to the bottom of it happened, why we were so vulnerable and to assure the macon people we will never let this happen again -- the american people we will never let this happen again.
>> thank you mr. chairman. i want to go back to with interference from the russians, possibly and through our media. has a russians attempted to spread disinformation through the u.s. media. you mentioned they have been there over decades of trying to interfere. >> we have seen the music media as a resource to disseminate false information. >> has that been regardless of who is in the white house? >> it doesn't seem to tied to a particular political party. >> thank you. mr. calming, have you ever formed -- this is going back to the article from the new york times. have you formed and articulated an opinion about the article from february 14? >> have i ever formed and articulated --
>> on that article? >> i don't want to say. when i looking -- >> when i look at your jobs. i thank you for being there. your job, you observe and you investigate and you assess and try to predict and sometimes have to act. would that be correct? my question is as far as predictions and actions, hillary clinton won the 2016 elections for the united states presidency, as most have predicted -- i would contact even the russians predicted she would win. what were the russians planning for november night and beyond if she won? you mentioned before, you said they will be back. my question is have they left it i would contend they have not left. --s is something a constant this is something that is a constant. in the idea what would've
happened had she won. the pattern has been to interrupt us regardless of who is in the white house. >> they want to mess with us. it is hard to answer. i assume they would have continued their efforts to undermine president-elect clinton as they had begun doing during the summer especially with european allies. probably lots of other things. what i meant is they are not going away. i meant that in the sense that the next opportunity to mess with our election is two years now and for years from now. >> i think your job is difficult because there is a lot of conjecture about any relationship with russians in meeral and questions from and others about can i meet with the russian ambassador? does that get me investigated? business ties here and there.
we currently chair a space station with russia. we buy engines from russia's gas from russia for our rockets -- from russia for our rockets. it gets tough for you guys to decide what and when do we investigate. i appreciate you taking the time and i yield back. chairman.ou mr. i am impressed. i was a pilot when they took off . one of the first thoughts ahead was how long will it be before i have to go to the bathroom? you guys been almost four hours. i have a list of questions but i want to diverge a little bit and follow up on some of the things that have been said. mr. calming, you confirmed there is an investigation into trump campaign officials.
the fact that there is an open investigation does not indicate guilt. >> certainly not. >> an investigation may find there is no wrongdoing. >> that is one of the reasons we don't talk about it so that we do not smear people. >> i appreciate that. likely.especially having found no wrongdoing when there is a political motive. what we have seen today is that has been a certain political motive. .r. clapper, the former dni i would to read what he said a few weeks ago. mr. clapper went on to say that to his knowledge there was no evidence of collusion between members of the trump campaign and the russians. we did not collude -- we do not conclude any evidence. the nsa and the cia with my office and the director of national intelligence had anything or reflection between
the russians. there was no evidence of that in our report. was mr. clapper wrong when he said that? >> i think he is right about characterizing the report which if you all have read. >> i agree with mr. clapper. at this point, everyone on this dais should agree with mr. clapper because we in the committee have seen no evidence that would indicate there was collusion or criminal wrongdoing between any members of the previous administration or officials.d russian i want to come in very quickly. he said clearly it is a crime -- both of you have said that. it endangers national security that it makes hard for us for us to authorize very important tools it many times, it is inaccurate. i would ask if someone in an -- if someone in the intelligence
, anynity had concerns government official, is there a process they can go through when they can make that known and express concerns. >> yes, all of us have robust whistleblower provisions that we educate our folks on. part of the whistleblower track is you can bring information to the appropriate committee of congress. our budget -- >> are both of your agencies capable of handling accusations like that. >> yes. >> knowing that, i find it hard to justify any classified .nformation that is linked i hope you find those guys and crack them on the head. who isrmer military guy committed to defending our national security, i think those guys are arrogant and i think they are cowards. they will not stand up and make the case. they won't use the legal process. they hide behind some new york times reporter and without showing who they are or showing
the information they have, they make these accusations and with this information and i say i hope you find out who they are and hold them accountable. eyes -- tos of disincentive buys it from happening again. i would like to shift to , therity of the report previous dni when he determined with both of you that russia developed a preference for mr. trump. this is a huge deal. think about the story. the american people have been told that our president was elected maybe because of the influence of a foreign government. i love you guys. i defend you and we respect what you do, but i do need to make this point in the intelligence community is not perfect >> not perfect? >> yes.
>> certainly not. indicated, desk that is not a criticism -- that is not a criticism. we sometimes make mistakes. mistakes,meaningful must exit a clear implications toward policy. there is a lit -- there's a difference a level of confidence. specific, a different level of confidence on one specific assessment or judgment. is in aone judgment very important part. this is an important point and that is the difficulty of determining motive. we can go back and look at facts. we can look at what happened and often determine who did it, who
they did with, when they did it, but to determine motive, you have got to call into someone's head. that is much more difficult, quoting from the preamble talking about leaders intentions. it says this objective is difficult to achieve when seeking to understand compex issues in which foreign actors to extraordinary lengths to hide activities.te their we are trying to determine motive. do you agree with that that determining motive is difficult? >> i do. i should emphasize something that roger said earlier, we made no judgment on whether the russians were judgment -- russians were successful. -- is not in the report, >> we are looking at russian activities and making a conclusion of why they did that. in this case, they preferred one
candidate over the other. i was in moscow last august. i came home and did some media interviews. i said, they are going to mess with our elections. that wasn't based on any specific information. that was based on history. i was always asked, who do they want to win? i said then, i don't think they care. they just want to break down the foundation. they just want to break the trust in our institutions. they want to take away the faith. the intelligence community agreed with us -- with me on that analysis. for a long time up until december. suddenly, they didn't. the president asked for this report any as for to be concluded very quickly. it went from they don't really care to they want mr. trump to win.
there's another possible another possible expedition with a few minutes and remaining -- mr. comey, you indicated -- do you believe ever came to a conclusion on whether mr. trump was going to win? >> said the intelligence community was early on, they thought he might have a shot. they wanted to mess with our election and hurt our country. that is always the baseline. they hated her, secretary clinton. they want to harm her and thought they would have a chance to help mr. trump. and later concluded that mr. trump, it was hopeless. then they would focus on trying to undermine six k clinton. .- undermine secretary clinton >> from summer through the fall,
they believed that secretary clinton would win. >> the assessment was late in the summer they concluded based on the polling that mr. trump did not have a chance in the shifted to focusing on trying to undermine her. >> if you were to tell me, and i know you did not -- if anyone were to tell me that mr. trump was going to win, i would say they did not. there was no one in the world who believed that. every organization last fall thought secretary clinton would be the next president. >> i think the russians agreed. >> this is the point. this is such a fine line. how can you know for certain that the russians were motivated person theyhe expected was going to be the next president of the united states and comparing that with the motive that is a hail mary pass. maybe this guy has a shot.
let's try and help him get elected. those motives would be -- determining motives is very difficult. you have to have very direct information or you have to be up to get inside someone's it had in figure out what is driving them. you see some of the things they done would be inconsistent with undermining her -- there are only two teams on the guilt. what it concluded was early on the hatred for mrs. clinton was all the way along.
when mr. trump became the nominee and was along the sense of, it would be great if he could win but we have to hit her. then it shifted. the challengege about trying to understand intent. go intoot going to specifics but the level of sourcing, the multiple sources that were able to independently cooperate the judgment. it was just one issue, to include the intent. >> i understand. i was with the staff through the pages.some not everybody did. some people are casting as versions and not going out there to look at it. i think a reasonable person can say what i have said here today. tore is another element
this. there is another side of the coin. this is difficult in my opinion to say with high levels of confidence. the intelligence community is not perfect sometimes. we do make mistakes. . yield back i would like to come back for just a few minutes after. >> thank you. asked aboutu were director clappers comments and your response indicated they were correct as soon as undeveloped goes. i want to make it clear the intelligent assessment does not discuss the issue of u.s. person coordination with the russians. i assume that is because that the re-time of the report in
january of this year, that was under investigation you have now disclose. is that correct? >> the i.t. report was about what russia had done. is nothing in the report of a coordination or anything like that. it is a separate responsibility wethe a b i to ss that. should not read mr. clappers, the suggesting he takes a different view of whether you had sufficiently credible information and evidence to initiate a counter intelligence and investigation. >> i do not know what he meant. i can say the facts which we just laid up. there is a report and the investigation. the report does not cover the investigation. mr. ship.n gentleman, and my original questions i asked if the intelligence committee undertook any study to determine whether russian interference had had any
interference on the process and i think you told me the answer was no. >> work. >> you said the intelligence community does not do analysis on public opinion. so, thanks to modern technology in front of me right here i have a tweet from the president one hour ago saying the nsi and fbi, tell congress it did not elect -- affect the electoral process. >> i'm sorry, if not been following twitter. >> i can read it too. it says, the nci and fbi tell affects the -- did not the election. this has gone out to 1.6 million americans. the fbi in congress to russia that -- tell congress that russia did not affect the electoral process. is that accurate?
>> it is hard for me to react. what we understand where said as we have offered no opinion. have no view. have no information on potential impact because it is nothing we ever looked at. >> ok so it is not a logical leap to say the assertion that you have told the congress there was no influence on the electoral process as not quite right. exit was certainly not our intention to say that because we do not have that information. that was not something that was looked at. >> admiral rodgers, before yield back, there's another tweet that says nsa tells congress unmasking individuals endangers national security. my understanding was there is a -- process for unmasking. >> i assume it is set up to address leaking. i am not in a position to
comment. eggs thank you. i yield back to the ranking member. >> thank you. thank you for your testimony today. i want to turn to dechristopher steel dossier first mentioned just before the election and published in full in january. my focus is to explore how many claims within the dossier are looking more likely to be accurate? first, let me ask you, and you describe to christopher steele's? >> i'm not going to comment on that. nope. >> are you investigating the claims made in the dossier? odds i'm not going to, done that. eggs ok. the -- >> ok. rear -- this is not someone without contacts. the allegation it raises about president trump's campaign aides
connection to russians when overlaid with known facts and timelines from the 2016 campaign are very revealing. let us begin. in general, as my colleagues discuss, is it true that a large number of oligarchs and wealthy businessman and russia have buffeted from their close relationships with the kremlin? >> could you say that woman time? >> sure. have oligarchs and wealthy folks in russia profited from their connection to the kremlin? >> yes. >> there are no free lunches in russian. if you get wealthy under putin, it is because you support vladimir putin. >> i would assume there is the perception of advantage but it varies by specifics and the particular individual and relationship where talking about. vladimir putin never trust, he verifies, right? he wants to keep tabs on citizens that will possibly
challenge him. is that right? >> i assume he maintains knowledge of the situations around him for centers of interest within russia. >> thank you. is it likely the kremlin would trade favors or other valuable information, intelligence from foreign subjects about wealthy businessman living abroad? >> is a possible crash yes. but it depends on the situation. i do not know i would make a fight statement. >> but it is a possibility? >> a possibility. >> the dossier seems right on this point. a quick program will of seems to exist between tribes regime and russia. receiving intel on russian families in the united states. from june 16, it states trump and his inner circle have
received regular flow of intelligence from the kremlin and including on his democratic and other political rivals, which is something for something. a july 30 entry states, quote the source confirms regular exchange with the kremlin has existed for at least eight years, including intelligence being fed back to russia on oligarch activities in the united states. is it generally true that moscow actively seeks and supports, whether through the oligarchs or russian officials or undeclared intelligence officer sympathetic toward figures abroad whether to business dealings or political backing or a combination of the two? a i mean, generally this is tactic we have seen over time. but i would caution us. we are talking about very specific cases and i am not prepared to get any of the
specifics. >> i know my colleagues have touched upon this but i think it is important within the context of the dossier to bring it up. my question is, is unlikely are plausible that the russians might seek out americans for moscow's purposes. >> it is one of the focuses of our counterintelligence mission to understand the ways they tried to do that. a hallmark. >> said the dossier states that august 10, 2016, a kremlin official involved in u.s. relations suggested moscow might offer of to "sympathetic u.s. actors." does this sell my gay possible tactic out of the russian playbook? >> i am not going to comment on that. >> among the u.s. actors are carter page and michael flynn, who my colleagues have discussed
that link and which the dossier describes as successes. we know carter page went to moscow to give a speech to the new economic school. we are in possession of the slide deck. we know he received approval from the trump campaign manager nationalme, citing campaign official jd gordon. let me ask you another question. presidentect that the of a russian company is a long-time adn confidant of vladimir putin? >> i'm going to answer that, mr. castro. >> the dossier states that during the visit to moscow, he thewith someone offering brokerage of up to 19% stake in a company with page conferring
that "if trump were elected u.s. president, sanctions with russia would be lifted." and though fortunately the white house has not been so naive as to universally loved sanctions, was widely reported that on january 7, rosen of sold a 9.5% stake in calls "one of the biggest privatizations since the 1990's." furthermore, it was reported ownership structure includes a cayman islands company whose beneficial owners cannot be traced. when a quantum. is this -- what a coincidence. is this the subject of your investigation? >> same answer. >> ok. >> meaning i'm not going to comment. >> i understand. let's move duke wikileaks, who wikileaks, who played such an important part in the
election. wikileaks was at minimum a pawn and that maximum a co-conspirator in publishing stolen sooner democratic officials emails. to believe this was done to offer moscow some measure of separation as to masking they stole the data in the first place so they could still have a publicly posted to inflict damage on the clinton campaign. >> i think that is fair. >> guest. >> and emily from july 19, 2015, from the dossier states a trump associate new the kremlin was using wikileaks to maintain "plausible deniability of its three days" and after the century, wikileaks carries out the wishes and dncishes upwards of 20,000 emails a.m. to 8000 associated email attachments. isthe rest, as they say,
history. another entry dated august 17 as carter page and a russian associate discussing wikileaks publishing emails in order to swing supporters away from clinton and to drop. from a september 14 entering the --sier, "kremlin chats kremlin has further compromising emails on clinton in considers disseminating after parliamentary elections in late september." and then they publish john podesta's emails. the incidences keep piling up. -- the coincidences keep piling up. let's talk about paul manna for as a follow-up to mr. himes questioning. mr. metaphor was a major part of the trump campaign including serving as its chief strategist before departing in disgrace in august 2016. it has also established the fact
that paul manafort was a longtime official advisor to russian ukrainian political leadership. as paul metaphor it a subject in your investigation? >> i am not going to comment on that. >> can you describe to the american people the russian -- ept of -- a technique >> it is a technique to other information at people that may be embarrassing or humiliating and use it. >> are you aware of a situation where that has been successful leverage? >> yes. i believe our counterintelligence division has encountered in a number of times. christ is that include places like hotels that are wired for audio and video. placesoes that include like hotels that are wired for audio em video? read i do not remember specifics, but i believe that would be possible. -- s i recognize
>> before i get into the body of my remarks i want to go back to the earlier comment about that there is no evident to indicate there was successful russian hacking of voter results or tabulations. what i did not hear you say is whether or not there had been any attempts to hack into election systems of any kind. >> i can answer that because the fbi responsibility is in me united states. we saw no effort. efforts to penetrate, we saw no efforts aimed at the vote itself. >> but you did see efforts to penetrate registration rolls? >> correct. >> did you see efforts to penetrate any other portions of the election systems other than
registrations? in this country it is highly decentralized in as a consequence as you will recall, then-homeland security jeh johnson indicated they should become part of our critical infrastructure for cyber security purposes. >> their efforts were voted at roeder -- voter registration in various states. sometimes it is a private vendor. sometimes the state. that is where was focused and not on the vote itself. vote tabulation vote transmission that we have seen. >> thank you. i yield back to the ranking member. >> time is expired. mr. turner. mr. turner: a statement that been made about the questions. we certainly do not feel the need to clarify all of them. but there is one aspect which needs to be clarified because it involved with of your testimony. there has been discussion
concerning the statement by james copper and rather do the injector as it has been made, let me read it. does intelligent exist that can answer the following question, whether there was improper contacts between united states and russian officials? james clapper said, we do not include any in our report. office had anything, any reflection of collusion between members of the trump campaign and the russians. there was no evidence of that included an hour report. chuck todd followed up, i understand that but does it exist? james clapper answered, not to my knowledge. so the text is not really related to the report. i yield back. >> thank you gentleman for being here today. start with director call me.
despite your expressed -- director comey. despite your expressed disdain for the new england patriots i think tom brady would probably like to express his gratitude assistance for recovering his stolen super bowl jersey. asked the reason i don't like is they represent sustained excellence and as a giants fan, that does make crazy. laughter] >> director comey, are you aware of an article in the washington ost entitled -- director coming: i am not. i don't remember it. >> i would like to add this to the record. for your edification, director, there is an allegation contained in that article. trump staffers wrote an amendment to an amendment that stripped up platforms called for
providing lethal defensive weapons and replace it with softer language calling for appropriate assistance." are you familiar with a story in the washington examiner entitled, how they got key parts all wrong. drags i do not think i am. >> i have unanimous consent to add that to the record and for your edification i will go to some of the meat of that story. or you aware of an allegation that trump staffers gutted the platform? rx am i aware of the article? i'm sure you aware of anything of that nature? the article or activity? >> i am willing to comment on whether i've seen things in the media but i'm unwilling to comment beyond that. greg so you say you are not aware of the platform to contain all of the original language? >> i do not want to comment. >> then i will go through.
i know you are limited on what you can comment on. i will go through as i said some of the meat of this. platform it the says "we will meet the return of russian lit drugs with the same result that led to the collapse of the soviet union. we will not accept any territorial change imposed by force in ukraine or elsewhere it will use all appropriate measures to bring the aggressors to justice." does that sound too like a pro-russia or pro-vladimir putin's statement benchmark >> no comment. supporter and says, we increasing sanctions together with our allies against russia integrity isaine restored. we also support the armed forces of ukraine and greater support with nato defense of the
spending. again, that sounds like fairly clear relationship with our relationship to russia, don't you agree? >> same answer. >> thank you. the final language old get to in a second. there was an amendment but the final language regarding that plague of the platform with regard to national security relating to russia says "we support maintaining is warranted increasing sanctions together with our allies with fresh unless and until you bring sovereignty and integrity is restored. we also support greater coordination with the nato ." ense planning again, to me, that sounds clear and straightforward that is not conducive to a putin administration. would you? >> same answer. eggs thank you. -- >> thank you. it is also important to know that platform was adopted in coordination and in concert with
the trump administration as they met at a convention and went through the platform process. the jump campaign agreed the five form condemning the kremlin latrans. call for increased sanctions against russia as i indicated in the text of the platform. refusing to accept "any territorial change in eastern europe imposed by force in the ukraine or elsewhere in legend to aid the ukraine forces. i bring that up to highlight and note the fact that none of that appears to be pro-putin or pro-russian language. >> mr. crawford will you yield back to me. i asked mr. comey a one to make sure. i know you're not going to comment on this but i hope you will take suspect you investigators because there seems to be the line up dead out there that somehow their publican party watered down its platform and that is not true. that did not happen.
in fact what happened was the platform was actually increase. increased in certainty against what the russians were up to. it actually amended the platform to make it stronger than what it initially was. so, i know there is a lot of circumstantial evidence of their about all of these suppose it people that knew the russians. the reality is and remains the case, the republican party had a very strong platform against the russians and it was increased in its strength, not decreased like has been reported. i know you will not, but i hope you will provide the -- to your investigative team, provide this to your investigative team so we can get enough the table. will you take his back? >> sure. -- what you take this back? >> sure. >> thank you director comey we
upper shake that. would you like to make a statement about the patriots before we move on? [laughter] >> are employees of the intelligence agencies required to disclose business with foreign nationals? >> yes. broadly. relationshipsn are the same. they are in different places than another countries, for example. >> to your knowledge, are they required to disclose contact with foreign nationals? i do not know. in many jobs that is interaction with foreign hundred parts as part of your job. i interact with foreign counterparts regularly in the course of duties. >> are federal campaign nominees required #>> i apologize. i do not know. >> are private nuisance required in any way?
>> i do not know. >> is it customary for transition teams for a transition team members to meet with foreign nationals to your knowledge? inside customary? >> i do not have any knowledge. taxes that unusual? >> i don't have knowledge. >> has had happened before? >> i have never been part of a transition team i don't know. >> are foreign nationals required? >> i apologize, i don't know the law. >> thank you. i yield back to you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. crawford. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you director comey and admiral rogers. my first set of questions are comey.r that director when the fbi has any open counterintelligence investigation, what are the procedures for notifying
the dni, the white house, and senior congressional leadership? director comey: there is a practice of a quarterly briefing to the chair and ranking of the house and senate intelligence committees. i hesitate, thanks to feedback we are trying to make it better and that involves the briefing of the department of justice,'s i believe the dni, and some portion of the national security council at the white house. so it is quarterly for all three senior congressional leadership, the white house, and mr. comey: yes -- mr. comey: yes. anyou said there was
investigation open-ended started in july. when did you notify the dni, the white house, or senior congressional leadership. director comey: leadership, sometime recently they were briefed on the nation of the investigation. the justice department has been aware of it all along. the dni, i do not know because we did not have a dni until mr. coates took office. i briefed him his first morning in office. eggs to drill down on this, if the open investigation began in july into the briefing of congressional leadership only occurred recently, why was there no notification prior to the past month? >> i think our decision was it and matter of sensitivity so we would not included in the quarterly briefing. >> was that your decision? your decision what gets briefed in those quarterly updates?
>> no, it is usually the choice ofour head counterintelligence division. >> why was the decision made not to brief senior congressional leadership until recently when the investigation had been open since july. a very serious investigation. i was a decision made to wait months. >> akins of the sensitivity of the matter. >> stepping back more broadly, in the case of russia we know cyber hacking is one tactic that is typically part of a broader influence or information warfare campaign. we know the russian government is ready and willing to employ hacking as but one of many tools in their toolkit for use against the united states. is there any evidence that russia tried to hack other entities associated with the presidential campaign in washington-h the
d.c. or clinton operatives? >> yes. >> can you specify? did that include the rnc? any other candidates of -- any other campaigns of candidates of republican, democrat or other? >> i think we can say they were efforts to penetrate organizations associated with the republican party and i think we said in the report there were not releases of material taken or hacked from any republican associations. >> but the hacking, the use of cyber tools as part of their information warfare campaign, it was done to both parties? >> correct. >> thank you. taking a further step back of what has been in the news recently, i referred to the yahoo! data breach. the last department of justice announced it was charging hackers with ties in the 2014 breach.
what this hacked is for intelligence purposes to your knowledge -- >> i cannot say in this form. >> press reporting indicates the yahoo! tack targeted journalists, dissidents, and government officials? do you know what the ftc did with the information they obtained? answer. >> i understand that. how did the administration determine who to sanction as part of the election hacking? how familiar are you with that process and how was the determination was made? >> i do not know. the fbi has factual input. i do not have any personal knowledge of how the decisions were made but who to sanction. >> looking forward, what does forward, whatking will be at a sigh and fbi do to keep any entity associated with a major campaign say from aggressive russia cyber measures
that were utilized in this past election? we continue to maximize the insight we are generating about activity. for example, this started with nsa gaining access in the summer of 2015. we shared that activity with our fbi teammates. that continues. we try to make sure the indus sites we generate -- our insights are shared with the rectum. we try to work widely to increase cyber security as you heard discussed ongoing of what is the role of the voting infrastructure of the united states in terms of critical infrastructure. do we need to bring that within the critical infrastructure framework. the top has been ongoing for some time. director comey: making sure we are sharing information when we get it that somebody is being head but more importantly that we are showing people what we have learned from this cycle so they can tighten up.
>> thank you. it seems to me and my first line of questioning, the more serious a counterintelligence investigation as, that would seem to trigger the need to update if not just the white house, the dni, senior congressional leadership. use it was due to these severity, moving forward it seems the most severe and serious investigations should be notified to senior congressional leadership. with that, thank you for the lenience. i yield back. ask the challenges, sometimes you want to keep a tight within the executive branch and if we are going to go with congressional leaders, then we brief inside the branch so we have to figure out how to navigate that in a good way. >> we may have to update the law on that. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. schiff is recognized for 15 minutes and we will come back to our site for 15 and that will
the it. >> just a couple questions. do the russians favor the united states lethal weapons to ukraine's? admiral? >> no. >> they would strongly oppose such an idea, with a not? i can tell you the idea of providing lethal weapons to ukraine has met bipartisan support on the hill by senator mccain, certainly myself, i would imagine many members of this committee. there was an effort at the convention to strengthen the platform by including a provision that would provide lethal defensive weapons to ukraine. that was defeated. the campaign manager, paul manafort, denied the campaign was involved in defeating that amendment. but the one who offered the amendment later disclosed it was dropped at the assistance -- insistence of the trump
campaign. jd gordon, a national security advisor for the truck campaign was forced to admit he had weighed in against the amendment that would have provided that the united states should give lethal weapons of defense to ukraine. i would join my chairman and asking you to look into this. particularly since we know of an ambassador who attended the convention and if there was any communication that resulted in the defeat of an amendment that was against russian interests, the committee was certainly like to know and we welcome that inquiry. ranking member. today.f emotions kicking i see a girl, outrage, subdued somberness. i feel overwhelmingly a sadness. we have heard nothing but
terribly disturbed and 80 evidence of what has happened at arguably our greatest adversary's hands. the evidence all seems to lead to the conclusion that they had help from the inside. that this was in part and inside job from u.s. persons. accomplices orn terribly naive ones are probably both that help the russians attack our markers see. we're still at the early stages. leg out some of the evidence and the facts, dirty though they may be. sleazy though they be. no matter what, we have concluded at this point that never in the modern era has a president and his administration had so many foreign entanglements. entanglements that continue to
push american foreign-policy away from its core roots, beliefs, interests, and alliances towards unprecedented positions that only vladimir putin himself could approve of. how else can we explain the in the republican party platform in such a decidedly pro-russian way. republicans who were so strong against you political foes like russia. i know my colleagues on this committee take the rush of threat very seriously. why wouldn't the people who inhabit the white house? how else can we explain an administration that beats up our oldest allies like a dry you and britain in the our most sacrosanct alliance like nato but never, ever say a bad word about vladimir putin. in fact, they say a lot of good words about president putin. baselessy it makes up wireless taps against a former united states president.
equates our national intelligent agencies to nazi germany and argues moral equivalent between repressive authoritarian states will support human rights records like russia's and our free and open democracy. yet, this administration never, ever others any criticism of russia. let us be clear. this is not about party. is not about relitigating the election. it is not as if anything we do here will put a president from a different political party in the oval office. so i hope it is clear it is about something much more important. no, it is not about political motivation to my friend who suggested that earlier. this is about patriotism. something way more important than party. this is about country. the very heart of what this country is built on. "a free, fair, trusted elections.
if we do not take our we doigation lightly, -- not take our investigation lightly. i know you do not. we have to begin with credible allegations and recently something warrants it. i no doubt believe you have talk to lawyers in a handout of the prosecution divisions about whether or not this warrants and investigation. i know you do not take this lightly. what we have seen is damming evidence today of what russia did. we have also seen damming evidence of how they did it. russia has a history of using active measures, many of which we afford up today. let's recap them. hacking into dumping information to embarrass their enemies. we heard about this with respect gucifer.aks and
figures andussed vladimir himself. we have also heard about companies like gazprom, and a confusing web of offshore shell companies. money. hide or launder we have also heard how russia released disinformation to spread rumors and confused the so distressed the ability to even know truth using propaganda media outlets whether directly owned by russia or not to release information to claim plausible deniability at russia's hands. and again, we see wikileaks
gusifer 2.0. and we also see the use of propaganda outlets like rt. orther naive acquiescence what it is, we do not yet know the full extent of precious attempts to undermine our elections and ultimately weaken our democracy. on that last point, we have heard about quite a few individuals on the trump orbit who fell somewhere in that spectrum from mere naivete which distressing enough if that naivete is coming from those who are supposedly running our willingness and active coordination. this rogues gallery includes those already fired. roger stone, advisor to donald trump, paul manafort, advisor to toald
donald trump, michael flynn, national security adviser to donald trump. sessions -- and members of the trump family itself. this matters. it is serious. that'll ship stinnett collapse, towers on -- 2011 is a year we should mark on our calendars. it is still going on. the attack is not just on election day. it will continue, as you have suggested, unless we, all of us in this room, stop it. probablys, you have uniform for your
career. mr. -- admiral rodgers, you have probably worn that uniform throughout your career. as someone who has lost brothers and sisters in combat, explained to me but more importantly to the american people, do not assume they know the answer. tell them in your words why we should care about russia's active measures campaign aimed at destabilizing our democracy and that of our allies. in your words, sir, why should they care? >> i do not think it is in the best interests of our nation or any external entity to attempt to manipulate outcomes. to shape choices. that should be the inherent role democracy. the investigation where going through as a positive in the sense it will help eliminate all of us regardless of party to
what the implications are here and what it means for us. i think our conclusion in and out of the intelligence community is this behavior is not likely to stop absent change. this is not likely to be the last time we will be having these discussions about this kind of eight thing. i don't think it is in anybody's best interest. >> director comey, parallel question. again, in general terms into not with respect to the specific investigation you have revealed here today. i'm not asking you to go into specifics on many individuals. but please, explain briefly to me in and more importantly to the american people, why we should care about russia's use of u.s. persons, of americans, helping russia destabilize our democracy?
comey: like admiral rodgers, i truly believe we are a shining city on a hill -- to quote a great american. one of the things we radiate to the roald is the appearance of a wonderful, often messy, but free and fair democratic system and elections that undergirded. so when there is an effort by a foreign state to mess with that, krupp that, it is very serious. it threatens what is america. if any americans are part of that for it it is a serious matter so you would expect the fbi to want to understand, if what?s so, who did i don't want people to over interpret my words. to preserve our ability to do that work, i am not here voluntarily. i would rather not be talking about this at all but we thought it would be important to share lisette much with the committee and american people and now we're going to close our mouse and do our work to answer the
question, do the answers matter? >> they do indeed. i think you both for your answers and your service to our country. i would like to think we can turn this from a set event into a positive one. this country has stood up and fought on behalf of its own health and welfare and that of numberizens and met any of challenges throughout our nation's history. the worst thing we could do is underestimate the nature of this challenge before us today. with that, ranking member, i would appreciate if i could yield to my friend from texas, mr. castro, we flee. mr. castro: one more question with regard to leaks. that has been a big topic of the eightf questioning and topic of concern to all of us regardless of political party. i want to ask you, director, is a possible some of those links
could come from not the intelligence company but members of the white house staff, for example? thanks sure. it could come from lots of different places. a leak veout a lot of people knew of it or heard echoes and had stories to tell journalists. in my expense, trying to figure these things out for decades it is almost -- it is often coming from a place you did not about. >> i asked the question because the president has he have berated the intelligence community and the press because of these links, but it is worth considering it is quite possible there are folks that have a kind proxyitical one chosen by where they want to be the savior once it blows up. there are all sorts of individuals and serve on political staffs and i think we should be up into the possibility it is somebody at
the white house. >> thank you. i'd yield back. >> someone yells back. mr. hurd. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> gentlemen, thank you for being here and thank you for your continued service. to talk about the value of sitting in one place for a long time and listening. today has added to that understanding. i am going to try to us questioned you can answer in this format that are within your areas of expertise. director rogers, my first question to you. the exploit that was used by the russian to penetrate the dnc, was it sophisticated? was it a zero day exploit? zero day being something that has never been used before? >> i'm not going to talk about russian techniques or procedures about how they executed their
hacks. notf members of the dnc had -- let me rephrase this -- can we talk about spirit fishing? >> yes. general terms. phishing is when somebody sends an email on some eclipse on something. >> the user thinks they are getting a message from a legitimate user and they open it up, it will often click on an attachment or a link, if you will. x was a kind of tactic used? >> again, i am not in and on classified -- i apologize. comey, when was the first time the fbi notified the dnc of the hack? dr. comey? i think august 2015. >> was that prior to any of the information being leaked?
on wikileaks?put richter,: yes. the first russian-directed releases were in the middle of june of the next year. the persona. and so a little bit less than a year earlier. about a yearas between the fbi first notification and then that information getting on wikileaks? yes.tor comey: >> have you been able to -- when did the dnc provide access to your technical folks review of what happened? director comey: we never got direct access to the machines themselves. d dnc in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately
shared with us their forensics from their review of the system. the nsator rogers, did ever get access to the dna hardware? >> the nsa did not ask for access. >> good copy. so did the director notified the dnc early before any information youput on wikileaks and still have never been given access to any of the technical or physical machines that were hacked by the russians. >> that is correct. we got the forensics from the >> best practice is to get access to the machines themselves but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute. >> at what point did the company, the dnc use, share that
forensic information to you? director called me: i do not remember for sure. i think june. i see company went public in june of 2016 with their conclusions. director,: i think it was a little bit before the announcement. approximately june. >> of that was how long after the first notification the fbi did of the dnc? >> 10 months. >> 10 months. so the fbi notified the dnc of the hack and it was not until 10 months later that you had any details about what was actually going on for the on their network? correct comey: that is assuming i had the dates correct. but it was some months later. >> knowing what we know now, would the fbi have done anything different in trying to notify the dnc of what happened?
comey: sure. >> what measures would you have done to friendly? director comey: we would send up a much larger flair. we would have just kept banging and banging on the door knowing what i know now. i might have walked over there myself, knowing what i know now. but i think the efforts we made, that our agents made, work reasonable at the time. >> good copy. number of howe a many private entities you have notified of these types of breaches? director comey: hundreds of thousands. in this particular case, we had to notify more than 1000 entities the russians were hitting at the same time. >> mr. rogers, anything to add? admiral rogers: it was a pretty admiral -- admirable effort.
>> i have said this many times. the outcome of what the intelligence community refers to as the russian hacking has been whether real or perceived between the executive branch, the intelligence community, and the public. this is an asymmetrical holy russians are using in order to destabilize liberal than a chronic institutions. -- liberal democratic institution. i think it is important we do everything we can to look at this which i believe federal law enforcement is doing as you have heard here. before yielding back to the chairman, my colleague from california, the ranking member said in his statement, the question most people have is whether we can really conduct this investigation and the kind of thorough and nonpartisan manner the seriousness of the issues marriage or whether the enormous political consequences of our work will make that
impossible. he added, the truth is, i don't know the answer. i do. we must. the american people demand this. the future of our democratic institutions demanded. i'm glad we have two people like you and fault with this. mr. chairman, i yield back to you. >> determine yield back. mr. gowdy will follow. >> mr. chairman, you are talking , longrussia far before before it began fashionable to talk about russian. you referred to russia as "possibly our greatest national ." urity threat posed 9/11 and you know i came from a state with a fellow named graham who is also no fan of russia. so director coming, admiral rogers, people in your line of work are incredibly respected. both your current line of work
and the work you came from. people in my line of work or not. there is a reason. the justice system is respected and the political process is not. this is, while this hearing is important, it is really more what you do after this hearing. i want you to go find every single witness who may have information about interference, influence, motive, our response, collusion, whatever your jurisdiction is. wherever the facts may take you, though the heavens may fall, go do your jobs. because nature abhors a vacuum and right now you cannot answer most of the questions either by policy, law or because the investigation is not complete. therefore a vacuum exists, which people in my line of work are more than happy to fill. so, i need you to fill.
i need you to do with all deliberate speed. director comey, i think it is also important for my fellow citizens to take note of why this system, the one you come from, is respected and the one that i'm in right now is not. "hearsay"? >> information you don't know from your own personal knowledge but learn from someone else. i was trying to be less lawyerly. >> we will go with your answer. admissible inever court. how about anonymous sources? when you were in the southern district, could you ever call an anonymous source to testify one of your proceedings? >> no. a. schu could not even use hearsay unless it was some exception.pted when i heard this morning even in some cases is quadruple hearsay. so, it would never.
a newspaper article would never, ever be admitted as evidence in a courtroom. so the system we respect went a few out of court if you came in armed with a newspaper article. but in the political process, that is enough. let me ask you this. cross-examination. why are you able to cross examine witnesses in trial? why do we have a right to confirm witnesses? >> it is an hour constitution. embed it. it is the crucible. >> the single best way to elucidate the truth. test, probe, challenge, test someone's personal exposure to the facts. cross-examination is the best tool we have. how do you cross examine an anonymous source? how do you cross examine hearsay? i hope that you go find every single witness that you need to
talk to and examine every single document. people are counting on you to and your line of work to find the facts. people are welcome to draw whatever conclusions they want from the facts. but when i hear the word "evidence" as i've heard a lot this morning. let me ask you doctor comey, are you familiar with any trial where someone might've said the light was red in another the light was green, has never happened? >> is why you have a trial. >> does whatever say the assailant was 510 and another says he was 62? reg sure. >> said that is evidence. footave evidence he is six two inches or evidence he is five foot 11 inches. he can't be both. the light cannot be read and green. "evidence" while
fancy in legal, the reality is you find facts and then the finder of the fact can draw conclusions and inferences from those facts. so i wish you luck as you begin this process. it is all important. the fact that someone may have had a line of questions about leaks does not mean they're not interested in all aspects of russia and vice versa. the fact they may not have asked questions about leaks doesn't mean they're not interested in them. you have jurisdiction over all of it. so god bless you as you go on this journey for the facts. and people can draw whatever conclusions they want. i hope that you will fill the vacuum that's created when y'all are not able to answer questions. with that i will yield back to the chairman.