tv At This Hour With Kate Bolduan CNN June 28, 2018 8:00am-9:00am PDT
and elevate the rule of law, which is what this committee should be doing and has been doing for the quarter century that i've served on it. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. gates, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, director wray, i am in violent agreement with the statements you made after the report was published that nothing in the report impugns the patriotic work of the fbi employees who are serving in my district and around the world and this mess in washington has nothing to do with them, and i want to make that very clear. i appreciate your statements on that subject. deputy director, the democratic memo that the president declassified says the department of justice accurately informed the court that the fbi initiated its counterintelligence investigation on july 31st, 2016, did any investigative activity regarding the trump campaign and russia occur before july 31st, 2016? >> congressman, as you know, we're dealing with the int intelligence committee on that
issue and chairman ununez met with director wray and me. i received the same briefing he received. i'm not able to produce any information beyond what the fbi has told me. so -- >> are you aware as you sit here today of any payments that were made to any person to collect intelligence on the trump campaign prior to july 31st? 2016? >> no, keep in mind i wasn't there, i only know the information we obtained from the fbi reports. >> are you as you sit here today aware of any efforts to contact roger stone that occurred prior to july 31st, 2016? >> i don't have any personal knowledge, but we're seeking to respond to chairman nunes' request. >> same question as it regards to michael caputo. >> i wasn't there. and so i can only answer questions that we directed to the fbi and have -- >> there now. have you asked the questions of anyone? >> we have absolutely conveyed all the questions that chairman nunes' raised and i'm optimistic
we're able to respond to him fairly soon. >> you could understand why it would be of tremendous importance to the country that if the department of justice has represented to a court that this investigation began on july 31st, and if the fact that you cannot tell me definitively that before july 31st there was not intelligence collected on the trump campaign that that is something of great interest to us. >> congressman, i think you should understand that there is nobody more committed to rooting out abuse and misconduct than i. we talked with the fbi. we take those allegations seriously and we look to find any credible evidence. if we find it, we'll produce it. >> let's do that quickly and get into your determination to find out that activity, which is occurring in your department. at the last hearing we had, i asked you when you became aware that -- was working for fusion gps and was assigned to the dossier that said all these nasty things about president
trump. do you know when you became first aware of that? >> i believe it would have been sometime in the fall of 2017 as i think i told you last time. mr. orr was never working to my knowledge on that russian investigation. >> his wife was, right? like, he's your assistant -- your associate deputy attorney general, and his wife gets hired for that. i actually -- i asked you this question on the 13th of december, i wrote you a letter on the 18th of december, nine months ago, you have not responded to it. we need a date when you found out that the wife of your deputy was working for people who are actively trying to undermine president trump? don't you think that's a really important date for you to know about your -- the spouse of your own associate deputy attorney general? >> yes, i think it is important for you to understand, congressman, mr. orr is a career employee of the department. he was there when i arrived. to my knowledge he wasn't working on the russian matter. >> i don't -- >> i think it is important for you to know, sir, when we learned the relevant information, we arranged to transfer mr. orr it a different
office. >> let's get to -- >> in addition to that -- >> i'm sorry, i got to reclaim my time, mr. rosenstein. the fisa renewal you signed list for me the people that briefed you on the substance of that fisa renewal to go spy on people. >> here is one thing important for you to understand, people can make all kinds of allegations publicly. i am quite confident about my conduct throughout this investigation. that matter is under review by the inspector general. we'll see what the inspector general finds. >> did you read the fisa application before you commented on it? you won't say whether or not you read the document you signed that authorized spying on people associated with the trump campaign? >> i dispute your characterization of what that fisa is about, sir. >> did you read it or not read it? >> i'll be happy to discuss the details with you, but as i toldtold told you -- >> did peter strzok brief you on it? >> no. >> did lisa page brief you on it? >> no.
no fbi personnel briefed me on it. the fisa applications and renewals first come up through the fbi chain of command, sworn under oath by a career federal agent. i'm not the -- >> you signed it. >> i'll explain the process to you. >> did you thoroughly review it, yes or no? >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> i would like to explain the process. director wray can explain it to you, sir. my responsibility at that time was to approve the filing of fisa applications because only three people in the department authorized to be the final signoff who at the time that the position was vacant. my responsibility to do that. i have fortunately been relieved of that responsibility. we sit down with a team of attorneys from the department of justice, all of whom review that, provide a briefing for us about that is in it, and so i review that one in some detail
and i can tell you, sir, the information that is public about that doesn't match with my understanding of the one that i signed. but i think it is appropriate to let the inspector general complete that investigation. these are serious allegations. and i don't do the investigation. i'm not the -- i'm reviewing the finished product, sir. >> are they investigating you? >> if they find i did something wrong, i'll respect that judgment, but i think it is highly unlikely, sir, given the way the process works. >> chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas, miss jackson lee, for five minutes. >> thank you very much. let me thank ranking member who remains on the floor. i know he's en route. i'm almost believing that i've just attended or i'm in midst of a monster ball. and we're looking for monsters wherever we can find them. as i was on the floor, as i was on the floor, i heard someone say, miss deputy attorney
general, they're interested in holding you in contempt. maybe they may be nullified by resolution that really has no real point to it, but this is the absurdity that we are dealing with in an investigation that has proceeded and i believe has concluded. let me ask you, to investigations on going in 2016, could you very briefly say what they were? to investigations roord regaega presidential candidates, what were those investigations? what was the investigation for -- >> i'm not going to comment on any investigation that may be ongoing. there is publicity about it. but i'm not going to comment on it. >> can you comment on the ig report? what was the ig report about? >> it is about a variety of misconduct that occurred in the fbi in 2016 and 2017. >> relating to --
>> relating to -- it is primarily focused on the hillary clinton e-mail investigation, but inspector general address a few other issues in that report as well. >> did that investigation come to a conclusion in 2016 to your knowledge? >> the hillary clinton e-mail investigation? >> yes. >> it did, based upon public reports. >> and based upon public reports, was it the department of justice satisfied with those -- the end of that investigation? >> congresswoman, same response to mr. gates, i wasn't there and i'm not the one to comment on whether or not people were surprised with the result. we all know what the result was. >> director wray, your agents were involved in the fbi investigation of the clinton e-mails. is that accurate? >> yes, obviously i was not there at the time. absolutely. >> you had a chance to review the inspector general's report. >> i have. >> and saw the fractions that were cited to the fbi? >> i'm sorry, the fractions? >> the fractions, the infractions. >> yes, yes. >> have you corrected or do you
have a comment on any of the infractions which you corrected? ie director speaking about an investigation without the president's or yielding to one of the prosecutors of the doj, such as what director comey did? >> well, congresswoman, i'm not going to add my own personal opinion on top of the inspector general's very thorough report. but we, as i said earlier, we do accept the findings that are in the report and the recommendations in it. and i -- >> what have you done with respect to the recommendation about the idea of a director of the fbi making such statements, going forward? >> so we have done a couple of things, one is that we have issued a new media policy, that is much more clear, so we ensure that people follow our policies. we have also directed people to make sure that they're adhering to doj policies about commenting on ongoing investigations and
specifically about uncharged conduct. >> from the law enforcement perspective, which is what your arm is? >> correct. we're not the prosecutors. >> thank you. >> do you have any comment on the suggestion that one of your offices delayed in investigating the weiner laptop? do you think that was done to undermine the investigation? >> well, congresswoman, again, i think rather than substitute my characterization for the inspector general's, which is very detailed, i would just say that my read of the inspector general's report is that he found that there were delays, as a result of a number of factors, and we're taking steps to make sure that going forward as i said into my opening comments that we structure staff and supervise sensitive investigations in an appropriate way so we don't repeat any of the mistakes that are affected. >> looking back, do you think that impeded or impacted on the
final conclusion of the clinton e-mail investigation. >> my understanding of it is that he found that there was no political bias ultimately impacting the investigation that he reviewed. >> mr. attorney general, do you believe as donald trump indicated that the investigation of which you have read, the inspector general's report, has vindicated mr. trump as it relates to collusion with russian agents as he indicated? or is the investigation ongoing? >> there is an ongoing investigation, yes. >> and it has not concluded, correct? no conclusion has been made on any aspect of the investigation? >> there have been several charges filed and so you're familiar with those. >> correct. >> i'm with -- >> it is ongoing. thank you, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the russia investigation has
been going on for almost two years now. special counsel's investigation has been going on for over a year now. for most americans it is important to know what russia did to our country in 2016 and with whom if anyone they did it. when a foreign state interferes with our democratic electoral process, it should be chance of a lifetime for law enforcement agent to investigate that. except, apparently, the one that was actually picked to investigate it. that was peter strzok. fbi agenter peter strzok was picked to lead the fbi's investigation into what russia did in july of 2016. it was a counterintelligence investigation begun in late july 2016 and he was leading it and about the exact same time he was picked to lead it, this dispassionate and fair fbi agent was calling trump a disaster, destabilizing for the country,
i'll leave out all of the f adjectives he used to describe that. i'll go with disaster and destabilizing. same time his fbi lawyer girlfriend lisa page was telling him he was meant to protect the country, this neutral dispassionate fbi agent said i can protect the country at many levels. same time peter strzok who was picked to objectively, fairly, neutrally look into the russia investigation was talking about an insurance policy with andy mccabe and lisa page in the event donald trump became the president. all of this was happening at the same time peter strzok said he could smell the trump support in southern virginia. all of this was at the same time that this fbi agent said, a trump presidency would be f'ing terrifying and that it will never happen, no, no, we'll stop
it. so while investigating russia and their intent to subvert our democracy may have been important to the rest of the country, it wasn't all that important to half a dozen fbi agents and lawyers who were assigned to the case. for them it was an investigation to stop donald trump, which then brings us to may 2017, in appointment of the special counsel, where we find peter strzok again, the same -- supposed to be dispassionate, neutral fair fbi agent, you would think he would be really excited about investigating what a foreign power tried to do to this country. but you would be wrong again for peter strzok and precisely the same time that bob mueller was appointed, precisely the same time, peter strzok was talking about his unfinished business and how he needed to fix and finish it, so donald trump did not become president. he was talking about impeachment within three days of special counsel mueller being appointed. three days. that's even quicker than msnbc
and the democrats were talking about impeaching. within three days. the lead fbi agent is talking about impeaching the president. so this is where we are. two years into this investigation. a year and a half into the presidency. we're over a year into special counsel. you have a counterintelligence investigation that has become public. you have a criminal investigation that has become political. you have more bias than i have ever seen manifest in a law enforcement officer in the 20 years i used to do it for a living, and four other doj employees who had manifest animus toward the person they were supposed to be neutrally and detachedly investigating. democrats are using this investigation as a presumption of guilt, which i find astonishing in the long run for the health of this republic and encourage them to go back to the presumption of innocence that we used to hold sacred. there is a presumption of guilt. there is a desire to fund-raise
off of your investigation. more than 60 democrats have already voted to proceed with impeachment before bob mueller has found a single solitary damn thing. more than 60 have voted to move forward with impeachment. and he hasn't presented his first finding. so i'll say this to you, mr. wray, mr. rosenstein, i realize neither one of you were there when this happened, but you're both there now. russia attacked this country. they should be the target. but russia isn't being heard by this investigation right now. we are. this country is being hurt by it. we are being divided. we have seen the bias. we have seen the bias. we need to see the evidence. if you have evidence of wrongdoing by any member of the trump campaign, presented to the damn grand jury. if you have evidence that this president acted inappropriately, present it to the american people. there is an old saying that
justice delayed is just denied. i think right now all of us are being denied. whatever you got, finish it the hell up because this country is being torn apart. i would yield back, mr. chairman. >> either of the witnesses care to respond? >> i would respond i certainly share your views about those text messages and nobody is more offended than i about what is reflected in those messages. with regard to the investigation, i've heard suggestions that we should just close the investigation. i think the best thing we can do is finish it appropriately, and reach a conclusion. i certainly agree with you, sir, that people should not jump to conclusions about seeing the evidence. i've been the victim of fake news attacks myself. i'm sympathetic. i agree with you. there has been no allegation made by the department of justice or the special counsel other than what is reflected in
those documents that are filed publicly, the charged folks. and nobody should draw any conclusions beyond those charges. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, for five minutes. >> thank you. director wray, mr. rosenstein, was peter strzok the head of any of those investigations? >> well, congressman, i don't know i would characterize him as the head of any of the investigations, certainly he played a significant role in the investigations that are described in the inspector general's report. but there was a supervisory chain and as the inspector general found there were a number of people involved in that chain. above him. >> and i know you have spoken about the investigator general's report, very thorough and you accepted it. it came to the conclusion while he may have had biases, none of his biases played a role in their actions or conclusions. is that correct?
>> well, again, i would defer to the inspector general's own characterization of his very thorough investigation. but my understanding of it is that he found no evidence of political bias actually impacting the investigation that he reviewed. >> what we all had was some talk between friends, maybe lovers, and it was just talk, but no policy and no action to bring about our effectuate any of their beliefs, correct? >> well, again, i don't know i want to start characterizing their text messages, i expect all our folks to conduct themselves professionally at all times and the other reason i want to be careful about straying too far is that as i said in my opening, we have referred a number of individuals whose conduct is highlighted in the report to our office of professional responsibility and my commitment to doing things by the book includes making sure our disciplinary process is done by the book and having the director comment on their conduct in this setting is
probably not conducive to that. >> thank you, sir. am i correct that each of you were appointed by president trump? is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> yes. >> and who appointed the special counsel? >> i did. >> and you were appointed by president trump? >> correct. >> now president trump talks about 13 democrats running this investigation. do you know who he is speaking about and if there is any way that the justice department or president trump knows if these people are democrats, republicans, libertarians, bolsheviks? >> you have to ask him, sir, i do in the know. >> you don't know if they're democrats? >> i do not. i do not know their political registration, no, sir. >> director wray, do you know any of these people's political registrations? >> i'm not familiar with their political registration, no. >> thank you. this report, the special counsel has gone on for a long time. could that because there is so
much information and so many issues that have arisen from his investigation that it is impossible to just turn it off? is that possible? >> i do not think you should draw any inference. i do not think as these sort of investigations go it has been going on for a long time and i can assure you that director mueller understands that i want him to conclude it as expeditiously as possible. >> has anybody ever accused director mueller, especially counsel mueller, excuse me, of being dilatory, lazy, slow? >> i certainly haven't, sir. i don't know what other allegations people make, but i certainly do not view that as accurate. >> director wray, do you know special counsel mueller's representation for promptly doing his work and proceeding in a diligent passion? >> my own experience and familiarity with director
mueller is that none of those adjectives would describe to much of anything he's done in his career for this country. >> director mueller, as i remember, volunteered to join the marines in vietnam. got a purple heart and had other commendations. is that what you understand too? >> yes, sir. >> and then when he came back, he went to law school and he went to work for justice, he could have gone to wall street and made a lot of money. in fact, he went into private practice for a while but didn't like it and came back because he wanted to prosecute criminals, is that correct? >> well, i don't know his motivation, but i know he's devoted much of his career to public service and has foregone more lucrative opportunities. >> he prosecuted manuel nor yie, did he not? >> i'm not sure -- i think he was in a management position. i think that's correct. >> and john gotti? >> i don't know the answer to that, sir.
>> he's gone after big fish. let me ask you to promise me something. will you promise me and the american people that no matter what pressure is brought about and brought on you by whom ever, that you will stay in your position and finish the job and do what you are appointed to do and what the american people need you to do? >> congressman, in the department of justice, we're accustomed to criticism, and it does not affect our work. >> congressman, as i said repeatedly, i am committed to doing this job by the book in all respects, and there is no amount of political pressure that is going to dissuade me from that by either side. >> thank you. i find you and each of you and special counsel mueller as paragons and people who should be revered and not torn down and people who tear them down -- >> time of the gentlemen -- >> tear down the flag and -- i hope the constitution is respected. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from ohio, mr.
jorden. >> mr. rosenstein, why are you keeping information from congress? >> congressman, i am not keeping any information from congress. >> in a few moments, i think the house of representatives is going to say something different. >> i don't agree with you, congressman. i don't believe that's what they're going to say. >> i think in a few minutes the house of representatives is going to go on record saying you haven't complied with requests from a separate and equal branch of government, that you haven't complied with subpoenas and you got seven days to get your act together. i think that's what's going to happen -- that's not just jim jordan. i think that's a majority of the house of representatives in just a few minutes, i think that's going to happen. i want to know why you won't give us what we asked for. >> i hope your colleagues are not under that impression. that is not accurate, sir. >> it is accurate. we have caught you hiding -- >> mr. chairman, can we allow this witness to answer? >> we can go to mr. jordan's press conference to hear from him, but we are hear to listen
to the witness. can we allow him to answer? allow him to answer. >> he will be permitted to answer. >> why do we have them here -- >> why are they not allowed to answer. >> the gentleman is out of order. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> i would like to answer -- >> one point -- >> caught hiding information, and then you can answer. why did you hide the fact that peter strzok and george contreras was friends. the judge that heard mike flynn's case, why did you try to hide that from us? >> i appreciate you giving me the opportunity to respond, i heard you make those sort of allegations publicly on tv -- >> i got them right here. >> mr. chairman, he should be given the opportunity -- >> mr. jordan, i am the deputy attorney general of the united states. okay. i'm not the person doing the redacting. i'm responsible for responding to your concerns as i have.
i is have a team wihave a team . i have taken appropriate steps to remedy them. your statement that i'm personally keeping information from you, trying to conceal information -- >> you're the boss, mr. rosenstein. >> that's correct. and my job is to make sure that we respond to your concerns. we have, sir. and i have appointed mr. laush, managing that production, and my understanding is that it is going very well, sir. so i appreciate your concerns. >> i think the house of representatives will say otherwise. >> you're use of this to attack me personally is wrong. >> may the witness be permitted to -- >> it is not personal. the gentleman will suspend. the witness will have an opportunity to say whatever he wants at the end of his five minutes. >> i appreciate your service. it is not personal. why did you tell peter strzok not to answer our questions yesterday. when i asked peter strzok if he ever communicated with glenn simpson, he gave us the answer, he gave us dozens of times, on advice of fbi counsel, i can't answer that question. why couldn't he answer that question? >> i appreciate your sincere concerns, but i didn't give
peter strzok any instructions. if there was some problem with the instructions he had, i'll be happy to look into it. >> not what his fbi lawyer said. >> when you find some problem with the production or with questions, it doesn't mean i'm personally trying to conceal something from you. it means we're running an organization that is trying to follow the rules, and we're going to -- >> it is interesting, when i asked him if he would talk to bruce orr, he said he had. three times in 2016 and 2017. then skied h ei asked him, have talked to nelly orr. he said, no, he hadn't. he could answer that question, but he couldn't answer because fbi counsel told him he couldn't, he countldn't answer e question if he ever communicated with glenn simpson, a journalist. why couldn't he answer that question? >> i appreciate you saying it isn't person. sometimes it feels that way. how do i know, sir? you interviewed mr. strzok, i didn't. >> works for you. doesn't work for us. >> there are 115,000 people who work for me, sir. >> mr. rosenstein, did you
threaten staffers on the house intelligence committee, media reports indicate you did. >> media reports are mistaken. >> sometimes. this is what they said, having the nation's number one law enforcement officer threaten to subpoena your calls and e-mails is downright chilling. did you threaten to subpoena their calls and e-mails? >> no, sir. there is no way to subpoena phone calls. >> i mean, i'm just saying -- >> i'm just saying. i'm reading what the press said. >> i would suggest you not rely on what the press says, sir. >> i didn't ask if there was no way to do it. i asked if you said it. >> if i said what? >> what i just read you? >> no, i did not. >> who are we supposed to believe? staff members who we worked with, who never misled us, or you guys who we caught hiding information from us, who tell a witness not to answer our questions, who are we supposed to believe? >> thank you for making clear it is not personal, mr. jordan. >> i didn't -- i'm saying the department of justice -- >> i'm telling the truth and i'm under oath, if you want to put somebody else under oath and they have something else --
>> i know the staff members. here is my last question. what is so important that you know that you don't want us to know that you won't give us the documents we're asking for that the house of representatives is about ready to go on record saying you should give us what is so darn important you will threaten members? what is so important, mr. rosenstein? >> inquiry, mr. chairman. >> this is not an appropriate time for parliamentary inquiry. >> point of order. it will be the republicans who continue to -- >> that is not an appropriate point of order. >> he needs to be corrected. >> the time of the gentleman -- the gentlewoman will suspend. the time of the gentleman from ohio will be restored for additional 15 seconds and then the deputy attorney general will be allowed to respond. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do appreciate your work, but i also appreciate if the house of
representatives could get the information we have repeatedly -- mr. gowdy talked about how long this investigation is going on, how long there has been a special counsel. we started for asking for information in july of last year and some of that is still not given -- still has not been given to the congress. still has not been given to this committee, the committee charged with -- the judiciary committee. i appreciate what you do. i just want the information and we're so frustrated that there is now a resolution on the floor of the house and in just a few minutes that will be voted on. >> the time the gentleman has expired. mr. rosenstein will be allowed to respond. >> i don't have any control over what resolutions you vote on, sir. >> i know that. >> the time is the attorney general's. >> if you're interested in the truth, mr. jordan, the truth is, we have a team of folks, trump appointees and career folks and they're doing their best to produce these documents. director wray explained to you the process. he has hundreds of people working around the clock trying to satisfy the requests. whether you vote or not, is not going to affect it. you're going to get everything that is relevant that we can find and produce to you. i support this report. i'm not trying to hide anything
from you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. >> oh. okay. all right. thank you. i appreciate your service. i've been impressed with your diligence and your honesty and your integrity in this very difficult environment that we find ourselves in. and basically it is a situation where the majority is hurting this country. we're hurting our country with what we're doing today. what we're doing today is holding an emergency hearing. so-called emergency hearing based on allegations that political influence or political bias within the fbi in the doj has somehow led to a illegitimate result in the
hillary clinton e-mail investigation. that is an investigation that was conducted originally. it was conducted by the fbi, doj, no criminal charges filed. investigation closed. then there was a -- an inspector general's investigation of that investigation. those reports, that report was issued last week it found there was no wrongdoing in the investigation of the investigation. and now today we have an investigation of the investigation of the investigation. it is an emergency situation. also, a part of this hearing is an attempt to investigate the ongoing criminal investigation
into the allegations and indications of collusion and perhaps conspiracy with russians in the conducting of the 2016 presidential election. and what the republicans are trying to do is force the fbi and doj to turn over to this committee, investigating the investigators, information, documents that go to the heart of the criminal investigation. it has been my experience that the criminal investigators never turn over information, they're never even asked to turn over information in an ongoing criminal investigation. can you both comment on the uniqueness of what is happening today and the danger that it poses to justice in this country? >> congressman, i don't believe it poses any danger. we're not going to produce any documents that will interfere
with ongoing investigations. as i said, in response to mr. jordan's question, we are producing the documents. it is a large volume of documents, taking a lot of time. as i said, we brought in mr. laush, we changed the process. i think in reality it is working quite well. and whatever anybody votes on is beyond my control. >> well, go ahead. >> congressman, we are committed to being responsive to legitimate congressional oversight. we're trying our hardest to produce documents as quickly as we possibly can and as completely as we possibly can. we also have an obligation to protect ongoing criminal and counterintelligence investigations. we also have an obligation to respect grand jury secrecy. we also have an obligation to protect sources and methods. and we're sworn to do those things just like we are to protect and be responsive to congressional oversight. and the inspector general's
report, ironically, the report that we're here to talk about, is very pointed on the subject as one of the principled failings that it found was commenting on an ongoing investigation publicly and with congress. so we take those lessons very seriously. we're trying to learn those lessons. >> director wray, threatening you with a subpoena, threatening you with contempt of congress for noncompliance with a congressional subpoena put you in a bad position, doesn't it? >> certainly. when i was minding my own business in private practice in atlanta, i didn't think i was going to be spending first ten months of my job staring down the barrel of a contempt citation for a conduct that occurred long before i even thought about being fbi director. having said that, i am committed to making sure that we're responsive to these committees. and to the extent we can do better we're trying to do
better. at the same time, in my experience, there are two principles that have to be balanced. responsiveness to congressional oversight, which is very important to me personally, but also respecting ongoing criminal investigations is also very important. >> and there is certain information that you cannot provide to this committee based on the ongoing nature of the criminal investigation. is that correct? >> yes. >> time of the gentleman has expired. the committee will stand in recess. there is seven -- 6:45 remaining on the vote on the floor and we'll reconvene as soon as that vote concludes. >> all right. kate bolduan here. you've been watching along with me this house committee hearing with the director of the fbi and the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. and a man we have seen a lot already. let me bring in now, josh campbell, former supervisory agent at the fbi, nia malika
henderson, and evan perez, cnn's justice correspondent. evan, i just sent this out as we were watching this whole thing play, there is not even a pretense of decorum anymore. it is straight up hostile between -- just look at jim jordan and the deputy attorney general. i know jim jordan said it wasn't personal but it is hard to think it wasn't. >> you cannot help but think it is personal because here we have the deputy attorney general who is a republican, who is life long republican, who is appointed by president trump, he's, you know, someone who is according to him, trying his best to address the concerns of the members of congress and, by the way, he revealed during his testimony there that they produced 880,000 pages of documents, they got 100 staffers, also brought in, a u.s. attorney to oversee the
production of these documents. and he's also saying that they're trying to do this while trying to make sure that it doesn't affect or hurt the ongoing investigation that is being handled by bob mueller. so there is a lot of information that is being given to congress. it is not being done apparently fast enough to the liking of jim jordan and trey gowdy and some of the other members of congress. what really struck me, kate, was christopher wray who is also a trump appointee, telling them that they -- that he's trying to do things as quickly as possible, produce a document, but he also said that he's trying to do everything by the book, which is not a word that they're going to like, right? they want these documents just handed over and he's saying that despite the pressure to go around the process that the fbi normally uses this is the time he wants to stick by that -- by the policies. and i also -- the exchange with trey gowdy was really stunning, kate, because -- >> just point of order, my
friend, it wasn't much of an exchange. it was trey gowdy giving his monologue. >> it was a monologue and he was railing against the idea that there is a presumption of guilt by the democrats against the sitting president trump with regard to the russia collusion investigation and also the idea that democrats might be fund-raising off the investigation. but let me just remind you, trey gowdy oversaw the benghazi investigation, and you can just use your google to go back and look at clips of trey gowdy and other republicans who had a presumption of guilt about hillary clinton. they said that not only was she mishandling the security of the personnel there, they -- that hillary clinton issued a stand-down order so that americans who are under attack by terrorists were killed because they did not receive the proper help. and he also during that same time even during the current investigation, president trump and the rnc have been sending out a fund-raising appeal because of what they say is a
witch-hunt. so, look, i think we know what happens during these hearings, but it is kind of -- to watch members of congress to say the things they say. >> i do want to drill down, i want to drill down. josh, help me out on this one. what jim jordan and rod rosenstein were going back and forth about. this gets to -- there are many elements of this, right? it all kind of centers around the russia investigation, the origins of it, and that's what this gets to. jim jordan says, we have the sound pulled, i'll play it for you again, why are you keeping information from congress? and rod rosenstein threw out, said that is not accurate. we are not hiding information from you. i think we actually have it reracked. let's play this for you guys. >> -- congress. >> congressman, i'm not keeping any information from congress that it is -- >> in a few minutes, mr. rosenstein, i think the house of representatives is going to say something different. >> i don't agree with you, congressman.
i don't believe that's what they're going to say and if they do -- >> i disagree. i think in a few minutes the house of representatives is going to go on record saying you haven't complied with requests from a separate and equal branch of government, and that you haven't complied with subpoenas, and you got seven days to get your act together. i think that's what's going to happen -- that's not jim jordan. i think that's a majority of the house of representatives in a few minutes, i think that's going to happen. i don't know why you won't give us what we asked for. >> i hope your colleagues are not -- >> that was just the beginning of it, josh. >> it was very interesting. the one thing that may have been missed there is, you know, jordan was interrupting the deputy attorney general. if you listen to what rosenstein said, he said we have been responsive in providing you everything that is appropriate for you to receive. it is that key piece of information, because as you look at the norms that we have long operated here with our department of justice, congressional oversight is obviously incredibly important. going back to chairman goodlatte where he referenced the famous church hearings from the 1970s,
looking into righteous, you know, actual abuses of power by the intelligence community. so no one questions that congress is doing its job. the issue here and wear going to see this play out the rest of today, what is the in sks to which congress is entitled. the fbi, the department of justice is saying, look, we're going to provide you with information as part of your oversight duties, but the sources and methods are things long been protected. that's the showdown. it looks like the fbi, the doj is going farther than they have been. i don't think we're going to see congress completely satisfied because the crux of what they're looking at is something that the fbi and doj as of now are not willing to hand over. >> and nia, on this issue, on what the whole thing was about between jim jordan and rod rosenstein, do we know what they are really looking for? as evan laid out, the documents have been produced, a lot of them obviously the american public can't see. but do we know what republicans
are looking for? >> i don't know that we do. it is clearly an exercise that republicans are engaging in trying to paint this investigation as wrong, too wide ranging as rosenstein possibly holding information. it is not clear if it is a political gamesmanship here, but if you look at what jim jordan was saying, he was saying also he feels like that the vo investigators aren't respecting co-equal branches. is it actually right to give information during an ongoing criminal investigation, is that something that would normally happen? and rosenstein answered that. and was also i think interesting about the role that the democrats are playing here, we saw what the republicans were doing, you saw cohen there, steve cohen, represented from tennessee, really trying to rehabilitate mueller's reputation. they must be reading the same polls we are, which shows that mueller's reputation has taken a
beating primarily because trump keeps hammering on him and hammering on the investigation, calling it a witch-hunt. there was steve cohen there basically saying, didn't bob mueller volunteer for vietnam? didn't he go after notorious bad guys in his career? didn't he forgo a very lucrative career to do public service instead? that was also an interesting dynamic. this is as you said incredibly partisan. gowdy complaining that it was -- the investigation or the investigators were biased and then i think showing that he was biased too in many ways in that exchange about, can't you hurry up and get this done? the american public wants to see what the results are. and evan made this point, my good in the benghazi investigation, i think, took two and a half years, something like $8 million. so that was really rich to hear that from trey gowdy. >> let me just add real quick, i think you heard from a couple of members of congress, this idea that they wanted the fbi and the
justice department to tell them whether the fbi was doing some investigative work on this russia collusion and whether or not on people connected to the trump campaign before july of 2016, right? you heard that a couple of times and i think what they believe is that there is some secret documents that the fbi is refusing to turn over that may show that this investigation was started off from, you know, from some place that was very, very bad, and frankly the fbi did not have a right to be doing what it had to be -- what it was doing. so i'm not sure they're ever going to get satisfied because, you know, there is a -- this began with a counterintelligence investigation, and, you know this is what the fbi does. they do investigate things, check things out and then they formally open an investigation when they think they have enough. and so i'm not sure that the members are ever going to be satisfied with that. >> no, and let me jump over to manu raju. we lost manu. we'll get to manu when we can.
the point i was going to make, evan, they're never going to see eye to eye on this. it all -- all that you need to know is what you're laying out with members of congress, what members of congress are asking for and they think the beginnings of this russian investigation were faulty or biased. and then you hear rod rosenstein say, what we see coming out of the inspector general's report and they're trubld oubled by tht messages, says the result of that, the best result of that is to let bob mueller do his job and let him finish the investigation, bring it to its appropriate conclusion and he says that's what he's told bob mueller he thishould do. >> right. keep in mind there san election coming up in a few months. for members of congress, a lot of members, there is another concern they have, which is that if the democrats take control of the house, they're going to lose their subpoena power, no longer going to be in control and so some of the questions that they have, they're afraid may not be
answered because the democrats are not going to be as interested in sending subpoenas and really holding the feet of the attorney general and the fbi director holding their feet to the fire on this issue. i think that's a fair assessment on their part. we don't know how the election turns out. but there is -- it does appear that some of these members are in a hurry because they're fraid of what might happen in november, whether that changes anything or not, we don't know. >> well, it seems it is not changing -- go ahead, josh. >> i was going to say, on that point, this is pure politics. we try to call balls and strikes and see thinz dogs down the mid here. this is the height of hypocrisy. the democrats and msnbc, they have invoked them saying they're prejudging impeachment, but they're prejudging a counterintelligence investigation that is not even complete yet. so one would ask themselves, why are they doing that? it is all politics and this election that is fast
approaching, they have to get something done. >> we have manu raju now who is on capitol hill, talking to lawmakers about the testimony. manu, what is anywhetheir react what we watched play out? >> reporter: well, the hallways are absolutely on fire, kate. republicans and democrats have a complete opposite reaction about what they heard. democrats in particular going after the republicans for what they believe is all an effort to undermine the justice department, all in an effort to undermine the fbi and undermine the mueller investigation. eric swalwell, one of the democrats who interrupted that feisty back and forth between jim jordan, rod rosenstein, said that this clearly is all an attempt to kneecap mueller and try to put the government on trial. and the republicans say they are just not buying anything that rod rosenstein is saying, no matter what him and director wray are saying about the number
of documents that have been turned over. they say that is simply not enough. moments from now we're expecting the house to vote on a resolution, calling for these documents to be turned over to the hill by july 6th and if that deadline is not met to the satisfaction of the republicans, that's when we should expect some next steps, potentially to hold rod rosenstein in contempt, which you be a symbolic measure, not necessarily forcing him to do anything, to be protracted fight, but nevertheless, that's what some democrats believe is a pretext to give the president some cover to fire rod rosenstein or at least force rod rosenstein to step aside from overseeing the mueller investigation, all playing out here in the halls of congress and just moments ago too, kate, rod rosenstein left this committee room, just next to me, tried to ask him, he felt that republicans are treating him fairly, he smiled and walked away. so we'll see how the rest of this afternoon goes, but expect more contentious line of
questioning as he's not satisfied republicans and democrats are i'm looking on the monitor, manu. i've got the house floor and i'm looking at the vote as it's playing out now. they haven't gavelled yet, but right now it's 213 to 170. it's likely the legislation will be agreed to. all you need is a majority of republicans. i guess there are some republicans who might presently not vote, who knows. again, what's the point of the resolution again? i just want to make clear, didn't rod rosenstein say they're working on getting them the documents? >> this has been the dispute that's been going on for months. the doj has been saying very clearly they're providing these documents. the director is saying there are 100 employees that are working around the clock to get these documents over, hundreds of thousands have been turned over, but republicans just believe
they have not gotten the right documents, they believe the documents have not been responsive, they believe they've been overly redacted and they let out more requests for information, more requests for these so-called informants that were used during the obama administration, and his words, to spy on the trump campaign even though there's been no evidence to substantiate that yet. he's demand ing a lot of record in regards for that. and democrats asking for va surveillance done on trump associates, and they haven't been satisfied with that yet. even though a lot of records that be turned over, republicans are saying that's not enough, and the democrats are saying this is moving the goalpost to attempt to undercut the mueller investigation. >> again, the mueller investigation about russia, about russian meddling on the same day the president decides to tweet, russia continues to say they had nothing to do with
meddling in our election. this is where we are today, america. the chance to reshape the supreme court for a generation not stopping president trump from attacking the mueller investigation. his new attacks on the russian probe, what i just said to you, and all of this comes ahead of the summit between president trump and vladimir putin. that's next.
president trump on the road but on twitter still. he seems to be defending vladimir putin this morning. take a look at the tweet and you be the judge. russia. russia continues to say they had nothing to do with meddling in our election. that flies in the face that everybody says, that's what they all found and that's what they all say. the new york post announced that vladimir putin and president
trump will be meeting july 24th in switzerland. we have boris sanchez who is taking part in a groundbreaking plant being open in wisconsin. >> president trump in wisconsin, going to fundraisers before making his way to this groundbreaking plant. he is expected to tout to voters about the election he won, beating hillary clinton. he may comment on some of that testimony that we just saw from fbi director christopher wray and deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. further, he can talk about the retirement of justice kennedy and the implications of that retirement from the white house. of course, the president could also talk about the russia investigation of the as you noted, he did on twitter this morning. here's some other tweets he sent out writing about bob mueller,
listing his conflicts of interest, also asking, what about the 13 angry democrats? will they list their conflicts with crooked h? how many will be sent to jail on totally unrelated charges? the president going further and suggesting that there is a deep state within the fbi and the department of justice. all of that against the backdrop of the announcement that president trump will meet with president vladimir putin in mid-july. >> thank you very much. we'll wait and see. joining me now, christiane amanpour. christiane, you have the tweet from president trump. back to where we began with him when it comes to russian meddling, it seems. but additionally, you have this new reporting. eli elise lavitt reporting that nato is as bad as nafta.
he. >> what the allies absolutely cannot afford and do not want is for president trump to disrupt a nato summit so short afl ter he did the g-7 summit. in other words, not backing the alliance, pulling out of the summit, insulting the host. and showing his anxiety to the allies, to the alliance, to the bedrock of u.s. foreign policy and to the global rules-based world order. so this is really important for the nato alliance to make sure that they have a successful summit with president trump next month. i spoke to the deputy secretary of state, john sullivan, about this very point, and particularly in light of the meeting with putin, and we can talk about that in a second. but here's what secretary sullivan says about the nato summit. >> we're very open with our nato allies, our eu colleagues on the preparations for the nato
summit. it's obviously high on our agenda, a successful nato summit, where our allies will hear directly from the president, his views on these important issues, reaffirming our commitment to nato, to our nato allies, to our nato treaty obligations which have been a bedrock principle of u.s. foreign policy in the post-war era. we're looking forward to a successful nato summit, i know the president is, and we'll discuss this with our nato allies and other ally kohl leagues, and we're looking forward to it. >> so that should be music to the alliance's ears. but they all know that president trump is very transactional. he's bound to berate them again about the two percentage points of gdp they should be paying toward their nato budget, their military budget. and, you know, they were concerned about the trump-putin meeting. probably better for them that it's happening after the nato
summit, because then they can sort of, you know, sort of brief president trump as to what's important to them before he goes to meet with putin, because we know that putin likes to see president trump, you know, sort of roil up the alliance and likes to see the alliance weakened in any form possible, so they're very concerned about that. and to that meeting, again, secretary sullivan was quite clear about crimea. you know president trump said, well, perhaps russia should have crimea. after all, they've done all this, et cetera, and russia should be readmitted to the g-8. well, sullivan says that we will not surrender our principles, that we believe crimea is part of a democratic and independent and free ukraine. so we'll see which side wins. >> yeah. president trump or, it seems, the rest of the government? do you think there needs to be an agenda for the meeting? john bolton says there is. do you think there needs to be an agenda or just sitting down is worth it? >> i bet there is an agenda. the question is how successful
it will be. you've seen a state department reporting and others that there is some kind of quid pro quo that president trump wants to carve out with president putin over syria. whether or not that's workable, manageable, we'll have to see. but also beyond that, obviously president trump is a believer in the meeting principle of foreign policy. he did it with kim jong-un. we still don't know exactly the substance of what's come out of that or what might come out of that, and we're not sure of the substance of what might come out of the meeting with putin. but it's very clear to the allies that they don't want putin to be any further emboldened to interfere in the western alliance, in the western democracies and in the solidarity amongst the allies. >> christiane, thank you very much. and thank you for joining me in this wild hour. "inside politics" with john king starts right now.