tv Justice Inspector General Testifies on Report CSPAN June 18, 2018 1:56pm-5:15pm EDT
>> welcome, everybody. today, the committee will examine the justice department inspector general report on decisions regarding the 2016 presidential election. this is only part one. part one's focus is on the clinton email investigation. the trump-russia investigation and surveillance controversies involved many of the same players around the same time frame but that report will come later. i want to thank mr. horowitz for being here today to speak on these very important topics.
i also want to thank director wray for moving his schedule around so that he could be with us today. the committee has yet to receive the two nonpublic sections of the report, one is classified, the others described as "law enforcement sensitive." i would appreciate, if both of the witnesses here today, would work with the committee -- appreciate if both of the witnesses here today would work with the committee as soon as possible. ander fbi director comey former deputy director mckay did -- mccabe. hismccabe's lawyer wrote client would rely on his fifth amendment right on self-incrimination to avoid answering any questions here today. mr. comey's attorney tells us he
is out of the country. although i saw he was in iowa over the weekend. feed,ing to his twitter he seems to be having a wonderful time. , since the second time he was fired, that mr. comey refused and invert take -- refused an invitation to testify here voluntarily. he has provoked television interviews, but apparently no time to assist this committee, which has primary jurisdiction over the justice department. miss lynch also chose not to show up. the need for transparency does not end when senior officials are fired or quit. we changed our rules at the beginning of this congress to ensure the chairman and ranking member could compel hearing importantfrom witnesses like these. unfortunately the ranking member refused to agree to compel any of them to be here today.
that's a shame, because we should be asking them how all of this happened on their watch. were some shocking things in the inspector general's report. thanks to his work, we already knew about pierced rough, lisa --ton -- about pierced rough about peter struff, lisa -- now we know three others at the fbi did the same thing. the inspector general referred all five of them for violations of the fbi code of conduct. fbi employees were on the team investigating hillary clinton. that's more than 25% of that team. three of these five employees later ended up on the special councilmolars team --
mueller's team. they would still be investigating the trump campaign. they would still be texting about how they despise president trump and everyone who voted for him. they would still be plotting official to use their position to stop him. we just wouldn't know about it. remember these facts every time you hear the press, or my friends on the other side of the aisle claiming that this report found no bias. you may hear that talking point a lot today. but don't be fooled. removed these people from his team. why did he do that? kind ofy because this political bias has no place in law enforcement. when it was exposed so clearly,
hadmoeller -- mr. mueller no choice. most evidence of political bias is not so explicit. the details in this report confirm what american people have suspected for a long time. clinton got the king club treatment. probe is very stark. the biggest difference is the appointment of special counsel. attorney general lynch of fused -- general lynch refused to .1. ppoint one.to a 2016 -- that secretary clinton's actions only amounted to simply this, carelessness.
tooktor comey and the fbi their cue from president obama and picked up the theme. started drafting his public exoneration, which his conductalled "extremely careless." she was a partner in a law firm that represented both president and secretary clinton. bill clinton also pointed her to be the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york. met privately with president clinton days before she agreed with the fbi to close the investigation without any charges. if there were ever a time for a -- a specialel
, it would be at this time. attorney general sessions recused himself in the rod rosenstein -- himself when rod rosenstein appointed special counsel. draft public exoneration before 17 key witnesses were interviewed. under rosenstein, nobody seriously think robert mueller -- thanks robert mueller will plant a press conference before his investigative work is done. under lynch, a low i.t. worker aboutto the fbi twice destroying records under subpoena and got immunity. under rosenstein, a low-level trump campaign associate provided the wrong date for conversation with a professor
and got charged with lying to the fbi. under lynch, clinton's lawyers and aids who improperly held classified information got carefully crafted agreements to limit searches of their computers by consent. under rosenstein, trumps lawyers and former aides got rated -- grandand jury's jury's. the justice department faces a serious credibility problem because millions of americans suspect there is a double standard. they see a story of kid love side, andfor one bareknuckle tactics for the other. in that story.cs but this inspector general report is only about the first part of that story. the report has more shocking details.
it wasn't just andrew mccabe talking to the press area sewer dozens of others at the fbi. so many fbi's officials had unauthorized contact with the media that the inspector general couldn't figure out who was leaking. a reporter supply and their fbi sources with tickets to sporting events, meals, drinks. the fbi has managed to promote a culture that winks at unauthorized disclosures to the press, but punishes legally protected whistleblowing. it's stiff arms and congressional oversight highlight embarrassing facts, while they serve tidbits to varying reporters, bearing gifts.
he has a mess to clean up. i think he knows that. the department has serious accountability issues. scandal cometer accountability is the exception, rather than the rule. thedepartment went out of -- went after the senator stevens. judicial investigators found intentional misconduct. department -- after years of appeals and administrative proceedings, guess what? these folks are still federal prosecutors. i would like to enter, without objection, the staff memo into the record at this point. now we have the senior fbi officials caught red-handed. want to remind everyone
that former director comey said hemultiple occasions -- what said -- he said his people at the fbi did not give tips, or did not give a rip about politics. he said sometimes they didn't give a hoot about it. either way, he was flat wrong. presidential politics was a major preoccupation for those at the heart of both cases related to the 2016 election, including director comey. his subordinates said there were under enormous pressure to wrap it up before the political conventions. he was concerned about how it andd look if clinton won, he had not reopened the case in october to examine new evidence. director comey testified here on may 3 of last year that he had an anonymous source
or authorized anyone to be one in any story on these controversies. well, i'm starting to wonder about that. the inspector general recently concluded in another report that former deputy director mccabe improperly authorized media leaks to make himself look good. then he lied about it multiple times, both under both and to mr. comey. , and hise denies that lawyers claim that there are emails with mr. comey that would vindicate him. the fbi hasn't provided any such the inspector general's report doesn't mention any. neither man could agree to come here and explain it to the committee. whatever happened, it is a sad state of affairs for the former top two employees and officials in the fbi to be in a swearing
contest over press leaks. justice should be blind. law enforcement needs to ignore politics, follow the facts and embrace oversight as a way to .mprove the inspector general's report on to be a step, really step one in the right direction. but consequences must follow. senator feinstein? feinstein: thank you, inspector general, for holding this hearing. thank you for the hard work you and your staff has done. this is a very big report, i think the largest i have seen in two decades. we look forward to hearing from you and director ray. investigationnth that included a review of more than 1.2 million documents and interviews with more than 100 witnesses, the inspector general
found no evidence of political bias in the fbi's investigation of secretary clinton or in the decision not to pursue criminal charges. as the report says, the ig quotes did not find document terrie or testimonial -- did not find documentary or testimonial bias.ce of political the ig also found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or improper considerations. -- rather weere determined they were based on thatrosecutors assessment the law, the practice, the department practiced. that director comey violated the department of
justice policies, when he spoke published see -- when he spoke publicly. on july 5, 2016, 4 months before the election, mr. comey held a press conference and announced the fbi would not recommend criminal charges. comey personally criticized secretary clinton in the middle of her presidential campaign. the ig's found that director comey's criticism was contrary to long-standing department practice and protocol. essentially trashing the subject of an investigation with comey,ed misconduct that every agent, and every prosecutor agrees does not warrant prosecution."
mr. comey testified before commerce -- before congress multiple times and spoke at length about the clinton investigation, ensuring this would remain in the press for the final months of the presidential election. on october 28, 2016, mr. comey informed congress that he had reopened the investigation however, after it had finally performed its due diligence, the fbi determined that there was nothing new or significant. alsonspector general specifically criticized the october 28 notification to as also violating "long-standing department and ."i policies as explained in the report, the department and the fbi consistently declined to comment congresswere to
regarding ongoing investigative .ctivities while a report is highly , itical of director comey did not find he was biased against president trump, or in favor of secretary clinton, as some have alleged. during the election, director comey, the fbi, and the justice department spoke publicly about the clinton investigation, but remained silent on the investigation into the trump -- campaign's tied to russia. campaign's ties to russia. there was not a single investigation leaked -- was not a single leak during the investigation. only the clinton investigation was discussed publicly.
carved --stionably unquestionably harmed candidate clinton and helped candidate trump. the president is now citing the inspector general's report to justify his decision to fire director comey. however, at the time, candidates a plot at the october announcement, declaring at a rally in grand rapids, michigan, and i cloaked, "director comey did the right thing -- and i quote, "director comey did the right thing." he told russian officials that firing comey relieved the pressure from the russian investigation. and two days after the firing, president trump himself told lester holt he fired director thing."r, "the russia
this is under investigation by special counsel moeller -- a special counsel miller -- by special counsel mueller. finds that some employees also express personal political views through text messages on workplace devices. many messages criticized donald trump, but there were also some that criticized hillary clinton and others. evidencet found no that these political views tainted workplace decisions. in fact, two of the employees , -- ashanged messages advocating some of the most aggressive action in the clinton
administration. rzok wrotee, mr. st the initial draft of the 2018 letter announcing the reopening of the clinton investigation. the ig and his office spent a year and a half examining this. they refused -- they reviewed all of these text messages, they interviewed all of these employees, and they found no evidence that political influence affected the investigation. the danger of public discussion on ongoing investigations. throughout the clinton investigation, republicans in congress demanded information from director comey. and the justice department under subpoena and threat of content. today they are doing the same
thing with special counsel mueller's investigation. it was wrong then and it is wrong now. exists to protect the privacy and reputational interests of the subject of the investigation. trial of to a fair thee accused of crimes, integrity of ongoing investigation pending litigation, and the department's ability to effectively administer justice without political or undue outside influences. disclosuredemanding of information about special mueller's ongoing investigation, congress should protect the investigation of
that work. while i disagree with his actions, i have seen no evidence that mr. comey acted in bad that he lied about any of his actions. report,nsider this let's not lose sight about the fact that the ig found no evidence that the fbi and justice department are politicizing investigations. and nothing warns the attacks that we are seeing on the fbi, the justice department, or special counsel mueller's investigation. chair grassley: thank you, senator feinstein. i will administer a note before they testify. michael horowitz, inspector general for the justice confirmed april 2012. and oversees a workforce of over
800 employees. immediately preceding this post, he was in private practice and previously worked for the justice department's criminal division. general's mission is to detect and determine waste fraud abuse and misconduct. its mission is also to promote economy and efficiency in the department's operation. is the director of the fbi, confirmed august of last year. he is in charge of the bureaus day-to-day operations and branches nationwide. to 2005 he served as assistant attorney general for the criminal division at doj. he also served as an associate deputy general and then principal associate deputy attorney general, prior to his promotion in 2003.
and i know, as well, he was in private practice for a while before he became fbi director. if you would stand, i would like to administer and no. do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole church, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you both for that affirmation. we will start with general horowitz. horowitz: thank you mr. chairman, ranking member feinstein, members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to testify today. our 500 plus page report provides a thorough, comprehensive, and objective recitation to the facts related to the departments and fbi's handling of the clinton eve mel -- clinton email investigation. over oneewed well point 2 million documents and
interviewed 100 witnesses. many on multiple occasions. the review team follow the evidence where it led come and through the evidence we were able to identify inappropriate texts and messages discussed in the report. at oig's painstaking friends investigation -- painstaking forensic investigations discovered texts that would have been lost or undisclosed. we found the inappropriate political messages we uncovered cast a cloud over the investigation, so to doubt about the credibility of the fbi's handling of it, and impacted the reputation of the fbi. the application that senior fbi employees would be willing to take official action to affect the presidential candidate's political prospects. with regard to the decision to close the investigation without
prosecution, we found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were the result of improper considerations, including political bias. -- based on their assessment of the facts, the law, and department practice. also reviewed a fact-based detail assessment of certain specific investigative and prosecutorial decisions that were the subject of controversy. it was necessary to select particular investigative decisions, because it would not have been possible to re-create and analyze every decision made in a year-long investigation. in examining these decisions, the question we examined was the whether it was most effective choice, but whether the decision was based on improper considerations, including political bias you this approach is consistent with
the oig's handling of questions in past reviews when assessing discretionary judgment calls and recognizes and respects the is too short oversight role of the oig. -- our report provides a comprehensive assessment and details the factual evidence so that the public, congress, and other stakeholders can conduct their own assessment. , we didhis framework not find document terrie or testimonial evidence -- document entary or testimonial evidence. mostly because those decisions were made by the larger meteor team -- larger team. this does not necessarily mean we endorse the decisions or conclude that they were the most effective options and that they
should or can be extrapolated to cover other decisions made during the course of the investigation by the fbi -- who sento said these inappropriate text messages. conversely, we found the fbi's and for its failures to take immediate actions after discovering the wiener laptop to be -- we also found that in key moments, then fbi director comey clearly departed from fbi department norms, and his decision negatively impacted the perception of the fbi and the justice department as fair administrators of justice. thector comey kenfield from
decision to make a unilateral announcement about the reasons for his recommendation not to prosecute former secretary clinton. his july 5 statement included ,nappropriate commentary announced his views on what a "reasonable prosecutor" would do . late october he again acted without adequately consulting the department leadership in contrary to department norms when he sent a letter to congress days before the election. there are many lessons to be learned from the department and the fbi's handling of the investigation. among the most important is the to respect-- need the institutions, hierarchy, and
structures, and to follow the procedures and norms, even then -- even in the most high-profile investigations. no policy or practice is perfect, of course. but at the same time, neither is any individual's ability to make judgment or pressure -- judgment under pressure, or what seems like unique circumstances. the public has greater confidence in the fairness and rightness of their decisions. those institution leaders better protect the interests of federal law-enforcement and the dedicated professionals who serve us all. contrast, the public's trust is negatively impacted when law enforcement officials make whenments reflecting bias, leaders abandon institutional norms and the organizational hierarchy in favor of their own ad hoc judgments. and when leadership in the department of the fbi are unable to speak directly to one another
for the good of the institutions . our report makes nine recommendations, most of which can be tied together through a common theme, that the of the eye and the justice department remain true to their foundational principles and values in all their work. that concludes my prepared statement. i am prepared to answer the committee's questions. mr. wray: i appreciate this opportunity to discuss the -- about the doj and the fbi's activities in the run-up to the 2016 election. i take this report very itsously, and we accept findings and recommendations. we are already addressing these recommendations and a number of ways, and are determined to
emerge from this experience better and wiser. to mission at the fbi is protect the american people and to uphold the constitution, and to carry out that mission we are entrusted with significant authority. our actions are subject to close oversight by the congress, by the courts, and by independent entities like the inspector general. that oversight makes the fbi stronger in conversation and makes the public safer. i appreciate the inspector general's work in conducting this important review. although the report did not find any evidence of political bias or improper considerations, the report did identify errors of judgment, violations of or disregard for policy, and decisions that, at least in them benefit -- in the benefit of hindsight, were not the best choices. i would like to summarize what
we are doing in response to those recommendations. first, we are going to hold accountable any employee for potential misconduct. we have already referred conduct highlighted in the report to our office of professional which isility, opr, the fbi's independent disciplinary office. we are going to adhere to the disciplinary process that office has, fairly. once all the steps in that process are complete, we will not hesitate to hold people accountable. second, we are going to make sure that every fbi employee understands the lessons of this report through in depth focused training, starting first at the top with all of our senior executives around the world. to then every fbi employee make sure we do not repeat the mistakes in this report.
we are going to make sure we have the policies, procedures and training needed for everyone to understand and remember what is expected of all of us. that includes things like drilling home the importance of objectivity and avoiding even the appearance of potential bias or conflicts of interest in our assuring our accusers are handled appropriately and clearly communicated to the right people, making all employees fully aware of the new policy on contacts to news media, and making clear we will not tolerate noncompliance with that policy. all doj we follow policies about public statements about ongoing investigations and conduct. and ensuring our employees adhere stricter to the policies and procedures we have on the used fbi systems, networks, and
devices. -- to lead a very focused review on how the fbi handles particularly sensitive invest -- sensitive information -- a sensitive investigation. so that every sensitive investigation can be conducted to the highest standards. the oig's report makes it clear we have significant work to do. like i said we are going to learn from the report. i want to emphasize this report is focused on a specific set of in 2016, and a small number of fbi employees connected with those events. mistakes made by those employees do not define our 37,000 men and women and the great work they do every day. in this report in the integrity of our workforce as a whole or the fbi's institution. about the fbilear
that i have been able to see up close every day in the 10 months since my confirmation hearing. i have been meeting with employees from over 30 of our field offices, offices overseas, from every headquartered decision -- headquartered position. andar stories about the men -- about the work the men and .omen are doing this year alone we rescued children from child predators, we have arrested more than 4600 violent gang members in the past several months. we have disrupted terrorist attacks ranging from the appearance san francisco to a pier in sanrom the francisco to a crowded shopping mall in miami. they are doing this work with the unfailing fidelity to our constitution and law that it demands, the bravery that it
deserves, and the integrity that the american people rightly expects. as i have been trying to say since my confirmation hearing, i am committed to doing this job by the book, and i expect our employees to do the same. i'm a huge believer in the importance of process, and i believe strongly that the fbi's brand is based more on the way we accomplish our success than the successes themselves. that means following our rules, following our laws, following our guidelines. we have to stay faithful to our values and best traditions. there will inevitably be times when we feel extraordinary to not follow our process and policies. those are precisely the times when it is most important to adhere to them. we are trying to make sure we are not just doing the right thing, but we are doing it the right way and pursuing the facts independently and objectively,
no matter who likes it. that, in my view, is the only way to maintain the trust and credibility of the american people we serve. thank you again for the opportunity to address the report, i look forward to answering the committee's questions. you. grassley: thank each member of the committee will have eight minute rounds. we will probably only end up having one round. first, to mr. horwitz. the i.t. worker who managed the clinton server lied to the fbi repeatedly. he denied to leading to clinton emails, he denied that the clinton staff ever asked him to delete emails, he denied knowing emails were under a reservation order. he had a call with clinton's lawyers.
-- to delete used the clinton emails, invoked the fifth amendment to avoid questions about that call, even sent an emails sang he was part of the "hillary cover up operation." he later claims that was only a joke. there was no search warrant or to know for the laptops what he did. he did not get the meal or muellert, not -- the treatment, no pressure to flip or testify against his lawyers. quite the opposite, he got immunity. this is an example of a double standard in these two investigations and why more and more people believe the investigation lakhs fairness. comey pressure the team to close the case before the party convention.
and he had already made up his mind to close it before the work has done. is it improper to set a deadline to close a case based upon the calendar? mr. horowitz: that will be the only place -- we did ask something in connection with our report. given the various areas where erector comey raised concern about the political calendar, we had some information from some folks indicating that he separately suggested that in addition to concern about the thatical calendar, and they should also follow up as need be for their work. that would be the evidence we had before us. chair grassley: is it a fair inference for people to that they should also follow up as need be for their work. think that the time pressure and predetermined decision not to charge quentin explains the lack of interest in trying to charge and flip the witness?
certainly is it laid out here as given of -- as given -- in fact a factor on their consideration on how to resolve certain issues. >> a second point would involve you and the director of the fbi. the report notes that the department of prosecutors did not believe there was a substantial federal interest to charge the i.t. worker who deleted clinton's emails. he lied to the fbi twice about the leading clinton's archived emails. the emails had been subpoenaed and were subject to criminal notice. the technician do that when he deleted that. question to both of you, is granting immunity the only way testimonytruthful from a witness, and is it a
substantial interest in congressional investigations? way to get the only testimony from individuals or information from individuals, but it depends on the facts. ray? grassley: director >> i think there are secure ways -- there are ways to secure testimony from witnesses. in my view, efforts to obstruct investigation is something we need to take seriously at the federal level. horowitz,sley, to mr. did the official specifically tell you that obstructing congress was not a manner -- not a matter of substantial interest. mr. horowitz: weeks plain various reasons they laid out in the report. former director comey said on television that the inspector general interviewed him about the
handling of his memos, about a conversation with president trump. some of those memos contained classified information. expect ad he did not report on his handling of classified information because "that's frivolous." i don't happen to think it is frivolous. are you investigating comey's handling of his memos? and is that include the classification issues? should mr. comey expect a report when it is complete? >> we received a referral on that from the fbi. we will issue a number -- issue a report when the manner is complete and consistent with the report that is consistent and takes this into account. chair grassley: in the fbi's response to the inspector general report, the fbi said "there is no indication that any
everified material transcended former director or personals devices or accounts. i thought neither are the inspector general or the fbi actually looked at their personal devices. thist a letter to you morning on this topic that i wanted to ask you, how can the fbi conclude no classified material was on their personal devices if you didn't even look at their devices? as to your letter, i obviously haven't seen your letter today, but i'm happy to take a look at it and make sure we are being responsive to you on that. on the second part of your in ourn, and the words response to the inspector general's report, i don't think -- but rather to referred the language in the inspector
general's report and to clarify that the findings we are reacting to did not, themselves, identify any passage of information. >> during the course of the you found that several of the people investigating secretary clinton using a personal him out were doing the same thing themselves. each agency and the employee has an obligation to comply with the federal records act. question number one, in light of of the laws recordkeeping requirements, how did you get access to their personal devices or accounts? mr. horowitz: one of the challenges is we know when the report, to gain access to personal emails would have required a grand jury subpoena or search warrant.
so we were limited because our ministry of subpoena doesn't already cover this, to ask for voluntary cooperation. we were not given access to the email accounts. chair grassley: i will reserve my 24 seconds, senator feinstein? you.or feinstein: thank during the 2016 presidential election. in addition to investigating hillary clinton's use of a private email server, the fbi was actively investigating whether the trump campaign was coordinating with russian officials to influence the election. although the fbi revealed the existence of the clinton investigation to the public, it kept the existence of the trump campaign investigation secret. director comey made several public statements about the
clinton investigation during the election. was there any information about anyone making public statements about the trump campaign investigation during the election? any.m not aware of asked --re sen. feinstein: there were several leaks to the press about the clinton investigation. were there any evidence about leaks to the press about the trump campaign investigation? >> i don't know. sen. feinstein: is there any reason for this disparity in treatment between the two investigations? our focus in this review -- we laid out quite -- we laid out quite clearly white director comey should not have been making the public statements back when he made them. feinstein: so, i guess what you're saying is the better
approach -- not to make public statements. that goes to everybody, but you didn't specifically criticize. , that's correct. and we looked at this one decision. we laid out what the decision was with regard to other investigations. the clinton foundation investigation, right decision was made not to speak about. -- bragged that the trump campaign had "a surprise you are going to hear about in the next few days. i'm talking about some big surprises. and i do think all of these aboutations hillary clinton are beginning to have an impact." three days later director comey and the fbi announced they would be real pinning the investigation about the heller clinton use of a private email server. when asked if he had heard about
the fbi reopening the email investigation, giuliani said, "you are don wright i heard right i -- are darn heard about it. i thought it was going to be three or four weeks ago." were you able to determine how mr. giuliani received this information? >> i'm not going to speak to any of the investigative steps we may or may not have taken, for the reasons we describe them appropriatewhat's to do and in terms of policy. sen. feinstein: what actions have been taken against any of the individuals responsible for disclosing this information to mr. giuliani? >> as we know from our report, our investigation is ongoing. here so ourin leaders and the public can see our concerns about the number of
contacts with the media. but i'm not in it -- in a position to speak about it. feinstein: you believe the disclosures of this sort are inappropriate, are they unlawful? >> i don't believe disclosures of this sort are appropriate at any time. i was a federal prosecutor, with fbitensively agents. and all of us would have thought that was entirely inappropriate. sen. feinstein: the report says that you "will separately report on those investigations as they are concluded." that mean this leak investigation is ongoing? >> our work is ongoing, and when we can do that consistent with the ig act and law policy, we will do so. republicans in congress have pressured the department of justice to reveal
details about special counsel mueller's investigation into russian interference in the 16 election, and possible obstruction of justice. as a result, sensitive information about this ongoing investigation is now in the public domain. for example, a possible confidential informant has been identified. is disclosure of the identity of a possible source in an investigation consistent with the state silent principle identified in the report? mr. horowitz: i can't speak to -- specific circumstantial specific circumstances. is an ongoing investigation, disclosing information related to that through leaks is inappropriate. sen. feinstein: thank you, thank you mr. chairman. -- chairgrassley grassley: senator hatch.
sen. hatch: listening to some of these findings in the inspector general's report on the handling of the clinton investigation, error of judgment, serious error extremely poor judgment, and a gross lack of professionalism. these are conclusions that were drawn respectively about the conduct of the attorney general of the united states. and fbi's special agents assigned to one of the highest profile investigations in the bureau's history. in my opinion, this is appalling. and the significance of these findings cannot be overstated. the report identifies missteps that every level in the department of justice, from our nation's chief federal law-enforcement officer to special fate mints -- special agents in the field. i was disappointed to your response to the inspector
general report. while you admitted the report found errors of judgment, you took pains to emphasize that the report focused on "a small number of fbi employees." let's all remember who that small number of employees was, the director of the fbi, the deputy director of the fbi, the leader of both the clinton team investigation and the rush investigation. these were not junior field agents. these were senior agency officials. running two of the most important investigations in the bureau's history. insubordinate, grossly unprofessional in their communications, and even untruthful. that thisot pretend was some one-off problem. there is a serious problem with the culture at fbi headquarters. your statement seems to suggest we shouldn't worry too much
about the events details in the inspector general report, because the report focuses on a small group of individuals and events. i think that is exactly backwards. or twolook at only one investigations and find this much bias and unprofessionalism, i can only imagine what is out of thebout the conduct leadership. i would say -- in my opinion it would be damming. assure the congress and american people that you are taking seriously the problems identified in the inspector general report, when you're first response to the report was to downplay its significance. >> i don't intend in any way to downplay the significance of the report. sen. hatch: i would like to know why.
think the fact that the very first press conference i -- let's start with that. second, the steps i have outlined that we are going to be taking are very significant, including, just as an example, convening every single ses employee in the fbi to focus on this. we are going to have the people whose conduct is highlighted in the report handled through our disciplinary process and held accountable as appropriate. but my comments the other day are a measure of my view of the don't have to imagine what happens in the fbi. i see the fbi up close every day , investigation after investigation, after , including in utah.
and i can tell you that the conduct, the character, the principal i see in those people, every day is extraordinary and would be an inspiration to the members of this committee. sen. hatch: there is no doubt that the fbi errors casting doubt on this cloud. even more troubling is the irreparable harm to the fbi's reputation on political fact-finding and evidence. where do we go from here? mr. horowitz: i think we start by reminding everyone in the fbi, which i said, i think the vast majority of people already know this. but i'm not going to leave that to doubt. that objectivity and the appearance of objectivity have to permeate everything we do. much of thewith
lessons we described in this report. that starts with being focused not just on the result, but on the way you get to that result. that means following our process, following our guidelines, following our long-established norms. sen. hatch: i want to thank inspector general horwitz and wray for director focusing on that issue. -- first is in prosper improper disclosures to the media, and the second is texts between fbi employees. the fbi has a policy that strictly limits the employees who are authorized to speak to the media. this is appropriate for any organization that quietly -- quietlyons investigates with an eye toward prosecution. but the inspector general found that this policy was widely all levels of the
fbi. -- including instances where fbi employees improperly received outings, drinks, and other benefits from reporters. this is totally inappropriate. attachments to the report identified more than 50 employees who apparently had unauthorized contact with members of the media. if the inspector general identified 50 employees in connection with his review of this one investigation, a counterintelligence investigation no less, i'm afraid that the number of employees engaged in such unauthorized conduct across the bureau is likely to be far greater. additional action is needed to identify other personnel engaged in leaks and other unauthorized media contacts. hearinginterested in
about additional training, which is certainly necessary, but not sufficient. what are you doing to identify those who violate the fbi's policy? and what consequences what they face? wray: in addition to creating a new policy to make it crystal clear, so that no one could have an excuse to know what those rules are. second, we have created a dedicated leak investigation unit inside the bureau specifically focused to ensure that those investigations have priority. third, we have an insider threat center, that we have elevated to the assistant director level, focused on pulling together all these kinds of issues. i have also asked the head of our opr to report back to me promptly about whether there are additional things she would need
to make sure the penalties are even more severe. we won't hesitate to throw the book at people who violate our rules on this. senator hatch: that's my time. >> irony doesn't even begin to describe president trump's allies exploiting this report for partisan gain. mr. strzok's text messages were inappropriate. everyont page of newspaper leading up to the election, every single misstep by the fbi damaged hillary clinton and helped donald trump. mr.fbi personnel, including strzok kept quiet about the russian investigation, as they should. the same can't be said about the clinton investigation. rudy giuliani, reportedly even
devin nunes received leaks. it may have contributed to director a letter that could not have come at a worse time. last year i asked director comey .bout lee -- leaks he knowledge internal investigation was ongoing. director wray, was mr. comey telling the truth? he said here there was not an internal investigation ongoing about the leak. was he correct? speak to that. >> was the ongoing investigation into leaks to mr. giuliani?
deny t confirm or -- mr. wray: i can't confirm or deny an investigation. hearing. an open director comey says there was such -- there was such an investigation. >> there are a number of things i would have done differently. not going to comment on whether or not there is an ongoing investigation one way or the other. we have refused to do that and i'm not going to change the policy. here we know about the private life. we know nothing about the leaks from fbi personnel who are taking steps to sway the election to mr. trump. you did not include an
investigation of those leaks. >> that is correct for the reasons we noted. we are not to speak to work we might have ongoing. at some pointe you would report to us. was generally accepted leaks were going on. mr. giuliani basically said so on tv. the president says this report totally exonerates him and says there is no collusion with the russians. yourctor general, did report consider the question? focused on theas handling of the clinton email investigation. it touched on the russian investigation with the text messages. the decision that was made in
october about whether to proceed or not proceed. that was the sum total. quick nothing says it exonerates from any question of collusion with the russians. one way or the other. >> we did not look into collusion questions. the president says it totally exonerates them. there was no conclusion one way or the other about the question of collusion with the russians. ray, after learning the fbi use a confidential source in the russian investigation, the president described that as a scandal bigger than watergate. ,'m one of the few people here
the only person in the senate .hat remembers watergate i tend to disagree with that. the confidential sources are a -- i haveol that day a document that is publicly available. it is redacted. it shows the fbi used a confidential human source into secretary clinton's campaign for president. is the use of confidential sources in either investigations show any wrongdoing by the fbi? we use confidential informants and all manner of
investigations. it is a very important tool in that mission. >> you probably don't have a significant prosecution without confidential sources. the mueller investigation the president said has been totally discredited by the inspector general report. about theu last month russian investigation. you confirm you do not believe it is a witchhunt. the special counsel investigations has resulted in the indictment of 20 individuals and three russian companies. toyou have any reason believe this has been discredited? mr. wray: as i said, i do not believe special counselor mueller is on a witchhunt. >> you were direct on both occasions.
mistakes made by director comey during the hillary clinton investigation did not exist in a vacuum. republicans in congress pressured the fbi to release details concerning the clinton investigation. i am concerned we are repeating these mistakes. the white house working with allies in congress have been demanding information from the russia investigation. general hasttorney been threatened with impeachment . that is outrageous. something that will never happen. accommodations have been made. members of congress eager to , to learn theils identity of a confidential source. are you confident that will not damage the fbi in the future?
we have two competing interests. in obligation to be responsive to oversight. that is part of our job. we also have an obligation to protect ongoing criminal investigations. it is a challenge at times to do both. we can do both as long as both sides work together on it. >> thank you very much. >> general for wits, i believe your report summarizes as regards to director comey he concealed his intention to make ofnilateral declaration intent to pursue charges against secretary clinton. he made inappropriate comments
on uncharged conduct. yourred when he said shouldn't usurp the role, no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges under the facts. and he violated department of justice policies. >> that is correct. >> you're a poignant -- your opinion was reinforced by ed pieces by eric holder when he -- james comey is damaging our democracy. memo written by the deputy attorney general and then attached to a letter whereby the president informed
mr. comey his services as director of the fbi were being terminated, they are substantially similar to what you found in your correct -- you report, correct? think it is the straightforward comparison that could be made. i will leave it at that. >> it looks to me like you validated what rosenstein said in his memorandum. would you dispute that? >> i would not dispute it but i have not reread it. thisat is disturbing about is it seemed to be a culture of impunity where the rules did not apply to the director and his leadership team, but were designed to apply to everybody else. i agree with director ray when he talks about rank-and-file professionals.
we are not talking about them. we are talking about a group that went terribly awry in the leadership team. you mentioned you found no evidence of bias in the investigation but you qualify that talking about documentary and testimonial evidence. are you discounting the text mr. strock and miss page? >> we were focused on the specific investigative decisions we looked at. aboutat was significant the pre-july 5 announcement decisions. they were not the sole decision-makers there. decisionsprosecutors
as opposed to individuals. we were not saying that for every single decision, doing these kind of cases. there are hundreds of decisions being made. bias with find no regards to the october events. >> director comey was clear he expected hillary clinton to be the next president. >> he described that with regard to the october events. he hadtime in the spring already decided there would be no recommendation to prosecute hillary clinton. >> he started drafting his statement may 2. >> july 15 made his initial press conference where he said the evidence did not rise to the point where any prosecutor would prosecute ms. clinton.
do you think it is possible, is it a fair inference to draw from expecting ms. clinton to win the presidency was thinking about his future as the fbi director. >> that was a concern we had. we have testimony that indicated when he explained why, three his chief of staff why he was going to do what he did, he was concerned about his survivability. >> when he used the word grossly , later it was changed to extremely careless. do you feel he was writing to a preordained result or this was a genuine process to think through what the evidence was? say andwould be hard to be speculation in terms of what
he was thinking. detail howin great it changed and how it evolved. i am not sure i can sit here and say what was his thinking. >> were you shocked to learn he had his own private gmail account when he was investigating a prosecution of ms. clinton for recklessly using a private in-house server. >> it surprised us. nevertheless me using a personal gmail account. >> director comey has talked about higher loyalty to his sense of justice, and his belief tot that was required protect the reputation of the fbi rather than to follow policies and guidelines. hubris thatat
director comey was demonstrating , suggesting the rules didn't apply to him that apply to everyone else has brought this firestorm down on the fbi. do you think it is appropriate for any director of the fbi to attribute their actions to a higher loyalty to some other cause other than the rule of law in the guidelines of the department of justice? >> i don't want to speak to what he may or may not have been thinking. policies, the guidelines, those are there for a reason. it is important we track those. when i am going around from field office to field office doing town halls, the point i keep making is it is not enough to say you're going to do the right thing for the right reason. that can become the ends justify
the means. we need to be doing the right thing in the right way. do not let the ends justify the means. let our means justify our ends. >> hour per -- i believe your report is comprehensive. i don't necessarily agree with every word of it especially the no finding and no bias. i think your findings call into question the credibility of the clinton email investigation and cast a cloud over the russian investigation. the same group of people that led the clinton email investigation were leading the russian investigation until such time as director molar terminated their services because of conflict of interest. >> a share the concerns. it did cast a cloud over the
investigation. rush investigation? what's we laid out the concern when the choice was made in theber whether to work on rush investigation versus the laptop matter, the choice was to make that a higher priority over the clinton matter. we were not convinced that was not a biased decision. senator durbin: thank you for your testimony. you going totion detail describing, it includes some damming statements. you make that clear your conclusion. about their possibly using their governmental authority to achieve a political result. >> that is correct. that was very serious. >> that should not be
downplayed. >> i can't think of something more concerning than a law enforcement officer suggesting they are going to try use or may use their powers to affect an election. >> what did mueller do when he learned about these statements? 10 july 27 of last year of our first findings. we gained more. my understanding is within a week or two he had been removed from the investigation. >> which was the right thing to do. i want to make it clear, no one is making excuses for these things. he said something unacceptable for a person in his position. terminated him as certain as he learned that. i hope that is clear. , i wantt a lot of time
to echo the comments made earlier in this work reviewing these documents. interviewing these witnesses. i know you. i have heard your testimony. detail. this report in lots of people reacted to it. politicians. i'm going to ask you for the record specifically your thoughts on one reaction. president trump said i think the report yesterday may be more important, it honor -- it exonerates me. there was no collusion. nope structure and. you will see that, the president said. he said i did nothing wrong. there was no cold illusion. the ig report yesterday went a long way to show that. end of quote. does your report exonerate
president trump? >> and went to stick to what might report speaks to, the handling of the clinton email investigation and the extent it touches on the russian investigation. when the laptop comes up in october, i cannot speak beyond that to what, how this report might impact the rush investigation or what individuals think it may impact. >> you can't speak to whether your report exonerates because it does or doesn't? >> when we solve those text messages, many in that july time , we made it clear this review does not touch on the rush investigation with the exception of the wiener laptop. durbin: does it go into
the investigation? >> we do not go into any investigation. >> president trump said the investigation has been totally discredited. >> i am not going to make a judgment on special counsel molars investigation. i'm going to speak to what i have here. durbin: can you address the credibility? mr. long: we laid out we laid outitz: what occurred and what individuals did in all sober, where it touches the russia investigation. senator durbin: rich mcconnell said he wanted the mueller investigation to conclude.
if the ig is through why can't the mueller investigation wrap up? was there it a connection between what you were tasked in doing and what robert mueller is tasked in doing? >> other than the issues were we identified text messages and brought them to his attention, we do not have any connections or interactions in that regard. durbin: my colleagues and freeze the question about the new york field office. leaks in that field office. there are quotes in the report relative to mr. comey's concern the new york field office would leak information. that is one of the reasons he made certain decisions. former mayor giuliani has bragged publicly about information he has received.
what are we to make of this? is this being investigated. ? >> i think leaks are unacceptable. they have a pernicious effect on our ability to conduct investigations, to retain our foreign liaison partnerships. they damage the privacy of individuals. itave a strong view about and we are doing a number of things. senator durbin: what are we doing about it? mr. wray: i can't comment on a specific investigation. a dedicated unit specifically focused on leak investigations. we have a policy we issued in november that makes the rules cholesterol -- crystal clear. there can be no ambiguity about what their obligations are, and when there are misconduct found
we will refer them for appropriate action. we will pursue it criminally. would like to: i ask one more question. there was a question raised about mr. comey having a separate personal phone he was using. whether or not that was unusual for a person in his position. there has been reportedly, the president uses to iphones. when allows him to make calls. twitter.d is for his decision to swap out the phone. the president has given it kim jong-un his direct phone number. if he was afraid to his cell phone this would raise interesting security concerns. are you aware of reports about various phones being used by the
president? are you concerned about sensitive information from those devices that may be intercepted? >> i am not aware of the particulars of the president's phone usage. matter oft be a concern if anyone who has access to such information was using a devise that could be intercepted by our enemies? it is important to recognize devise security is an important part of our security and it is something we emphasize heavily. toator durbin: we have gone great lengths with senator clinton to make that happen. >> i want to point out one clarifying matter. the report did in fact find bias. anyone isas
suggesting, there was bias found . what was not found was a smoking gun indicating that bias how anybody did their job. the absence of evidence on that point is not the same as abbott -- evidence of absence. when need to keep that in mind as we have this discussion. , let's assume these text messages between strock and page, these can about earlier in the discussion and that you just swap out the name trump for hillary. it is such that the text messages said she is not ever going to become president is she? no, we will stop it. what if that have been the
exchange earlier in the investigation. in that hypothetical circumstance could she have been prosecuted? making theople charging decision concluded there was cause to charge her? or would the bias make it too difficult to proceed? >> i am reluctant to engage in discussions of hypotheticals. i am no longer practicing as a lawyer. the lawyers.blame it is a wonderful experience. i'm not going to engage in specific hypotheticals. employees,l of our all of our employees to engage in professional conduct including how they communicate with each other. >> that didn't happen here.
let's make it more of a hypothetical. could that be a complicating factor if he had text messages between agents involved in the case indicating bias against the target of that. that agentsny time conduct themselves in a way that just't have not objectivity but the appearance of objectivity can have an impact on the viability of the case. >> let's talk about these text messages. was it easy to get them? >> the initial batch was easy. we requested them. the latter part of this, it was challenging. >> tell me what you mean by that. >> when they were produced by the fbi it turned out there was a. , there were no text messages produced to us.
there was a flaw in their collection software, or a failure. we went out and seized and obtained their phones voluntarily from the fbi. these are now fbi devices. actually forensic team undertook a series of steps to exploit and extract the missing text messages. we first use our own tools to do that. we then went to a contractor, a vendor we used to see whether there were additional tools. they provided us additional tools. messages.more text we then went to the department of defense and asked for additional tools those first steps didn't use. they gave us those tools and we use that and extracted more text messages.
we went to the fbi and said here the steps we have taken. would you do anything differently? they said they would not. we did a quality control check. they discovered in that last had a databasee on it that was actually also doing a collection of text messages. messagesacted those from the phone and found the second part of the august 8 text messages. we will stop it. that was found in early may. because of that fourth effort to extract information from the phones. aware thatn't database, which was supposed to be in operating function was collecting data. >> have they gone for the same steps you had gone through they
might have found it. does that cause you to have lack of confidence about whether or not you have all the evidence you need? >> as a result of that effort, we will issue a separate report about the technological efforts lawyerrtook, i am also a , not a cyber expert. but the concern is we now believe not only are we unsure ,hether we have 100% collection but it is clear that even when the software was collecting text the incominghad page destruction. it is clear even outside of this we are not convinced the fbi was collecting 100% of the text messages.
>> let's jump back to you. we can agree mr. comey should not have made his announcement and press conference. i assume you don't disagree on that. would you have made a charging recommendation at all? or would he have left that to the department of justice? as i said, we accept the findings and recommendations in the report. my own view is the policies about public disclosure are pretty clear about what we should or shouldn't do. charging recommendations my view isi think that the fbi doesn't make charging decisions. >> it just is not done. stash it would be
counterproductive to speak directly with the fbi director. can you impact that for me? that lynch ande gates were simply afraid of exercising their authority because they were afraid it would look like political interference? >> a couple of things. they were responding to the fact director call me rather than speaking to them to went to his chief of staff, to relay his view on what he was going to do, what they told us their assessment was, based on their prior dealings with director comey. if they went to him directly and said don't do it, it would look like strong-arming. they were not sure whether he would comply or not with the instruction. they concluded it would be more
effective, they would have a better chance of changing the decision if they went back the same way to him with their to his chief of staff, to him. as we lay out they reported back through that means they objected, or recommended, let me clarify, they told him they did not believe he should do it. he testified to was he took that as a recommendation because they didn't call him directly. he decided they were leaving the decision to him. so he decided to go forward. >> i need a quick clarification. comey usedrlier that gmail for work for unclassified information. how can you know that if you didn't get access to the account?
saw,sed on the emails we which we observed looking at the fbi's server and what ended up going back to the fbi, i can't say beyond what we looked at and say what other purposes he may have used it for. klobuchar: i think it is good to continue that discussion. i was a classmate of director comey. i have worked with him over the years. he has done some good work. reading this report, i continue to disagree with his decision and how he handled those announcements. the more i read of york report ,hich i thought was thorough the more i began to focus on the
ad hoc decision-making based on his personal views, even if it meant rejecting department policy. i would start with you. i have described my job as a prosecutor in the past, i would say it is like line order. the first half the police to the investigation, the second half, prosecutors make a decision. would you agree with that summary? >> i think so. investigation, we determine whether there is sufficient facts to go forward with a case. then we present the facts to the .rosecutors who make decisions i don't think prosecutorial discretion is something the investigation agency exercises. >> in the end they make the decision.
>> if you had been in that place at that moment in time, would you have been called up in the july decision and the october decision, would have you been called up the attorney general or deputy attorney general to ask them to make a decision? speculate. what i can tell you is i cannot imagine a situation in which i would assume for myself as the fbi director a charging decision and then announce it in a news conference. >> that leads me to where i wanted to begin. when law enforcement officers act improperly, one of the great things about a democracy is we have an inspector general and we get that information out. our democracy depends on that. i don't think that should be confused with attacking the integrity of thousands of
investigations the fbi manages every year that are not even part of this report in any significant way like the rush investigation, and attacking 35,000 fbi agents, analysts and other public servants. i think it is important we defend them. i know in your memo you did thently to the fbi after noon as memo was released me you said talk is cheap. will enter andat you urged employees to stay laser focused even when it is not easy. could you elaborate on that? in they: i'm a believer idea that what matters for the fbi is the work. when i go around from office after office the opinions i care about the most, the brand i care about the most, the opinions of
the prosecutors we work with, the law enforcement partners, the judges we interact with, the juries we interact with, the victims making decisions about who they trust to get their ived ones back, and i think have visited the field offices of almost every senator here and the work they do recovering kids were victims of exploitation, taking down gang members, public corruption investigations, i could go on and on. those are people who experience the fbi through the work, who get to see the professionalism of the character, the integrity of fbi people up close. we are a 37,000 person organization. we do thousands of investigations every here. this is one.
report.t to go to your much has been made by my colleagues about some things that were clearly wrong that there are ongoing internal investigations about an decisions are going to be made in training is going to occur. i don't want to lose the force through the trees in terms of what your report found. releaseident, upon the tweeted that he hoped the ig report is not being changed and weighed -- made weaker. can you confirm your office processes question my >> we took,'s. we made decisions on issuing the final report. it was not made weaker or softer in any regard. >> the poor report states that it didn't find evidence the
justice department decision not to pursue prosecution following the investigation was politically motivated. is that an accurate summary. mr. horowitz: we did not find it was the result of political bias. >> the assessment of the facts in the law, and in part department prosecution actions. mr. horowitz: that is correct. >> did you or your staff speak to any witness who would point to anyone in the investigation allowing elliptical considerations to affect their decisions on how to obtain evidence? mr. horowitz: i don't recall anybody indicating that. senator klobuchar: did you have any documents that showed any decision was made for political reasons? we had concerns
about the october time. >> did you hear about -- you mentioned russia, but comey's decisions to go public. >> i am sorry. maybe i under -- misunderstood the question. were there concerns? the handling of the choice in october with the winner laptop. senator klobuchar? are: that is bush continuing, he is no longer the person involved in that investigation. mr. horowitz: that is correct. senator klobuchar: did you action was the result of political bias? mr. horowitz: prior to july 5, the decisions we look at, we did not find evidence, testimony that they were the subject of
political bias. sen. klobuchar: mark did you lynch or gates had a limited role in appropriate relied on career staff rather than political appointees. mr. horowitz: we describe limited involvement in the day-to-day operations of the investigation. >> could i ask one more question? >> quickly. senator klobuchar: did you find the decision-making was consistent with other circumstances? mr. horowitz: prosecutors describe their process and in fact that is what they based decisions on. >> thank you. >> would you say this was done by the book? hard to say what by the book is.
think there are reasons to raise questions on certain steps. >> you did a good job. the idea of this is normal, there is nothing normal. i don't want you to think the fbi does this day in and day out. believe it is clear to everybody about july 5 donald trump was the presumptive nominee of the republican party? mr. horowitz: that is my recollection. and the texts reflect that as well. i'm going tom: read this text message. august 8, after he got the nomination. not going top is become president, right? responded no, no. he is not. we will stop it. i don't know how you feel about that, but it is unnerving. wasn't he the lead investigator
of the clinton investigation? mr. horowitz: in essence. >> the head guy looking at clinton says we have to stop trump. was that idle talk? a week later here is what they say. graham: i want to believe the path you throughout, that there is no way he gets elected. i am afraid we cannot take that risk. it is like an insurance policy in the event you die before your 40. that is a week later. who is andy? mr. horowitz: the deputy director. >> you got the deputy director meeting with the lead investigator of the clinton email investigation. ms. page is meeting in andy's office discussing taking out an insurance policy to make sure donald trump doesn't become president.
is that what you are telling us? >> i cannot speak to whether mccabe was there or not. he said he did not recall that. >> so one of them is line. i want to reopen this investigation. you believe strauch or mccabe? you tommy the deputy director -- you just with the deputy director isn't. mr. horowitz: he is claiming he doesn't recall if he was there or not. either of those individuals are putting them in the middle of the conversation. >> he wasn't there. what did stocks say? what struck says he was there. senator graham: someone is lying. later. figure that out let's look at the actual interview itself. how many people were involved in the clinton interview?
or eightitz: six people present. two agents conducting the interview. >> to agents and to prosecutors. an email sent in 2016. you surely already consider this but in my view our best reason to hold the line at two and two is she might be our next president. how did you feel about that? mr. horowitz: we were concerned about it. one of the fbi agent said on election day to another fbi agent you should know i am with her. her was clinton. mr. horowitz: correct. >> had you feel about that?
mr. horowitz: very concerned. >> enough already. i am concerned. i'm glad i don't text and email. -- have you ever proved a case by circumstantial evidence? mr. wray: yes. senator graham: i'm one to talk about why you should reconsider your findings. here is what ms. page said on march 4. trump is a loath some human. some human. mr. horowitz: we have weighed out why we were concerned. senator graham: as early as march, these people hated trump and this investigation was anything but by the book and at the end of the day what comey did blows me away as much as it
does y'all. i can't believe this happened to my fbi. i told you the story about wanting to be part of the organization. you were smart enough not to take me. if you are on our side of the aisle this does hit hard. we can't just write it off. i think there was a lot of bias that did affect an investigation that is almost impossible to explain using any standard i grew up with as a prosecutor or a defense attorney. this is strauch to page. trump is an idiot. the bottom line is, i'm glad you found what you found.
the reason i am not buying it, two people involved, the lead investigator clearly did not want to see donald trump become president of the united states. finally, do you agree that finding her liable criminally would be inconsistent with stopping donald trump? if they found hillary clinton was criminally liable that paves the way for donald trump can you put those two things together? mr. horowitz: it would depend win. it clearly could conceivably. senator graham: that is exactly what is happening here. you cannot hold her criminally liable and stop him. as to the law why did they change gross negligence in the statement? to reckless disregard? mr. wray: i would defer to the
inspector general. it -- thetz: explanation was -- senator graham: gross negligence is a .riminally liable standard if they had said at the way they originally wrote it, she is guilty of a crime. the reason they change it is because she is not guilty of a crime. what is the difference between reckless disregard and gross negligence? >> not much. >> senator blumenthal. senator blumenthal: i can't let the afternoon passed without saying how grateful we should all be for the men and women who work for you, who put their lives on the line, whose integrity and dedication to our
byion are in no way affected anything in this report. i still have on my wall my seal from the department of justice decades ago when i was united states attorney. i know the men and women of the fbi work hard to uphold those ideals. i want to thank you for your response. avoide the fbi better and repetition of a small number of agents and attorneys casting a cloud on the integrity of the fbi. thank you for your response so far. senator. thank you, senator blumenthal: if i were president trump, and i held up this document to you and said report here now, this exonerates me, it shows no
collusion, no obstruction of justice. what would you say? mr. horowitz: i would answer as i did before, the report covers the investigation, touches on the investigation in connection with the wiener laptop matter, and that is what this was concerning. senator blumenthal: i want to thank you for the report. you are avoiding my question. i respect that. you are playing by norms and rules that apply to the department of justice. you are dealing with a president who has no respect for those norms and rules. he is distorting this report and weaponize and it. really undermine the rule of law. he is using your report to do it. so, i would just respectfully
suggest all of us have a responsibility to state the truth and speak that truth to power which in this case has to be one of the most important -- most powerful people on the earth. i know you are plain by the rules. but he is. , director ray, leaks fromof these the new york office to rudolph giuliani was the subject of a letter i wrote may 8. i don't know whether you have seen it or have it in mind. you what is asks being done to assure there are no continuing unauthorized disclosures to rudolph giuliani who now, to state the elephant in the room, the president's
lawyer. can you assure the american people there are no ongoing leaks from any office at the fbi to rudolph giuliani? i am certainly not aware of any. we are aggressively investigating a number of leaks as we speak. i stooda dedicated unit up to focus on that. we have a new media policy which makes the rules unmistakably clear. we have a disciplinary arm that is well regarded as one of the toughest but fairest. we intend to use all those things to make sure everybody in every office follows the rules. senator blumenthal: if you would i would appreciate a response to the letter. that provides some more specific assurance there are no ongoing leaks. because they had a practical
effect. we state the timeline in the letter. rudolph giuliani said october 26, 2016 he expected a surprise in the next few days. two days later director call me issued his letter and he did it in large part because they felt if he did not write the letter. then rudolph giuliani said when asked about whether or not he knew about the letter, you're darn right, i did. the practical effect on tractor comey's decision to do that was tangible. another impact of the leaks and ask about them. we know mr. giuliani was not the
.nly recipient representative nunez admitted fbi personnel informed him in september 2016 when clinton emails were found on anthony weiner's laptop. he has admitted that. they did that just days after. .here was a leak to him it suggests the goal was in fact to give an outspoken trump ally politically sensitive and highly secret information for political purposes. representtive nunez -- understood this fact because he never told his democratic colleagues about it. and you assure us that are no ongoing leaks or unauthorized disclosures to representative nunez or anyone else in the
house intelligence committee? -- i am notam not aware of any ongoing leaks to any member of congress or the media. senator blumenthal: i would take appropriate action. to cast aspersions on the near field office but i don't condone leaks anywhere to anyone. i don't care what the motivation is. we need to be tough on them. senator blumenthal: i want to join you with the respect i have for the new york field office. that we have all set or unacceptable and abhorrent were not the only inappropriate texts. comments that were
disparaging about hillary clinton and were they not? >> we have put in other examples including other individuals. >> there were slurs by fbi agents, one saying for example, continue colleagues to investigating clinton to get fat , i'm not going to articulate the word. >> that recounts with the general counsel said he had heard. i don't think that is from these text messages. >> but it is something that was heard. >> that was something related to us. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to go first to you mr. horowitz. a lot discussion has gone on
about whether bias has been found and what that was. you have indicated your report does not, has not found documentary or oral testimony or evidence showing bias in the charging decisions. how would you put it? charging decision, that is correct. they were made by the prosecutors cannot the individuals who were the agents. whose texts we were concerned about. specificon, as to the decisions we looked at, we didn't look at all of the andsions in the report, when we got to october we had concerns there may be bias impacting the decision to prioritize the brush investigation. >> you are talking about what prosecutors did with the report.
you are not talking about bias in the recommendation not to prosecute. you are not saying you didn't you are not saying you did not have bias. the think it is clear from text messages we have talked about with regard to mr. strzok, that he had a biased state of mind. >> as i understand, not only mr. strzok but a number of those you found concerning, comments that saidssed remorse, that they intended for these to be private conversations, and then said they did not have anything to do with the way they did their job. correct? >> that was their explanations. >> what you are telling us is you do not have different evidence? >> correct. >> i think that is a lot different than saying there is no bias, personally.
secondly, i believe you said somewhere in the report that, with regard to charging decisions, since that decision was made not by those who had the bias but from others, and this would be prosecutors, not fbi agents, correct? >> correct. >> that you felt whatever bias they had come at least as to the charging decision, did not flow through. can you say that is true even though in this case the director of the fbi gave a tragic -- charging recommendation? sameah, i used the language you did, senator, which is we did not see evidence of that in a documentary or testimony we received. >> i personally believe there was 20 of evidence, although it may be circumstantial, that the recommendation made by the director of the fbi was influenced by bias.
would you agree with that? bias,aking of political we did not see that back in july from the fbi director in terms of why he made his decision to make a public statement he did. >> i understand. what you are telling us is you found bias. those who you found the bias among have said, well, we did not let it bleed into our work performance and you do not have evidence to disprove that? also said itnd we cast a cloud over the work we have done and there were doubts about the investigation. >> that gets to the next thing, and i will move to you, director wray, and that is the leaks. a lot of talk here about the leaks. fast,e is running out too but if i understand -- let me go
back to you for a minute, mr. horowitz. you indicated that you looked at appendix g and h, i would recommend everyone look to see graphically what it is you are talking about. although i accept what you say, director, that this is not a reflection on the entire fbi, it is a big deal in terms of numbers and in terms of the issue at stake here. y, you indicated you adopted a new rule in november. what is the new rule? a number ofere are parts, but the most important of which is to make clear that only certain, a very select number of people within the organization, are allowed to talk to the media without permission. i am over civil fine in the interest of time. two, any contacts from the media to anyone else have to get
recorded. not have somebody saying, well, they contacted me. want to be clear that everybody understands the rules are close to -- are crystal-clear. then if we find violations, it makes it much easier to make sure we're holding people accountable. will be penalties, and some could be criminal charges depending on what is disclosed, correct? mr. wray: could will be. >> you indicated you created a leak investigation unit. i think that is critical. can you tell us what you are doing there? mr. wray: sometimes leaks a criminal and sometimes they are not. sometimes they are awful but not criminal. one of the ways in which leaks can be most clearly a concern in criminal laws is in the context of classified information. so that leak unit is really ongeting specifically anything that has to do with
leaks of classified information. >> i appreciate that. i recommend you may want a leak investigation unit for nonclassified leaks, because there are serious problems when those happen, as well. with the time i have left, i would like to change topics once more and go back to the meeting between hillary clinton and -- clinton and loretta lynch on the tarmac in phoenix. mr. horowitz, once again, i think your language was that -- you indicated that the meeting was not accidental but unplanned. mr. horowitz: correct. >> how do you know? mr. horowitz: taste on the records reviewed, at least from ,he attorney general's side that is what we were speaking to. we do not see any evidence as you would expect to see from the attorney general, details, , that that was
about to occur. i do not have other. records. i rely on what we were told by the witnesses. >> sort of the same thing with regard to the witnesses that you identified having bias. they said we do not really bias.s that what you are saying here is you have not got the evidence as to whether it was planned or not? horwitz what i would say is from the attorney general'sof it, based on the reactions of ,he staff, how it played out they do not have any reason to think there was a plan for a meeting. some of the things are quite coincidence will, if you will, that the attorney general and the former president would both end up in the same place on the tarmac in phoenix. my time has run. thank you. mr. horowitz: to explain a little, there is a discussion
here and i encourage folks to look at that and see about that meeting, particularly with the staff. >> all right. >> thank you. director wray, would you agree that there is, that this report has no bearing on whether the fbi is capable of conducting its role in the mueller investigation? not think this report speaks to the special counsel investigation. >> thank you. general horowitz, your report was released, and the justice department invited a group of reporters in to view the text messages that have been discussed here from the two fbi agents. i think many of us are concerned about what seems to be selected disclosure of parts of the report at that time. that time, that at at least the investigation had not been completed, and in there the disclosure
report were without the public having the full context of the findings of the report. a tou believe that to be -- atypical of the department's practices when it comes to revealing information to the public? mr. horowitz: frankly, i do not have the details. we made clear we were not consulted before hand. itthe question of whether was appropriate to send them to congress or not, that is something i spoke to and testified to because that is a different question. >> that is right. my question is about the press conference. do you believe it to be consistent with the department of justice? >> i would have to talk with folks. sure i can give an opinion without understanding more as to what their rationale was. >> will you open an investigation into the reasons
for the press conference and an investigation into who called for that press conference? mr. horowitz: i believe there might be privacy act litigation going on. i am not sure and will look at that. let me look at that. i would be happy to speak to you further. >> i appreciate that. is there anything in this report to suggest that the fbi is on capable or incapable of conducting current or future investigations in a fair and impartial manner? mr. horowitz: not at all. we speak to this report, to this manner. >> anything in your report to suggest that special counsel mueller is not able to partner with the fbi to conduct his investigation and a fair and impartial manner? mr. horowitz: i echo what director ray said about the clinton email review. >> thank you. on june 5, 2018, the president
tweeted, why is it taking so long for the inspector general's report on crooked hillary and james comey. he emphasized he knew about the substance of the report and said there are so many horrible things to tell, the public has a right to know. the report was released to the public. when was the report completed? >> the report was completed when we released it. >> same day? the day before the report is released publicly, we provided to the department. in this case, the fbi. >> to the white house. mr. horowitz: we did not. we do not direct the department. the department has to make that conclusion. every report is different and stands on its own. we have had instances, as i can testify to, in terms of disclosures to the white house
about things for various reasons. there can be a basis to do it. i think it is something you will have to direct to the department for an answer. >> was the report completed then? i would like clarification. was your report completed or was there any draft disclosed to any agency outside of your ig's office before or on june 5, 2018? who were a winds following our normal practice like every report and in this report, we provided a draft copy to the department and the fbi, in this case, to review, and this was in mid may, to review and to aovide us with what we call review to determine whether there will be grand jury, title iii, and other information that would be inappropriate for the public. in this case, there was.
at our request, the department went to court so now you see unredacted information. >> when you share the information in may, did it include your findings? horwitz pops it includes -- mr. horowitz: it includes our full draft. we can change findings. we were not pressured to do that. >> were you pressured to change the findings? mr. horowitz: we were not pressured. we allowed individuals to look at this spirit we had no communications at all with the white house. wray, i wouldy --
like to ask you, the report notes that criticizing individuals for conduct that does not warrant prosecution is something that the department simply does not do. as a former prosecutor, a fbi, do director of the you agree that what director, concluded that secretary clinton's conduct did not amount to a prosecutable offense, he should have refrained from making public commentary? earlier, is i said think the policies of the department governing commenting publicly about uncharged conduct are there for a good reason. the head of the criminal division, prosecutor, and i've also been defense attorney and have had clients impacted by this policy rules, and i think those policies are there for a reason. i would expect to follow them. >> i appreciate the point you made earlier about the new policies you put into place. i joined the comments made by
many of my colleagues in praising and thanking the men and women of your agency for the work they do. much of that has happened with local law enforcement in california. on behalf of them, i thank you for that. you -- the report mentions a number of recommendations. director wray, i want to ask if you'll commit to enforcing the policy that prohibits the department and its employees from publicly discussing the conduct of unchurched individuals? mr. wray: yes, that is part of our remedial action and responses. >> we also commit to enforcing the department of justice, keeping them from taking investigative steps that could impact an election? mr. wray: i think we will follow department policy on that. my understanding from the inspector general's report is that there may be room for the department to be more clear about exactly what the policy is. there is a pretty long-standing
norm that applies to it, but whether the policies themselves are clear enough i think it is up to debate. we will work with the department and follow what of the policy is. >> thank you. a follow-up would be great. >> next. couple of brief questions first. can we agree that the fbi is the premier law-enforcement agencies in the history of ever? mr. wray: i would say one of them. >> about 70,000 employees in the fbi? >> yes. >> is there a small minority of bad apples at the fbi? >> i think at any large organization, you will find problems. >> and we agree that director wray has the will, ability, and authority to fine those bad
apples and terminate their employment with extreme prejudice? mr. horowitz: yes, and we work closely with director wray. refer them to prosecution, if necessary? mr. horowitz: correct, or to the ig. >> do we agree that mr. comey was intentionally subordinate? mr. horowitz: yes. >> can we agree that insubordination, particularly intentional insubordination, can be a symptom of managerial bias? mr. horowitz: it could be. >> did you find that mr. comey was unbiased or biased and did bias?t on his mr. horowitz: we found no evidence he was politically biased. that is what we were asked to look at in the request. agree that bias is a state of mind? mr. horowitz: yes. >> can we agree that the only prison who truly knows that
person's state of mind is that person unless he is insane? if they tell somebody in some way. >> did you find any indication that mr. comey was or is insane? mr. horowitz: no, we did not. referring mr., to prosecution? oro its pot no referral here. attorney have jurisdiction and decide to prosecute. mr. horowitz: the department as a whole can look at this report and take whatever appropriate action is. it is his abortion nation, too, for a july with the fbi -- it is insubordination, too, for the decision to be with the fbi? thehorowitz: i will let report speak for itself. >> so mr. mccabe, insubordinate,
is referred to prosecution, but mr. comey does not and gets to keep his book deals. for we finished this report, mr. comey had been terminated, no look at the fbi. >> but he can still be prosecuted. mr. horowitz: in theory, yes. >> i want to read some evils and text messages from your report. -- i want to read some emails and text messages from your report, and these are by senior members of the fbi. they were involved in the clinton email investigation, the russian investigation, the mueller investigation, and in some cases, all three. 8/16/2015, peter strzok -- bernie sanders is an idiot like trump. , lisa page -- i am no
prude, but i am really appalled. by this. trump called him the p-word. the man has no class spirit he simply cannot be president. peter strzok, trump is abysmal. i keep hoping the charade will end. the problem is rubio will likely lose to cruz. got, trump is a loath some human. peter strzok, oh, my god, trump is an idiot. he's a page, also, did you hear trump made a comment about the size of his -- i am not going to wanghe word -- rhymes with dodle, the size of his earlier? this guy cannot be president. day after the election, fbi employee, all the people who
initially voting for her were not swayed by any decision the fbi put out. trip supporters are all cool, him -- poor, middle class, lazy peas is of s that think he will magically create jobs for them for doing nothing. they were stupidly wrapped up in his unmerited enthusiasm. another one, you think hrc is going to win, right? do you think we should get some nails and boards in case she does not? 10 day, fbi agent five, she beter win, otherwise i'll walking around with both my guns. 2, i am so stressed about what i could have done differently.
last one, day after the election, fbi attorney 2, i just cannot imagine the systematic disassembly of the progress we have made over the last eight years. the affordable care act is gone. who knows if the rhetoric about deportingg people -- is true.alls, and crap i also feel there will be a lot more gun issues, too. general, do you believe in the tooth fairy? mr. horowitz: no. >> do you believe in the easter bunny? mr. horowitz: no. >> do you believe that jimmy hoffa died of natural causes? mr. horowitz: not based on what i have read. >> do you honestly believe that the american people are going to
look at this report and look at those emails and not believe that there was bias and people acting on bias and that a fix the fbi?t mr. horowitz: i completely understand the concern, senator, and that is why we have laid all this out here and why we found it in text the credibility of the handling of the what we sayn and here is not, as senator crapo mentioned, which is that there rather, we were asked to look at whether the specific decisions we reviewed were affected by bias. and those particular decisions abouthat we are talking were decisions made mostly by the prosecutors, not by any of the individuals you indicated there. and where there was that
concern, which was in october, where agent strzok was a decision-maker, it is precisely why we found -- >> let me stop you so i can get in one were questioned. your classified index, does it contain or discuss an email that refers to a conversation, allegedly, between attorney person bynch and a ?he name of amanda renteria i am not sure what i can say about that publicly given the matter is classified, so i would ask you if i can get back to you on that. i am hesitant to say anything and a public forum about that. ranking you allow our member ducey see the classified index? mr. horowitz: absolutely. do, we are trying to senator, is what ended up happening is, because of the nature of the information, it
was classified as such a high level by the intelligence community -- we do not make the decision -- that it limited even the number -- the members that can see it and staff. is, we're doing right now and i asked the attorney general's office to help facilitate this, is to go back to the intelligence community and let us know how we can address whatever caused this to be classified at that high level so that we can make sure that we can write it at a level and get it to the members, including probably, and they took -- promptly, and they told us they are doing that. we very much want the committee to see this information. >> this was a very professional report. do not agree with all the conclusions, but i want to thank you for that. >> thank you, director wray. thank you for sticking up for your organization.
and director general horowitz, thank you for the thoroughness with which you discharged your duties here. i want to go back to something that has been touched on here to really hammer it home. there are prosecutors and investigators all over this whotry who look up to you, looked up to director comey, and who take a lesson from what they see. comey heard director ize derogatory investigative information about i washarged person, stunned. director comey, you have said the rules against that are there for a reason. to make it perfect we clear, could i ask each of you to say what the reason is that we do not want prosecutors to be discharging derogatory
information about uncharged persons? senator, my understanding has always been that the purpose behind those rules and norms is a prosecutors speak through charts and documents. and the reason for that is because then the individuals who are charged have an opportunity to have their day in court and defend themselves, were public statements about uncharged conduct do not afford that opportunity. over the lineve into smearing as opposed to proper judicial conduct, proper investigative and prosecutorial conduct? mr. wray: it could. >> even where there is a charged person, do you not disclose derogatory investigative information only through pleadings and arguments and you would not approve of a press somerence just adding in
derogatory investigative information outside of the proper channels to the prosecution? mr. wray: in the charge conduct context, we tried very hard to make sure our public statements stay within the classroom corners of the charging documents until the case has reached a conclusion, and we conduct about the evidence at trial or something like that. having been a u.s. attorney, you know that it is interesting going into the review because the department really makes clear that the department cannot speak publicly about an unindicted issue. if it is concluded as a co-conspirator in a criminal ,nterprise but was not charged but then there is the individual that is never charged. >> instead, it has that norm, which director, he violated.
i do not believe that if he would not have violated that norm, he would ever have been testifying in congress. it is bizarre having the director of the fbi testifying and congress about the case, particularly one that may continue. i do not think if he stuck to the rules that there would have been anything for congress look into. he would have just said that you do not discuss cases or investigative information. we worked hard and made the findings, and that is the end of it. if he did not have the conversation and congress, i do not think he would've felt the same way about the weiner laptop information, and a second disclosure would not have taken place. so all of this unraveled to the great detriment of director comey's reputation, which had been very good, and to the reputation of the fbi, i am sorry to say. efforts to for your put it back together, director wray.
topolitical advantage president trump, then candidate comey'sas not director motivation in making those statements and if it is corollary, political damage to secretary clinton was not director comey's motive in making that statement on july 5, what was? to the best of your knowledge. hiswray: we describe explanation that he thought there was unusual transparency given the unusual nature of the case, the high profile of the that the his belief integrity of the fbi and the justice department depended on being able to stand out there and explain what the decision was and why it was made and that
he was uniquely situated to be able to do that. >> do you find a credible? mr. horowitz: that he believed that? yes. that he was right about that? no, as we laid out here. that is the responsibility of the attorney general or deputy attorney general, highest-ranking prosecutor has decision.e for they are the ones accountable to the public, to the organization. anyid you come across evidence of would refute the notion he was concerned about his own reputation? mr. horowitz: we had a variety of testimony, to be fair, and it was in various places as to why he did what he did. and really a series of explanations from individuals as to what they believed. when shouldwray, criminal investigations be wrapped up?
wray: hard to answer that in a general way. when the work is done. i mean, that is the most shorthanded way of putting it. >> how often is legislative opinion about when a criminal investigation should be wrapped up a proper factor to consider in wrapping up the investigation? mr. wray: hard for me to think of a situation where that is a factor. >> i cannot think of one either. i agree with you. how often is a subject's lawyers' opinion on when an investigation should be wrapped up a proper factor to determine the wrapping up of a criminal investigation? mr. wray: that one is even harder for me to imagine. >> yeah. i suspect it would be pretty hard for the united states attorney giuliani to imagine what he was going after anthony solano for years, as anthony solano's lawyers said, it has
been a year, time to wrap it up. i just wanted to put the context of there -- out there. with respect to obstruction of justice, which you said is something that should be taken extreme we serious at the federal level, official acts can be evidence of obstruction of justice, correct? mr. wray: i think that is a legal question that i will leave to the lawyers. would you stop and instruction of justice investigation that involved an official act or would you continue to investigate? the obstruction was also an official act. mr. wray: again, i would have to look at the loft, but my impression is that if we have evidence that suggest possible violations of the obstruction statutes, we would continue to investigate it until we raise conclusions. >> a lawyer for a subject to obstruct justice?
mr. wray: absolutely. >> my time is up. >> to wife for being here. -- mr. horowitz, can you remind us who these people were? mr. horowitz: ms. mills was a counselor, and miss samuelsson was in her front office. >> why do they show up in your report? mr. horowitz: for good reasons. on the one hand, after they left wenttate department, they through secretary clinton's emails to decide which ones they concluded where work-related and which ones were not. those that were work-related were forwarded to the state department. secretary clinton's interview on july 2, representing her as her lawyer. >> so their professional
relationships in the government and outside the government, compensated as lawyers, personal and political relationships. they were allowed to accompany secretary clinton to her interview. how could that be? mr. horowitz: are we describing the rationale given to us? we think it was inconsistent with normal investigative procedure and were concerned. >> where they involved in inks expunged inminal -- criminal information? mr. horowitz: they were ultimately involved in abstracting individuals to what theystroy concluded were non-work-related emails or leave it to others to describe what that meant. >> where they ever a target of the investigation themselves? mr. horowitz: from our review, what we were told was that the only individuals considered for potential charging decision with secretary clinton. nobody was listed
as a subject of this investigation at any point in time. >> can you think of any other investigation that had those subjects of the investigation? you couldtz: i think probably have a circumstance. i would leave it to director wray. a focuscase, there was of some idea of who was the individual or individuals that events.olved in the that would be surprising, but i would defer to the director. andirector, can you give example of any investigation like this where people were potentially involved in the destruction of criminal evidence and allowed to accompany as opposed subject of investigation, not manned target of an investigation? mr. wray: hard for me to come up with one. with my experience, subjects do not usually accompany each other to interviews. i asked director comey about
this in a hearing, homeland security committee, and he said that when you are trying to get information out of a witness, maybe a subject, but when trying to get information and trying to compel them, it may take a long time. if you have to subpoena them, you would not do things like this. can you think of examples like that? mr. wray: i have testified my experience here at i am reluctant to speak in terms of something never happening. in my experience, there are very few absolutes in the world. but certainly the norm is what i described. bizarre. >> we do tell us about president obama's comments about the investigation of hillary clinton's imo the spring and summer of 2016? mr. horowitz: there were several occasions were either president obama or his press secretary made comments about the clinton concernsestigation and
by both the investigative team and the attorney general and prosecutors. we also describe, it is one of the reasons cited to us by director comey for his belief that he had to, and essence, go it alone and make the announcement he made on july 5. >> many of us on both sides of the aisle are concerned about the erosion of norms, about article two, officials and ongoing investigations. i think it is a terrible thing in 2017 and 2018, and i think it is a terrible thing in 2016. culture of the department of justice, was there a sense of the president of the united states commenting on an ongoing investigation was a problem? mr. horowitz: it was a concern, and we described the reaction, which was surprised and concerned. the attorney general and justice department reached out to the white house to find out -- find
out how this occurred in white and that it could not continue to occur. >> general lynch then would seemingly be a person who wants to guard the integrity of these norms, yet she is meeting with the former president of the united states, the husband of someone being investigated, even if not named as the subject. once she crossed this line having sat on the tarmac with president clinton, what steps did she then take? mr. horowitz: at that point, she went to the department, an ethics officer to see whether it required her to be recused, which is one step. there is mandatory recusal, and the laws were very up in the air as to that. there is also the permissive recusal. as toe got an opinion whether she was required to recuse. she decided not to on a permissive basis. then she publicly announced on
july 1 what her role would be going forward. founddescribed here, we it confusing and unclear what she was telling the public her role would ultimately be. on the one hand, she was saying that she followed her normal toctice to adhere recommendations and fully intended to accept the recommendation. on the other hand, saying she would accept the recommendation. not clear what that meant since there are potential conflicts. >> not clear to the bureau. theclear to those making decisions. and not clear to the public. mr. horowitz: correct. , you saidr wray you're going to institute new training about leaks inside the bureau. kudos. it is clearly necessary. can you give the layman's summary on what individuals are
allowed to talk to the press about, when and why? mr. wray: hard to put it all in one thumbnail. certainly, there are things like not to stick within the charging documents, as we talked about before. would not talk about ongoing investigations publicly. but i think there are situations like talking about an arrest that has been made. nor example, you ofte tsipras conferences with partners announcing an arrest. those are some of the kinds of situations, but the reason we have had a very specific and detailed policy is to make sure that everybody understands what those rules are. and one of the things it is clear to me is with the new policy in place, we need to pound home the importance of following the policy. i want to be in a situation where everybody in our organization understands exactly what the rules are so that, a,
the 99.9% of them that follow them will follow them, and, b, the remaining person, it is easy to pursue an appropriate investigation and discipline if were intend -- if warranted. >> director, we are glad you are there. your agency is incredibly important. there has been a massive breach of public trust, and it needs to be restored. >> thank you. you testified that president obama's comments about the clinton investigation in 2015 caused concern. so you must be very concerned about president trump's ongoing comments about the current mueller investigation, including his thoughts about his pardon powers.
mr. horowitz: what we were looking at was what individuals told us, not to speak of what the reaction would be at the fbi or elsewhere. the director can speak to that question better than i. >> so am a director, do you have concerns about president trump is the mueller investigation, including mentioning pardon powers? mr. wray: senator, there are in awful lot of opinions being expressed and a lot of topics about our work. what i try to make sure our folks focus on is the work itself in following the rules. is al add that there reason why i always said that we are going to do our work independently and objectively, no matter who likes it. >> thank you. that is very reassuring. unfortunately, these kinds of h theng public to do weig public. when director, came to this committee on may 3, and he was fired on may 9, some of us
committee -- some of us on this committee question why he made the derogatory comments about hillary at a press conference in july. anmenting publicly about chargeable conduct is not fbi policy then or now, correct? mr. wray: senator, i am not aware of any policy that permitted it at the time. we are working on policies to make even more clear things that may have been less clear before. >> good. thank you. mr. horowitz, i want to follow up about the difference between gross negligence and extremely careless. you said it was just a political difference, but that is not true. a few pages of your report explain the difference, and you may clear about how unified your team was in its early decision early fbi team, on the decision that there was no evidence that senator clinton intentionally or willfully mishandled testified
information, and if she had, that would be what they would have considered gross negligence. so your answer to senator graham made of fat as if the determination that senator clinton did not have the requisite intent necessary for a criminal charge was a close call or a late call, that that was not the case. i would like to give you a chance to correct that misimpression. mr. horowitz: that would not be my intention. i think the concern we highlight here is that by drafting a statement where he said he believed there was gross negligence and turning it into extremely careless, it was precisely the concern people commented on, which people viewed it as close and roughly one in the same. i understand the former has a legal meaning and the latter does not, but to the public at large, that was the concern prosecutors and others had about his comments. >> i think it is really import
for director, to be careful in the use of these kinds of terms. that he should never have editorialized in such a way to begin with. what needed to happen for any kind of criminal prosecution of senator clinton, there had to be a requisite intent, and there was no requisite intent. when director comey am a when he said externally careless, i think that was being very careless on his part. i wanted to go on to something else that was brought up at this hearing. one of my colleagues said that they did not --strzok did not want donald trump elected. if true, why do you think he did not leak any information about the trip russia investigation for which was also ongoing? the argument he made to us as
to why there is evidence he was not biased is precisely that argument. i do not think that that necessarily closes off the bias question, simply because he did not violate a rule regarding leaking. >> the fact is that the public did not know that there was an investigation over russia's attempts to interfere with our elections or any of the trump team being involved with the russian efforts. reasonable people could conclude, and i conclude that the bottom line is that russia russia's spread lies about hillary clinton come a offering help to the trump family. comey pitched in by keeping the fbi investigation into the trap russia situation a secret while publicly trashing secretary
clinton in july and reopening the investigation in late october, even though comey knew about the weiner laptop emails a full month before coming up with -- publicly that he was going to reopen the clinton investigation. so as far as what reasonable people could conclude, james comey tipped the scales further in trump's favor. is there anything in your report that argues against this reasonable conclusion? mr. horowitz: senator, we do not going to the impact that had on the election. woulds not something we even have any ability or expertise to do. >> i say reasonable people could conclude that russia and comey helped to elect president trump. during the time of the election, candidate trump was very happy with what was going on with comey and invited the russians to engage in further efforts to
go after mrs. clinton. so i just want to know, there have been calls for a special counsel. this is for you, mr. horowitz. should there be further investigations into what happened regarding the clinton investigation? mr. horowitz: as inspector general, that is clearly not my decision to make. the last thing i am going to do is step outside the authorities you have given me, the congress, and the ig act. >> so you cannot respond to that? mr. horowitz: no. anything that indicates there should be another special counsel or further investigation of the clinton matter? mr. wray: the decision about whether or not and when to appoint special counsel is one that is reserved to the attorney
general or the deputy attorney general if the attorney general is recused. one of the key takeaways from this report is that the fbi director should not get out of his lane. said toeputy director you that you should begin an investigation into the clinton matter? mr. wray: senator, i cannot comment on my conversations with the deputy attorney general about investigations. >> thank you. >> i have been told that one republican and one democrat is going to still come for their first round, so senator kennedy said he had one question and senator whitehouse said he had one question. normally i did not want to have a second round because we're close to votes.
you go ahead, senator kennedy, with your one question, and senator whitehouse with his one question. if the other two do not show up, we're going to stop. >> general horvitz, i want to ask assistant attorney general peter -- my understanding is that he was an assistant attorney general that attended all the senior staff meetings at justice. senior staff meetings, the attorney general was in attendance, and various investigations by the fbi were discussed. that he was aand .ood friend of john podesta mr. podesta was president obama's chief of staff, and he was chairman of the hillary clinton for president campaign, dzik had also worked
for governor dukakis, vice president mondale. he asked the clinton campaign for a job for his 24-year-old son. while the job request was pending, he sent mr. podesta a heads up female about -- heads up email about the release of mrs. clinton's emails. is my understanding right? >> it is. >> did you look at mr. kadzik's telecommunication devices to see if he had other communications with mr. podesta? >> frankly, i do not recall. let me get back to you on that. >> would you do that? did you look at mr. podesta's telecommunication devices to see if he got other communications from him? mr. horowitz: i do not believe we went to mr. podesta's
communication devices as a third party. do that?you mr. horowitz: let me talk to the team and get back to you on that. he already was giving inside information to the chairman of the hillary clinton campaign. he did it once. his son's job request was pending. seems to be a reasonable possibility he did it other times. i am not alleging it. i just want to know. thank you. >>o r wiesse for your hard work and for what has been a long hearing. thanking you,n by inspector general horowitz, and your staff, director of the fbi, mr. wray, and the thousands of agents and doj professionals for doing the difficult, sometimes dangerous jobs, to investigate and prosecute crimes. the ig and fbi have demonstrated something very important through this process, which is that our most senior law enforcement
leaders are subject to scrutiny. it bears repeating that for this review, senior ig staff conducted over 100 interviews and reviewed over 1.2 million documents, including interviews with the former president, former ag, former fbi director. that is something that would not happen in a lot of other countries. it makes me proud to be an american. in the u.s., even the most senior officials to make mistakes are held to account. found seriouse errors in judgment and deviations from policy for releasing information about the clinton investigation just before the 20 16th election. it is important american people understand that there are 37,000 hard-working fbi employees. decisions found in the clinton investigation were not the political lies. i am encouraged by the report.
the ig found that fbi policies are most important to follow and thees are the highest and pressures to do over it from them the greatest, including policies to avoid interference with ongoing investigations and even the appearance of a political bias. concern they, i am department of justice is being pressured to release information to congress that could compromise the special counsel's ongoing investigation. after theversight conclusion of an investigation, but i would like to hear that you're committed to ensuring the bureau will not risk interference with special counsel mueller's ongoing criminal investigations by providing midstream information to congress that risks leaking subjects in the investigation. >> while on the one hand, we are committed to cooperating with congressional oversight and that is an important part of our responsibility, we are also committed an obligated to
of ongoing integrity criminal investigations, not just ones you mentioned but others. we are also obligated to protect sources. we are obligated to do things with respect to secrecy, which makes it illegal to share certain information. none of that is meant to suggest we do not want to do everything we can and are doing everything thean to cooperate with maybe six different committees in congress that are andstigating different ways related matters. we are providing mountains of information, briefings, interviews, reading room access, etc., so we are doing everything we can to be responsible while at the center making sure that we do not jeopardize ongoing terminal investigations. that is something i am committed to. >> thank you. our president has described the fbi's investigation into campaign activities in 2016 and did this earlier today as a
witchhunt. know the justice department has uncovered ongoing interference with our 2016 elections, has charged 20 individuals and three companies with a crime. trump campaign and administration officials have admitted to acting as undisclosed foreign agents and lying about conversations with the russian a visitor, not to mention -- russian ambassador, not to mention bank fraud. do you believe the investigation into russia's interference in the election is important and should be completed without political interference? mr. wray: senator, i believe special counsel mueller is conducting an important investigation. i believe the question of russian interference with our election is something that needs to be taken very seriously and the investigative work being done on that regard needs to be completed. >> thank you. mr. horowitz, i think you would agree that even the appearance
of political bias within an fbi investigation is problematic. mr. horowitz: correct. the investingfe -- that is why when talking about the text message demonstrated political bias, correct? mr. horowitz: correct. >> our president routinely tweets about ongoing thattigations in a way criticizes them as an attempt to undermine them. in my view, these are inappropriate efforts to criticize an ongoing investigation. paul manafort is now in jail come a charge with felonies, laundering tens of millions of dollars, tax fraud, encouraging witnesses to life. president trump has called it very unfair. should the american people have faith that the manafort and gates edition is being handled fairly? mr. horowitz: i will not speak for the special counsel's office. i expect all of our employees to conduct themselves
professionally and fairly. does the fbi take professional opinions into account? do they look as to whether political beliefs influence in the fbi or which agents are chosen for investigations? use political litmus test as a basis for who works on investigations. i do think it is extremely important that all of our agents understand not just of the importance of objectivity but the appearance of objectivity. that means we need to be focused on making sure we are following our rules and processes, following with the inspector general refers to as long-established norms. a safe place for us is in process and making sure we follow the process. as we do that, no matter who likes the results, we will be ok. the important thing is to make sure our process is bulletproof. agree more. mr. horowitz, president trump
has claimed fbi officials are biased against him and in favor of hillary clinton. youour investigation, did find the fbi took any investigative steps based on political bias against the president? mr. horowitz: no. the one area where we were concerned about bias was in the october time period, the weighing of agent strzok focusing on the russia investigation versus the weiner laptop and our concern given the text messages decision. >> did you conclude that we should have concern about the initiation or the ongoing conduct of the special counsel investigation? mr. horowitz: we did not look at that in this review. >> last question, mr. horowitz. this report seems to indicate the wisdom of long-established practiceses and with recusal.
the policies are in place with a reason, and it was wrong to deviate from them. do you agree that ? >> partly one of the most important takeaways of a report. i appreciate the hard work and the confidence you are working to restore in the american people that these established and long observed policies and procedures would be followed going forward. the hearing is a good reminder of why federal law enforcement and respect for the will of law in the united states have been and should be the envy of the free world. i know it can be frustrating we do not know what is happening in the ongoing special counsel investigation by the hearing today reminds us that that is how sensitive ongoing want horsemen investigations should work -- ongoing law enforcement investigations should work. feared --very much think you're a much. -- thank you very much.
senator cruz: these are difficult days for the other bureau of investigation -- federal bureau of investigation, and centuries long traditions of fair and impartial administration of justice. there are thousands of good and honorable men and women who work at the bureau and department of justice. their integrity has been called into question by misconduct and political bias at the highest levels. 2017, then director james comey testified before this committee that he had an anonymous source of any news matters related to the donald trump or clinton investigation. he further testified in response to questioning from the german that -- chairman, that he did not authorize someone else at
the fbi to be an anonymous source in news reports about the donald trump or clinton administration, he answered categorically no. in contrast, andrew mccabe has stated that director james comey was aware of his leaking to the press. moreover, his lawyer said he had records that demonstrate director comey was aware of the leaking of -- to the press while it was happening. both of their statements cannot be true. it is not possible, logically, for director comey to tell us the truth and for former that the director mccabe to be telling the truth. which one is telling the truth to the best of your knowledge? mr. wray: i cannot answer that question because of an ongoing matter. if the fbi in
possession of the emails referred to andrew mccabe of the deputy director being aware of and authorizing leaks to the press? mr. wray: same answer, unfortunately. withor cruz: how seriously the fbi treat the matter of a director of the fbi perjuring himself before the senate judiciary committee? mr. wray: as the current director of the fbi testifying, i take the obligation to tell the truth seriously and would expect our organization to do so also. senator cruz: i would hope you take as seriously the fidelity of law of prior directors. one or the other is not telling the truth, i do not know which one. ail that are em demonstrate mccabe or director comey was telling the truth, this committee and the american people need to know. simply saying an ongoing
investigation means we will never know who live to this committee, that is not acceptable -- who live to this committee -- lied to this committee, not acceptable. mr. wray: what are these takeaways from the inspector general's report at issue today is the importance of following long-established norms in the department, which includes commenting on pending matters in front of congress or otherwise publicly. i do not believe it would be appropriate for me, no matter how tempted i might be to answer your question, to deviate from the norms. in one of my force -- first acts as director. senator cruz: with pending matter, the clinton investigation is closed, correct? mr. wray: yes. senator cruz: there is no allegation that this is under the scope of a special counsel, nothing to do with russia collusion or anything else.
did the director of the fbi perjuring himself to this committee? that is not within robert mueller's jurisdiction, is it? mr. wray: i do not know what is in his scope. there isruz: you say an ongoing investigation and i am trying to understand what investigation covers the email demonstrating whether the fbi director committed perjury. mr. wray: i cannot answer that without describing an ongoing investigation. senator cruz: you will not describe the investigation but not answer the question because there might be something? mr. wray: i am testified that the questions you are asking, i know for a fact implicate matters that i cannot describe without implicating an ongoing investigation. cruz: let's go deeper into the issue you brought up with the senator coons about
potential bias in the investigation. that thelusion was agents involved in the conduct "brought discredit to themselves , show doubt about the fbi handling of the investigation and impacted the reputation of the fbi. there were approximately 15 full-time agents and analysts on this investigation. correct? mr. horowitz: i am not sure the exact number, it could well have been that number, it was a lot and probably around the number. the deputy decision director -- dedicated to set -- assistant director was placed in charge of supervising the day-to-day operations, peter struck. that during the investigation in late 2015 and 2016, when he was in charge, he used an fbi device to call
ingsident trump and "f' idiot" and a loathsome human and a disaster. mr. horowitz: correct. senator cruz: did he say multiple times donald trump cannot be president? mr. horowitz: correct/ senator cruz: when lisa page said maybe you are meant to stay where you are because you are meant to protect the country from that menace, meeting president trump. did peter say he could protect our country at many levels? mr. horowitz: he did. when lisa page asked him whether donald trump whatever become president and he said no, nobody is not, we will stop it. mr. horowitz: correct. senator cruz: many similar statements by peter? mr. horowitz: correct and you could go on, seven days later, it was of concern to us,
referencing an insurance policy. senator cruz: beyond page and agentsthree other fbi that showed animus. they called president trump an supporters,and his a slur for the answer -- a slur for the intellectual disabled that i will not repeat. mr. horowitz: correct. senator cruz: does that give one confidence in fairness? mr. horowitz: it undercuts confidence. toator cruz: you referred former congressman anthony weiner's laptop, the fbi discovered the presence of on septemberemails deputy016, how long did
director mccabe and director comey know about these emails that were potentially relevant to the clinton administration? mr. horowitz: director -- deputy director mccabe was aware on september 28. he wasn't -- was notified on multiple occasions, on september 29, there was follow-up about that by peter strzok and others. between september 29 and october 24, or october 25, no activity by the fbi headquarters. it was only the instigator on october 21. when the new york field office went to the southern district of new york and said no one is doing anything about this. senator cruz: nearly a month. mr. horowitz: to clarify, it is not clear what and when director comey new because there is testimony from director mckay --
director mccabe that he pretend on it -- brief cam on it somewhere in september, leftover, a flyby briefing. in an area like this, you need to be careful, i am guessing christopher wray, when you are managing 37,000 people, not clear whether it is ok to pull someone account -- hold someone accountable only who had a flyby briefing. introduce like to events about the clinton investigation and background documents into the record to supplement the inspector general report without objection. so ordered. i have one short question for christopher wray/ . attorney says he cannot turn over certain emails, the same ones mentioned by senator cruz because he does not
have them and because of a nondisclosure agreement. we have a copy of that agreement and it does not contain legally required language to notify the employee of exceptions that protect disclosures to congress. on juneyou about this 5. i do not have an answer. you will probably tell me i will get an answer. when will the fbi response to my oversight requests? i have great confidence you can help us get that information. have you informed andrew mccabe that he is allowed to provide information to congress, and what steps have you taken to make sure your nondisclosure agreements comply with the law? i amray: i am not sure aware of all the specifics of the back-and-forth on the nondisclosure agreements involving andrew mccabe.
the last i heard, there was one issue related to this issue, the nondisclosure agreement, i thought had been resolved. i understand there may be follow-up and i will need to look into that. i would expect we will make sure that our agreement is fully compliant with all of the applicable laws. my understanding was it is but we will make sure it is. >> can you respond to that in writing? mr. wray: absolutely. >> the information requested. mr. wray: yes mr. chairman. >> the record will stay open for a week, a lot of members will have follow-up russians. -- follow-up questions. thank you for your cooperation. we are adjourned.
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> christopher wray meeting with senator grassley and you can see this entire hearing tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. live to the white house dhs secretary speaking to reporters, live coverage on c-span. >> multiples overeats month last year. since this time last year, there has been a 325% increase in unaccompanied alien children and % increase35% -- 435
in family units entering the country illegally and a 1700% increase in claims resulting in asylum backlog today in our country of 600,000 cases. since 2013, the united states has admitted more than half a million illegal immigrant minors and family units from central america, most of whom today are at large in the united states. at the same time, large criminal organizations such as ms 13 have violated our borders and gain a deadly foothold within the united states. bes entire crisis needs to -- is not new. it has been occurring over many decades. currently, it is the expose of product of loopholes and our federal immigration law that prevents illegal immigrant minors and family members from being detained and remove to their home country. these loopholes create a functional he opened