tv CNN Newsroom With Brooke Baldwin CNN July 12, 2018 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
circumstanc circumstance. you know how much the president like this kind of things and you would not think this is enough. >> no. >> you don't think it is enough? >> no, it is perfect amount. i have never seen guests in black ties lining up like that in front of the palace and watch as well. foreign leaders learned this is what donald trump likes. they'll see the queen tomorrow and arriving at windsor. when he was there, the queen road horses with him. tomorrow donald trump loves p loves -- whatever he likes to do and this is certainly feels very official everyone though it is a working visit. it is so fascinating and the first lady is there as well standing by with philly may of
the two spouses. we were in brussels a couple of days ago -- >> they arrive together but they split apart to the spousal dinner. exactly. melania trump went into a dinner with the spouses and partner and the president went into a dinner to work with other leaders. they took that opportunity to work at the cocktail party. so certainly there were a bunch of different countries and the focus is not specifically on the president as it is here too much right now. and the focus to the great extent on the first lady and you know the people are wondering and are going to ask, who is she wearing? >> i am here to tell you. she's wearing you, it is a jay mendel gown. it looks custom to me. she's wearing a matching pump
underneath. her fashion diplomacy, she uses this moment to reflect the whole country and of course, look appropriate. she studies these things and she packages a suitcase for each of this. >> i want to know, theresa may's spouse seems to be a double breasted tux. >> he bought a new suit for the occasion. >> i loved that. that's interesting and charming of him to say. he knows the focus he gets. he went out and bought a new suit. do we know which kind? >> we don't. >> yesterday macron has learned to hear her highest heels when she stand up to melania trump. later on she changed to a smaller heels. >> as we have you here and
watching this, we talked about what theresa may may want to get out of this and how precarious for her. is this a no win for her? >> it is going to be tough for her. she knows the political endorsement from donald trump is something that's not universally popular with the british public. donald trump does have an alternative political network. she has got relationships with the likes of boris johnson and so he'll have an alternative narrative to the prime minister that's going to present to him. that makes it doubly hard for theresa may and that repeats of the three-way debate she's in. >> it will be a nervous day for her. >> given everything that's going on now. we want to go back to washington with the house hearing with peter strzok.
you were successful in arresting and prosecuting numerous individuals for espionage and other crimes against the united states of america, is that correct? >> me as part of a large number of competent talented, folks, yes. >> sir. you gained a great deal of intelligence about russians spying activities, their methods and sources as they operate in the united states and in other ally nations, is that correct? >> certainly true in the united states and you use your skills to keep america safe. >> i have, it is my proud duty to have done so. >> there is a lot more to your career than a few e-mails and
text messages. >> absolutely, sir. >> to boil it down to that is a disservice to you. i think as opposed to the republicans here being so desperate to find a way to december credit the mueller investigation by discrediting you as a person, i think rather than they are doing that, we should be honoring you for the work that you have done over the last 22 years to keep this nation safe and this hearing is a reckless abuse and misuse of congressional authority. i am looking forward to republicans finishing the hell up with this damn peter strzok's text message investigation. >> with that, i yield back. >> mr. strzok, you said earlier in the hearing you were concerned of a hostile foreign
power affecting our election. you recall the intelligence committee inspector general chuck mccollough having an investigation into hillary clinton's e-mails. >> i do not. >> the intelligence community chuck mccollough sent the investigation along with an ig attorney jeanette mcmilan to brief you and dean chappelle and two other fbi personnels that i won't name at this time about an anomaly they have found on hillary clinton's e-mails that were going to and from the private unauthorized server that you were supposed to be investigating. now do you remember it? >> i remember meeting mr. rucker on either one or two occasions.
i do not remember the specific contents or discussions. >> i will help you with that, too. mr. rucker reported to those of you, the four of you there and in the presence of icig attorney. that they found this anomaly on hillary clinton's e-mail going through the private server and when they done the forensic analysis, they found that her e-mails, every single one except for over 30,000 of them were going to an address that was not on the distribution list. it was a compartmentalize bit of information that was sending to an unauthorized source. do you recall that? >> sir, i don't. >> you went onto explained it and you didn't say anything and
you thanked him and shook his hand. the problem was. it was going to an unauthorized source that it was a foreign entity unrelated to russia and what you said here you did not shake the man's hand when you did not seem to be all that concerned of our national integrity of our election when it was involving hillary clinton. the examination was done by icig, let me document that you were given that information and you did nothing with it. one of the things that i found most -- he never returned the
call. he had 500 pages of bias that he gave us and he threw a bone to the democrats and he said well, we can't find bias. the way you do and saying what you did, you have been better off, that was my bias and you kind of get around that when you say everybody got political views. those are called biases and we all have them. you have come in here and said i have no bias. you do it with a straight face and i watched you in the private testimony you gave and i told some of the other guys, he's really good, he's lying and we know he's lying and he can probably pass the polygraph. >> mr. chairman --
>> no, this is my time. >> this point of order. >> the gentleman will state this order. >> this witness is under oath and a former agent of the fbi. there is no evidence of lies. >> he's not a member of congress. >> gentleman from rhode island is suspend. >> now the disgrace -- and what this man have done. >> the gentleman from texas will suspend for a moment. >> there is a disgrace and it we don't want be captured any time soon because of the damages that you have done. i have talked to fbi around the country, you have embarrassed them and yourself and i can't help but wonder when i see you looking there with a little
smirk, how many times did you look so innocent in to your woo wife's eyes and lied to her. >> mr. chairman, it is outrageous. >> shame on you. >> mr. chairman, please. >> mr. chairman, this is intolerable harassment of the witness. >> what's wrong with that? do you need your medication. >> i ask the witness be permitted to respond. >> he'll be permitted. >> did you ever talk to hillary clinton during your investigation besides the one questioning you mentioned before that or after that to this day. >> point of order mr. chairman. >> the gentleman will state his point of order. >> thst i think against the rules of the house for members of the community to impugning the character of the witness. >> you can ask questions, the purpose of the hearing is to illicit information, you should
not be impugning the character of the witness. >> i heard many members of your side of the isle impugn your character who was -- >> the gentle man has 20 second left then the witness can respond. >> if you talk to hillary clinton other than the time she was examining in front of thens wi witnesses. >> no. >> with all the bias you have, you never gotten a thank you? i yield back. >> the gentleman i will respond. >> mr. chairman, i did not
finish with a question. >> there was no question asked. >> he's given the opportunity to respond. >> the rules of our hearing are if there is a question asked during the time, the witness may respond to the question after the time. >> first, i assure you under oath and as i spoke also during my interview a week or two ago, i have told the truth. the fact that you would accuse me otherwise and the sort of look that i would engage with and a family member that i have acknowledged hurting goes to more of a discussion of your character and what you stand for and what's going on inside you. >> it is to your credibility. >> both individuals -- >> in order. >> you lost your credibility. >> gentleman from texas will
suspend. the witness have opportunity to express his feeling for that. >> mr. chairman -- there is a discussion of the representativerepresentative first assertion of what the icig that i would like to respond. i have no recollection of that conversation, i can tell you that i am not a computer forensic expert. every allegation that we have. icig was a great partner. every allegation that we have from them or anybody else forwarded to experts and who looked at it and everything we got, withere combed over carefu by experts to see any information. >> you don't recall going over those e-mails, correct? >> gentleman, we'll suspend. >> i have no idea what you are talking about. >> and the witness will suspend as well. >> you can't let the witness go on forever. >> the fact is you never --
>> mr. chairman, order! >> regular order. >> sir, if there is a lead, i would give it to the team. >> the mr. strzok, you will suspend. >> mr. gohmert, you will suspend. >> mr. connerly for five minutes from virginia. >> wow. the american public are for given for mistaken this so-called hearing. its got all the traffic and character assassination and
connecting dots that's not meant to be connected and cherry picking facts and fabricating facts. it is astounding and a new low in the united states congress. what a shame. mr. strzok, you are under oath. my understanding is the big republican beef in order to discredit you and the fbi and they're by hoping by their point of view undermine the mueller's investigation hinges on the fact that you sent out personal e-mails on the 2016 election, is that correct? >> sir, that's my understanding. >> the following e-mails. character matters. did you write that e-mail? >> i don't believe i did.
>> no, you did not. >> republican, senator ben sassy wrote that e-mail. my wife julia and i, we have a 15-year-old daughter, do you think i can look at her in the eye and tell her that i endorse president trump? that was an apology of getting caught. i can't tell the people of my state that i endorsed him. was that you? >> no sir. >> did you write the following for the good of the country and give the republicans a chance to defeating hillary clinton. mr. trump should step aside and his defeat at this point seems certain. four years of hillary clinton is not what's best for this country. mr. trump should put the country first and do the right thing. that's you, certainly, right? >> no, sir. >> it was republican member congress mike coffin from colorado. in light of these comments.
i would not vote for mr. trump. >> that's yours. >> no. >> here is ooanother one. it is clear that donald trump is not fit to be president of the united states and can't defeat hillary clinton, i believe you should step aside and allow governor pence to lead the ticket. you wrote that one? >> no, sir. >> that's republican bradley of alabama. >> how about this. i won't vote for him as disappointing as i have been with his antics throughout the campaign, i thought supporting the nominee was the best thing for our country and our party. it is clear the best thing for our party is for trump to step aside and allow responsible and
respectable republicans to lead the ticket. you wrote that? >> no, sir. >> how about this, i ask you mr. trump, all due respect, step aside and allow someone else carrying the banner of principles, you wrote that again? >> no, sir. >> you are right again. when you were writing these e-mails in the heat of the campaign, you had a lot of good company on the side of the isle and now your an orphan, i wonder what changed? your opinion was hardly a striking one and hardly unusual especially of where you and i live, northern virginia, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> so your sin of writing an e-mail criticizing the candidate trump and patriredicting he wase was not an isolated kind of opinion, is that correct?
>> no, to my knowledge. >> do uconn firm what the inspector general would say there are no evidence of your personal opinion would notwithstanding any way it tainted the ongoing criminal investigation led by mr. mueller. >> i do. >> that's your testimony under oath. >> i do. >> thank you. i am so sorry for the treatment that you are receiving today. i take no pleasure in watching this spectacle. thank you mr. strzok for being here. >> the chair recognize the chairman from texas for five minutes. i am a former prosecutor and i love being a prosecutor and i spent 22 years on the bench trying thousands of cases. i saw a lot of people in law
enforcement but in our entire justice system from the beginning to the end of the justice system, people are involved in our justice system. and those people who ever they are can't be biassed one way or the other. it starts in the courtroom with the jury, both lawyers spent a lot of time talking to jurors whether they are biassed. people who are biassed, come across as bias, they are out of here. you can't serve on a juror and you can't be fair. we don't let a judge serve on cases if they have a bias. they are recused and they recognized as biassed. we don't let people testify unless the bias when they testify is allowed to be brought
out. because in our justice system, things must be fair and things must look fair. >> there must not be bias or a look of bias by anyone. that's the way our system works. now, and my opinion who -- i have seen a lot of people over the years, kind of into people's business and judging people. i have heard your statements today and it seems to me that your own words have shown me bias. we base things on evidence. your words to me proves that you
are biassed and your arrogance shows you are biassed. the scary part is not whether you are bias or not. the scary part is what about other people in the fbi or people that we don't know about that have the same attitude that you do about people who are being investigated by the fbi. that is what is scary because peop people. we are concern of the justice system doing the right thing for the right reason and making sure that our justice system is just and part of the fairness in justice is that there is not a bias for or against anybody as they go through the system. based on what you said and i
don't think i would ever allow you as a juror to be on a criminal case, ever. because your words are what we hear and your protesting seems to make those words more of a show of your bias. the comment that you are going to stop in an e-mail or text or something, that not only shows you are biassed, that shows that you are going to act on your bias, you are going to stop president trump, that's the way it comes across. how do you assure us that the attitude that you have shown us today of the text messages and all the things we have been talking about how do we know that's not rapid through the fbi. how do we know that?
>> sir, what i would answer to you -- how do we know that? >> the way you do that is what you suggested. you look to the evidence and you look to the actions o f the men and women of the fbi in the conduct of the cases. you look to my action in the conduct of the investigation and you have done with others of a spectacular job of equating the word bias with personal belief. you know full well they are not the same. >> reclaiming my time. you will have a chance to answer the other questions that you are trying to answer. how do we know. how do we know that the attitude
that you have today is not the same attitude of the fbi as they are investigating other cases. the gentleman may answer the question. the way you judge that is what i said, you look at the evidence and you look at the act, what fbi agent as and analysts do. you look at what i did and not only me but all directors and everybody involved in the investigation and you see that the evidence unequivocally that there is no act of bias. so this false assertion that you are making political personal belief must equal bias that somehow we merged those two words together in the dictionary is one of the triumphs that's been going on that i can't disagree with more. a judge asks jurors are you able to set aside your personal
opinion and render the judge based on the fact. what i am telling you is that i am and the other men and women of the fbi everyday take our personal believes and set those aside in vigorous pursuit of the truth where ever it lies and whatever it is. >> i don't believe you. i yield back. >> the chair now recognize the gentleman from florida. >> i thank the chairman. let's be clear of what's going on here. we understand that president trump does not like this investigation. we understand that is clear. what we have seen in this joint committee and the committee meeting just a couple of weeks back with members o f the house demeaning themselves by asserting that the deputy attorney general sat there under oath and lied and today repeated
assertion that mr. strzok is sitting under oath lie to us it is shameful and truly shameful. in order to advance a narrative and support the president's opposition to an investigation which is an investigation as mr. trump pointed out and as to many of us have seem to forgotten is the investigation into the russians efforts to destabilize the democracy of the united states of america? i wish that the attacks on mr. strzok and on rosenstein and the
attack on our fbi director, i wish there is a slight degree of that directed against what the russians did in 2016 so that we can get to the bottom of that and anticipate what they're trying to do this november and 2020. now, mr. strzok, this is the inspector general's report. the number one finding in the inspect general's report that the fbi should not discuss ongoing criminal investigations. that's what the ig says what director comey did wrong. he should not have done it. the ig went into great details o f the long standing practice and the reason for that practice to protect the integrity of ongoing criminal investigations. in this case, the investigation that i just referred to direct attack boo by a foreign adversary. it is like you never bother to
pick it up and you read it and understand it but you don't care. you are asking mr. strzok to do what the inspector general said not to do. exactly. have you answer these questions that you have been asked? are you concerned that the inspector general can investigate you and issue a report just like this one and said that you should never have done it. >> i would be worry of the impact of the investigation. >> it is a ridiculous position to put you in. the inspect general explains of this nearly 600 report that the mistake james comey made of discussing steps that have taken in the hillary clinton's investigation. we heard it from the chairman and my colleagues and you got two choices. you can ignore the fbi policy that's been put in place to protect these investigations.
i am going to let you talk about that in a second and answer the question and in which case you trigger an ig report or you don't answer those questions and maybe we hold you in contempt. now can you just again since this has been a really long day, can you explain why it is important not to interfere with ongoing criminal matters? >> there are a variety and i am sure i won't come up with all the reasons. the first is we do a lot of investigations where we never charge anybody. it is simply not fair to given the investigative power we have to do something that would necessariily tarnish them and their image. two, talking about it may screw up a bunch of things. final finally we want somebody to have a fair trial. if we talk about it and put our finger on the scale is hardly
inappropriate of what we stand for justice. to kukconduct a competent investigation and one that arrives at the truth. >> i appreciate that last comment. in the midst of this that seems to be breaking out among my colleagues that what we are trying to do is get to the truth. the truth that we need to get to is exactly what a hostile foreign adversary did to interfere with our democracy. lets please keep that in mind as we move forward and let's make that the focus and that's what the american people are expecting. that's what they're counting on us to do. get out of the way and let this investigation go forward and lets get to the truth. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes.
mr. strzok, i have here and i am sure you are familiar with this of this handbook of the department of justice and which the fbi falls under. there are several paragraphs i want to read to you. first one is principles of ethical conduct of employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating an aexperienpp. whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with the knowledge of a relevant fact. next, an employee shall avoid any actions create in an appearance that the employee is
violating the law or the ethical standards set for us in these guidelines. it states for employees for whom a security clearance is required and you do have a security clearance, correct? >> today i do, yes. >> you had one for quite a while other than the circumstances. >> yes. >> for performance of the official duty prohibited conduct and more grounds of suspension of a clearance. this could also result in adverse and disciplinary action including suspension or removal. all federal employees may vote and express opinions and make contributions under the act. an employee and i want you to listen to this carefully,
serving in certain positions are more restricted than others. i think you are a person that falls into that category as well. i am just disheartening about the situation that you are in. i say this with no prejudice and i think you are your own worse enemy. you have an answer for everything. you have an attitude that's very obvious today and you are the kind of witness that you and i as a prosecutor for 18 years at the district attorney and you as an attorney would love to get on the stand. the reason of the statements you made and i am not going to get into the language but the repetitiveness of it, where was
your judgment? what were you not thinking when you were sending the e-mails and the statements that you made and the comments of the people in virginia? i would expect someone of your caliber to be way above that. you got carried away and you got impressed with yourself and you are in a position that i am sorry that's the case. if you are trying to draw a distinction between bias and political opinion, there is not the wide distinction that you are drawing at this point because i would bet the farm that if you were sitting next to me as the investigating prosecutor and i am the prosecutor and other judge are handling the case whether it is criminal or civil, you and i would be pointing out the biases
that i see that you have exhibited here. i just don't understand your judgment based on your background and you may respond to that. >> i appreciate your comment and i appreciate your concern. the first thing i would tell you is that i disappointed if you did not understand the amount of regret that i express from the beginning of my opening statement to the harming and damage that this caused. >> i do understand that now. it is in hiendsight and people like you and i are here to protect the citizens, we nousho be thinking of this before. >> congress without question and i would absolutely agree with you that there are things that i regret in retrospect and i hope that comes across today. i know a large portion of today
have been combative. i would note in that manuel and further restriction, every fbi employee and members of the intelligence community are restricted but within that category, if you read that citit has to do with activities coordinating with the political party. employees not only have political opinions but they are encouraged to express them. >> sir, i don't draw any disagreement with you about bias or where it occurs. would i disagree with you and so many people today that political believes does not create to bias and we always have to go with evidence. bias is there. in the absence of any and truly the inspector general of this committee and any number of people have looked and looked and not a single act tells me it
did not occur. really competent people have looked at it. under oath i know it did not happen. it is not just me. it is this entirety of folks looking at it and it is the entirety of structure of the fbi who's built not to do those things and not to allow. >> the time of the gentleman have expired. the chair recognizes miss kelly for five minutes. >> it is a long day for you. some questions are repetitive. if you can say yes or no. have you ever investigated a member of the democratic party? >> yes. >> did any of those investigation resulted in an indictment? >> no. >> have you investigated anyone that identifies as independent or unaffiliated either of the two major political parties? >> no, i don't know. >> so you don't know if any of those resulted in -- >> i am thinking o f the
democratic party, secretary clinton was part of who we looked at and she was from the democratic party. i am not a public corruption agent and political affiliation is not something that we looked at. >> would your work history suggest bias by you towards anyone political party? >> no, not at you will >> you investigated hillary clinton for a use of private e-mails. she's a member of the democratic party. > >> yes. >> we know that investigation has led to an indictment and led to 19 indictments and five guilty pleas and a host of charges filed against former campaign and white house advisers as well as russian nationals and companies. is it fair to say that you have invest ga investigated and indicted individuals from the political spectrum or you may not be
aware. >> yes, we don't look at that. >> there is new report that president trump's advisers, ivanka trump and steven bannon and gary cohen all used private e-mails to conduct business. >> these individuals serve or served a senior advisory to the president and white house chief strategists and chief of staff and economic counsel. it is safe to say that individuals in such high ranking positions are exposed to sensitive and top street materials. >> yes. >> have the fbi open investigation of the use of private e-mails? >> i can't answer that based on if they are ongoing, it would be
inappropriate for me to talk about it. >> have the house open hearings on that issue. also, i would like to say when constituents call mahinmi office, they are democrats and independence and not involved like all of us. if you ask them, they would say they received topnotch services from my office and i have my bias like we talked about. listening of the conversation today, i have to wonder about some of my republican colleagues, not everybody that apparently think that biases preventing people from doing their best job. it makes me wonder what happens when democrats call your office. do you not give them the same service as you give your republican constituents because that's what you keep on implying over and over and over. i yield back.
>> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. sandford for five minutes. >> i appreciate mr. chairman. i am going to yield my time to my colleague in ohio. >> agent strzok, i want to go back to the e-mail you sent on january 10th of the dossier. you have that in front of you again? >> i do. >> my last round of question, you said you spoke with bruce for several times in the 2016 and 2017 time period, is that accurate? >> that's correct >> did you know that he was meeting with representatives including glenn simpson. >> sure can. you can hold my time, please.
>> again, i believe the same answer, standby, sir, sorry about the time. >> i can't answer that question. >> let's go back to the e-mail. sounds like in your e-mail you are saying comparing now and sounds like there are three copies but three different versions. you said it is identical of what mccain had and referring to the dossier and the one from corn
and simpson. to give you the context of that comment, i have to tell you sir, this is more frustrating it is for me than you. to give you an accurate answer, i have to give you the context of what was going on which includes details that i have been instructed by the fbi that i may not provide. >> well, there is another e-mail down below on the one that you are looking at. it has 16 sections that made up the entire dossier, is that an accurate reading. >> sir, that's not accurate. >> that's not an accurate re reading, that's what it says. >> that's a literal reading and understanding what it means, it would require know provide information beyond the scope of
what the fbi would want me to tell you. >> i don't know if you have this in front of you, this is the house intelligence committee report, chapter 6, there is a footnote on page 113. daniel jones met with the fbi regarding pqg, the pend quarter group, he described as exposing foreign relations -- pqg was funded by wealthy donors. he further say pqg secured the services of -- and exposes russia interference. are you familiar of the meeting mr. jones had with the fbi? >> i am not and i don't know if it is accurate or not but i am not aware. >> i am going from the intelligence report of the majority issued from the house
and intelligence committee. >> i am not aware of that meeting. >> have you spoke with daniel jones? >> no. >> do you know mr. jones at all? >> no, i do not. >> all right. >> no one from fusion ever spoke with the fbi, is there any way that contradict of what's in the e-mail that i have been referencing with you? >> i don't know. i can tell you i have not spoken to mr. simpson. not spoken to mr. simpson. i asked you that the first time. i thank you the chairman and the gentleman from south carolina, i yield back to the sent l mgentl. >> several of the questions asked by the gentleman were not
answered ton advion the advise counsel. we'll note those questions so that we can address them at a future time because i find it stunning that they are not allowing you to answer those questions mr. strzok. the chair recognizes mr. gutierrez for five minutes. >> thank you very much. >> the gent leman started the hearing by saying i wish this hearing is not necessary. sorry, i don't believe. obviou of course he wants this hearing and it is necessary. there a there are 3,000 children separated from their moms and dads and the government don't know where they are and can't bring them together. that's something that the judicial committee should be investigating. we start a policy in this country where we ban, ban muslims from coming in and we
make a religious test. sounds to me something that the committee should take of. we have 16 women who have come forward to say that the president of the united states have attacked them. what does the committee do? no hearings and one of the members of this committee had to resign in disgrace because he asked one of his staffers for a million dollars if she would these are all things and issues that are on the american people's minds. we don't want to talk about those issues. those should be issues that i believe are pertinent and should have hearings before this committee. what we want tohave hearings so that we can regurgitate and continue to say that he is lying and that he is biassed and somehow he corrupted the investigation to the point that we can't believe mr. mueller,
that we can't believe mr. rosenstein and the new fbi director who was appointed by the current president of the united states and that we should abandon. my members on the other side, if there are two people that are thrilled and excited today, there are two people, the folks over at fox news and at the kremlin because they both worked on one thing, electing president trump president of the united states of america. they have got to be overjoyed today at the kremlin and have to be applauding. watch the news reel tonight because a lot of this is auditioning for fox news and at the kremlin. i never thought i would see a time that the congress of the united states would do the work of destroying. because what do we know? we know very clearly that our men and women of the intelligence community have unanimously stated and this is
unrefutable, that the russians work to undermine our democracy and to elect donald trump president of the united states and that is something that is irefutable. you can say what you want about mr. strozk. yet we do not investigate that. we want to investigate mr. strozk. i want to ask you, mr. strozk because they kept saying you have this bias. when did you learn and how did you learn about the investigation into the possible collusion between the donald trump campaign and russian influence in our 2016 election? >> sir, i'm limited to what director comey was authorized to say by the department of justice, but in late july. >> and when did the public learn about the investigation into russian collusion and donald trump's investigation? >> i don't know a specific date but well into the following year. >> it was after the election. >> yes, sir.
>> we are to believe from our republican majority that you are so biassed and such a democrat that you can't hold back from trying to destroy donald trump yet you never told anybody that there was an investigation into donald trump's campaign and collusion with the russians? you never told anybody about that? >> no, sir. >> you had it in your hands or maybe you didn't because in america you can do almost anything. you did have almost a magical bullet in your hand to derail the donald trump investigation and did you use it? >> no, sir. >> you didn't. are there republicans that work at the fbi? it makes it sound like you are all democrats. are there republicans? >> yes, sir. >> it would be interesting here is since you like to cherry pick the democrats that give money to the fbi agents, why don't you reveal the republican members of the fbi that give money to republicans? why don't you reveal the republican members of the fbi
that are in and state very clearly when they apply have a voter registration they reply as republicans? they don't because that is not what this is about. what this is about is for the american public. it's really not about you. they want to damage and destroy our democracy. one of the ways they do it is by taking an institution like the fbi and destroying it. that i think is really regrettable. okay, kremlin, another good day for you. you influenced the election. you won that one and now you want to destroy our institutions. congratulations, kremlin and congratulations to everybody that is helping them. >> the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just have a couple of questions for you and i would like to yield the balance of my time to chairman goudy. in light of the last round of questioning it is fair to say that you wanted to stop
president trump from being elected in your own words? >> no, sir. that is that i had a preference and i did not and would not. >> did i not hear you read your text that you would stop it? >> you misunderstood or misheard me. i said my sense in not recalling is that the american -- >> you don't like donald trump, do you? >> fair to say, i'm not a fan. >> were you the only one that could have led this investigation in the fbi? >> it was logical given that i was number two in counter intelligence that i would have a role in this investigation but no there are very qualified folks in the fbi. >> so in retrospect should you have recused yourself in this case? >> absolutely not. >> you don't like this man and didn't want him to become president. you had dispargeing text messages but you didn't think somebody else should take the case. >> there were times i didn't
care about secretary clinton and i investigated that. >> that's the one thing i struggle with here today listening to your testimony because i think a man in your position and power and the respect you should have or that people should have for you because of your position in the fbi that you would have stopped to think that maybe there was somebody that could have done a better job that didn't have such disdain for the president. once he was elected you continued to do this. i think that you have to accept that elections have consequences. i will yield the balance of my time to the chairman. >> agent strozk now i am confused because i thought on that august 8 text that you did not recall typing it. then you said you recalled it was late at night and that somehow mitigated the content of what you typed. do you reaul it? what else do you recall about the timing of that? >> i think my recollection statements have been consistent.
i don't remember typing it. it was late at night. i can tell you what it was not. it was not a suggestion that i or the fbi take any action. >> instead of us musing about what you meant why don't we go with what you said. >> i would rather go with what i did because that is at the end of the day -- >> we'll get to that in a second, i promise you. no he's not. we'll stop it. i think you agreed it is the candidacy or his election? not recalling writing it, his i don't recall writing it. >> what did you mean by stop? >> stop it in my sense looking at the context was there was no way coming off the heels of insulting the family that the statements that had been made and the comparison during the debate that there was no way
that the american population was going to elect this man. so my sense was this was an off the cuff sort of comment. if you look at the next day when i sent a text saying what was that there is no conspiracy or suggestion of actions. it was a one off comment. >> and it is about a week before you use the word we again in connection with an insurance policy to make sure that he was not elected president. then we get to the day mueller was appointed special counsel, the day after. let's go through this one again and see if it rings a bell with you. who gives a f, one more a.d. and investigation leading to impeachment with a question mark. why are you talking about impeachment the day of special counsel's appointment? while you are thinking about that, let me give you other options you could have said.
an investigation leading into indictments against russians. an investigation leading to bett better election security. an investigation leading into a robust response into what russia tried to do to our country. you went straight to impeachment. do you know how impeachment works? >> i have a general understanding. >> how does it work? >> my understanding is limited to something done by the congress that there are articles of impeachment and the procedure by which that occurs i'm not an expert on. >> do you have to be a sitting office holder to be impeached? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> i actually do. and i will take note that you never once used the word in connection with secretary clinton, did you? >> sir, i did not, no. >> if you did we don't have it. so that is an investigation where you didn't think about mentioning it but the day mueller was appointed rather
than punishing russia or rather than indicting russians, rather than doing something about social media you went straight to impeachment. >> wrong. that's incorrect, sir. >> i'm out of time. we'll revisit the issue. >> may i respond to your question? >> you may when we revisit the issue. >> the witness is permitted to answer the question briefly. >> as the chairman has repeatedly said today. >> the chairman from louisiana. >> mr. chairman, i will object to your not permitting the witness to answer the question you asked him. >> one moment while i find out who is next on the democrat side. >> that is not the question. >> sir, you asked if i went directly to impeachment rather than russia. i would like to respond to that