Passengers and crew. Annexing crimea, invading ukraine, killing journalists, propping up assad, the butcher of damascus, build the berlin wall, imposing an iron curtain against freedom, and committing cyber theft and conspiring and doing a sabotage of the american president ial election in 2016. Perhaps our friends on the other side of the aisle can show more respect for the fbi and the doj, as so many of us do, including myself. So let me ask these questions and with my limited time, i really need just a yes or no. Are you in the business of helping to secure the elections in 2018 and making sure that there is an infrastructure in the doj to help states have secure elections . Yes or no . Yes. Special counsel mueller, im reminded, some of us would say, we read it in the history books, of the saturday night massacre. I know you must be aware of it. During the meeting of may 8th, 2018, with you, sessions, and the president , the day before comey was fired, what did you discuss regarding the fbi investigation . Congresswoman, as i explained previously, im not going to be discussing anything related to that until after the investigation. Thank you very much, mr. Deputy attorney general. Let me then go forward with the question of the protection of the special prosecutor. Do you have in place a protection scheme or system that would void a potential saturday night massacre . Do you, in fact, have the authority to stand up against the president , who is putting out the rightwing media to taint the Mueller Investigation . Will you protect mr. Mueller if he deserves protection and has done nothing to violate his duties and responsibilities . As ive explained, if he hasnt violated is that yes or no, mr. Deputy attorney general . I wont take any action, unless hes violated his duties. Let me show you these individuals here. It says that the trump accusers want a day in court or at least want to be heard. The president is the chief executive and Law Enforcement officer of the United States. Therefore, he is an officer of the United States. What the department of justice, what intentions do you have to allow these women who are accusing the president of Sexual Misconduct and have never been heard in terms of a public setting, as many of us on this committee, women on this committee, Democratic Women on this committee have asked this committee to hold a hearing for these women, what does the department of justice intend to do given the fact that the president is the chief Law Enforcement officer of the United States of america . I dont think i have any position on that, congresswoman. If they file a lawsuit, theyre free to do so. It wouldnt be a department matter. Would you not believe that its important to give these women a forum to be heard . I just gave a long litany of the great successes of the department of justice. Can we refer these women to the department of justice, if they walked up to the department of justice, would there be an intake officer, an fbi officer that would take their complaints . If somebody wants to file a complaint of a potential federal crime, yes, they can report that to the fbi or they can write. Anybody can do that at any time. Well, then let me publicly say to these women. You have one option athis time, is to go to the department of justice, as the Deputy Attorney general has just said to us, to be able to file a complaint. And i would encourage them to do that. I would also encourage this hearing, as well, to do this committee to have hearings. Let me ask this last question regarding the whole commutation and the memo by attorney general sessions that rescinds memos regarding the charging and sentencing policy and also the use of private prisons. That was by eric holder. What is the position of the u. S. Department of justice as it relates to a fair and just commutation program . And also, the issues dealing with overprosecution and the sentencing policy that was offered by erik holdc holder th considered fair and just, and the use of private prisons have known to be abusive to prisoners and do not allow foela requests to go forward. Time of the gentlemen has expired. The Deputy Attorney general may answer the question. Thank you. You raise a number of issues, congresswoman. I dont know that i have time to respond to them all. But i want to clarify, anybody is free to report to the department of justice when they believe a crime has been committed. Its not a complaint, in the way you might file a complaint in some local police departments. Youre free to report any allegations, and the department will conduct an appropriate review, as we do with any allegations of alleged criminal conduct. We initiate investigations, though, only if we determine theres proper predication under our policies. Well, im yielding back, mr. Chairman, but he did not answer my question. The time of the gentlemen has already expired. The chair recognizes the gentlemen from california, mr. Issa, for five minutes. Thank you. Deputy attorney general, if someone comes in to make that complaint or file that information, theyre going to have their identification che checked for who they are, right, to get into the building . Im not certain if they were to if they were admitted to the building, you can actually walk into most fbi offices, i think, without having to go through security but you wouldnt consider it draconian that if while theyre filing this complaint or allegation that their drivers license was looked at, would you . Well, if were going to conduct an investigation, we need to know who the witnesses are. Thank you, i just wanted to know that that wasnt draconian. In the case of mr. Strzok, you know, there was an appearance of impropriety that people are observing, but you had said, well, there may not have been the reason. But if it wasnt the appearance of impropriety based on his numerous rather strident tweets or not tweets, but texts, commenting adversely on the president , what was it . If i said that, congressman, it was inadvertent. The decision to remove mr. Strzok off that case was made by director mueller, based upon the circumstances known to him. Its important to understand, though, that those Text Messages were uncovered in the case of an Inspector General investigation thats not complete. So we wont be able to make a determination about what, if any, discipline is required. Let me go to the Inspector General now. This is michael horowitz, right . Correct. Michael horowitz has repeatedly complained that he cannot, in fact he does not have the authority to look for impropriety by lawyers, as to their conduct as lawyers, because the office of the opr has that authority. Thats still true, isnt it . Its true, but he does have authority for certain types of misconduct by lawyers. Okay. So we have a situation in which you can look at some of the misconduct, not others. So one of the pieces of misconduct he cannot look at would be the question of bias or the appearance of bias in their investigations. In how theyre conducting it and or decisions. That is uniquely exclude to the Inspector General in your cabinet position versus all other cabinet positions. Im not certain about that. And if i may, ill check and get back to you on that. But he is excluded . It would either be opr or the Inspector General. And with regard to conflicts of interest, i believe certain of those are within the jurisdiction of the Inspector General, but i would have to verify. You can get back to me on that. These political views that mr. Chabot mentioned. Its pretty clear that these are people who had a strong preference, but notwithstanding that, lets be very candid. Nobody up here is going to claim to be without their political bias. So one of the reasons that when there is a conflict of interest, people recuse themselves, and when there is an appearance of impropriety, their exaccuscused. And one of the reasons we look to a special prosecutor and why you appointed a special prosecutor is to not only get past the politics on this dais, but to get past the appearance of any conflict by the department of justice, is that fair to say . To mimnimize any appearance n either side of bias, thats correct. Okay. But the special prosecutor under the remaining statute, how its done, is still a group looking for wrongdoing. That is their charge. Theyre not looking for rightdoing, theyre looking for wrongdoing. Thats fair to say. Like any prosecutor, youre not lacking for innocence . The way i would characterize it, congressman, theyre looking for the truth and then theyll make a determination about whether or not its appropriate to prosecute. Okay. So my question to you is, if thats the case, if we accept that my assumption that theyre looking the to if they can, to hang the president or people around him, hear me out for a moment, then there really isnt a problem with having people that are deadset on trying to find anything that will incriminate the administration in a russian connection, which is somewhat their charge. So ill posture to you that maybe its not that bad who have people that really dislike the president and would like to hang him. Having said that, when theres impropriety, such as mr. Strzok, when there is, in fact, a history at the fbi of withholding information from congress. When there is the appearance of impropriety by the department of justice. And when the Inspector General is limited under the statute, both because he doesnt have full access and because certain portions are out, wouldnt you say that this is a classic example, where in order to investigate the fbi and the department of justice, a special prosecutor who is equally lackilack i looking for the truth, if it exists adversely, to the conduct of the fbi and the department of justice, is within your charge and responsibility to see that it happens . Time of the gentlemen has expi expired. Theres a number of assumptions, congressman, and my simple answer to it would be, if we believe there was a basis for an investigation or a special counsel, i can assure that we would act. Mr. Chairman, i would say that since weve already had zpl dismissals for wrongdoing, since theres ongoing internal investigations, the elements necessary to ask for a special prosecutor to, in fact, see what was done wrong, already existed. Time of the gentlemen has expired. The chair recognizes the gentlemen from tennessee, mr. Cohen for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. First, i want to thank you for your service to the country and accepting the difficult situation under the difficult circumstances that you have. Has President Trump ever communicated with you about removing Robert Mueller from his role as special counsel . Congressman, i am not going to be discussing my communications with the president , but i can tell you that nobody has communicated to me a desire to remove Robert Mueller. You said youre not going to relate your conversations with President Trump. How many conversations have you had since your appointment with President Trump . Im the Deputy Attorney general, congressman, and its appropriate for me to talk with the president about Law Enforcement issues. And i dont believe thats an appropriate issue for discussio discussion. When you chose Robert Mueller to be the special counsel, what were his characteristics, his history, and the reasons for you to have chosen him for this important position . I think it would be very difficult, congressman, for anybody to find somebody Better Qualified for this job. Director mueller has, throughout his lifetime, been a dedicated and respected and heroic Public Servant. He, after college, volunteered to serve as a marine in vietnam, where he was wounded in combat. He attended law school and then devoted most of his career to serving as a federal prosecutor, with the exception of brief stints in private practice, he served as United States attorney in two districts in massachusetts and in northern california. He served in many other positions in the department, after he lost his position as the head of the Criminal Division when president clinton was elected in 1992, he briefly went into private practice and then he went back at an entrylevel position, as a homicide prosecutor, trying to help with the Violent Crime problem in the district of columbia in the early 1990s. He then rose once again through the ranks and ultimately was confirmed, i believe unanimously, as fbi director and protected this nation after 9 11. And then, when his tenyear term expired, he was so wellrespected, his term was extended, i believe also unanimously, for another two careers. So i believe based on his reputation, his service, his patriotism, and his experience with the department and with the fbi, i believe he was an ideal choice for this task. Thank you, sir. I agree with you. Fbi director wray agrees with you. He said similar thought. He said he was a smart lawyer, a dedicated Public Servant and well respected in the fbi. I think everybody on the other side of the aisle agreed with you when you appointed him. Ad everybody in this Judiciary Committee and probably everybody in this congress agreed with this has appointment as fbi director, which was unanimous. His reappointment, which was unanimous, by republican bush and democrat obama. Everybody respects that man in this country. I didnt. I dont. He is the most respected man in this obviously, we knew that would be an exception. But the fact is, they didnt start to dislike him until he started to get issues that affected the president that currently serves this country. And because of that, theyve said the fbi was in tatters, that the fbi, the chief Law Enforcement, top Law Enforcement folks in this country, are questionable. Some of their allies on television said theyre like the kgb. Theyve questioned you, questioned the Justice Department, that i have question theyve questioned some of the most loyal, dedicated, fearle lesles people in our country. And i find it repugnant. And what do you think that they say that theres something wrong with the fbi and that theyre like the kgb . Congressman, as i know youre aware, ive expressed concerns with certain aspects of certain things done by the fbi. But in general, throughout my experience working with fbi agents throughout the decades, ive found them to be an Exceptional Group of Public Servants, very loyal, faithful, and dedicated. And i believe some of the finest people that i know are agents of the federal bureau of investigation. I thought about them, sir, when i warmed the army navy game. And i thought about them, because i have the honor, as everybody up here has, of recommending some folks to be at west point and annapolis. Those are the cream of the crop. And the people at the fbi in Law Enforcement, heir the cream of the crop. And Justice Department attorneys are, too. Its not easy to get a job in justice, no matter where you went to law school and what you did. You hired the best. And you always have. And i compliment you on that. I hope and i know you will continue to hold the department of justice up as a pantheon of outstanding lawyers and jurists and take justice where it should go, as truth demands and justice dictates. I yield back the balance of my time. The chair recognizes the gentlemen from iowa, mr. King for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, mr. Rosenstein for your testimony here and your service. A number of things im curious about here. First of all, in the interview of Hillary Clinton that took place reportedly july 2nd of 16, how many people were in the room for that . How many people had the opportunity to question her . Congressman, i do not know the answer to that. I believe when the Inspector General completes his review, we may have additional information, but i personally do not know. And would you know who selected that team . No, i do not. Really . Okay. I recall the testimony here by james comey and also by then attorney general Loretta Lynch that testified, one of the two of them, that there were three representatives of the fbi and three representatives of doj in that room during that interview, would that be consistent with practices that you would anticipate . Am i going to hear ig again . Typically, we would have at least two agents conduct an interview. And there may be any number of attorneys based on whos on the case, i dont know the details of that particular decision. And a practice in an interview like that, would there be records kept of that interview . Yes, if there were fbi agents present, typically they would take notes and produce a report summarizing the interview. Would there be a videotape, audio tape or transcript . Generally, though. Why not . Its just not in the practice to do it. It needs to become the practice. The practice out across the countryside, many of our local Law Enforcement is if youre a county deputy and you interview somebody for drunk driving, you tape that interview. And we have sheriffs out there that will say, if they dont do, thats cause for discipline. Now were sitting here with a mystery on what went on in that interview of july 2nd and as many questions have been asked about that before and after and they there trickle through history until we get to the bottom of it. We dont know who was in the room. Do you have any knowledge if peter strzok may have been one of those people . I do not know. Its been reported in the news that he may have been one of those people. I may have seen that in the news, but i personally do not know. And when i look through a timeline here, quickly to drop this into the record, may april, may of 2016, peter strzok interviews huma abedin and cheryl mills, when happened to be in the room with Hillary Clinton and her chief of staff and is subject to the investigation. Then on may 2nd, comey emails fbi officials a draft statement a couple of months before his recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton and in that chain, Peter Strzoks name shows up. Its been reported that hes the one that swapped out the references from gross negligent to extremely carelessness. Do you have any knowledge about that . No, but i would point out, congressman, its the Inspector General review that has turned up i thought that was going to be the answer. And also, skipping forward to july 24th, fbi interviews Michael Flynn on russia. Its reported in the news that peter strzok is in that interview. No knowledge to to disagree with the reports that are in the news, however . Correct. And then we get the news later on that some time in midsummer, peter strzok has been removed from muellers investigative team, but we found out december 4th, that that took place publicly. I kind of understand that. If that had drifted into the jet stream, perhaps we wouldnt be in the middle of this controversy. But what about, if his hands are in so many things, and ive not touched them all, by any means. But if he has his hands in this many things, what about the fruit of the poisonous tree . This is the reverse of this. This is the voids of the fruit of the poisonous tree. And im looking at what was reported this morning. I just took a picture of the Television Set on my iphone, just so we all know what im talking about here. A quote from august 6th, 2016, text, lisa page to peter strzok, and they were talking about President Trump. And maybe youre meant shes speaking to peter strzok, her lover, i hear. And maybe youre meant to stay where you are, because youre meant to protect the country from that menace. And Peter Strzoks response is, thanks. Its absolutely true that were both very fortunate. And of course, ill try and approach it that way. I just dont know. It will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many levels. Not sure if that helps. Does that sound like a declaration that he would use his job to leverage his work against the president of the United States . Congressman, the Inspector Generals investigation includes interviews of numerous witnesses and i anticipate, hopefully in the near future, well have a report with the Inspector Generals conclusions. Would you have any opinion on the lack of the fruit from the poisonous tree that might have been erased by peter strzok . Well, as a legal matter, congressman, i can tell you that if evidence is tainted, then that would raise a concern for me. But typically our cases would be prosecuted based on witnesses and documents, not upon the agent, unless the agent were a witness in the case. But that would certainly concern us if there were any tainted evidence in the case. Thank you, mr. Rosenstein. I appreciate it and i yield pack. The chair recognizes the gentlemen from georgia, mr. Johnson, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you for your service to the country. Mr. Rosenstein. Based on the language in your special counsel order or your order appointing the special counsel, does the special counsel have the authority toe investigate any individual who may have obstructed the investigation that fbi director comey confirmed on march 20th of this year, which was the russian interference with the 2016 elections. Special counsel does have authority to investigate any obstruction related to his jurisdiction. Does this authority to investigate possible obstruction include investigating President Trump . I hope you wont take an inference one way or the other congressman, but thats something we dont do. We dont discuss who may or may not be under investigation. Im not asking you if the president is under investigation. Im simply asking whether or not your order appointing the special counsel authorizes the special counsel to investigate the president . It authorizes him to investigate anybody who there is predication to believe obstructed justice. That includes the president . Correct . It would include anybody who was suspected of obstructing justice. All right. Does do you think that its appropriate for the president to comment likely on any pending investigation . Congressman, the decision about whether people in political positions comment on investigations is not mine. My responsibility is to ensure that our investigations are not impacted improperly my any opinion, whether it be a member of congress or anybody else. Well, it would not be appropriate for you to comment about any pending investigation, isnt that correct . Correct. And the president is the chief Law Enforcement officer. He considers himself, in the country. It would be inappropriate for him, then, to comment on a pending investigation, would it not . Congressman, i believe over the years, there have been president s who have made comments about investigations and its simply not my responsibility to make that decision. Well, do you think its appropriate for the president to publicly call for the investigation of specific individuals . Im simply not going to comment on that, congressman, other than to tell you, its my responsibility, along with the attorney general, to make sure that those decisions are made independently by the department, based upon the facts and the law. Has the president ever contacted you to urge action in any pending investigation . Congressman, i have not received any improper orders and im not going to be talking about any communications i may have with the white house. What would be your legal basis for refusing to answer the question whether or not the president has contacted you to urge any action in any pending investigation . What would be your legal basis for refusing to answer that question . Congressman, this is not a partisan issue. I worked on an investigation where the previous president encouraged the department to do an expeditious investigation. So the question for me is, are we or are we not appropriately making an independent determination, regardless of who comments on it . Well, my question i respect your question, but my question is, has the president ever contacted you to urge action in any pending investigation . Yes or no. I have nothing further to say about it, congressman. So youre going to refuse to answer a question from a member of congress seeking to do oversight . Ive told you, congressman, that i have not received any improper orders and im simply not going to talk about communications i think in every administration, senior Law Enforcement officers have to be able to communicate with the president and his officials about appropriate matters within their responsibility and not comment on it. So, you shouldnt draw any inference. Its simply not appropriate for me to talk about communications i may have with the administration. I would tell you, if something happened that was wrong, if somebody ordered me to do something that was improper, but that has not happened. Well, it would be improper for the president to ever contact you about initiating an investigation of someone, would it not . Weve discussed this previously, congressman. President s have commented publicly and no, no, no. My question is, it would be improper for a president to contact you about initiating an investigation of someone. It would be improper, wouldnt it . It would be improper for the president to order me to conduct an investigation that wasnt justified it would be improper for the president to ask you to initiate an investigation, would it not . If it were for improper reasons, yes. And so, is it your testimony today that the president has not asked you to investigate someone, specifically . Congressman, i understand what youre getting at, but as i said, i was in the last administration and the president in the last administration commented on youre being very artful in no, im not. Jumping around and evading answering my question and so, youre not going to answer it. And im not evading. Thats unfortunate. Are you afraid of President Trump firing you . No, im not, congressman. With that, i will yield back. The chair recognizes the gentlemen from texas, mr. Gohmert, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thanks for being here, mr. Rosenstein. Did you ever tell special counsel Robert Mueller that, in essence, everything you do must not only be just and fair, but also must appear beyond reproach. Anything like that . In essence, yes. Since attorney general sessions recused himself, you are effectively the boss of the special counsel and staff, correct . It is correct that i am effectively the boss. Okay. Well, we all know that fbi director james comey was fired. We know of your letter. We know of your public statements. But heres a question. To your knowledge, who first proposed the idea of firing james comey as fbi director . Congressman, im not going to comment on that. The president has explained that he made the decision. And im not going to comment beyond that. At the time you wrote the letter suggesting the firing, did you believe what you put in that letter . Yes, i did. All right. If an fbi employee goes into a meeting and as part of his job, in furtherance of his job, someone in the government and he comes out and he makes a memo, memorializing the meeting, perhaps in the future, past memory refreshed, is that memo doj property . Generally, congressman, i would think that it would be. It might depend whats in the memo, what the subject matter is, but generally, the answer would be yes. Well, an fbi employment agreement, in a statement it says that and this is a person agreeing to work for the fbi, all information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the fbi and all official material to which i have access remain the property of the United States of america. I will not reveal by any means any information, material, from or related to fbi files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment. If you make a memo of things that were discussed in, as part of your job, it would be a violation of that agreement to send that to someone to leak to the press, isnt that right . It well may be. The question im about to ask, im not asking what you may have told attorney general Jeff Sessions. I dont want to know any words used or sources referenced. In fact, im asking a question that could not possibly have any other answer other than one of two words, yes or no. You are free to wholly answer this question with either of those two words. Heres the question. As attorney general Jeff Sessions deputy, did you give Jeff Sessions any advice as to whether or not he should recuse himself in the matter of the Russian Investigation . Yes or no . No. Can i give a little bit of an explanation, congressman . I appreciate your asking that question. I wasnt there. I was confirmed, i believe, on april 25th and took office on april 26th. I was not there at the time of the recusal. And you do you ever talk to bruice ore . Yes. Wasnt he four doors down from yours . I havent counted, but he was down the hall. Of course, hes been demoted over his relationship with fusion gps and then of course, we found out that his wife, nellie, was a russian expert and was paid by fusion gps through the summer of 2016, helping the Clinton Campaign get apparently a dozssier from the russians. How well do you know the people that work on your hall . Well, it varies, congressman. Some of them i know well, some of them i dont know as well. Of course, everyone has some opinions, political opinions or otherwise, the key is not having those affect or bias you in the department of justice. Correct. Well, here is mr. Strzok, some of this has text texts, ta about trump. Hes an idiot like trump. And martin omally, a dword, im not watching, i cant tell you how much i care, talking about the democratic convention, so much more substantiative than the representative debates. At some point the Republican Party needs to pull their head out of their blank, shows no sign of occurring anytime soon. Of course, hes the f we were told by Christopher Wray stands for fidelity, but these were all made in the course of infidelity and he makes slurs against kasich. Its truly unbelievable, i truly hate thaez peopese people, talkt the republicans. No support for the woman who actually has to spend the rest of his life rearing this child, but we care about life. And then aholes. How the f can he be a republican. And on and on it goes. America will get what the voting public deserves. And thats what im afraid of. God, hillary should win 100 million to zero. Did you hear him make a comment the size of anyway. This is not just political opinions. This is disgust iing, unaccountable bias. And theres no way that could not affect a persons work. You aware of just how biased mr. Strzok was . No, i was not. Thank you. One final thing, you im going to ask you a question, the answer is not classified nor privileged. Based on information believed to the best of your knowledge, has the fbi ever used work product or report any part of which was paid for by political campaign, political party, political candidate, or prepared on a candidates behalf . Congressman, the issue that youre the time of the gentlemen has expired. The witness may answer. I know were working with at least one committee, house splenl intelligence, that has access to that information im asking a general question the time of the gentlemen has expired. You can answer the question in the form it was already asked. Not to my knowledge. A point of privilege. Since my character was slandered by mr. Cohen who said that i never we never had challenged mueller until the came after the administration, when he knows how tough i went after fbi director mueller. Hes been here when i went after mueller, while bush was president , he knows i have been after him the gentlemen because of the damage he did and what he stated about me is a lie. And i need the record to properly reflect that. The gentlemens comment is duly noted. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california, miss bass, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. According to an august 17th fbi assessment entitled black identity extremists likely motivated to target Law Enforcement officers, quote, it is very likely that black identity extremists sperp s per of Police Brutality against africanamericans spurred an increase in retaliatory violence. So i tried to get to the bottom of where this report came from, who did it, what its status is. Ive asked attorney general session, identive asked direct wray, now i want to ask you. Did you order the fbi to conduct the assessment. Sorry, what was the date . August 2017 . August of this year. No, i did not. Did you know who authored the report . Are you familiar with the report . Im not familiar with the report. Im familiar with the general issue. And so maybe you could talk a little bit about the general issue, in particular when the fbi began tracking black identity extremism . I think its important for me to explain, congresswoman, that the fbi does not make a determination with regard to domestic groups to base them on their First Amendment views or affiliation. It bases its division on evidence to a propensity to violence. So with regard to members of any ideology, domestically, the fbi would only be investigating if there were some indications. Do you believe that theres a Political Movement in the country called black identity extremism . I dont believe the fbi intends that tone compass a particular Political Movement. What they do is try to categorize different threats that they identify. So you said investigate, but before you do an investigation, theres surveillance, correct . Generally, no. There might need to be a determination first, that there was a base for an investigation, typically before any surveillance. How does that determination take place and where has it taken place . If you want details, i need to get back to you, but the fbi does have very strict guidelines. As you know, several decades ago, there was quite a bit of controversy about this issue. And the fbi has very detailed guidelines for when they initiate investigations. And im not aware of any departure from those guidelines. So one thing that and i am aware of the fbis history from many years ago. Many people are looking at this document, black identity extremism as kel and tell pro 2. One of the issues is that this document for whatever reason was mass distributed to Law Enforcement offices around the country. Are you aware of that . No, im not. So when we talked to director wray, it wasnt clear how this term was even developed. In other words, what evidence was it based on to even come up with a term like that . And then to write a document about it, and then to distribute it to Law Enforcement around the country. I dont know the answer to that, congresswoman, but ive been in this job for eight months and i havent seen any indication that the fbi is approaching this in a biased way. Theyre kentucconducting investigations where they believe the potential suspect represents a particular threat, not because they believe in an ideology or associate with a an ideology, but because they represent a specific threat. So what i am hearing from activists around the country, in particular, activists who were protests Law Enforcement, Police Brutality, or deaths at the hands of Law Enforcement, is that theyre being visited by the fbi. That the fbi is leaving business cards. And the concern about that is that if they do engage in a conversation with an fbi agent and perhaps make a mistake or maybe Say Something that isnt tue, theyre vulnerable to be prosecuted by a Law Enforcement officer. So the activists that have received vits by the fbi have never been involved in violence at all. Are you aware of that happening in any of your offices around the country . No. Let me just express another concern about this. When a document that doesnt seem to have any scientific basis develops a category called with black identity extremism, which no one can say whether or not it really exists, when you send a document like that to Law Enforcement across the country, in some places, i would worry, to take that to say anytime there is an officerinvolved shooting and there is a protest, the people who protest might be black identity extremists. To the best of my knowledge, the fbi is not investigating people who are peacefully protesting. Having read that document, ill review it. If there is no basis for this term, i would ask the fbi take the step to retract the document and send a message to Law Enforcement around the country that no such category exists. The chair recognizes the gentlemen from ohio, mr. Jordan, for five minutes. Did the fbi pay Christopher Steel and the was the dossier the basis for obtaining warrants at the fisa court to spay on the Trump Campaign . It boils down to those fundamental questions. Did you pay the guy who wrote it, disproven, disqualified dossier, did you use it to get warrants to spy on americans . Thats what it comes down to. And youre the guy who can answer those questions. And yesterday i was convinced that the answers to those questions was probably yes, but today im even more convinced the answer is yes, based on the Text Messages we got to read early this morning. Peter strzok . N, do you know are you familiar with that name . Former deputy head of Counter Intelligence at the fbi. Peter strzok, that one. I dont know his precise title, but he had a he ran the Clinton Campaign, changed the exoneration letter from extreme carelessness, interviewed mike flynn, peter strzok selected by mr. Mueller to be on his team. That peter strzok, we learned, at all of these Text Messages, got to read some of some of them aerothis morning. As my colleagues point out, some of them you know, show he didnt like trump. Show they dont like the president. But thats nothing new. No one on muellers team likes trump. We already knew that. But i want to focus on one in particular. One in particular. And this is a text message from mr. Strzok to miss page, recalling a conversation and a meeting that took place in Andrew Mccabes office, Deputy Director of the fbi, recalling a meeting earlier, and there strzok says this. I want to believe the path you threw uout for consideration in andys office, then theres a break, theres no way he get elected. I want to believe that, but then he goes, but im afraid that we cant take this risk. This goes into intent. He says, we cant take the risk. The people of this great country might elect donald trump president. We cant take this risk. This is peter strzok, head of countersblenlg counterintelligence at the fbi. Who had a hand in that dossier that was all dressed up and taken to the fisa court. Hes saying, we cant take the risk, we have to do something about it. Dont forget the timeline here either, mr. Rosenstein. Peter strzok, january 10th, hes the guy who changes the exoneration letter from gross negligence, criminal standard to extreme careless ennis. July 2nd, hes the guy who sits in on the clinton interview. July 6th, he says, clintons okay, were not going to prosecute. And august 2016, we have this text message, the same month that the Russian Investigation is opened at the fbi. August 2016. And my guess is thats the same month that the application was taken to the fisa court to get the warrants to spy americans. Using this dossier that Collin Campaign paid for, fake news, all dressed up, taken cot court. It seems to me, an answer to any of those questions, if the answer is yes, if you guys paid Christopher Steel at the same time the democrats and the Clinton Campaign were paying him, or if you took the dossier, dress it all up, took it to the fisa court and used that as a basis to get warrants, and now we have intent in this text message saying theres another text message. My colleague referenced it earlier, where mr. Strzok seds, i can protect our country at many levels. Se says it with all the humility he can muster. I can protect our country at many levels. This guy thought he was super agent james bond at the fbi. This is obvious. Im afraid we cant take that risk. Theres no way we can let the American People make donald trump the next country. Ive got to protect our country. This is unbelievable. And im here to tell you, i think the public trust in this whole thing is gone. So it seems to me youve got two things you can do. Youre the guy in charge. You wrote the memo saying why you needed to fire comey. Youre the guy in charge. You can disband the mueller special prosecutor and do what weve all called for. Appoint a Second Special counsel to look into this, to look into peter strzok, or Everything Else weve learned in the last several weeks. Yes, congressman. And i can assure you that i consider it very important to make sure that a thorough review is done and our Inspector General is doing a thorough review. Thats how we found those Text Messages as part of that review youve given that answer like 15 times. Let me ask you this. Are you concerned i mean, this is what a lot of americans are believing right now. And i certainly do. That the comey fbi and the obama Justice Department worked with one campaign to go after the other campaign. Thats what everything points to. Think about what waeve learned. That they paid for the dossier. Then they worked with peter strzok. So whats it going to take to get a Second Special counsel to answer these questions and ask if peter strzok was really up to what i think he was. I think its important to understand, congressman, we have the Inspector General has 500 employees and a 100 million budget. And this is what he does. He investigates allegations of misconduct involving department employ employees. That review that he is conducting is what turned up those Text Messages. It will also involve interviews of those persons and of other witnesses and were looking forward to his report. And weve met with mr. Horowitz and were anxiously awaiting that report, but that doesnt dismiss the fact that the country thinks we need a Second Special counsel, all kinds of senators think we need a special counsel. What fact pattern do you have to have what kind of Text Messages do you have to see before you say, its time for a Second Special counsel . I want to assure you, congressman, as i think the attorney explained, we take very seriously the concerns of 20 members of this committee or one member of this committee, but we have the responsibility to make an independently determination and we will. I thank the chair. The chair recognizes the gentlemen from new york, mr. Jeffries, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Rosenstein, there are approximately 14,000 special agents within the fbi, is that correct . 37,000 total employees. And is it fair to say that a majority of those fbi special agents are registered republicans . I havent asked them. Is it fair to say that a majority of the 14,000 special agents have conservative leaning political views like much of the Law Enforcement community throughout the entire nation . Im sure many do. I havent counted. Now, the department of justice apparently last evening invited a group of reporters to its offices to view the private Text Messages that were sent during the election by peter strzok and lisa page. Is that correct . I believe thats correct. Now, who exactly authorized the department of justice in advance of a congressional hearing to invite reporters to come view private Text Message Communications between two department of justice employees, who were the subject of a pending investigation . Did you give that order, sir . I think its a very important question you ask, congressman, because that was one of my concerns about this issue, is what is the status of these messages, and is it appropriate to release them . And the determination was made that it is. So we gave notice to their attorneys, we notified the committee. And our goal, congressman, is to make sure that its clear to you and the American People, we are not concealing anything thats embarrassing to the fbi. So is it extraordinary that you would invite reporters for a private viewing in advance of a congressional hearing . Only if the information is appropriate for public release. If its not appropriate for public release, it is never appropriate to disclose it to reporters. Okay. Now, Shannon Bream is a Fox News Supreme Court reporter. She tweeted last evening at 9 29 that fox news producer jake gibson has approximately 10,000 Text Messages between peter strzok and lisa page. Now, its my understanding that only about 350 or so were released to this committee. Is that correct . There are others that are being reviewed and we have assured the Committee Chairs that were going to produce them as soon as we have them available. There are some redactions that need to be made. So how is it possible that fox news apparently has 10,000 Text Messages . I wouldnt assume thats true just because it was in the news. Im not aware of that. But this is a fox News Reporter whos indicating that. Im sure were going to get whats clearly a violation of law and department of justice proceedings. If there were any evidence that we disclosed information to a reporter that wasnt appropriate for public release or wasnt disclosed to the congress, i would agree with you. Im not aware of that. The department of justice investigation should be free of political interference. True . Absolutely. Can we put up a tweet from donald trump on november 3rd at 3 57 a. M. In the morning . God knows what he was doing at that time other than tweeting. It says everybody can we put that tweet up . May i ask consent that the clock stop while were trying what was the gentleman s request . The committee had been given notice of a tweet that i wanted displayed on the screen last evening . Ive been asking for that to be put up. Theres some technical difficulty in doing that . Yes. We will suspend. Mr. Chairman, i believe the gentleman had a minute and 24 seconds. Well make sure he has plenty of time. Thank you, mr. Gates. In the interest of time, ill just read what was written by the president he said, everybody is asking why the Justice Department and fbi isnt looking into all of is the dishonesty going on with crooked hillary and the dems. Is it ever appropriate for any president , any president to encourage the department of justice to launch criminal investigations against his or her perceived political enemies . Im not going to comment on that, congressman. As i have explained previously, the president has put a team of experienced folks in charge of the department of justice and were not going to be influenced by anything other than the facts and the law. Was that an appropriate tweet for the president to send . Its not my role to opine. Did the president s repeated attempts to encourage criminal prosecutions against perceived political enemies concern you, sir . Congressman, as i said, we understand our responsibility, and were going to continue to conduct our responsibility in accordance with the facts and the law. I am grateful the president has put an experienced team in charge of the Justice Department who understand what to do. Thank. New york times had a wideranging interview with the president in it, the president criticized you from being from baltimore. So hes from baltimore. Are you im not from baltimore. Its true theres not a lot of republicans in baltimore. Donald trumps statement had no basis in reality, correct . Well, as i said, that part of it was true. A former u. S. Attorney for the Southern District of new york . Yes, fired by donald trump in mar. Along with almost all sitting u. S. Attorneys. And they have prosecutorial jurisdiction over trump tower manhattan, correct . Haz jurisdiction over everything in its jurisdiction. And president ial interviews of u. S. Attorney candidates has been reported to be the case for peet better regarda pete berr replacement that would be im not aware of the prior practices. I dont think it was done in the last two administration that is im familiar with. Okay. You were appointed by president bush and then continued in that position for u. S. Attorney in maryland by barack obama. Thats correct. As a matter of law i was appointed and never removed. Were you ever asked by president bush for a loyalty pledge . No. Were you ever asked by president obama to take a loyalty pledge. No. Is it ever appropriate for a president of the United States to demand a department of justice official or fbi director to take a loyalty pledge . I dont have any opinion about that. Nobody has asked me to take a loyalty pledge other than the oath of office. Thanks, i yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. Poe, for five minutes. Thank you for being here. Just so its clear, im one of the numerous members of the Judiciary Committee that have asked for a Second Special prosecutor based on what mr. Jordan earlier said. The department of justice is responsible for investigating criminal conduct. Would that include criminal conduct by the nsa . Yes. We all learned under the prism that was happening years ago by the nsa in their emails by tracking it and hacking into see those emails came to light under snowen after snowden, who i care nothing for, came to americas attention. In the sa said were not going to do that anymore, which i think is appropriate, because i thought it was unstill. Ref heard reports theres been unmasking of information. What i mean by that is classified information is seized on somebody, and someone an american, their name is caught up in the communication, and if someone leaks who that was, unmasks that individual, my understanding is if its classified information, is that correct . The only distinction i would make, congressman, is the unmasking. Typically something done in the course of the intelligence analysis, leaking would be a violation. Thats what im talking about, the leaking of that information. And as of today, has anybody been indicted under prism . Has anybody been indicted on leaking information on unmasking up until today . Has the Justice Department indicted anybody under those two scenarios and events . We have indicted prosecuted people for leaking. Im not schenn i dont believe any of them related to unmasking. So no one has been indicted, to your knowledge. Which i want to bring up now the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that has been discussed by this committee numerous times. Its the laws that allow secret warrants for people operating overseas does the Justice Department present those fisa warrants to a fisa judge. In situations when a warrant is required, yes. The Justice Department is responsible for that . That is correct. Also under fisa, once again, americans are brought into the scenario, because you target a foreign terrorist, and then you go after their emails they should you find emails of americans a and those are inadvertently caught in the surveillance of the target. According to the Washington Post recently, 90 of those inadvertent emails are on americans. My question to you is why hasnt the Justice Department, the fbi, the Intelligence Community presented to congress and our request that took place years ago, how many of those inadvertent emails, communications, Text Messages, conversations, have been on americans . We have been asking for the number. Do you know why that has not been brought to our attention . Let me just follow up with this reason. Heres the reason we need it. Were getting to maybe reauthorize 702, which i have a lot of problems with. I think its unconstitutional in many out ways, but beside the point, were at a deadline getting to reauthorize it, and still the Intelligence Community refuses to tell us how Many Americans information has been seized. Can you tell us why we havent gotten that information that weve asked for for years . No. I testified at a hearing with direct direct direct direct director coates, because he has explained it. You use the term inadvertent. We use the term indenial. My point is if youre investigating a foreign terrorist, knowing with whom that person is communicating may be relevant. Thats not my question. My question was were getting ready to maybe reauthorize 702. I dont think we ought to reauthorize it until we get from the Intelligence Community why there are based on the statements that you have made to see whether or not theyre violating the law and they refuse to give this committee the information about how many people have been caught up in that, and weve been and then stonecalled by the Intelligence Community saying we cant do it. Why cant the Intelligence Community get some geek over at best buy and have them come in and around that question with a few little taps into the big Computer System . We just want the number. The time of the gentleman has expired. The witness may answer the