mr. strzok: mr. or didn't hand me anything. mr. or provided information to the fbi. rep. walker: say that again? mr. strzok: he provided some of myts of reporting that understanding originated from mr. steele. >> so he did give the fbi information relative to the dossier? and another source and -- mr. strzok: i never personally received the dossier. the first time i'm aware of the fbi having that information was in mid-september. my understanding was that came into the fbi. >> one more time, bruce or gave the fbi documents relating to and part of the dossier, is that accurate? mr. strzok: mr. or gave the fbi documents which included material that i believe originated from mr. steele. >> the gentleman may briefly answer the question that the gentleman felt he didn't have an opportunity to answer with mr. walker. mr. strzok: when you bring up an integrity issue, it is interesting you and the gentleman from texas raised this in a way that almost approaches -- it is insulting. oath.ere under i am not lyi

mr. strzok: no. >> to you know mr. jones at all? mr. strzok: i do not. one more to go back to question i asked you in the first round. mr. simpson when he did testify in front of the judiciary committee was asked about fusion. no one from fusion ever spoke with the fbi. is there any way that contradicts what is in the email that i have been referencing with you? mr. strzok: i don't know. i content you i have not spoken to mr. simpson. thank the chairman and i thank the gentleman from south carolina. >> the chair would nose at several of the questions as by the gentlemen not answered by the witness on the advice of his counsel, and i presume through the fbi. sowill note those questions that we can address them at a future time because i find it stunning that they are not allowing you to answer those questions. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. byrman started the hearing saying i wish the hearing was not necessary. sorry if i don't believe that. he wants this hearing, and it isn't n

mr. strzok -- >> mr. chairman, i insist on my point of order and i insist on appealing the -- >> point of order, mr. chairman. point of order. i believe there's a point of order that's been raised and you've ruled. we have a right now to answer mr. nadler's -- >> it is not a valid point of order. >> you can't just repress it. >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> mr. strzok. >> mr. chairman, i appeal the ruling of the chair that you have just made on that -- on whether the -- >> you have not stated a valid point of order. >> that is your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable -- >> point of order. yes it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is exactly what he's requesting. he's appealing it. that requires a vote to either sustain it on overrule it. >> the gentleman from new york has not cited a rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that's your ruling and he's appealed it. >> mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the a

strzok. but the special counsel, mr. mueller, removed you from the investigation when he saw the texts. >> that's true, sir. he did. let me go back to answering your question, if i may. in terms of political speech, that is radically different from any sort of protected category of race, gender, and ethnicity or other categories. political speech, political thought is protected. the courts have recognized and the constitution recognizes we all have political beliefs. and so when it comes to the expression of that political belief, that is something that this body under the hatch act enumerated the categories of what was prohibited and expressly stated if it is not prohibited, then it is expressly encouraged. so i would tell you that no one in here, it's an impossible definition to say people must not have political opinions. everyone does. of course, they do. the test is whether or not that is left behind when you're doing your job. to your question of whether or not i would express that in front of a jury, of course i w

yet mr. horowitz stated in strzoks decision to prioritize over following up. discovered on the wiener lap lop. we did not have confidence that it was free from bias. they would be noted and stopped. the justice department ethical guidelines state the following, quote, superiors may never send to subordinate bloiys an e-mail directed at the success or failure of the political party end quote. another one, quote, express opinions about the candidates and issues if the expression of political activities directed at the success or failure of political party, candidates or partisan political group, the expression is not permitted while the employee is on duty, end quote. the fbi domestic investigation and operation guide in section 3.1, because we had heard about the adherence of policy and what these things do, and i quote them, we who enforce the law must not merely obey it, we have an obligation to set a moral example that those whom we protect can follow. because the fbi's success in accomplishing its mission is directly related to the support and cooperation o

mr. strzok -- >> mr. chairman, i insist on my point of order and i insist on appealing the ruling of the chair. >> mr. strzok, knowing the advice -- >> point of order, mr. chairman. i believe there's been a point of order raised. we have a rule to answer mr. nadler's -- >> it's not a point of order. >> you can't just repress it -- >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> mr. strzok -- >> mr. chairman, i appeal the ruling of the chair that you just made on whether you have -- >> you have not stated a valid point of order. >> that's your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable -- >> point of order. yes, it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is exactly what he's requesting. he's appealing it. that requires a vote to either sustain it or overrule it. >> the gentleman from new york has not cited a rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that's your ruling. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney/cli

but mr. strzok, you're under oath. and my understanding is the big republican beat in the waters to discredit you and the fbi and hopefully undermine the mueller investigation hinges on the fact that you sent out some indiscrete personal e-mails about your political views on the then pending 2016 election. is that correct? >> sir, that's my understanding. >> so you're understand oath. say yes or no. the following e-mail, character matters, real donald trump is not going to win but he can make an honorable move. did you write that e-mail? >> no. senator ben sasse wrote that e-mail. he should be here as well apparently. my wife julia and i, we have a 15-year-old daughter. do you think i can look her in the eye and tell her i endorsed donald trump when he acts like this and his apology? that was no apology. that was an apology for getting caught. i can't tell the good people in my state that i endorse add person that acts like this. was that you, mr. strzok? >> no. >> it was republican jason chaffetz. did you write the fo

mr. strzok -- >> mr. chairman, i insist on my point of order and i insist on appealing the ruling of the chair. >> mr. strzok, knowing the advice -- >> point of order, mr. chairman. i believe there's been a point of order raised. we have a rule to answer mr. nadler's -- >> it's not a point of order. >> you can't just repress it -- >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> mr. strzok -- >> mr. chairman, i appeal the ruling of the chair that you just made on whether you have -- >> you have not stated a valid point of order. >> that's your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable -- >> point of order. yes, it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is exactly what he's requesting. he's appealing it. that requires a vote to either sustain it or overrule it. >> the gentleman from new york has not cited a rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that's your ruling. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney/cli

but mr. strzok, you're under oath. my understanding is the big republican beef in order to discredit you and discredit the fbi and thereby hopefully from their point of view undermine the mueller investigation hinges on the fact that you sent out some indiscreet personal e-mails about your political views on the then pending 2016 election, is that right? >> sir, that's my understanding. >> all right. so you're under oath. i want you to say yes or no. the following e-mail, character matters, real donald trump is obviously not going to win but he can still make an honorable move, step aside and let someone else try. did you write that e-mail? >> i don't believe i did. >> no, you didn't. republican senator ben sasse wrote that e-mail. another unforgivable sin he should be here as well. my wife julia and i, we have a 15-year-old daughter. do you think i can look her in the eye and tell her that i endorsed donald trump when he acts like this and his apology? that was no apology. that was an apology for getting caught. i can

strzok -- >> mr. chairman, i object. >> would you object -- >> no. >> i would observe then that the minority -- the chairman says there was an agreement not, you know, on the conduct of that hearing. minority was not party to that agreement. there may have been an agreement between mr. gowdy and goodlatte but at no point were we asked -- >> stated on the record in the hearing. >> it was stated as a decision, as a fact. we were not asked, we agreed to nothing because we were not asked. and we think that the transcript ought to be released for the reasons stated and that if the witness doesn't object i don't know why the majority should object. i yield. >> if the gentleman would yield, in earnest, i will be glad to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about releasing all relevant information. i think if we're talking about full transparency, let's talk about a fuel transparency. it's interesting we want to release one thing but yet somehow allowing peter strzok to suggest there's other

messages, mr. strzok. >> yes, sir. and again, my impression, not stated by him, but my impression was that based on the appearance of those messages and in part of a desire by him to avoid even the appearance of any potential bias, that he asked me to return. but that's a question for him. >> but he kept everyone else in the investigation? >> sir, i don't know the staffing decisions made by director mueller after i departed. >> including 13 democrats. >> sir, i don't know the affiliation of the people on his team. >> so -- but he was concerned enough about your texts to remove you but you never felt concerned enough to remove yourself? >> that's correct. >> mr. strzok, you're going to get asked other questions here that relate to your transition from the investigation of ms. clinton into the beginnings of this investigation into the trump campaign and the alleged collusion with the russian government. now, mr. strzok, the fbi is a creation of this body. congress created the fbi with its constitutional authority. today,

thank you, mr. strzok. mr. strzok on july 3, your lawyer, mr. goldman, made the following statement to chris cuomo on cnn regarding you, his client. "on fox news they talk about him as the center of this anti-trump cabal that was going to throw the election against trump. none of this has a shred of truth." do you agree with it? >> i do. >> in the u.s.a. today, your lawyer said regarding the russia investigation, the russia collusion investigation, that you and your team "went out of their way to prevent leaks and actively ensured that news reports did not overplay the seriousness of the investigation." is that true, sir? >> yes. >> tell us why it's so important to prevent leaks from the fbi to journalists and others? >> leaks are terrible. they undercut things in a variety of ways. they can upend investigations and lead to incorrect assumptions and let witnesses though near being investigated. destruction of evidence, disclosure of classified anything. number of bad adverse things. >> got it. the doj ig's report has this to say about your invol

you said that -- >> mr. strzok, mr. strzok, mr. strzok -- >> the gentleman from georgia controls the time. >> mr. strzok, i -- >> the time's up, mr. chairman. >> my i respond? >> there was no question. i read you the answer from the department of justice. >> may i comment? >> briefly. >> sir, from your answer, what i took that to be is in the event of a failure, an individual should be read out. you are conflating that with an out of scope or failure. it is not my understanding that out of scope requires somebody to be read out. it may be, i'm not a security professional, but you -- >> so you're out of sync with an answer received from the justice department. that is an interesting answer, so this is a serious investigation, and if you would have been read out, you should have been read out that. is my final statement, not a question, i yield back. >> the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. >> mr. chairman, i look forward to a couple of extra minutes as each of my republican colleagues have had. serving on this committee has

. >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> mr. strzok. mr. chairman i appeal the ruling of the chair you have just made on whether you -- >> you have not stated a valid point of order. >> it is your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable. >> point of order, yes, it is mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is exactly what he's requesting. he's appealing it. that requires a vote to either sustain it or overrule it. >> the gentlemen from new york has not cited a rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that's your ruling. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney/client privilege, which could not be over ridden, and is a rule of the house to the extent that -- >> -- to an attorney/client privilege in this house. that is what this witness is asserting. attorney/client privilege, and he has been advised not to answer the question. >> suspend. gentlemen has not raised the attorney/client privilege. he has said that he has been instructed by

thank you, mr. strzok. mr. strzok, on july 3rd, your lawyer, mr. goldman, made the following statement to chris cuomo on cnn regarding you, his client. on fox news they talk about him as the center of this anti-trump kabal that was determined to throw the election against trump. none of this has a shred of truth. do you agree with this statement, sir? >> i do. >> and in a june 19th op-ed in "usa today" your lawyer said regarding the russia investigation, what we call the russi russia collusion investigation, that you and your team went out of your way to prevent leaking and actively ensured that news reports did not overplay the seriousness of the investigation. is that true, sir? >> yes. >> now, tell us why it's so important to prevent leaks from the fbi to journalists or to others? >> leaks are terrible. they undercut things in a variety of ways. they can up-end investigations, they can lead to incorrect assumptions, they can let witnesses, subjects know that they're being investigated, they can lead to wild speculation, destruction of evidence,

strzok -- >> mr. chairman, i appeal the ruling of the chair that you have just made on whether -- >> you have not stated a valid point of order. >> that is your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable -- >> point of order, yes, it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is exactly what he's requesting. he's appealing it. that requires a vote to sustain it or overrule. >> the gentleman from new york has not cited a rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that's your ruling. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney/client privilege which cannot be overridden and is a rule of the house to the extent that witnesses have the right to an attorney/client privilege in this house? and that is what this witness is asserting. attorney/client privilege, and he's been advised not to answer the question. >> the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman has not raised the attorney/client privilege. he has stai

mr. ross is recognized. >> mr. strzok, i thank you for being here. i know it's been a long day. we're the reason we're here and actions by you are the within we're here. representative marino showed you this handbook on ethics issued by the department of justice. it says employees shall protect federal property and not use it to other than authorized activities. as my colleague from the district of columbia, congressman norton pointed out, anything on your official phone belongs to the public. would you not agree? >> it's funded by the public in the service of the public -- >> and federal property. >> yes. >> according to principle 9 should not be used for anything other than authorized activities. that being said, did you use any other federal property for any reason other than federal activities? >> i'll tell you fbi policy allows phone for personal use. fbi -- it's a big bucket, sir. fbi agents can send one text or a billion and they get billed the same. >> you testified what you texted was considered political free speech. your opinions were political free speech. do you fee

strzok. >> mr. chairman, i appeal the ruling of the chair that you have just made on whether the -- >> you have not stated a valid point of order. >> and that is your ruling and a appeal it. >> that is not an appealable -- shl >> point of order, yes, it is, mr. chairman. he's appealing it. that requires a vote. to either sustain it or overrule it. >> the gentleman from new york has not cited a rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that's your ruling. >> that is the ruling of the chair. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney-client privilege, which cannot be overridden, and is a rule of the house to the extent -- >> the gentle woman will suspend. >> and that is what this witness is asserting. attorney-client privilege, and he has been advised not to answer the question. >> the gentle woman will suspend. the gentleman has not raised the attorney-client privilege. he has said that he has been instructed by the fb

. >> mr. strzok, you worked as a

thank you, mr. strzok. mr. strzok, on july 3rd, your lawyer mr. goldman made the following statement to cnn regarding you his client on fox news they talk about him as the center of this antitrump -- that was determined to throw the election against trump. none of this has a shred of truth. do you agree with this statement, sir? >> i do. >> and in a june 19th op-ed in usa today, your lawyer said regarding the russia investigation, what we call the russia collusion investigation, that you and your team quote unquote went out of their way to prevent leaks and actively ensured that news reports did not overplay the seriousness of the investigation. is that true, sir? >> yes. >> now, tell us why it's so important to prevent leaks from the fbi to journalists or to others. >> leaks are terrible. they undercut things in a variety of ways. they can up end investigations. they can lead to incorrect assumptions. they can let witnesses subjects know that they are being investigated. they can lead to wild speculation, destruction of evidence, any number of re

mr. strzok, this has been a lengthy hearing so thank you for your time today. it has been extraordinarily frustrating in trying to get answers to many important questions. you have refused to answer many questions on the advice of the fbi. you have said you cannot answer questions on advice of counsel. so we are struck with a situation where you have not answered questions from congress under the cover of the fbi or special counsel mueller. we have a constitutional right to have answered the questions posed to you. the fbi director reports to the deputy attorney general. the fbi is a component to the department of justice. so at the end of the day, deputy attorney general rosenstein who has oversight is where the buck stops. we now consider the department on the line in addition to the fbi for failing to permit you to answer questions that don't even go to the substance of any investigation but have focused on your involvement in the process of those investigations. this is unacceptable. congress has been blocked from conducting its constitutional oversight dut

. >> thank you, mr. strzok. i, too, like my colleagues, were disappointed to read the text messages knowing that you had a serious career anded had done a lot of good work and the questions it would raise, but i also appreciate that you have come here today and have owned them and have apologized for them. finish but i i want to focus on your work as an investigator in counterintelligence. in your experience, do counterintelligence investigations take longer when subjects to investigations tamper with other witnesses? >> yes. >> in your experience as a counterintelligence investigator, do counterintelligence investigations take longer when subjects lie to investigators? >> frequently, yes. >> and as a counterintelligence investigator, do intelligence investigations take longer when subjects or witnesses refuse to cooperate and you have to go through the subpoena process? >> yes. >> you're here and you're not taking the fifth. >> that's correct. >> did you consider taking the fifth? >> no. >> why not? >> i've don

chairman. >> mr. strzok. >> mr. chairman, i appeal the ruling of the chair you just made on whether -- >> you have not stated a valid point of order. >> it is your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable. >> point of order, yes it. is appealing of the rule of the chair is exactly what he is requesting. that requires a vote. either sustain it or overrule it. >> the gentleman from new york has not cited a rule of the house being violated. therefore it is not a point of order. >> that's your ruling. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney/client privilege which cannot be overridden and is a rule of the house to the extent that witnesses have the right to an attorney/client privilege in this house and that is what this witness is asserting. attorney/client privilege and he has been advised not to answer the question. >> the gentleman has not raised the attorney/client privilege. he says he has been instructed by the f.b.i. not to answer the question. >> by lawyers

strzok, knowing the advice -- >> mr. chairman, point of order. i believe there's a point of order that's been raised and you've ruled we have a right now to answer mr. -- >> it is not a valid point of order -- >> you can't just repress this, mr. chairman -- >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> mr. strzok, you have not stated a valid point of order -- >> and that is your ruling and i appeal it. >> that is not an appealable -- >> point of order, yes, it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is what he's requesting. he's appealing it that requires a vote. >> that was just a taste of it. let's bring in one of the congressman involved in the exchange, democratic david cicilline represents the state of rhode island. first off, give our viewers an idea of what was going on right there. peter strzok was refusing to answer a question saying the fbi instructed him not to talk about the investigation into russian meddling that started in the summer of 2016. why the animosity between democrats and republicans over his answer? >> the fbi has a we

mr. strzok, you are under oath. my understanding is the big republican beef in order to discredit you and the fbi and they're by hoping by their point of view undermine the mueller's investigation hinges on the fact that you sent out personal e-mails on the 2016 election, is that correct? >> sir, that's my understanding. >> the following e-mails. character matters. did you write that e-mail? >> i don't believe i did. >> no, you did not. >> republican, senator ben sassy wrote that e-mail. my wife julia and i, we have a 15-year-old daughter, do you think i can look at her in the eye and tell her that i endorse president trump? that was an apology of getting caught. i can't tell the people of my state that i endorsed him. was that you? >> no sir. >> did you write the following for the good of the country and give the republicans a chance to defeating hillary clinton. mr. trump should step aside and his defeat at this point seems certain. four years of hillary clinton is not what's best for this country. mr. trump shoul

when the inspector general comes in, i said look, you said regarding mr. strzok and ms. page, you didn't find documentary testimony, evidence that they had improper considerations, including political bias directly affecting. i said, that's directly affecting, because they -- you said they weren't the sole decision makers. i said did they indirectly affect it? you said, yeah. why? because he said you were the lead investigator. the lead investigate effort of the hillary clinton investigation. you were the liaison, if you will. you were the flow of information from the investigative team. i sketched a diagram how this works, as you were describing it earlier today. you were the gate keeper of information. lisa page was providing counsel to andrew mccabe. on the russia investigation, you were the head guy. now we have a cumulation of biased information that indicates some kind of mental state of bias. and at the other end of this, you're the head guy on these. that's what the inspector general said. under oath, in testimony, not too many weeks ago. >> sir, mr. chairman, if

mr. strzok, are you objecting to the question? and if so, please state your objection. >> mr. chairman, two things. one, i do not believe i am here under subpoena. i believe i am here voluntarily. second, i will not, based on direction of the fbi to me, based on that, i will not answer that question. because it goes to matters which are related to the ongoing investigations being undertaken by the special counsel's office. >> mr. strzok, you have not stated a valid legal basis for not responding to a question directed to you by a member of the united states house of representatives, and you are overruled. >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> your -- let me continue. your testimony is essential to this hearing and to our oversight and information gathering functions with regard to the actions taken, and decisions made by department of justice and the federal bureau of investigation in 2016 and 2017. i am specifically directing you to answer the question in response to our subpoena. notwithstanding your objection. >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> mr. strzok, please be advised

strzok, but the special counsel, mr. mueller, removed you from the investigation when he saw the text. >> what do you make, danny, of that first amendment argument? >> government employees have different first amendment rights than the rest of us. as a general rule, if strzok was speaking as a public person, as opposed to on a private matter, if you're speaking as a public employee, then you can be disciplined for your speech. so the fact that he may have been using a government phone, i shouldn't say may, he admitted he was using government quilt. maybe it was in the context of his duties. the more it leans towards him working in his capacity as an fbi agent, he can be disciplined by his employer. he could still be disciplined. obviously government employees can be members of political parties. it's not about suppressing that kind of political affiliation. what it is about is when an employee does speak, even if it is about a matter of public concern, the balancing is whether or not it affects his or her job duties. and

this is from hank johnson yesterday, and his exchanges with mr. strzok. i will a listen for a bit and get your perspective. [video clip] you were successful in arresting and prosecuting numerous individuals for espionage and other crimes against the united states of america, isn't that correct? >> it is part of a large of number combatant, -- of a large number of competent, talented folks, yes. and you gained a lot of knowledge about russian spying activities, their methods and sources as they operate in the united states and in other allied nations, isn't that correct? >> it is certainly true within the united states and to a lesser extent overseas. >> and you have used your skills to keep america safe? >> i have, sir. it is my proud duty to have done so. more to your lot career than a few emails, isn't that correct? and a few text messages? >> that's correct. >> so to boil it down to that is a disservice to you. the republicans here being so desperate to find a way to discredit the mueller investigation by discrediting you as a person, i think rather th

. >> point of order, mr. chairman. >> mr. strzok. >> mr. chairman i appeal the ruling of the chair you just made on whether the -- >> you have not state ad valid point of order. >> that is your ruling. i appeal it. >> that is not appealable -- >> point of order, yes it is, mr. chairman. appealing the ruling of the chair is exactly what he is requesting. that is appealing. requiring a vote, either sustain it overrule it. >> the gentleman from new york has not cite ad rule of the house that is being violated. therefore, it is not a point of order. >> that is your ruling. he appealed it. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, is it not appropriate to also interject the attorney/client privilege which can not be overridden and is a rule of the house to extent that right to attorney/client privilege in this house. that is what this witness is asserting. attorney/client privilege. he has been advised not to answer the question. >> gentle women will suspend. the gentleman has not raised the attorney/client privilege. he has said that he has been instructe

. >> what does trump pour smell like mr. strzok? >> sir that's an expression of speech. i clearlies with not smelling one thing or another. what i meant by that, living in northern virginia traveling 150 miles south within the same state i was struck by the extraordinary difference in the he can press of political opinion and belief amongst the committee there from there and where i live. >> you describe that as smell in company tall letters? >> sir, that was a choice, a quick chose of words. >> fbi agent strzok was also asked about his reassignment or termination from the russian special counsel case that's being led by robert mueller and strzok testified that it was about the appearance of bias in the text messages. it was not about political bias itself infecting those text messages and infecting his ability to be a professional and neutral investigator. here is that exchange with chairman trey gowdy. >> your testimony is that bob mueller did not kick you off because of the context of your text, he kicked you off because of some appearance that he -- >> sir, i'm stati

strzok, mr. mccabe, mr. comey, and all the upper echelon senior exclusives related to the hillary clinton case as well as the russia collusion case -- >> and the gop said that's bunk, jimmy, and they'll prove it. did they do it today. >> here's the other thing. everything that happened today was rehearsed. we did this behind closed doors. >> but they wouldn't release the transcript. no we know why. >> now we have it out in open form. you and i talked about this earlier. it's not that there's a criminal act. it's the fact that mr. strzok, in my mind, damaged the fbi, damaged the brand, and reduced the confidence of the american people in the fbi as an institution. why? because as you pointed out on the whiteboard, poor judgment decisions. people can say, if you exhibited poor judgment here, how can we trust you in these other instances? >> all right. is that good enough for you, laura coates? then i have a second point i want to make about whether strzok helped or hurt his situation today. but in terms of wha

strzok, mr. mccabe, mr. comey, and all the upper echelon senior exclusives related to the hillary clinton case as well as the russia collusion case -- >> and the gop said that's bunk, jimmy, and they'll prove it. did they do it today. >> here's the other thing. everything that happened today was rehearsed. >> but they wouldn't release the transcript. >> now we have it out in open form. you and i talked about this earlier. it's not that there's a criminal act. it's the fact that mr. strzok, in my mind, damaged the fbi, damaged the brand, and reduced the confidence of the american people in the fbi as an institution. why? because as you pointed out on the whiteboard, poor judgment decisions. people can say, if you exhibited poor judgment here, how can we trust you in these other instances? >> all right. is that good enough for you, laura coates? then i have a second point i want to make about whether strzok helped or hurt his situation today. but in terms of what we found out about him, what we now know about

messages, mr. strzok. >> yes, sir, my impression not stated by him. my impression was based on the appearance of those messages and in part of a desire by him to avoid even the appearance of any potential bias, that he asked me to return. that's a question >> but he kept everyone else. >> sir, i don't know the staffing decisions that were made. >> including 13 democrats. >> sir, i don't know the affiliation of the people. >> he was concerned enough to remove you but you never felt concerned enough to remove yourself. >> that is correct. >> you are going to get asked other questions here that relate to your transition from the investigation of ms. clinton into the beginnings of this investigation into the trump campaign and the alleged collusion with the russian government. the fbi is a creation of this body, congress created the fbi with its constitutional authority. today you are here under subpoena, also an exercise of congresses constitutional constitutional authority, which takes precedence? fbi policy or the united states constitution? >> always

first of all let's talk about what a super patriot mr. strzok believes that he was. this is the narcissistic mentality. but let's leave this aside. what will happen next, we'll get all of the facts and next from both of these individuals and we're going to process those and quite frankly i would suspect that if we find criminal activity going on here, we're going to have to refer that over to the attorney general's office and see what efsessions and his team will do with a. >> harris: all right. we will be watching all of it. cover the news as it happens. congressman biggs of the grit state of arizona, we appreciate you stepping out and speaking with us before it was in a breakpoint. >> thank you, harris. >> harris: yes, now someone from the other side of the political aisle and remember where the conversation went today. things came up, like immigration and how they could be focused on -- i think that that was representative jackson lee, talking about all of the other things that we could be talking about. and we could be talking about a lot of other things. but tod

was that mr. mr. strzok? >> no, sir. >> republicanin my committee. i can't vote for president trump and not hillary clinton. that's yours? >> no. >> republican comstalk from our home state of virginia. >> and senator rubio, donald trump should not be our president. did you organize that. >> no. >> called donald trump a moron, scott pruitt, empty vessel when it comes to the constitution. steve bannon like an 11-year-old child. general h.r. mevery -- mc34567m mcmaster a dope with the intelligence of a kindergartner. he's an a hole but he's our a hole and an e-mail describes trump as an idiot surrounded by clowns. were all of these negative characterizations of donald trump part of a deep state gop conspiracy engineered by you and your friends? >> no. >> pretty much -- >> matt miller, jeremy bash, our experts on national security. i feel this was more of a hearing that gave us a sense how people feel about donald trump, and if donald trump was watching but too busy being extremely rude to theresa may and leaving some scorched earth at the nato summit, b

mr. strzok, you are under subpoena and are required to answer the question. are you objecting to the question? if so, please state your objection. >> mr. chairman, i object. >> the gentleman does not have standing to object. >> point of order. >> no point of order here. >> point of order to be heard. >> gentleman state his point of order. >> my point of order is that intentionally or otherwise this puts m strzok in an impossible position. he's still an employee -- >> gentleman. >> we have a problem with this policy should take it up with the fbi, no the badger mr. strzok. >> the gentleman's point of order is not well taken. >> it's right on point. >> no it's not. mr. trustrzok, are you objectino the question? >> mr. chairman, two things. one i do not believe i'm here under subpoena. i believe i'm here voluntarily. second, i will not, based on direction of the fbi to me, based on that, i will not answer that question. because it goes to matters which are related to the ongoing investigations being undertaken by the special counsel. >> mr. strzok, you have not

>> mr. gaudi was threatening contempt to mr. strzok for not answering questions. i remember him asking mr. bannon in our house intelligencee investigation questions that mr. bannon refused to answer. republicans on the community refused to hold him in contempt. if we are truly interested in getting answers that witnesses refuse to answer, then we should subpoena mr. bannon just like their doing mr. strzok, of course they voted against that. interestingly, he didn't vote while he was present in the hearing. >> brian: i think beyond a shadow of a doubt, you know he called out the president once and said if you're innocent, act like it. i think he's as good as it gets well.ms of preparation as lisa page is coming in friday, 1:30. what questions do you have for her that might be different than what you have for peter strzok? >> i think were putting our priorities o in the wrong direction, were going to spend hours again with ms. page. there are many other individuals involved in both closing the hillary clinton investigation and opening the rush investigation and to m

i'm sorry my colleague walked out before mr. strzok gave his answers. i hate no one. i do not hate the administration, the president, my colleagues. i honor this nation. so i believe it is important that we stand on the force of truth and the constitution. in the oversight of these two committees, it is unfortunate that none of these committees, judiciary or oversight, have decided to pursue more precious or more important issues than asking about hillary clinton's e-mails, which have been well documented that there was no criminal impact, and in essence she was vindicated by the inspector general's report and other reports. unfortunately, this has become a phishing expedition. what we have not done is investigated the children being stolen away from their families. nor have we looked at our president meeting with mr. putin, getting his annual performance review while offending our nato allies. foreign policy scholars are aghast that this president, one who famously refused to read his briefing materials, will be meeting with mr. putin. in addition, we're wasting time

mr. strzok can answer questions. >> mr. chairman, before mr. gaddy start, may i respond? >> there is an appropriate time for over sight and you know it is at the end of the investigation once it is concluded. i am certain that congress will have the opportunity to look at any investigation once it is closed and ask all these questions and i would love to answer each and every one of your question. >> mr. strzok. we know the answer from you and you advised that you can't answer the questions. that's what he's not cooperating with and we should not do it. he is not cooperating with us. >> these questions are table setting questions regarding the formation of this and he can answer those questions. >> he can't answer those questions. >> he's advised from the fbi that he can't. >> gentleman from ohio has 15 seconds. >> agent strzok, who's being square here? you say in your e-mail we got a copy of the dossier from d simpson's. >> we'll have regular order and we'll revisit that question. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. >> agent strzok, between july 31st,

mr. strzok, tag, you're it. >> laura: no, you're it. all these games, hijinks, games, circus. stay with me here. the hearing went from circus lights to a side show. >> i talked to agents around the country. you've embarrassed them and yourself and i can't help but wonder when i see you looking there with a smirk how many times did you look so innocent into your wife's eyes and lie to her about -- >> mr. chairman, it's o outrageous! >> mr. chairman! >> laura: well, i understand the passions are running high but what did that accomplish, exactly? at some point, the hiyperbole cancel each other out. and anyone watching probably thought is this what it has come to? at times it seemed they were more like contestants in both parties and competing for the sound bite of the day. >> i never pre-judged anything not in this case or any others. >> impeachment for what? >> you mentioned the word impeachment. that was used in my context of not knowing what this would lead to. >> if there are two people that are thrilled and excited today, two people, the folks at fox news and at the kremlin

caller: yes, i want to make a thingt about the strzok yesterday. mr. cohen --and i am a democrat -- when i hope and pray that in november, his constituents will vote him out of office. my brother, all of my family served in the military, and for him to say that that gentleman, mr. struck, deserved a purple heart is appalling. also, the democrats, they look like the laughingstock of the country. host: let's go to maine, independent line. alan is next. caller: good morning. first, a simple observation. this will be a little unusual, , who- emperor trump nominally is operating as president of the united states, understanding his posture and what he is doing in terms of have it he is attempting to become the emperor, not just of the united states, but emperor trump of the world. -- ionger answer, or the will keep it relatively brief -- is for any who have watched trump's agencies over the past couple of days, he is trying to embarrass them and bring down any other leaders in the world. that is very obvious. reador those who may have an excellent history of

. >> mr. strzok, you are under subpoena. you are required to answer the question. are you objecting to the question if so please state your objection? >> sir i object. >> no point of order. >> i moved to subpoena steve bannon. the motion has to be heard immediately. >> i move to move that. >> laura: i need a pepto-bismol, that was very dramatic. democrats just tried to change the subject altogether. >> there are 3,000 children separated from their moms and dads and the government doesn't know where their moms and dads are. that seems like something the committee should be investigating. >> what we have not done is investigate the children being stolen with from their family. nor have we looked at our president meeting with vladimir putin. >> mr. strzok, you are before this committee for one reason to serve as a monumental distraction. they need to identify a villain. mr. strzok, tag you are it. >> laura: no, you are at. all of these games. stay with me here. there were moments when the hearing went to circus, to a complete sideshow. >> i've talked to fbi agents aro

i would have seen a little more earnest attitude from mr. strzok. those of us paying attention in washington it felt he wasn't taking it seriously and i wish i saw more of an earnest effort to get to the bottom of the entire question at hand here on both sides. i think the republican congressmen, some were engaged in political theater to help appease their base and i do wish that, you know, mr. strzok had taken it just a little bit more seriously. i just don't think anyone did themselves favors. >> what do you think, peter, in terms of lisa page expected to continue her testimony on monday? you had meadows engaged, republicans in the closed-door testimony, reacting more favorably to her testimony than strzok's so far? >> we don't know what her testimony was and it wasn't a media circus. what is the committee looking for other than destroy the mueller investigation. 12 indictments of russian officers that hacked and influenced the united states election. this is national security issue. this isn't an issue about infidelity or intent. there is now ind

listen to this. >> sir, it's as frustrating to me as it is to you, i would love -- agent strzok. >> mr. chairman, may the witness be permitted to answer. >> the gentleman will suspend. >> if it's so frustrating, answer the question. if you'll allow him to, i'm sure he will. >> he has never answered the question. >> well stop interrupting him. >> the witness can't be directed not cottoner if with his attorney. >> the fbi is not his attorney. his attorney is seated behind him. >> he's an employee of the fbi. >> there were moments where you all were doing more talking and sort of haggling over this than he was. here's my question to you. you've meet with peter strzok twice, once yesterday in this very public fiery hearing and about two weeks ago behind closed doors and you're fighting to have these behind closed doors transcript released to the public. why? what would we see in that one that differed from what we saw yesterday? >> i don't think you'll see a lot that differed. peter strzok was questioned by the committee for 11 nourse a closed-door session and yesterday for eight and a hal

i don't know mr. strzok, but if i were him walking into this hearing, i'd have a simple question. my reputation has been damaged. it's been damaged appropriately. he did things he should not have done. am i going to walk out of this room either damaging my reputation or the fbi's reputation further, or am i going to make news? tell me which of those he did. i didn't see any news in the hearing today beyond the fact that republicans and democrats can't conduct a sensible hearing for the american people. and i didn't see him damaging himself. so i would go back and say the republicans wanted him to say something that would be embarrassing. he didn't, so they wanted him to move on. i agree with you. they wanted him to say something stupid, and he didn't. >> speaking of that, in that vein, they made him read the text messages out loud. we're going to play that, and you'll see it for yourself, next. does your business internet provider promise a lot? let's see who delivers more. comcast business gives you gig-speed in more places. the others don't. we offer up to 6 hours of 4g wireless

in his opening statement, mr. strzok says that the hearing itself is another notch in vladimir putin's belt and his attempt to divide americans. do you agree with that? mr. ryan: no. reporter: [inaudible] mr. ryan:, no i don't. reporter: thank you, mr. speaker. picking up on -- mr. ryan: see, get your follow-up this way. reporter: president putin. the president will be meeting face to face with putin next week. do you think that is a good idea and what is your counsel for the president as he meets privately? mr. ryan: i don't have a problem with face to face meetings but the president and i have talked about in this a number of times. vladimir putin is not our ally and our friend. i've made that clear. i think most of us feel that way. you just have to look at what they tried to do to our democracy and to other democracies around the world. they do not share our interests. they thwart our interests. engaging with him on that is constructive and good. but i think we should be really clear about who we're dealing wi

strzok that he can answer additional questions and mr. -- >> agent strzok -- >> jordan has official time to get the answers to those questions that he earlier was thwarted in getting. >> has the fbi also given you permission to say if glenn si simpson is the name that you use in the e-mail where you say simpson. >> i don't believe they have given me guidance. my most recent understanding of the guidance from the fbi is in response to the question of whether the fbi received documents from mr. orr. the angeswer is yes, they did. >> has the fbi given you information to tell me whether you knew nellie orr worked for fusion at the time you were meeting with her husband? >> sir, to my knowledge the fbi has not directed me or allowed me to respond to that. >> all right. i yield back. thank you. >> the committee will stand in recess until immediately after this series of votes. >>> good evening. i'm chuck todd here in washington. welcome to "mtp daily" almost right on time as they take a break in an extraordinary hearing that many of you have been following all day. we've been following it all