MPn1pePP

1COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY~
3U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
4WASHINGTON, D.C.
5INTERVIEW OF: PETER STRZOK
6Wednesday, June 27, 2818
7Washington, D.C.
81
9The interview in the above matter was held in Room 2141, Rayburn
10COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
112
12COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
13House Office Building, commencing at 10:05 a.m.
14COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
153
16COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
17Mr. Somers. Good morning. This is a transcribed interview of
18Peter Strzok, the former Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's
19Counterintelligence Division.
20Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Gowdy requested this interview
21as part of a joint investigation by the House Judiciary Committee and
22the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to conduct
23oversight into Department of Justice's investigation of former
24Secretary Clinton's handling of classified information and related
25matters.
26Would the witness please state his name and position at the FBI
27for the record?
28Mr. Strzok. Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director, Human
29Resources Division.
30Mr. Somers. I want to thank you for appearing here today
31voluntarily, and we appreciate your willingness to do so.
32My name is Zachary Somers, and I am the majority general counsel
33for the Judiciary Committee.
34I will now ask everyone else who is here in the room to introduce
35themselves for the record, starting to my right with Arthur Baker, who
36will be leading the questioning for today.
37Mr. Baker. Arthur Baker, investigative counsel, House Judiciary
38Committee majority staff.
39Mr. Parmiter. I'm Robert Parmiter, chief counsel for Crime and
40Terrorism, House Judiciary Committee majority.
41COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
424
43COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
44Mr. Breitenbach. Ryan Breitenbach, senior counsel, House
45Judiciary majority.
46Mr. Ratcliffe. Congressman John Ratcliffe, representing the
47Fourth District of Texas.
48Mr. Castor. Steve Castor with the Committee on Oversight and
49Government Reform, the majority staff.
50OGC.
51Mr. Jordan. Jim Jordan, Fourth District of Ohio.
52Mr. Don. Ethan Don, FBI OCA.
53Mr. Wellons. Paul Wellons, associate general counsel, FBIOGC.
54Ms. Besse. Cecelia Besse, acting deputy general counsel, FBI
55Mr. Goelman. Aitan Goelman, attorney for Special Agent Strzok.
56Ms. Sachsman Grooms. Susanne Sachsman Grooms, OGR minority.
57Ms. Adamu. Marta Adamu, OGR minority.
58Ms. Wasz-Piper. Lyla Wasz-Piper, Judiciary minority.
59Mr. Hiller. Aaron Hiller, Judiciary minority.
60Ms. Hariharan. Arya Hariharan, OGR minority.
61Ms. Kim. Janet Kim, OGR minority.
62Ms. Shen. Valerie Shen, Oversight minority.
63Mr. Lieu. Ted Lieu, southern California.
64Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois.
65Mr. Dalton. Jason Dalton, FBI congressional affairs.
66Chairman Goodlatte. Bob Goodlatte, chairman, House Judiciary.
67Ms. Husband. Shelley Husband, 'Judiciary Committee minority.
68Ms. Clarke. Sheria Clarke, Oversight and Government Reform
69COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
705
71COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
72majority.
73Mr. Brebbia. Sean Brebbia, OGR majority.
74Mr. Buddharaju. Anudeep Buddharaju, House Oversight majority
75staff.
76Ms. Green. Meghan Green, OGR majority.
77Mr. Marino. Congressman Tom Marino, Pennsylvania 18 and member
78of the Judiciary Committee.
79Mr. Johnson. Mike Johnson, Louisiana Four.
80Mr. Biggs. Andy Biggs, Arizona.
81Mr. Swalwell. Eric Swalwell, California.
82Mr. Nadler. Jerry Nadler, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary
83Committee.
84Mr. Deutch. Ted Deutch from Florida.
85Mr. Cohen. Steve Cohen from Memphis.
86Mr. King. Steve King, Iowa Four, House Judiciary Committee.
87Mr. Gohmert. Louie Gohmert, Judiciary Committee, First District
88of Texas.
89Mr. Massie. Thomas Massie, OGR, Kentucky.
90Mr. Gaetz. Matt Gaetz, First District of Florida, Judiciary.
91Mr. Somers. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply
92in this setting, but there are some guidelines that we follow that I I 11
93go over.
94Our questioning will proceed in rounds. The majority will ask
95questions for the first hour, and then the minority will have the
96opportunity to ask questions for an equal period of time if they so
97COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
986
99COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
100choose. We will go back and forth in this manner until there are no
101more questions and the interview is over.
102Although a subpoena was issued, as I noted earlier, Mr. Strzok
103is appearing today voluntarily. Accordingly, we anticipate that our
104questions will receive complete responses. To the extent that
105Mr. Strzok declines to answer our questions or if counsel instructs
106him not to answer, we will consider whether we need to proceed under
107our subpoena.
108Typically, we take a short break at the end of each hour of
109questioning, but if you would like to take an additional break apart
110from that, please let us know. We will also take a break for lunch
111at the appropriate point in time.
112As you can see, there is an official reporter taking down
113everything we say to make a written record, so we ask that you give
114verbal responses to all questions. Do you understand this?
115Mr. Strzok. I do.
116Mr. Somers. So that the reporter can take down a clear record,
117we will do our best to limit the number of Members and staff directing
118questions at you during any given hour to just those Members and staff
119whose turn it is. It is important that we don't talk over one another
120or interrupt each other if we can help it.
121Both committees encourage witnesses who appear for transcribed
122interviews to freely consult with counsel if they so choose. And
123you're appearing with counsel today.
124Could you please state your name and position for the record, Mr.
125COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1267
127COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
128Goelman?
129Mr. Goelman. Aitan Goleman, counsel for Special Agent Strzok.
130Mr. Somers. We want you to answer our questions in the most
131complete and truthful manner possible, so we will take our time. If
132you have any questions or if you do not understand one of our questions,
133please just let us know.
134If you honestly don't know the answer to a question or if you do
135not remember, it is best not to guess. Please just give us your best
136recollection. And it is okay to tell us if you learned the information
137from someone else. Just indicate how you came to know the information.
138If there are things you don't know or can't remember, just say
139so, and please inform us who, to the best of your knowledge, might be
140able to provide a more complete answer to the question.
141Mr. Strzok, you should also understand that, although this
142interview is not under oath, you are required by law to answer questions
143from Congress truthfully. Do you understand that?
144Mr. Strzok. I do.
145Mr. Somers. This also applies to questions posed by
146congressional staff in an interview. Do you understand this?
147Mr. Strzok. I do.
148Mr. Somers. Witnesses who knowingly provide false testimony
149could be subject to criminal prosecution for perjury or for making false
150statements. Do you understand this?
151Mr. Strzok. I do.
152Mr. Somers. Is there any reason you are unable to provide
153COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1548
155COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
156truthful answers to today's questions?
157Mr. Strzok. No.
158Mr. Somers. Finally, I would like to note, as the chairman of
159the Judiciary Committee stated at the outset of our first transcribed
160interview in this investigation, the content of what we discuss here
161today is confidential. Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Gowdy ask that
162you do not speak about what we discuss in this interview to anyone not
163present here today to preserve the integrity of our investigation.
164This confidentiality rule applies to everyone present in the room
165today.
166This is the end of my preamble. Do you have any questions before
167we begin?
168Mr. Goelman. No questions. I just have a few brief comments for
169the record.
170As you indicated, Special Agent Strzok is here voluntarily and
171of his own free will.
172You stated that the committee anticipates that he's going to give
173complete answers to every question asked. Special Agent Strzok hopes
174that he can answer every question asked by the committee. He has no
175intention of invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
176There are certain questions that he is not going to be able to
177answer, and I just want to enumerate those categories and explain why.
178Any questions that breach a testimonial privilege, like the
179attorney-client privilege. I understand that the committee purports
180that these privileges do not apply in the committee testimony. I don't
181COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1829
183COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
184think that's the law, and I will be instructing Special Agent Strzok
185not to answer any questions that breach those privileges.
186If there are questions to which the answers impinge on FBI
187equities, Special Agent Strzok will follow the instructions of agency
188counsel who are here at the table.
189If there are questions to which the answers would contain
190classi fied information, Special Agent Strzok will be unable to provide
191that information since Federal law prohibits divulging classified
192information in an unclassified setting, which my understanding is this
193is.
194Finally, all of Special Agent Strzok's answers here will be
195truthful and accurate to the best of his recollection. Regrettably,
196this committee's insistence that Special Agent Strzok testify this
197week, despite first contacting us last week and despite declining to
198provide us with a complete list of expected subject areas of
199questioning, has made it impossible for Special Agent Strzok to prepare
200as thoroughly as we would have liked - - a dynamic that was exacerbated
201by Special Agent Strzok's difficulty in accessing some of his FBI
202materials because of the suspension of his security clearance, which
203was only restored a couple days ago.
204For these reasons, while Special Agent Strzok will answer
205questions to the best of his recollection sitting here today, some of
206his answers will not be as precise or fulsome as they would be had the
207committee not insisted on taking his testimony this week.
208Mr. Somers. I would just note for the record -- and then we'll
209COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
21010
211COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
212leave it at that - - that the committee has requested, maybe not of you,
213but we have requested Mr. Strzok' s appearance before the committee for
214quite some time now. And I would just - - you can have your admonition
215about it, and I'll have mine.
216And I will turn it over now to Mr. Baker to begin the first round
217of questioning. The time is 10:15.
218Mr. Baker. Thank you.
219Mr. Swalwell . Can I ask a quick point of order, Mr. Chairman?
220Why is the witness not under oath?
221Chairman Goodlatte. Because it's a voluntary interview.
222Mr. Swalwell. But if it's a penalty to lie to Congress anyway,
223what's the difference? It's just better for the committee if the
224witness is under oath, isn't it?
225Chairman Goodlatte. I'll ask counsel to explain the difference
226between the two processes, but if he had appeared under subpoena, he
227would be sworn in under oath and it would be a different process
228followed.
229But I'm going to defer to Mr. Somers.
230Mr. Swalwell. I only bring this up because I've heard in the past
231that when Secretary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI, she wasn't under
232oath, and that was used as an attack against her. And I just want to
233make sure that it's clear. Is the witness being offered to go under
234oath?
235Mr. Somers. It is the practice of both committees, OGR and
236Judiciary, not to swear witnesses for transcribed interviews. We
237COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
238would if
239Mr. Swalwell.
240Mr. Somers.
241COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
242So that's your decision, not the witness's.
243That's the committees' practice. It's not my
244decision; it's the practice of --
24511
246Mr. Swalwell. But it's not the witness's decision. I just want
247to make sure.
248Mr. Somers. I do not know what the witness's preference is. We
249did not ask him. That's not the practice of either committee.
250Mr. Goelman. Just for the record, the witness is willing to be
251sworn and willing to testi fy without being sworn as per the committees'
252practice.
253Mr. Somers. All right. Well, let's go ahead and start this.
254The time is now 10:15.
255Mr. Baker. Okay. Just a quick reminder for folks that are
256participating from the table: Be cognizant of the microphones when
257you speak. Either bring them forward or lean forward, just to make
258sure that what you're saying is heard by the folks that are doing the
259transcription and for the people that are participating from a place
260other than the table.
261EXAMINATION
262BY MR. BAKER:
263Q Good morning, Mr. Strzok. Just as a very preliminary
264matter, what is the correct pronunciation of your name? I've heard
265it all different ways. I know you said it earlier, but I'd like you
266to just set the record straight on that.
267COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
26812
269COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
270A "Struck" is the correct pronunciation.
271Q Okay. And you are a special agent with the Federal Bureau
272of Investigation.
273A Yes.
274Q When did you enter on duty with the Bureau?
275A I entered on duty with the Bureau in September of 1996.
276Q 1996. You are currently at the rank of Deputy Assistant
277Director. Is that correct?
278A That's correct.
279Q And a Deputy Assistant Director in the FBI is a fairly high
280rank, as I understand it.
281A· I would call it a midlevel senior executive.
282Q Okay. So you are a member of the Senior Executive Service.
283A I am.
284Q And prior to your current assignment in the Human Resources
285Division, you were in the Counterintelligence Division?
286A Yes.
287Q So, in the Counterintelligence Division, as a Deputy
288Assistant Director, who do you answer to? What is the rank structure
289in that division?
290A So, within the Counterintelligence Division, my boss is
291Assistant Director, currently held by Bill Priestap. And then
292Counterintelligence Division is part of the National Security Branch,
293headed currently by Executive Assistant Director Carl Ghattas.
294Q Okay. And who does an Executive Assistant Director report
295COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
296to?
297COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
298A The Deputy Director.
299Q So an EAD is fairly high up in the pecking order.
300A Yes.
301Q The Assistant Director below that is who you answer to.
302A That's correct.
303Q And then who answers to you? Who is below you in the
304structure?
305A You're asking in the Counterintelligence Division?
306Q In Counterintelligence.
30713
308Mr. Somers. We can't hear you down at this end of the table. If
309you could move the mike a little closer to you.
310Mr. Strzok. So, within the Counterintelligence Division, there
311were a variety of section chiefs. I don't know if the organization
312chart is classified, so let me try and see if I can answer that in way.
313Mr. Baker. Just in general.
314Mr. Strzok. -- that satisfies your information.
315There are a variety of sections, which are headed by Senior
316Executive Service section chiefs, which address a variety of threats
317globally from a counterintelligence perspective. Those are both by
318region as well as by nature of the threat.
319So there are three Deputy Assistant Directors within the
320Counterintelligence Division. My branch at the time had, I
321believe -- let's see, two, three, four -- five or six section chiefs
322who handled a variety of both geographic/regional threats as well as
323COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
324COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
325topical threats.
326BY MR. BAKER:
327Q Okay. Before you were promoted to Deputy Assistant
328Director, you, yourself, were a section chief.
329A That's correct.
330Q And what section did you supervise?
331A The espionage section.
332Q Okay.
33314
334Very generally and very succinctly, what does the
335Counterintelligence Division do? What does a counterintelligence
336agent do? I mean, in an unclassified -- just for people that might
337not understand what the difference in those types of investigations
338are from someone who's maybe working bank robberies.
339A Absolutely. So there's a blend of both intelligence-type
340work and investigations that go on as well as criminal work. The way
341the Bureau looks at counterintelligence is, broadly, any foreign
342adversary, any foreign nation who is working to clandestinely work
343against American interests, whether that is the Government of America,
344the executive branch, the legislative branch, or into areas of private
345industry through things like economic espionage.
346So the mission of the FBI domestically is to protect America, not
347only the government but America broadly, against any number of foreign
348actors -- the Government of China, the Government of Russia, anybody
349who has a foreign intelligence service working against us.
350Q Okay. And part of those investigations, especially in your
351COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
352COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
353role in the counterespionage section, could some of those
354investigations involve employees of the Federal Government?
355A Yes.
356Q Okay. And that would be for espionage?
35715
358A Espionage, leaks of information to the media. You know, I
359could envision, kind of, one-off esoteric scenarios involving economic
360espionage, but those
361Q Okay.
362A -- would be the primary
363Q So the subjects of your investigations are not always just
364foreign actors. They could be employees that are possibly recruited
365or of interest by those foreign actors.
366A Yes, that's correct.
367Q Okay.
368What did you do to prepare for your appearance and interview
369today?
370A I reviewed material in the possession of the FBI. I worked
371with counsel. And, yes, again, reviewing those materials that were
372online through, you know, things that were released via FOIA or produced
373to Congress that were made public.
374Q Have you met recently, either in preparation for this
375interview or for any reason, with any FBI employees or former employees
376that have come before the committee·to be interviewed?
377A For the purpose of preparation?
378Q No. For any reason.
379COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
38016
381COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
382A Yes.
383Q And who was that?
384A John Giacalone I met probably 1-1/2, 2 weeks ago for lunch.
385Q And what is his role in the FBI?
386A He is a retired Executive Assistant Director.
387Q Did you report to him at all during the investigation that
388we're going to pivot to very --
389A In a two-layers-removed place, yes.
390Q So he was an EAD at the beginning of this investigation that
391was code name Midyear.
392A Yes.
393Q And your role at the very beginning was at what rank?
394A I was an Assistant Special Agent in Charge in the Washington
395field office when I -- Midyear predated -- it started before I became
396involved.
397Q Okay.
398A lot of the questions we'll ask today - - and I'll just get this
399out of the way -- you've probably already been asked, you've probably
400already answered. Some have been reported in the media. But, as
401you're aware, the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight and Government
402Reform Committee are conducting their own investigation, and it's
403prudent for any investigator to give a de novo look at all the evidence.
404That's why we've requested and reviewed documents. That's why we're
405bringing witnesses in here and asking some of the questions you've
406probably already been asked.
407COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
40817
409COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
410Within the last week or 2 weeks, there was media reporting that
411you were escorted out of the FBI building and that your security
412clearances were suspended. Is that correct?
413A Yes. I would add, they are reinstated as of this last
414weekend for the purpose of allowing me to review material in the FBI's
415possession and appear here today.
416Q So they were reinstated for the purpose of today's
417appearance, not for the purpose of your position at the FBI.
418A I do not know the entirety of the reasons they were
419reinstated. One of the reasons that I am aware of is that they were
420reinstated so that I could review that material and appear here today.
421Q Okay.
422You may not know the answer to this, but I'm very curious. You
423have been - - I mean, at some point - - and we'll get into this later - - you
424were transferred from the Counterintelligence Division to the Human
425Resources Division, but you've been in place during the pendency of
426the various investigations, the various media reporting,
427significantly, during the Inspector General's investigation. You've
428been in place and doing Bureau business, different than what you were
429used to doing, but still on the rolls and in the building doing things.
430What has happened recently that the FBI management, executive
431management, felt there was a need to have you removed from the building?
432A So, two answers to that. One, answering it would call for
433speculation. And the second thing is my understanding of the FBI's
434personal disciplinary process is one which I'm bound by
435COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
436COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
437confidentiality, and I can't talk about what I do know.
438Q Okay. But you are still an FBI employee.
439A I am.
44018
441Q Have you been proposed for any discipline, or that's under
442review?
443A Again, I can't get -- my understanding is I can't get into
444discussion about the particulars of the disciplinary process.
445Q But you are currently a paid FBI employee.
446A Yes, I am.
447Q Okay. So you are not suspended in any way.
448A Well, my -- I am suspended from -- I can't -- I'm not able
449to report for work within the FBI building, but that's a function of
450what's going on with the security process. But beyond that, I don't
451think I can comment on the process.
452Q Okay. So you're not in the building because your clearances
453have been suspended, not because you're under any kind of discipline
454that's already been handed out.
455A My understanding is that I cannot go into the building
456because my clearances are suspended.
457Q Okay. And do you have any idea what the duration of the
458suspension for clearances will be, other than this temporary one?
459A I don't.
460Q Okay.
461Mr. Jordan. Could we have - - we're still having trouble hearing.
462Can we have the witness, just if you wouldn't mind, Mr. Strzok, just
463COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
46419
465COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
466really - - no, just pull the mike right up like that. That way, we can
467hear down here. Thank you.
468BY MR. BREITENBACH:
469Q You have been informed why you were walked out and why you
470have lost your security clearance?
471A I have been told that my security clearance has been
472suspended.
473Q But have you been given the reasons as to why it was
474suspended?
475A I think getting into the reasons gets into the area of
476confidentiality that --
477Q I understand, but were you told by the Bureau --
478A I have been informed within the process and procedures of
479the FBI disciplinary process those elements that employees are told
480about. And I'm not - - my understanding is I'm not at liberty to further
481discuss that.
482Q Okay.
483BY MR. BAKER:
484Q And you've been given no timetable as to how long it would
485take whoever is reviewing your clearances for a resolution of that
486matter.
487A I have not.
488Q And no idea why all of a sudden this became an issue. Because
489you've been in place, doing essentially FBI function, although in a
490different division, during the pendency of the various investigations,
491COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
49220
493COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
494and it hasn't been an issue up until now.
495A I'm sorry, what's the - - there are a couple of issue questions
496in there. What's--
497Q Your clearances haven't been an issue during the pendency
498of the Inspector General's report and the various other reports, but
499all of a sudden it seems like something happened, that you have been
500taken out of the building and your clearances revoked, that whatever
501happened didn't happen during all of this time that the investigations
502have been going on.
503A Right. My understanding is that is part of the Bureau's
504disciplinary process.
505Q Okay.
506What was your role -- actually, before we get to that, have you
507always been a counterintelligence agent? Have you worked other
508violations, or that has pretty much been your career?
509A No, I started as an analyst working domestic terrorism and
510weapons of mass destruction related to domestic terrorism. As a first
511office agent, I worked national security matters broadly. That was
512largely counterintelligence but not exclusively CI. I did some
513terrorism work as well.
514Q On your way from new agent out of Quantico to Deputy Assistant
515Director, in addition to substantive expertise in terrorism,
516counterintelligence, I believe you have probably, to get to a DAD rank,
517you have probably also been required to do various managerial things
518and to accomplish certain managerial milestones in a career development
519COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
52021
521COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
522program. .Is that correct?
523A Yes.
524Q As part of that, you have had various lower-level supervisory
525roles, evaluated and promoted to other supervisory roles. Correct?
526A Yes.
527Q And part of that has been, I am assuming, but correct me,
528you have done inspections of other field offices, other headquarter
529entities, other FBI entities.
530A Yes.
531Q And an inspection involves you going in and taking a step
532back, looking at and analyzing another office, another FBI entity,
533another agent's work to make sure it's in compliance with the law, in
534compliance with administrative guidelines, and ultimately looking to
535see if the resources, human and monetary resources, put into that
536investigation are, ultimately, at the end of your inspection, efficient
537and effective. Is that correct?
538A Yes.
539Q So my point in all of that is, because of you doing all that,
540you are uniquely qualified as a Deputy Assistant Director to look at
541an investigation, to run an investigation, to participate in the
542investigation of an investigation, because you have a really gooQ
543handle on what an investigation is supposed to look like based on your
544investigati ve experience and your managerial experience. You've been
545trained to evaluate programs. You'll know what a good investigation
546should look like. Is that correct?
547COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
54822
549COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
550A I would not say it's unique, but I would say that is true.
551It is true, I would say, of people who have gone through that path and
552done those things and arrived at the same position.
553Q Okay.
554So, as it pertains to the investigation known as Midyear Exam,
555what was your role in that?
556I'm sure it changed, or you can correct me if it didn't, but my
557understanding with that and any investigation, it's opened up, and
558then, once people actually start looking at it, it evolves to either
559what you thought it might evolve to when you first looked at it or maybe
560something different based on facts and circumstances that you see.
561What was your initial role in Midyear Exam?
562A My initial role, I was an Assistant Special Agent in Charge
563at FBI's Washington field office. The case had been opened out of
564headquarters by then-Assistant Director Coleman. I know Section Chief
565Sandy Kable was also involved in the effort.
566At some point, I would say months in, maybe less than 2 months,
567but certainly after some time of running, they reached out to the FBI's
568Washington field office and said they needed greater staffing based
569on what they were looking at, based on some of the investigative steps
570that were under consideration, that they wanted to bring in field
571elements to work on that investigation.
572And so that was my first exposure to it and my entry into the
573investigation.
574Q So why would this matter or this case have been opened up
575COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
57623
577COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
578by FBI headquarters as the office of origin, for lack of a better term,
579and not opened up at the Washington field office?
580A I don't know, because I was not present when it occurred.
581My understanding is that decision was made by senior executives at the
582FBI, certainly at and likely above Assistant Director Coleman's level.
583But I don't know what the reasoning or discussion was as to why that
584occurred.
585Q In the normal course of business, would a case have been
586opened up at the Washington field office as the office of origin?
587A The typical -- I don't know how to define normal for you.
588The ordinary course of business is that cases are opened up out of field
589offices and run and supervised there. I am also aware of circumstances
590where cases are opened and -- or have been opened and run out of FBI
591headquarters.
592Q Okay. So this was not the first time that a case had been
593opened and run from headquarters.
594A That's correct.
595Q But, in the normal course of business, it's kind of unusual.
596A Again, saying something's normal course of business and then
597saying something's unusual are, kind of, differences. It is not the
598typical case, but this was not the first, in my experience.
599Q Okay.
600How did it come to be that this particular case was classified
601in the Bureau' s classification system as to where the case would land,
602where it would ultimately be investigated from, how was it that it was
603COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
60424
605COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
606classified as a counterintelligence matter versus something maybe on
607the criminal side of the house, a public corruption case or something
608like that? How did it end up in Counterintelligence?
609A I don't know. That was a decision made before and above my
610level.
611Q Would it be that any matter relating to, in very general
612terms, a spillage of potentially classified information, that is where
613that particular investigation or any potential criminal violations
614that went with that, that's just where those matters would be
615investigated from? .
616A Well, we don't investigate spills of classified information.
617That's typically an administrative process is followed. For any
618potentially criminal matters involving classified information, that
619is typically within the arena of the Counterintelligence Division.
620Q Okay.
621BY MR. BREITENBACH:
622Q Going back real quickly, you mentioned you were ASAC of WFO
623when the investigation began.
624A That's correct.
625Q Who was the Assistant Director in Charge of WFO at the time?
626A I believe that was then-Assistant Director Andy McCabe, but
627I'm not - - I would have to refresh my recollection. I know he was there
628at some point during that time at WFO, but when I first became aware
629of it, I'd need to check notes and material.
630Q Were you the only agent at the time at WFO that was brought
631COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
63225
633COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
634over to headquarters to work the case?
635A No.
636Q Are you aware of how many agents in total were brought over
637from WFO?
638A I am -- I could be aware with a review of materials.
639Speaking from recollection -- and this is going to be kind of
640vague -- there was a supervisory special agent, a significant portion
641of his squad made up of both agents and analysts, augmented by various
642computer forensic personnel, analytic personnel. So, roughly -- and
643it varied throughout the course of the investigation, anywhere from
64418 to 28 WFO personnel.
645But that's a vague recollection, and I wouldn't want to say I'm
646absolutely certain about that number.
647Q So Mr. McCabe, running the office in the Washington field
648office, would he be aware why individuals were leaving WFO to go to
649headquarters to run a case?
650A My recollection in this case is that he was not. I would
651defer to my boss, the - - I think it was SAC Greg Cox, I believe - - about
652any discussions, but I did not have a discussion with Mr. McCabe about
653what we were doing at headquarters.
654Q So you left WFO, went to headquarters. You did not discuss
655the reasons why you were leaving an office to go to headquarters with
656Mr. McCabe.
657A My recollection is I did not discuss with Mr. McCabe the
658reasons why the team was going to WFO -- or from WFO to headquarters.
659COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
66026
661COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
662BY MR. BAKER:
663Q We've entertained some questions and tried to figure out what
664the term means that has been associated with this particular
665investigation, a "special," a "headquarters special." What is that
666designation as it is assigned to an investigation that the FBI is doing?
667A So I think "special" is a term that was used in previous,
668earlier Bureau times. And that was something where a task force would
669be created, my recollection is, that there was frequently with a
670special -- a particular costing and administrative process would be
671set up so that resources could be tracked and funded as part of
672supporting that special.
673Again, my recollection is that was something that was done much
674earlier in the FBI and that we don't tend to -- the formal structure
675of a special is not the same as, you know, kind of, the colloquial use
676of it.
677So I certainly have heard that used. I would say it is more
678accurate simply to say that it was an investigation where the personnel
679were at FBI headquarters, they were largely made up of Washington field
680and FBI headquarters personnel.
681Q So, to be clear, it sounds like the term "special," either
682in an older FBI, and maybe the term has just carried over, it meant
683how something administratively was done with the case, not the subject
684matter of the case.
685A Both. I mean, typically, I think it was an administrative
686process, but there was also a recognition that, you know, if there was
687COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
68827
689COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
690a major terrorist event or if there was a major kidnapping or violent
691crime or something, where you were creating an investigation that
692merited a special process, which I can't define to you today. I'm sure
693if we pulled out an old MAOP or MIOG, documents that haven't existed
694for 2e years, they might define "special," but it was a
695not-unprecedented practice to create an entity like that to
696investigate.
697Q So you were recruited for the Midyear Exam investigation?
698Did they solicit applications? How did you come to be on the team?
699A My understanding is that Assistant Director Coleman asked
700for me and a team to come over. But that is -- that's secondhand
701information. I don't know that Mr. Coleman ever told me -- I don't
702know that I know exactly how it came to be that I was selected and
703directed to go to headquarters.
704Q I have heard that you are regarded as the number-one
705counterintelligence agent in the world. Comment on that?
706A That's kind for whoever said it. I believe there are a
707number of very competent, qualified FBI agents who have spent their
708careers working counterintelligence, love the work, love protecting
709America, and I would count myself in that group.
710Q So you would be a logical resource for the FBI to go to for
711a matter that ended up in the Counterintelligence Division.
712A Yes.
713Q At any time, either yourself or anybody else that came onto
714the team, was there any assessment, other than your expertise in
715COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
71628
717COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
718particular violations, was there ever an assessment of political bias
719or political activity beyond what would just be normal for a
720rank-and-file employee anywhere, to, you know, go and vote or
721participate in the process like that?
722A Are you asking were political beliefs taken into account in
723a staffing perspective?
724Q Yes.
725A No.1 they were not.
726Q Okay.
727What was your understanding, in general terms for now, of what
728the Midyear Exam investigation was about? You're on it now; what's
729it about?
730A My understanding, broadly, was at least, one, whether or not
731classified information came to be placed on Secretary Clinton's servers
732and email accounts; if so, how that came to be; and, if so, whether
733or not that information had been compromised or otherwise accessed by
734a foreign power.
735Q Okay.
736We're going to get back to that in a little while. I want to pivot
737just briefly. This is something that's been widely, widely reported,
738but I have a question beyond, I think, what the obvious interest in
739the media has been, and I think you're uniquely qualified to answer
740that.
741It's been widely reported - - the Inspector General's report makes
742a reference to it, so I'm assuming it's true -- you were involved in
743COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
74429
745COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
746an extramarital affair at the Bureau.
747A Yes.
748Q In your role as a counterintelligence expert, is an
749extramarital affair -- and I mean that in its truest sense, not known
750by the spouse - - is that a situation, a scenario, that makes the person
751committing or involved in the affair vulnerable to potential
752recruitment by a hostile intelligence service?
753A Yeah, I don't think I would characterize it that way. I
754think it is not so much any particular action as it is the way that
755action might be used to coerce or otherwise get s~mebody to do
756something. I can tell you in no way would that extramarital affair
757have any power in coercing me to do anything other than obeying the
758law and doing honest, competent investigation.
759Q But it would be something that an intelligence service, if
760they're looking for a vulnerability, if they're looking for someone
761that is an employee of the u.s. Government doing the sensitive types
762of investigations that the FBI does -- if there were a recruitment
763effort or a desire by a hostile service to penetrate that particular
764government entity, would that be a vulnerability that they would look
765at and assess to potentially try to exploit?
766A I think there are a variety of factors that would be looked
767at by any government to -- again, the issue is not the particular
768activity but the way in which those activities or desires might be used
769to persuade or coerce somebody to work for a foreign intelligence
770service.
771COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
77230
773COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
774Q You were never approached by a foreign intelligence service?
775A No.
776Q Hypothetically, if you were, with the affair pending over
777you, and that is what the intelligence service brought or assessed to
778be a vulnerability, how would you respond?
779A I would absolutely respond not, you know -- and, well,
780getting into, you know, terms of art here. One argument is you would
781tell the service, "Let me get back to you." I would im~ediately go
782report that to my superiors and see how they wanted to follow up. But
783it is -- I absolutely would not have been vulnerable or even let alone
784consider any sort of recruitment attempt.
785Q Okay. Were--
786Mr. Ratcliffe. May I jump in?
787Mr. Baker. Yes, sir.
788Mr. Ratcliffe. Agent Strzok, a number of us have other
789obligations today, so we'll be coming back and forth and may not be
790able to hear the entirety of your testimony. So I wanted to make sure
791I get to a couple of things before some Members have to leave.
792We'll come back to the Midyear Exam, but, just chronologically,
793I'm trying to get a picture of the roles that you played throughout
794all of the investigations that are subject to our jurisdiction that
795we're asking questions about.
796So, in addition to the Midyear Exam, you were involved in an
797investigation regarding potential Russian interference into our
798election, correct?
799COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
800COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
801Mr. Strzok. Yes.
802Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And when did that begin?
803Mr. Strzok. It began in late July of 2817.
804Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And was
805Mr. Strzok. I'm sorry, '16.
806Mr. Ratcliffe. 2816. And is that the investigation that's
807referred to by code name Crossfire Hurricane?
808Mr. Strzok. Sir, I can't get into that in an unclassified
809setting.
81031
811Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Can you tell us when you first learned
812about that investigation?
813Mr. Strzok. Yes. At the same time it was opened, in late July
814of 2816.
815Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And what was your initial role with
816respect to that investigation?
817Mr. Strzok. My initial role was as a supervisor over a series
818of subordinate supervisors and elements who were conducting the
819investigation. At the time, I was a section chief and was shortly
820thereafter promoted to Deputy Assistant Director.
821Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. It's been reported that that
822investigation began on or about July 27th of 2816.
823Mr. Strzok. I don't think the specific date has been
824declassified.
825Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. It has also been reported that you were
826in charge of leading that investigation. Is that a
827COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
82832
829COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
830fair characterization?
831Mr. Strzok. I would say I was among the leadership structure.
832I was one of the senior leaders. But the investigative structure
833involved, certainly, subordinate supervisors and subordinate
834supervisors to them, as well as case agents and analysts. Me, AD
835Priestap were all involved in a leadership capacity.
836Mr . Ratcliffe. Would you have been involved in putting together
837an investigative plan?
838Mr. Strzok. Yes.
839Mr. Ratcliffe. Would you have been in charge or played a role
840in managing confidential human sources?
841Mr. Strzok. Typically that's done at a lower supervisory level.
842Mr. Ratcliffe.
843Mr. Strzok.
844Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
845So what was your official title with respect to the Russia
846investigation?
847Mr. Strzok. My title was first initially as the Section Chief
848of the Counterespionage Section and later as the Deputy Assistant
849Director of Branch 1 of the Counterintelligence Division.
850Mr. Ratcliffe. Section Chief, and then became what?
851Mr. Strzok. Deputy Assistant Director.
852Mr. Ratcliffe. And when did that change take place, and why did
853it take place?
854Mr. Strzok. Sir, I was promoted -- I believe it was October of
855COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
85633
857COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
858that year. It might have been September. I would have to check my
859personnel records.
860Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
861Did you open what we would refer to as the Russia investigation?
862Mr. Strzok. I can't answer that in an unclassified setting.
863Mr. Ratcliffe. How long were you on what we're calling the Russia
864investigation?
865Mr. Strzok. Well, so, I would correct your use of the word "on."
866It was an area of which elements were under my subordinate supervisor's
867supervision for the pendency of my time in Counterintelligence Division
868and work at the special counsel's office.
869Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So, at some point -- you mentioned
870special counsel. At what point were you assigned to, or were you
871assigned to, the special counsel investigation?
872Mr. Strzok. I was assigned to the investigation in the -- and,
873again, I don't have the specific dates, but it was shortly after the
874establishment of the office. If memory serves, it was the
875late - - well, I'm sure it was the late spring of 2017, but I don't have
876a specific date.
877Mr. Ratcliffe. Yeah, May 17 of 2017 is the order appointing
878Special Counsel --
879Mr. Strzok. It was after that.
880Mr. Ratcliffe. -- Mueller. How soon after?
881Mr. Strzok. Again, my recollection is probably within a month,
882but I am not certain about that. Shortly after the creation, but it
883COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
88434
885COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
886was certainly weeks after the creation.
887Mr. Ratcliffe. And were you part of the initial group of folks
888that were assigned to the special counsel, or were you added to the
889special counsel probe?
890Mr. Strzok. Again, "initial" is a kind of ill-defined word. I
891was not the first person assigned. I was in the - - I wouldn't be able
892to tell you sequentially how people were assigned, but I was assigned,
893I would say, relatively early in the process.
894Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. You mentioned earlier Ms. Page, Lisa
895Page. Was she assigned before or after you?
896Mr. Strzok. I believe she was assigned before.
897Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you know if her involvement had anything to
898do with your addition to the special counsel team?
899Mr. Strzok. I don't know. I don't believe so.
900Mr . Ratcliffe. Okay. Who was it that approached you about being
901appointed to or involved with the special counsel investigation?
902Mr. Strzok. I don't remember specifically who. I remember that
903was a combination of discussions between special counsel staff, the
904special counsel, and the FBI, but I don't recall who it was who first
905approached me about that.
906Mr. Ratcliffe. At that point in time, was the Russia
907investigation still active?
908Mr. Strzok. Yes.
909Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Were you still one of the folks leading
910that investigation?
911COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
91235
913COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
914Mr. Strzok. I was one of the people involved in the leadership
915structure of that, yes.
916Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And is it fair for me to say, if you were
917involved in the leadership structure, that you were involved in taking
918actions and making decisions regarding the gathering or collecting of
919evidence or information? .
920Mr. Strzok. Yes. And I would add to that, sir, that
921it's - - what's di fficul t here in an unclassified setting is to explain
922the structure of things. And so, without getting into any classified
923territory, I think it would be fair to say that I certainly had a
924supervisory role but there were a variety of other people who were
925involved in supervisory roles.
926Mr . Ratcliffe. So explain for us how, if at all, the information
927that was gathered, evidence that was gathered or collected that we've
928just talked about from the Russia investigation became part of the
929special counsel investigation.
930Mr. Strzok. I don't think I can answer that in an unclassified
931setting. I can tell you that FBI rules and policies and procedures
932were followed throughout the conduct of the investigation.
933Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. If we can make
934the room right -- this room is a SCIF -- and go into a classified
935setting, I'd move that we do that if the testimony is calling for -Chairman
936Goodlatte. Rather than going in and out, I would ask
937you to remember what questions are asked that require a classified
938setting, and then we can address that further on in the process.
939COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
94036
941COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
942Mr. Ratcliffe. But you can, without getting into the details,
943you can confirm that evidence or information from the Russia
944investigation ultimately became part of the special counsel
945investigation.
946Mr. Strzok. I'm concerned both from a classification
947perspective as well as I defer to Bureau counsel about whether or not
948we want to get into a discussion about ongoing investigations, and I'm
949not certain the Bureau wants that.
950Mr . Ratcliffe. Again, I'm not getting into the specifics of the
951information, but I think it's important for everyone to understand the
952connection, if there is one, between the Russia investigation and the
953special counsel matter, in which you obviously were involved with both.
954Ms. Besse. Congressman, to the extent that he may be, sort of,
955encroaching on the special counsel territory, I think he's going to
956be very cautious.
957Mr. Ratcliffe. I have no problem with that. AIls I'm asking for
958is confirmation that the work that was done, whatever that work was
959done - - he's related decisions were made, actions were taken, evidence
960was gathered and collected -- that the sum and substance of that, at
961least in part, transferred over or became part of the consideration
962of the special counsel.
963Ms. Besse. To the extent you know the answer, Pete.
964Mr. Strzok. I -- so would you restate the question?
965Mr . Ratcliffe. Yeah. I'm just asking you to confirm whether the
966information or evidence that was gathered and collected as part of the
967COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
96837
969COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
970Russia investigation, where you were making decisions and taking
971actions, whether any of that became part of the special counsel's probe
972and consideration.
973Mr. Strzok. Yes.
974Mr. Ratcliffe. All right.
975So, when you became part of the special counsel team sometime in
976May of 2e17, how long did you continue and in what role?
977Mr. Strzok. I was there until the beginning of August. I was
978the -- kind of, essentially the -- one of the lead agents involved in
979the office.
980Mr. Ratcliffe. Lead agents?
981Mr. Strzok. In more of a kind of supervisory oversight. There
982were -- and, again, I don't want to get into specifics of staffing,
983but my role was at a more senior level than -- I'm pausing because I
984do not want to talk about --
985Mr. Ratcliffe. Let me ask you this.
986Mr. Strzok. the special counsel's staffing structure.
987Mr. Ratcliffe. Were the actions that you were taking and the
988decisions you were making in the special counsel probe similar to or
989consistent with the same ones that you had been taking in the Russia
990investigation?
991Mr. Strzok. No. I would say they were reduced, in as much as
992the special counsel and the structure of that office was more one - - it
993was -- my analogy is, you know, kind of, in the conduct of a criminal
994investigation, there comes a point where the agent's role lowers and
995COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
99638
997COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
998the attorney's role rises, that the special agent - - or that the special
999counsel's office and the attorneys were in more of a leadership role
1000of that process.
1001Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
1002The Inspector General report indicates that you were removed from
1003the special counsel investigation team on or about August 27th of 2017.
1004Does that date sound correct?
1005Mr. Strzok. No. I think it was earlier.
1006Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Do you know -- well, tell us the
1007circumstances by which you were removed, to the best of your
1008recollection and understanding.
1009Mr. Strzok. My recollection is that there was a brief discussion
1010between me, the special counsel, and one of his attorneys, a discussion
1011of his desire and, you know, expression that he thought it would be
1012appropriate for me to return to the FBI.
1013Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So a brief conversation with the special
1014counsel and his attorney?
1015Mr. Strzok. No, not -- one of his -- one of the staff of the
1016special counsel's office.
1017Mr. Ratcliffe. Who was that?
1018Mr. Strzok. I would defer to the special counsel to discuss the
1019matters within his administration of that office.
1020Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. But when you say the special counsel,
1021you're referring to Robert Mueller.
1022Mr. Strzok. I am.
1023COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
102439
1025COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1026Mr. Ratcliffe. So you had a brief conversation with Robert
1027Mueller about your removal from his investigative team.
1028Mr. Strzok. I did.
1029Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. On or about what date?
1030Mr. Strzok. Again~ sir, it is knowable, so if I refresh my
1031recollection with my calendar -- but my recollection is it was in the
1032early August timeframe.
1033Mr . Ratcliffe. Okay. How long was that brief conversation, to
1034the best of your recollection?
1035Mr. Strzok. I don't recall. Less than 30 minutes, more
1036than -- I don't recall.
1037Mr . Ratcliffe. All right. In the less than 30 minutes that you
1038talked with Special Counsel Mueller~ did he give you reasons why you
1039were being removed?
1040Mr. Strzok. We discussed generally the existence of the text
1041messages.
1042Mr. Ratcliffe. And what do you remember about the conversation
1043as it pertained to the text messages?
1044Mr. Strzok. My recollection was there was a sense of regret.
1045There was a sense that Special Counsel Mueller absolutely wanted to
1046run an investigation that was not only independent but also presented
1047the appearance of independence~ and the concern that these texts might
1048be construed otherwise. And that was the substance of it.
1049Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. In that less-than-30-minute conversation
1050with Special Counsel Mueller, did you review any of the individual
1051COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
105240
1053COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1054texts?
1055Mr. Strzok. No.
1056Mr. Ratcliffe. Did Special Counsel Mueller or the other lawyer,
1057who you can't recall or that you defer -- did you say you couldn't
1058recall?
1059Mr. Strzok. Oh, I recall. I defer to the special counsel
1060for discussions of personnel.
1061Mr. Ratcliffe. There were two, a special counsel and a lawyer
1062from the investigative --
1063Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
1064Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Did either one of them ask you about any
1065individual or specific texts?
1066Mr. Strzok. No.
1067Mr. Ratcliffe. Did either one of them ask you whether or not
1068the -- well, first of all, let me just generally -- do you think it's
1069fair, as these texts have been characterized, do you think it's fair
1070to say that there were hateful texts with respect to Donald Trump?
1071Mr. Strzok. I wouldn't call them hateful. I would call them an
1072expression of personal belief in an individual conversation with a
1073close associate.
1074Mr . Ratcliffe. Did you have any discussion with Special Counsel
1075Mueller or the other attorney about whether or not those text messages
1076reflected bias or prejudice against Donald Trump?
1077Mr. Strzok. No.
1078Mr. Ratcliffe. Did Special Counsel Mueller or the other attorney
1079COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
108041
1081COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1082in the room ask you whether or not your expression of personal belief
1083about Donald Trump influenced any of the actions or decisions that you
1084had taken or any of the evidence or information that you had gathered?
1085Mr. Strzok. No.
1086Mr. Ratcliffe. In looking at the specific texts, on August 6th
1087of 2916, one of the texts that you sent to Ms. Page, you said, "F Trump."
1088Do you recall that?
1089Mr. Strzok. I recall reading that. I don't recall specifically
1090sending that. But I've read it, yes.
1091Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you have any reason to doubt the veracity of
1092that text?
1093Mr. Strzok. I do not.
1094Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
1095So did Special Counsel Mueller or anyone with the special counsel
1096investigative team make any inquiry as to whether or not any bias or
1097prejudice reflected in that text that I just referred to impacted any
1098actions or decisions or the manner in which the evidence you gathered,
1099that information was affected?
1100Mr. Strzok. So, if you're asking whether or not any -- if any
1101of my personal beliefs ever influenced any --
1102Mr. Ratcliffe. No, I'm asking you --
1103Mr. Strzok.
1104Mr. Ratcliffe.
1105official action, the answer to that is never.
1106I'm not asking that question. I'm asking you
1107whether the special counselor anyone with the special counsel's
1108investigative team made inquiry to you ,whether or not any bias or
1109COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
111042
1111COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1112prejudice that would be reflected in the text "F Trump" impacted any
1113actions that you took, any decisions you made, any information or
1114evidence that you gathered.
1115Mr. Strzok. No.
1116Mr. Ratcliffe. All right.
1117That very same day, you sent a text message to Ms. Page saying
1118that you can protect the country at many levels. Do you recall that?
1119Mr. Strzok. Sir, I think that is -- chronologically, I think
1120that was earlier than the August 2017 timeframe.
1121Mr. Ratcliffe. No, it was August -- do you all have a copy of
1122the text messages? I can provide --
1123Mr. Strzok . Right, but I believe that's a full year prior, sir,
1124not 2017.
1125Mr. Ratcliffe. Oh, okay. Yeah. August 6th of 2016, you sent
1126a text message that said, I can protect the country at many levels.
1127Mr. Strzok. That was a -- that is part of a larger text, yes.
1128Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Did Special Counsel Mueller or anyone
1129with the special counsel investigative team make any inquiry to you
1130as to what you meant by that?
1131Mr. Strzok. No.
1132Mr. Ratcliffe. Did they make any inquiry as to whether or not,
1133when you said I can protect the country at many levels, that reflected
1134any bias or prejudice against Donald Trump?
1135Mr. Strzok. Did they ask?
1136Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes.
1137COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
113843
1139COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1140Mr. Strzok. No.
1141Mr. Ratcliffe. Did Special Counsel Mueller or anyone on the
1142investigative team ask you whether or not what you stated in that text
1143message in any way impacted the actions or decisions that you took or
1144the manner in which you collected evidence or information?
1145Mr. Strzok. No.
1146Mr. Ratcliffe. On August 8th of 2016, in response to a text
1147message from Lisa Page making inquiry as to whether or not Donald Trump
1148would become President, you responded, "No. No, he's not. We'll stop
1149it." Correct?
1150Mr. Strzok. Yes.
1151Mr. Ratcliffe. Did Special Counsel Mueller or anyone with the
1152special counsel investigative team make any inquiry as to whether or
1153not what is reflected in that text impacted your actions or decisions
1154or the manner in which you collected evidence either as part of the
1155Russia investigation or during your involvement with the special
1156counsel team?
1157Mr. Strzok. No.
1158Mr. Ratcliffe. On August 15th of 2016, you sent a text message
1159to Ms. Page saying, "I want to believe the path that you set forth in
1160Andy's office but feel we can't take that risk. " Do you remember saying
1161that?
1162Mr. Strzok. I remember reading the text and having that refresh
1163my memory.
1164Mr. Ratcliffe. You don't have any reason to doubt the veracity
1165COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
116644
1167COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1168of that text.
1169Mr. Strzok. No, I do not.
1170Mr . Ratcliffe. All right. And is the risk that you were talking
1171about the risk of a Trump Presidency?
1172Mr. Strzok. It is not.
1173Mr. Ratcliffe. What was the risk that was reflected in that?
1174Mr. Strzok. My recollection of that discussion was that we had
1175received information from a very sensitive source alleging collusion
1176between the Government of Russia and members of the Trump campaign.
1177As is frequently the case in counterintelligence investigations
1178and any national security investigations, there's a tension between
1179the protection of a sensitive source and method and pursuing the
1180investigation related to that information.
1181Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
1182Mr. Strzok. There was a debate - - if I may, sir, finish, because
1183it's important to understanding the context of what I said.
1184The debate was how aggressively to pursue investigation, given
1185that aggressive pursuit might put that intelligence source at risk.
1186And there were some who looked and said, well, the polls are
1187overwhelmingly in Secretary Clinton's favor; we can not risk this
1188source by just not really investigating that aggressively.
1189And my perspective was, you know, we need to do our job. We're
1190the FBI. We need to investigate. The country deserves this. If
1191there is a problem within the membership of the Trump campaign, that,
1192if they are elected, that those people might be named to senior national
1193COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
119445
1195COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1196security positions, and that is something, certainly, that the American
1197people deserve and, indeed, candidate Trump might want to know.
1198So my use of the phrase" insurance policy" was simply to say, while
1199the polls or people might think it is less likely that then-candidate
1200Trump would be elected, that should not influence -- that should not
1201get in the way of us doing our job responsibly to protect the national
1202security.
1203Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So who was the source of that information,
1204and when did you receive it?
1205Mr. Strzok. Sir, I can't get into that in an open setting.
1206Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, you were asked about this text message by
1207the Inspector General, correct?
1208Mr. Strzok. I was.
1209Mr. Ratcliffe. And the Inspector General also asked you whether
1210or not it was reasonable for people to assume that the risk that you
1211were talking about was Donald Trump, based in light or based upon
1212other messages, text messages, that you sent about Donald Trump,
1213correct?
1214Mr. Strzok. I don't remember the exact -- I don't remember the
1215phrasing and questions from the Inspector General.
1216Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you remember telling the Inspector General
1217that you thought it would be reasonable for people to have that
1218assumption based on the other text messages that you sent about
1219Mr. Trump?
1220Mr. Strzok. I absolutely, whatever is recorded in his report and
1221COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
122246
1223COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1224my transcript, would agree with, but I would say that there are a variety
1225of interpretations. What I'm telling you, because I wrote it , it means
1226we need to err on the side of aggressively investigating this and not
1227just, you know --
1228Mr. Ratcliffe. I understand that, but I'm asking you, do you
1229think it's reasonable for other people to have a different
1230interpretation of what you meant by that when they read it in context
1231with other text messages?
1232Mr. Strzok. I think it's reasonable that people would have any
1233number of interpretations of things.
1234Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And what you're telling us, though, is
1235that Robert Mueller didn't make inquiry into either of those, yours
1236or anyone else's interpretation.
1237Mr. Strzok. I don't know what he did or didn't do. I can only
1238speak to what he talked or asked me.
1239Mr. Ratcliffe. Right. Well, you're the only one that would be
1240able to give that interpretation, right?
1241Mr. Strzok. Sir, I don't know who he might have, between the IG
1242or anybody else, who he might have spoken to. I can tell you, with
1243regard to me, he did not.
1244Mr. Ratcliffe. Right. So he didn't even make inquiry.
1245Mr. Strzok. With me, he did not ask.
1246Mr. Ratcliffe. All right.
1247When you joined the special counsel investigative team, shortly
1248before you did, you sent a text message to Lisa Page where you talked
1249COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
125047
1251COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1252about unfinished business and the need to fix it and finish it.
1253Did Special Counsel Mueller or anyone on the special counsel
1254investigative team make any inquiry to you as to whether or not that
1255text message related to Donald Trump?
1256Mr. Strzok. No.
1257Mr. Ratcliffe. Did it relate to Donald Trump?
1258Mr. Strzok. Sir~ in my recollection~ that referred to a much
1259broader effort of the Government of Russia to interfere with our
1260Presidential election. I saw that~ from our observation~ from
1261information from the u.S. intelligence community that has since been
1262declassified~ that the Government of Russia~ in social media and other
1263places ~ were making use of the Clinton investigation in a way to disrupt
1264our election.
1265COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
126648
1267COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1268[11:05 a.m.]
1269Mr. Strzok. I was concerned in that context that the work that
1270we had done that was professional and extraordinary and complete was
1271being twisted and turned in a way by a foreign adversary to undermine
1272our electoral process.
1273And so, as I looked at that going on, as I looked at my background
1274on the Midyear case and my career's work against hostile foreign powers,
1275I wanted to -- my sense was I wanted to continue the work of making
1276sure that, in fact, the Government of Russia would not be successful
1277in interfering with our election, that they would not be successful
1278in using the investigative results of the FBI with regard to the Clinton
1279server.
1280Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I know a lot of Members are going to have
1281questions regarding what you meant by that, but, again, to be clear,
1282Special Counsel Mueller and no one on his investigative team just heard
1283the explanation that you gave for what that text message meant because
1284they didn't ask about it, right?
1285Mr. Strzok. That's a two-part question. They did not ask about
1286it of me; I don't know what they heard.
1287Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. That same day, you talked about an
1288investigation leading to impeachment. Are we talking about
1289impeachment of Donald Trump?
1290Mr. Strzok. I don't -- yes. I don't know if it was the same day,
1291but I defer to your notes.
1292Mr. Ratcliffe. I'll represent to you that it's a text message
1293COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
129449
1295COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1296dated May 18 of 2017. Did Special Counsel Mueller or anyone on the
1297special counsel investigative team make an inquiry to you as to whether
1298or not your reference to impeachment related to Donald Trump?
1299Mr. Strzok. No.
1300Mr. Ratcliffe. Did they make any inquiry as to whether or not
1301the text message that you spent -- that you sent talking about the
1302impeachment of Donald Trump in any way impacted the actions or decisions
1303that you took or the manner in which you had gathered evidence, either
1304in the Russia investigation or as part of Robert Mueller's special
1305counsel team?
1306Mr. Strzok. No.
1307Mr. Ratcliffe. On that same day, May 18, 2017, in the text
1308message to Ms. Page, you talked about whether or not to join the special
1309counsel investigative team and said, "If I thought it was likely" - - let
1310me read it to you exactly because I don't want to paraphrase.
1311You said: You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought
1312it was likely, I'd be there, no question. I hesitate in part because
1313of my gut sense and concern there's no big "there" there.
1314Do you remember sending that text message?
1315Mr. Strzok. I don't remember sending it, but I have -- I believe
1316it to be true and my words.
1317Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. The odds are nothing about what?
1318Mr. Strzok. So my recollection, my thought at the time was we
1319had a credible allegation that the Government of Russia had offered
1320assistance to elements and members of the Trump team to -- in the
1321COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1322so
1323COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1324election.
1325Our look~ which was still ongoing and~ I believe to be still
1326ongoing~ it was not clear to me based on the investigators' skepticism
1327whether we didn't know what we had~ whether this was a large coordinated
1328activity ~ whether this was a group of people pursuing their own agendas
1329or ~ you know~ their own motivations or desires and not knowing at that
1330point whether or not -- what that interaction might have been or what
1331it was.
1332Mr. Ratcliffe. So you said
1333Mr. Meadows. Can I ask one clarification?
1334Mr. Ratcliffe. Yeah~ you can.
1335Mr. Meadows. You indicated that there was evidence. There was
1336evidence that Russia was trying to do it. There was no evidence the
1337other way around. Is that correct?
1338Mr. Strzok. Sir~ the --
1339Mr. Meadows. I want you to be clear in - - that Russia was trying.
1340Mr. Strzok. I understand your question~ and I can't answer with
1341a specificity that you would like in an unclassified setting.
1342Mr. Meadows. Well~ you just answered with specificity the other
1343way. So I guess what I'm saying is~ based on what I know~ I want to
1344give you a chance to clarify the record.
1345Mr. Strzok. Absolutely~ sir. And what I would tell you is~ my
1346statements - - my recollection just now is that I was talking about the
1347initial allegations that we had received that have been talked about
1348and described.
1349COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
135051
1351COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1352Mr. Meadows. That Russia was trying to interfere?
1353Mr. Strzok. Right. And what I don't want to do, though, is to
1354extrapolate into our -- your second question, which is whether or not
1355there was any reciprocity because there's a difference between the sum
1356and substance of the initial --
1357Mr. Meadows. But you were extrapolating based on your answer,
1358so -- and, again, I'm just trying to get clarification.
1359Mr. Goelman. Yeah. If you'd like clarification, I'd ask the
1360Congressman to allow the witness to finish his answer.
1361Mr. Strzok. So, sir, I would - - as to the second question as to
1362whether or not there was information about whether elements of the Trump
1363campaign were themselves engaging in that, I can't answer that in an
1364unclassified setting, and furthermore, I don't think the FBI or special
1365counsel would want me commenting on ongoing investigations.
1366Mr . Ratcliffe. You said in response to the question that I asked
1367that you -- you said: We didn't know what we had.
1368That was after 9 months of your involvement in the Russia
1369investigation, correct?
1370Mr. Strzok. Yeah. I -- I'm going to take your representation
1371that it's 9 months, but yes.
1372Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
1373Mr. Strzok. I don't - - anyway, but it was after - - it was after
1374the initiation of the Russia investigation.
1375Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So you went on to say that you were
1376concerned that there's no big "there" there. What did that mean?
1377COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
137852
1379COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1380Mr. Strzok. What I just said, that I think at that point, at the
1381early stage of the investigation, there were a variety of things going
1382on, and it was not clear to me what that represented, whether it was
1383the activities of a group of individuals or something larger or more
1384coordinated or, in fact, nothing at all, which is frequently the case
1385in early stages of the investigation. I think it was less than
13869 months, sir, but I defer to the record.
1387Mr . Ratcliffe. Okay. But you didn't say, "I'm not sure there's
1388no big 'there' there"; you said, "I'm concerned there's no big 'there'
1389there."
1390Mr. Strzok. Yes.
1391Mr. Ratcliffe. "Concern" is worry.
1392Mr. Strzok. "Concern, " I think, I would take a different context
1393of that. "Concern" is in regard to what my choice of whether or not
1394I wanted to stay as a Deputy Assistant Director in the
1395Counterintelligence Division, whether I wanted to go and work for the
1396special counsel, which of those were a -- did a -- provided more of
1397an opportunity for me to protect the Nation. And so "concern" is
1398not -- I would not use "concern" in the way that you're inferring.
1399Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
1400Mr. Strzok. I understand it's my word, but I'm telling you
1401that's not what I meant --
1402Mr. Ratcliffe. Right. It's your word, and do you think it's an
1403unreasonable interpretation, in the context of the other text messages
1404that you sent about Donald Trump, that folks might think that you were
1405COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
140653
1407COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1408rooting against him?
1409Mr. Strzok. No, I don't think in the context of that
1410conversation or that text that it is -- I think it's very reasonable
1411to believe the truth, which is that I was not sure whether or not I
1412should go to special counselor remain at the FBI.
1413Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So what did Special Counsel Mueller or
1414anyone on his investigative team ask you about what you meant when you
1415said that?
1416Mr. Strzok. They did not.
1417Mr . Ratcliffe. Made no inquiry as to whether or not the bias or
1418prejudice against Donald Trump that may be reflected in that in any
1419way impacted the decisions that you made, the actions that you took,
1420or the evidence that you gathered as part of the Russia investigation
1421or as part of his special counsel investigative team?
1422Mr. Strzok. Sir, I'd push back on your characterization that
1423that reflected bias. I don't believe that's the case at all. But in
1424answer to your question of whether or not they asked me about it, they
1425did not.
1426Mr. Ratcliffe. Fair enough.
1427Four days later, on May. 22, you sent Ms. Page, in response to her
1428sending you a Washington Post article, your response was: God, I
1429suddenly want on this. You know why.
1430Tell us what you meant when you said that.
1431Mr. Strzok. I don't recall sitting here now what I meant. My
1432inference looking at that was that it was based on some investigative
1433COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
143454
1435COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1436event that happened, but I don't recall what it was.
1437Mr . Ratcliffe. Did it have anything to do with wanting on it so
1438that -- because you thought it might lead to Donald Trump being
1439impeached?
1440Mr. Strzok. No, not at all. My desire has always been kind of
1441cases that are interesting, cases that are important to national
1442security. It has nothing to do with the individual or the party of
1443the individual. It is driven .by my -- my career has been driven by
1444where I can best protect the national security of the United States.
1445Mr . Ratcliffe. Okay. So did Bob Mueller ask you if that's what
1446you meant by that?
1447Mr. Strzok. No.
1448Mr. Ratcliffe. Anyone on his investigative team?
1449Mr. Strzok. No.
1450Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So just to -- because our time is about
1451expired here for this first hour, is it fair to say that, again, to
1452recap, about these text messages that Special Counsel Mueller and/or
1453anyone on Special Mueller -- Special Counsel Mueller's investigative
1454team never made inquiry as to whether these text messages reflected
1455bias or prejudice against Donald Trump or asked you whether or not they
1456impacted the actions or decisions that you took or the information that
1457you gathered in the Russia investigation or as part of the special
1458counsel probe?
1459Mr. Strzok. So your first question, I don't know who they did
1460or did not ask. I can tell you in answer to your second question, they
1461COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
146255
1463COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1464did not ask me.
1465Mr. Ratcliffe. All right. And did Special Counsel Mueller or
1466anyone on the Special Counsel Mueller's investigative team ever ask
1467you whether any hatred or any~ as you characterize it~ expression of
1468personal belief about Donald Trump ever impacted any of the actions
1469or decisions you took or any of the evidence or information you
1470collected?
1471Mr. Strzok. No.
1472Mr. Ratcliffe. I think our time has expired.
1473Mr. Breitenbach. We will take a 5-minute break and come back on
1474with the minority.
1475[Recess.]
1476COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
147756
1478COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1479[11:39 a.m.]
1480Ms. Kim. We will now go back on the record. The time is 11: 39.
1481EXAMINATION
1482BY MS. KIM:
1483Q Mr. Strzok, thank you for being here today. My name is Janet
1484Kim. I'm a counsel with Ranking Member Elijah Cummings of the House
1485Oversight Committee. I will be asking you some questions, and we also
1486have many Members here who are interested in speaking with you today.
1487I'd like to go back to something - - a dialogue that you were having
1488with Mr. Ratcliffe about your performance on Mr. Mueller's
1489investigation. So, in your conversation where Special Counsel Mueller
1490and you agreed that it was time for you to go back to the FBI, was there
1491a mutual understanding between the two of you that you, Mr. Strzok,
1492did not believe that your personal, political views expressed in those
1493text messages impacted your work in any way?
1494A I can't speak to whether or not it was mutual. I certainly
1495believe and know that my personal beliefs never impacted any action
1496that I took as an FBI agent.
1497Q Have your personal political views ever affected any action
1498you've taken?
1499A They have not.
1500Q Thank you.
1501Mr. Nadler, I think -- if you're ready.
1502Mr. Nadler. I am. Thank you.
1503Mr. Strzok, in March 2917, Director Corney disclosed in public
1504COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
150557
1506COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1507testimony that the FBI had begun investigation into, quote, "the
1508Russian Government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential
1509election," close quote, including, quote, "the nature of any links
1510between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian
1511Government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign
1512and Russia's efforts," close quote.
1513We now know the investigation began before the election in July
1514of 2016. But no news of that investigation regarding President
1515Trump's campaign leaked out to the press. Were you aware of this
1516investigation before the election?
1517Mr. Strzok. I was.
1518Mr. Nadler. Was Lisa Page?
1519Mr. Strzok. She was.
1520Mr. Nadler. Andrew McCabe?
1521Mr. Strzok. He was?
1522Mr. Nadler. James Comey?
1523Mr. Strzok. Yes?
1524Mr. Nadler. Approximately how many FBI officials were aware of
1525this investigation before the election?
1526Mr. Strzok. Sir, I would -- I would estimate between 15 to 30.
1527But that's an estimate.
1528Mr. Nadler. Okay. That's fine. Are you aware of any FBI
1529officials leaking information about this investigation before the
1530election?
1531Mr. Strzok. No.
1532COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
153358
1534COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1535Mr. Nadler. Did you make any disclosures about this
1536investigation to the press or the public before election day?
1537Mr. Strzok. No.
1538Mr. Nadler. Why not?
1539Mr. Strzok. That would have been improper. We don't talk about
1540pending investigations. We don't talk about investigations.
1541Mr. Nadler. How do you think a disclosure to the press or to the
1542public would have impacted Donald Trump's electoral prospects?
1543Mr. Strzok. I think it would have had an adverse impact on his
1544electoral chances.
1545Mr. Nadler. If someone at the FBI was trying to stop Donald Trump
1546from being elected President, do you think they would have publicly
1547disclosed that his campaign was under investigation for potentially
1548colluding with Russian Government actors?
1549Mr. Strzok. That might be one way they would seek to impact it.
1550Mr. Nadler. But to your knowledge, no one at the FBI did disclose
1551this fact publicly, correct?
1552Mr. Strzok. Correct.
1553Mr. Nadler. Would you consider this strong evidence that there
1554was not a deep state conspiracy at the FBI to stop Donald Trump from
1555being elected?
1556Mr. Strzok. Sir, I can both tell you that it would be strong
1557evidence and, in fact, there was no conspiracy to stop candidate Trump
1558from being President.
1559Mr. Nadler. And this would be strong evidence of that
1560COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
156159
1562COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1563proposition?
1564Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
1565Mr. Nadler. And was this also strong evidence that you
1566personally were not trying to stop Donald Trump from being elected
1567President?
1568Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
1569Mr. Nadler. Why didn't the FBI disclose the existence of this
1570investigation before election day?
1571Mr. Strzok. It was a pending counterintelligence matter, both
1572because we don't talk about pending investigations generally and,
1573specifically, those that relate to counterintelligence matters, we
1574don't discuss them.
1575Mr. Nadler. Do you recall the specific discussion about whether
1576or not to publicly disclose the existence of the Trump investigation
1577before the 2016 election?
1578Mr. Strzok. I don't recall one. I recall a variety of
1579discussions about how to potentially publicly address the various
1580efforts that the Government of Russia was making to interfere with the
1581election.
1582Mr. Nadler. But not a discussion of revealing the investigation
1583of possible collusion with the Trump campaign?
1584Mr. Strzok. There was a discussion or series of discussions, to
1585my recollection, about how to appropriately and aggressively
1586investigate them and what that path might look like, but not
1587specifically to publicly disclose them.
1588COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
158960
1590COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1591Mr. Nadler. Okay. Do you recall when Director Corney made the
1592decision to disclose the existence of the investigation into the Trump
1593campaign?
1594Mr. Strzok. I don't know specifically when he decided. But
1595there were discussions with Mr. Corney and his senior staff that I
1596participated in, and I'm sure others that I didn't, about whether or
1597not to do that as part of the appearance before Congress in making that
1598known to Congress, but I don't know when that occurred.
1599Mr. Nadler. Now, Mr. McCabe's deposition to us states as
1600follows, quote: Well, I think eventually we had that discussion
1601because eventually we made that decision, and the Director sought and
1602received the Department's authorization to make that investigation
1603public in March of 2817, close quote.
1604Do you know why Director Corney made the decision to disclose this
1605in March 2817?
1606Mr. Strzok. I don't know why.
1607Mr. Nadler. Or what events occurred that led to that specific
1608timing?
1609Mr. Strzok. That timing, I think, was in the context of the broad
1610efforts that were going on with regard to the Government of Russia's
1611intrusion into our election process. I don't recall sitting here what
1612it was that specifically precipitated that decision in the March
1613timeframe.
1614Mr. Nadler. Okay. March 2817 timeframe?
1615Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
1616COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
161761
1618COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1619Mr. Nadler. Now, Mr. Strzok, there have been many public
1620criticisms coming from all sides against former FBI Director James
1621Corney and the decisions that he made in the handling of the Clinton
1622investigation. However, the President and other Republicans have gone
1623well beyond that and have made extremely serious allegations that
1624attack Director Corney's fundamental honestly and integrity or even
1625accuse him of committing crimes. I'd like to go through some of them
1626with you now to see if you can shed some light.
1627Last week, after the inspector general released its report on the
1628FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, the President's
1629personal attorney Rudy Giuliani went on FOX News and stated, quote:
1630Peter Strzok was running the Hillary information. That's a total fix.
1631That's a closed book now, total fix. Corney should go to jail for that
1632and Strzok. Let's investigate the investigators. Let's take a halt
1633to the Mueller investigation, unquote.
1634First, just to be clear, was the Hillary Clinton email
1635investigation a total fix?
1636Mr. Strzok. Not at all.
1637Mr. Nadler. Do you believe Director Corney should, quote, "go to
1638jail for that"?
1639Mr. Strzok. No.
1640Mr. Nadler. Do you believe you should go to jail for that?
1641Mr. Strzok. No.
1642Mr. Nadler. Has the inspector g'eneral accused you of any
1643criminal behavior?
1644COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
164562
1646COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1647Mr. Strzok. No.
1648Mr. Nadler. Has anything Director Corney said or done indicate
1649there should be a halt to the Mueller investigation?
1650Mr. Strzok. No.
1651Mr. Nadler. After the inspector general's report President
1652Trump also stated, quote: I think Corney was the ring leader of this
1653whole, you know, den of thieves. They were plotting against my
1654election, close quote.
1655Was Director Corney a ring leader of a den of thieves who was
1656plotting against Donald Trump during the election?
1657Mr. Strzok. No.
1658Mr. Nadler. Do you have any reason to believe Director Corney was
1659plotting against Donald Trump during the election?
1660Mr. Strzok. No.
1661Mr. Nadler. On April 13th of this year, 2018, President Trump
1662also tweeted, quote: James Corney's a proven leaker and liar.
1663Virtually everyone in Washington thought he should be fired for the
1664terrible job he did until he was, in fact, fired. He leaked classified
1665information for which he should be prosecuted. He lied to Congress
1666under oath, close quote.
1667Do you believe Director Corney's a proven liar?
1668Mr. Strzok. No.
1669Mr. Nadler. Why not?
1670Mr. Strzok. My experience and information I have, I have not
1671seen any statement that he's made that was untrue.
1672COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1673COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1674Mr. Nadler. Are you aware of Director Corney ever lying to
1675Congress under oath?
1676Mr. Strzok. No.
1677Has Director Corney ever lied to you?
1678NOJ not to my knowledge.
167963
1680Mr. Nadler.
1681Mr. Strzok.
1682Mr. Nadler. Are you aware of any instances of Director Corney
1683lying?
1684Mr. Strzok. I'm not.
1685Mr. Nadler. Mr. StrzokJ are you familiar with Director Corney's
1686testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on
1687June 8thJ 2e17?
1688Mr. Strzok. GenerallYJ yes.
1689Mr. Nadler. Okay.
1690Mr. Strzok. And J sirJ I'd saYJ there were a variety of
1691testimonial settings where Director Corney was coming to the Hill
1692between the IntelJ the Gang of EightJ and othersJ so they all kind of
1693blur together at this time.
1694Mr. Nadler. It's okay.
1695Did you generally find that Director Corney's descriptions of
1696events in his written and oral testimony were consistent with the
1697contemporaneous descriptions that he shared with you at the time of
1698those events?
1699Mr. Strzok. Yes.
1700Mr. Nadler. Do you believe that Director Corney accurately shared
1701with the Senate Intelligence Committee his memory of his interactions
1702COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
170364
1704COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1705with President Trump to the best of his recollection?
1706Mr. Strzok. As I understand that testimony, yes.
1707Mr. Nadler. Did you find that Director Corney's descriptions of
1708his meetings with President Trump were consistent with the
1709descriptions he shared with you immediately after his meetings with
1710President Trump?
1711Mr. Strzok. Again, to the extent I was aware of any of those
1712interactions, yes.
1713Mr. Nadler. Overall, do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy
1714of Director Corney's oral or written testimony or representation of the
1715facts from when he was the FBI Director?
1716Mr. Strzok. No.
1717Mr. Nadler. Mr. Strzok, I have attended every interview in this
1718investigation. Actually, I'm not sure that's - - let me take that back.
1719Let me just say, your opinion, as far as I know, is consistent
1720wi th that of every FBI employee who has come before you. Director Corney
1721is an honest person, and there's no reason that he should not be a
1722credible witness for the special counsel. That's correct, is it not?
1723Mr. Strzok. Yes, it is.
1724Mr. Nadler. Thank you on that.
1725NOw, when did you join the special counsel's probe?
1726Mr. Strzok. Again, it was - - my recollection is that it was the
1727late spring, early summer of 2e17.
1728Mr. Nadler. And what were your responsibilities on the special
1729counsel's team?
1730COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
173165
1732COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1733Mr. Strzok. I was the lead agent, and that's not to say case
1734agent or investigator but kind of putting together the FBI's structure
1735within that office.
1736Mr. Nadler. And when did you first learn that the IG's office
1737was examining your texts with Lisa Page?
1738Mr. Strzok. My recollection is that it was sometime between late
1739July or early August of that year.
1740Mr. Nadler. And when were you removed from Special Counsel
1741Mueller's probe?
1742Mr. Strzok. Shortly thereafter.
1743Mr. Nadler. So far, Special Counsel Mueller's probe has resulted
1744in 18 indictments against 20 individuals and 3 companies, cataloging
174575 criminal acts. Five different individuals have so far pled guilty.
1746Were you involved in the prosecutorial decisions that resulted in these
1747indictments and guilty pleas?
1748Mr. Strzok. I would defer to the special counsel's office to
1749talk about the process that they went through with prosecution
1750decisions. Generally, prosecution decisions are made by the
1751prosecutors, but I don't want to comment on the process that Special
1752Counsel Mueller did or didn't use. I defer to them to describe that.
1753Mr. Nadler. Okay. And what would you say to those who allege
1754that the special counsel's probe has become irredeemably tainted
1755because you and Lisa Page were once a part of the Russia investigation?
1756Mr. Strzok. I'd say that is utterly nonsense.
1757Mr. Nadler. Because?
1758COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
175966
1760COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1761Mr. Strzok. Because, first of all, I never, ever considered or
1762let alone did any act which was based on any personal belief. My
1763actions were always guided by the pursuit of the truth, and moreover,
1764anything I did was done in the context of a much broader organization.
1765It was done with other agents, with agents and analysts below me, with
1766agents and analysts above me, with the rules and regulations that govern
1767everything we do in the FBI.
1768And so I think when you look at the totality of what occurred,
1769the procedures that were followed, demonstrably followed and followed
1770in accordance with law and our procedures, they were complete. They
1771were thorough. They were absolutely done with no motive other than
1772a pursuit of the truth.
1773And I think the fact that you, as you noted, without getting into
1774any details about what the special counsel is or isn't doing, simply
1775the public record of the charges and guilty pleas speak for themselves.
1776Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much. I'll now hand over the
1777questioning to Congressman Krishnamoorthi.
1778Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Good morning.
1779Mr. Strzok. Good morning, sir.
1780Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you so much.
1781Mr. Strzok, as you -- as I am sure you're aware, there has been
1782a litany of attacks from the highest levels of government accusing the
1783FBI and DO) of conducting investigations driven by political bias
1784instead of just facts and the rule of law. The question is this: Are
1785you aware of any FBI or DO) investigations motivated by political bias?
1786COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
178767
1788COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1789Mr. Strzok. I'm not.
1790Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Why not?
1791Mr. Strzok. That's not who we are. That is not -- my decades
1792of FBI experience, we are driven by a pursuit of the truth. Just as
1793I would never allow any personal opinion or belief to drive an action,
1794I wouldn't tolerate it in others, and that is a -- the code of the
1795Bureau. And what distresses me the most are people's suggestion that
1796the FBI is the sort of place where that even could possibly occur is
1797destructive to the rule of law and the mission of the FBI to protect
1798the United States.
1799Mr. Krishnamoorthi. On February 2nd, 2e18, President Trump
1800tweeted, quote: The top leadership and investigators of the FBI and
1801Justice Department have politicized the sacred investigative process
1802in favor of Democrats and against Republicans, something which would
1803have been unthinkable just a short time ago. Rank and file are great
1804people, exclamation point.
1805The question is this: Do you agree that the top leadership and
1806investigators of the FBI and the Justice Department have politicized
1807the sacred investigative process in favor of Democrats and against
1808Republicans?
1809Mr. Strzok. No.
1810Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Throughout your career at the FBI, are you
1811aware of any instances of the FBI conducting investigations in favor
1812of Democrats and against Republicans?
1813Mr. Strzok. No.
1814COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
181568
1816COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1817Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Are any investigations staffed based on
1818whether you're a Democrat or Republican?
1819Mr. Strzok. No.
1820Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Are you aware of any actions ever taken to
1821damage the Trump campaign at the highest levels of the Department of
1822Justice or the FBI?
1823Mr. Strzok. No.
1824Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Are you aware of any actions ever taken to
1825personally target Mr. Trump at the highest levels of the Department
1826of Justice or the FBI?
1827Mr. Strzok. No.
1828Mr. Krishnamoorthi. By the way, how many people were on the
1829Hillary Clinton investigation?
1830Mr. Strzok. It varied. I would say it would range between 28
1831to 38 at a minimum and 68 to 78 at the highest point.
1832Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you.
1833Is there any evidence that the FBI or DOJ had any officials that
1834took any actions biased in favor of Clinton?
1835Mr. Strzok. No.
1836Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Is there any evidence that President Obama
1837ordered any investigative activity that was biased in favor of Clinton
1838or, alternatively, biased against President Trump?
1839Mr. Strzok. To my knowledge, no.
1840Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Is there any evidence that President Obama
1841ordered a wiretap of Donald Trump or the Trump campaign?
1842COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
184369
1844COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1845Mr. Strzok. To my knowledge, no.
1846Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I've been troubled by escalating attacks
1847against the DOJ and the FBI, attacks against the independence of the
1848institutions, the integrity of their employees, and the legitimacy of
1849the DOJ's and FBI's investigations. I want to ask you about some of
1850these statements and get your personal reaction.
1851On December 3, 2e17, the President tweeted, quote: After years
1852of Corney, with the phony and dishonest Clinton investigation -- and
1853more -- running the FBI, its reputation is in tatters. Worst in
1854history, exclamation point. But fear not; we will bring it back to
1855greatness.
1856Question: Do you agree with the President's statement that the
1857FBI's reputation is in, quote/unquote, "tatters" and is in -- and it
1858is the, quote/unquote, "worst in history"?
1859Mr. Strzok. No.
1860Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Do you agree with the President's
1861characterization that the Clinton investigation was, quote, "phony and
1862dishonest," closed quote?
1863Mr. Strzok. No.
1864Mr. Krishnamoorthi. In your opinion, what kind of impact does
1865statements like these have on the morale of rank-and-file FBI agents?
1866Mr. Strzok. I think they are terribly destructive. I think the
1867FBI is an extraordinarily competent, proud, and vital part of the
1868protection of the rule of law in this country, and I think those are
1869harmful statements.
1870COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1871COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1872Mr. Krishnamoorthi. When you say "they're terribly
1873destructive," what do you mean? How does that impact your work?
187470
1875Mr. Strzok. I think it has a variety of impacts. I think,
1876certainly, the impact on public faith and confidence of the FBI and
1877its ability to do its job; I think an impact on the morale of the men
1878and women of the FBI who are doing extraordinary work, as they always
1879have done.
1880Mr. Krishnamoorthi. NOw, I know that the FBI is going to continue
1881to do its job and the men and women of the FBI will continue to do their
1882jobs. But did you personally see morale erode as the President made
1883such tweets?
1884Mr. Strzok. I think it is fair to say that the politicized
1885situation in which we find ourselves has been very difficult amongst
1886the men and women of the FBI.
1887Mr. Krishnamoorthi. At the White House press briefing, the day
1888after Director Corney was fired, Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated that the
1889termination happened because, and I quote: Most importantly, the rank
1890and file of the FBI had lost confidence in their Director.
1891This is the question: Looking back on the lead-up to Director
1892Corney's dismissal, do you agree with Ms. Sanders that the rank and file
1893of the FBI had lost confidence in Director Corney?
1894Mr. Strzok. I do not.
1895Mr. Krishnamoorthi. What was your reaction when you learned that
1896Director Corney was fired?
1897Mr. Strzok. I was stunned. I found it hard to believe that
1898COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
189971
1900COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1901something like that would happen, and particularly in the graceless
1902way that it happened was shocking to me.
1903Mr. Krishnamoorthi. What do you mean" graceless way"? Can you
1904explain?
1905Mr. Strzok. My understanding from media reports is that he
1906learned about it from a news feed while he was in Los Angeles field
1907office, and I regardless of belief or opinion of anybody, that a
1908career public servant would be treated in that way was stunning to me.
1909Mr. Krishnamoorthi. What was the reaction of FBI agents with
1910whom you spoke regarding the firing of Director Corney?
1911Mr. Strzok. I believe the consensus of the people that I spoke
1912with and was aware of is that people were surprised and stunned.
1913Mr. Krishnamoorthi. On that same day, President Trump tweeted,
1914quote: James Corney will be replaced by someone who will do a far better
1915job bringing back the spirit and prestige of the FBI.
1916Question is this: Did you agree with the President's assertion
1917that there was some problem with the spirit and prestige of the FBI
1918under Director Corney?
1919Mr. Strzok. No.
1920Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Why not?
1921Mr. Strzok. Because my experience throughout my career at the
1922FBI to this day is that the spirit and the prestige of the FBI is strong,
1923that the men and women of the FBI believe in their mission, are
1924extraordinarily competent, and people of character and integrity, and
1925that that did not and has not wavered.
1926COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
192772
1928COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1929Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And how long have you been at the FBI?
1930Mr. Strzok. I've been at the FBI for just under 22 years.
1931Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Following the inspector general's report,
1932President Trump has stated, and I quote: I think Corney was the ring
1933leader of this whole, you know, den of thieves. They were plotting
1934against my election.
1935Question: Do you have any reason to believe the FBI is a, quote,
1936"den of thieves," closed quote?
1937Mr. Strzok. No.
1938Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Why not?
1939Mr. Strzok. Because it's not. Again, the men and women of the
1940FBI have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. My
1941experience is that is not -- that is something that they live every
1942day, and it is a hall of honor, not at all the opposite of some sort
1943of den of thieves.
1944Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Did you personally witness anyone at the FBI
1945attempting to plot against Donald Trump's election?
1946Mr. Strzok. No.
1947Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to turn it
1948over to my colleagues. Thank you.
1949Ms. Jackson Lee. Good morning.
1950Mr. Strzok. Good morning.
1951Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. None of
1952us have probably said where we're from. I'm from Houston, Texas, and
1953have been a member of this committee for a long period of time.
1954COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
195573
1956COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1957I'll note that you are an Army veteran or a veteran of a branch,
1958correct?
1959Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am.
1960Ms. Jackson Lee. And it is your view, as I understand it and not
1961put words in your mouth, your view of the Bureau and its service to
1962this Nation, how do you view the Bureau now?
1963Mr. Strzok. I love the Bureau. I think the role of the Bureau
1964is of extraordinary importance to the FBI, to the rule of law, to the
1965maintenance of liberty and justice, and I couldn't be prouder to be
1966a part of that.
1967Ms. Jackson Lee. I understand there are about 35, eee members of
1968the FBI, maybe give or take some.
1969Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am.
1970Ms. Jackson Lee. Would you attribute to them some of the
1971disparaging remarks that have been made about them nationally, or are
1972you seeing, through your 22 years, hardworking individuals in the
1973service of this Nation?
1974Mr. Strzok. Very much the latter. I would not attribute any of
1975those remarks that have been discussed earlier.
1976Ms. Jackson Lee. So let me pursue a line of questioning that I
1977hope that I won't do a little bit of a mishmash on it, but I want to
1978begin just very briefly on the questions of bias. Do you have any
1979reason to believe that the vast majority of FBI agents are partisan;
1980they are Democrats, Republicans, or, in this instance, Democrats?
1981Mr. Strzok. All FBI agents have political opinions. I have
1982COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1983COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1984never seen that expressed in any partisan way.
1985Ms. Jackson Lee. There's no bar for FBI agents of having
1986political affiliations, or is there?
1987Mr. Strzok. That's correct. Yes, ma'am.
198874
1989Ms. Jackson Lee. And so, when FBI staffs a politically sensitive
1990investigation, for example, a public corruption case, does the FBI
1991consider the personal political persuasion of its agents in making
1992those staffing decisions?
1993Mr. Strzok. They do not.
1994Ms. Jackson Lee. In your 22 years, have you been uncomfortable
1995in national security sensitive investigations by looking over and
1996saying, "This is a Democrat or Republican, and he or she is showing
1997it"?
1998Mr. Strzok. No, I have not.
1999Ms. Jackson Lee. And that the results of the investigation has
2000been influenced by a party affiliation?
2001Mr. Strzok. I've never seen that.
2002Ms. Jackson Lee. Therefore, as the Clinton investigation began
2003to mature, you and your affiliation - - and may I ask your affiliation?
2004Mr. Strzok. I'm Independent.
2005Ms. Jackson Lee. And let me also ask, your status at the FBI now
2006is what?
2007Mr. Strzok. I'm an employee. I'm a special agent, DAD and HOD.
2008Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. So you're still employed?
2009Mr. Strzok. Yes, I am.
2010COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2011COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2012Ms. Jackson Lee. It is your intent to stay employed?
2013Mr. Strzok. Yes.
201475
2015Ms. Jackson Lee. You would be disappointed if, for some reason,
2016they reached down and determined that you needed to stay -- needed to
2017go?
2018Mr. Strzok. Oh, very much so.
2019Ms. Jackson Lee. And you still think you have the ability to
2020serve this Nation in a fair and impartial manner?
2021Mr. Strzok. Without question.
2022Ms. Jackson Lee. So let me, Mr. Strzok, the inspector general
2023found that you placed a high priority on the Trump/Russia investigation
2024fall of 2816 but stated that we did not have the confidence that Strzok' s
2025decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on
2026the Midyear-related investigative lead was free from bias. What is
2027your reaction to this conclusion?
2028Mr. Strzok. I was deeply disappointed by that conclusion for a
2029couple of reasons. The first is, I think the record, which the IG has,
2030is very clear that, within hours of learning of the existence of the
2031laptop, I assigned a subordinate supervisor, his agents, and some of
2032his analysts, and an attorney to go up to New York and follow up on
2033the laptop, which
2034Ms. Jackson Lee. And this is -- this was the Weiner laptop?
2035Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am, that's correct. And
2036Ms. Jackson Lee. Always put that word in front of it. There are
2037a lot of laptops floating around.
2038COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2039COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2040Mr. Strzok. That's an excellent point. There are?
2041Ms. Jackson Lee. Including my own maybe. Thank you.
2042Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am. And, again
2043Ms. Jackson Lee. You sent it to New York or you sent the
2044instruction --
204576
2046Mr. Strzok. Right. I asked them to go up to New York within
2047hours. They ended up having --
2048Ms. Jackson Lee. Give me that timeframe. What--
2049Mr. Strzok. My recollection is either that evening, literally
2050within 2 to 3 hours, or the following morning I had a conversation and
2051that they ended up having a --
2052Ms. Jackson Lee. And you recall that they --
2053Mr. Strzok. I can't, but it's in the record. I want to say it
2054was either on or about September 29.
2055Ms. Jackson Lee. End of September, I think that's an important
2056point.
2057Mr. Strzok. End of September, yes. And they did, and they ended
2058up calling because they wanted to see what the state was. They had
2059an extended discussion with the New York folks who told them that the
2060processing of the Weiner laptop was not complete and that they hadn't
2061processed it, and they talked about some legal issues so -- and that
2062they would get back when it was complete.
2063So my belief, you know, certainly that the inspector general's
2064inference that somehow I back-burnered it is directly rebutted by the
2065fact of following up and dispatching a team to do it.
2066COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
206777
2068COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2069Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me tie -- can you explain why you
2070prioritize the Russia investigation in September jOctober? Did you do
2071that?
2072Mr. Strzok. No. I don't see that as a binary decision. There
2073were a lot of things that were going on at the Counterintelligence
2074Division at the time. I was a Deputy Assistant Director, and so that's
2075a fairly senior executive within Counterintelligence Division. So
2076there are a number of things that were going on at the time.
2077I can tell you: I never took resources off one and put it onto
2078the other. But I'd also say, Congresswoman, the -- there's a -- the
2079nature of the allegations about the Russia investigations, I cannot
2080think of a more grave allegation to the Counterintelligence Division
2081or let alone the Nation that a hostile foreign power was seeking to
2082clandestinely influence our Presidential election.
2083Mr. Nadler. So let me just ask --
2084Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Nadler, I'm yielding.
2085Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
2086Let me just ask you this point on that point. So, in other words,
2087given the fact that you instructed some people to look into the Weiner
2088laptop, you would characterize the assertion that you prioritiz~d the
2089Russian investigation as inaccurate?
2090Mr. Strzok. I would.
2091Mr. Nadler. Because they were both going on and
2092Mr. Strzok. Right. And, sir, what I would say is, there
2093were -- in my mind, in my recollection, I had put the appropriate
2094COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
209578
2096COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2097immediate managerial and subordinate staff on the matter to address
2098it. I think, as the DAD, as any manager, as any executive, your job
2099is to look at a host of competing priorities and decide where your
2100limited resources, your limited time, how you're going to address them.
2101So I saw that as immediately appropriately addressed, and I
2102continued then to look at the wide range of responsibilities I had,
2103one which was -- is truly significant, the Russia investigations, but
2104there are any number of other espionage cases or counterintelligence
2105matters that were going on at the same time.
2106Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much.
2107I yield back.
2108Ms. Jackson Lee. Yeah. If I recall your testimony, you sort of
2109heightened the national security issue, not prioritizing, but just it
2110struck you being in that arena that you better look into the potential
2111of a campaign actually dealing with Russian operatives. If so, they
2112were important, but you -- that struck you, is that correct, that
2113some
2114Mr. Strzok. Yes. All these things - - I say all these things are
2115important. These are all legitimate, reasonable investigative
2116avenues. When you look at the severity of impact to national security,
2117I think it is demonstrably true that a foreign nation clandestinely
2118putting themselves into a Presidential election, it doesn't get much
2119more serious or grave than that.
2120Ms. Jackson Lee. So, in September, you were working on the
2121Trump/Russia investigation 21316. Does that ring a bell? You can just
2122COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
212379
2124COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2125say yes or no.
2126Mr. Strzok. I -- Congresswoman, I'm not trying to be cute, but
2127without getting into kind of our organizational structure classified
2128information, I was involved in that process.
2129Ms. Jackson Lee. Yeah. Would you say it was a majority of your
2130work?
2131Mr. Strzok. A significant portion of it. I don't know that it
2132was the majority. It might have been close to the majority but a lot
2133of it for sure.
2134Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you have any reason to -- let me just ask
2135you this: What would be your understanding why the Clinton email
2136investigation was made public and the Trump/Russia email was not by
2137the FBI?
2138Mr. Strzok. So that decision, my understanding of that, by
2139Director Corney was that he believed that based on the nature of the
2140Clinton email investigation, which was not a -- there were
2141counterintelligence elements to it, but it was primarily a pretty
2142straightforward mishandling investigation of classified information,
2143and that I don't want to speak for the Director's reasons. He's spoken
2144at length in front of this body and others. But I see that as a
2145different prospect than that of an ongoing counterintelligence
2146investigation.
2147Ms. Jackson Lee. Somewhere like a mountain and a molehill?
2148Mr. Strzok. I would not - - I don't think I would use those terms.
2149I think it is a fair -- if you're taking -- stepping back from any
2150COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
215180
2152COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2153particular case, if you were to compare a generic case of the -- of
2154mishandling of classified information compared to a generic hostile
2155and foreign power interfering with the electoral process and allegedly
2156colluding with members of the candidate of a major party for the
2157Presidency of the United States, those are vastly different threats
2158to national security.
2159Ms. Jackson Lee. I'll accept that they're vastly different.
2160Let me just understand, can we say that the Trump/Russia
2161investigation was a top priority?
2162Mr. Strzok. My understanding from Director Corney is that, yes,
2163it was.
2164Ms. Jackson Lee. Were you looking to influence the election with
2165the results of this process of investigation Trump/Russia?
2166Mr. Strzok. No.
2167Ms. Jackson Lee. I may have said this, but would you have
2168acknowledged publicly the email investigation for Mrs. Clinton in the
2169summer of 2816?
2170Mr. Strzok. That decision was made by Director Corney after a lot
2171of discussion and debate. So he is the head of the FBI and that was
2172his decision.
2173Ms. Jackson Lee. Would you have done it?
2174Mr. Strzok. I don't want to get into a hypothetical because I
2175wasn't -- that was not the position I was in.
2176Ms. Jackson Lee. Is that usually done?
2177Mr. Strzok. It is not usually done.
2178COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
217981
2180COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2181Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you take any actions to bury or back-burner
2182that laptop that seems to be floating around?
2183Mr. Strzok. No.
2184Ms. Jackson Lee. And would you consider some of the accusations
2185of political bias -- and I'm just going to say between yourself and
2186Lisa -- legitimate to the extent that you downplayed your oath, you
2187diminished your responsibilities, and you were engaged in selecting
2188internally support for one candidate over another --
2189Mr. Strzok. No.
2190Ms. Jackson Lee. in the Presidential election 2016?
2191Mr. Strzok. I don't agree with that at all. I consider those
2192personal opinions exchanged with a close confidant and nothing else.
2193Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just -- I think that I have concluded
2194those. I just want to just finish by the point of -- the concept of
2195burying the laptop and not doing the work, you don't believe - - on the
2196Clinton investigation, you do not believe -- or you -- let me ask the
2197question so that it is not my words. What is your opinion of what you
2198did with respect to that investigation, burying, not pursuing it?
2199Mr. Strzok. I don't believe I buried it at all. I believe I took
2200immediate action to assign subordinate personnel and subordinate
2201managers who were completely uninvolved with the Russian
2202investigations to pursue the matter and that they did that.
2203Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
2204Mr. Strzok. Thank you.
2205Mr. Swalwell. Good afternoon, Mr. Strzok.
2206COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2207COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2208Mr. Strzok. Good afternoon, sir?
2209Mr. Swalwell. My name is Eric Swalwell. I serve on House
2210Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.
221182
2212Mr. Strzok, do you regret the text messages that you sent to
2213Ms. Page with respect to Mr. Trump?
2214Mr. Strzok. Very much I regret them.
2215Mr. Swalwell. Okay. Are you sorry that you had sent them?
2216Mr. Strzok. I'm sorry because of the - - I'm sorry because of the
2217deep pain and suffering that they have caused my family. That's
2218something I'll always regret. I regret the way that they've been used
2219by some to turn into some sort of political weapon that they are not
2220and the damage that has been done with that.
2221Mr. Swalwell. Was it your decision alone to open the July 2016
2222investigation into the Trump campaign on a counterintelligence basis?
2223Mr. Strzok. No.
2224Mr. Swalwell. Okay. Did you recommend the opening of that
2225investigation?
2226Mr. Strzok. I don't know that I needed to recommend it. I
2227believed it's the appropriate thing to do.
2228Mr. Swalwell. But, I mean, were you the first person to recommend
2229opening it?
2230Mr. Strzok. No.
2231Mr. Swalwell. Is it safe to say that others had also recommended
2232opening it?
2233Mr. Strzok. Yes.
2234COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
223583
2236COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2237Mr. Swalwell. NOw, you mentioned earlier that July 2016 is when
2238the investigation was opened, but we know that actions are taken by
2239the FBI before an investigation is officially open because, of course,
2240that's how you gather the evidence. That informs the opening. When
2241did you first learn that the FBI was taking actions to learn more about
2242concerning contacts between Russians and the Trump campaign?
2243Mr. Strzok. Again, I want to be careful to not step on any FBI
2244equities or ongoing investigations. I think it is fair to say , without
2245getting into classified detail, that the case was opened shortly upon
2246receipt of the predicating information.
2247Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Strzok, did you -- and, again, you've been
2248accused of being the reason this investigation started, accused of
2249being the reason that the Clinton investigation did not find the Anthony
2250Weiner laptop sooner, did you tell Michael Cohen to try and do a Trump
2251Tower deal with Moscow in December 2015?
2252Mr. Strzok. So my trouble is that question is easily answered,
2253but what I don't want to do, as you know from your time on the Intel
2254Committee, even denying something can be classified. So I defer to
2255agency counsel on that answer and if I can or can't.
2256Ms. Besse. Just in terms of him, if he confirms or denies
2257something, that it can be revealing, so it would be better for him not
2258to be able to answer that question.
2259Mr. Swalwell. Again, I just have a few more with respect to this.
2260Did you set up a June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting where the President's
2261son-in-law, campaign chairman, and son met with people offering dirt
2262COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
226384
2264COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2265on the Russians? . Was that your doing?
2266Mr. Strzok. Again, easily answered, but - - I mean, I think - - I
2267would defer to the FBI and perhaps if there is - - that question is easily
2268answered very much in a classified setting so I think it would be --
2269Mr. Swalwell. Let me put it this way, Mr. Strzok: Is it fair
2270to say that, aside from the opinions that you expressed to Ms. Page
2271about Mr. Trump, there was a whole mountain of evidence independent
2272of anything you had done that related to actions that were concerning
2273about what the Russians and the Trump campaign were doing?
2274Ms. Besse. So, Congressman, that may go into sort of the - - that
2275will for Mr. Strzok to answer that question, that goes into the
2276special counsel's investigation, so I don't think he can answer that
2277question.
2278Mr. Swalwell. Sure. I understand. But I have to ask.
2279Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
2280Mr. Swalwell. Yes.
2281Mr. Nadler. I have to say that the answer to that question is
2282readily available from the public record having nothing to do with the
2283CIA or the FBI private records. I find it -- saying you can't answer
2284questions that are readily available in the public record is a little
2285not right.
2286Mr. Swalwell. Again, Mr. Strzok has been accused of being a lot
2287of things that seem quite ridiculous, and I just want to make sure that
2288it's clear that all of these other things that the Trump campaign did,
2289Mr. Strzok was not involved in. I understand the concerns and
2290COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
229185
2292COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2293Mr. Goodlatte has actually offered for us to go into a classified space
2294later if we may, and perhaps we can address that there.
2295Mr. Strzok
2296Chairman Goodlatte. If I may, I don't think it relates to whether
2297it's classified or not. I think it relates to whether or not we are
2298going into the underlying substance of the investigation with regard
2299that it be conducted by the special counsel, which we have for a long
2300time determined we're not going into that.
2301Mr. Swalwell. Okay. So we just want to keep it with Hillary
2302Clinton's emails?
2303Chairman Goodlatte. No. No. It relates to Mr. Strzok's
2304involvement in all of these matters and the issues that he has been
2305answering questions about today related to his involvement in each and
2306bias. But if you get into questions about the substance of what he's
2307doing, you're getting into a, first, a gray area, and it may be a very
2308clear area that he shouldn't go to.
2309Mr. Swalwell. Understood.
2310Chairman Goodlatte. So I'm going to respect the advice of
2311counsel for the Department.
2312Mr. Swalwell. So, Mr. Strzok, were you involved in the defensive
2313briefing that was given to the Trump campaign in July 2016?
2314Mr. Strzok. I was involved in the planning for that.
2315Mr. Swalwell. And when you were planning for that, were you
2316aware - - well, let me back up. Was this a general defensive briefing,
2317or was it motivated by what you had learned the Russians were intending
2318COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2319COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2320to do?
2321Mr. Strzok. So which briefing? There were a couple of
2322briefings.
2323Mr. Swalwell. July 19, 2e16.
232486
2325Mr. Strzok. Yes. Okay. So I think that was in the context of
2326general CI briefings that were given to both nominees.
2327Mr. Swalwell. Who was given that briefing on the Trump campaign?
2328Mr. Strzok. Who within the Trump campaign or who by the FBI?
2329Mr. Swalwell. In the Trump campaign.
2330Mr. Strzok. I would have to refer to the FBI's records.
2331Certainly, then-candidate Trump was involved. I don't recall
2332there -- I have some vague recollection that Mr. Christie might have
2333been there. Mr. Flynn might have been there. But I would -- I don't
2334remember?
2335Mr. Swalwell. Did any of the individuals in the briefing
2336disclose to you or your counterparts, your FBI colleagues, any contacts
2337they had received from the Russians?
2338Mr. Strzok. I don't -- I know the answer to that, but I defer
2339to agency counsel.
2340Ms. Besse. So it's very - - it's a very thin line for Mr. Strzok
2341because he was involved in the investigation, so going into sort of
2342the facts of what was said and how what was discussed goes into methods
2343and how --
2344Mr. Swalwell. Sure. I understand.
2345Ms. Besse. - - sort of briefings or investigations are conducted.
2346COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
234787
2348COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2349Mr. Swalwell. Was the campaign -- a defensive briefing, as I
2350understand it, is making a campaign aware of what threats could exist
2351around them from foreign nationals who would seek to penetrate their
2352campaigns and either steal secrets or recruit them. Is that right?
2353Mr. Strzok. That's right.
2354Mr. Nadler. Excuse me 1 minute.
2355The Republican questioner, I forget who it was, asked a whole
2356series of questions about conversations between Special Counsel
2357Mueller and Mr. Strzok. Those questions were allowed. Why is this
2358different?
2359Ms. Besse. Congressman, I believe those questions were asked of
2360Mr. Strzok about what occurred with the conversation with Mr. Mueller.
2361Mr. Nadler. Yes, what was the conversation with Mr. Mueller.
2362Ms. Besse. About the text and the substance of the text messages.
2363Mr. Nadler. And this is different how?
2364Ms. Besse. This is going into the investigation itself and what
2365was discussed in terms of the subject matter and things that were
2366involved in the investigation.
2367Mr. Swalwell. Well, without disclosing what was said by the
2368Trump --
2369Chairman Goodlatte. Let me interject, and maybe I'll help you
2370out here. I think it's appropriate to ask questions about how two or
2371more defensive briefings were handled if there's a contrast and
2372comparison. I think it's appropriate to ask who was involved. He said
2373he doesn't recall some of that. But you can't get into the substance
2374COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
237588
2376COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2377of what was shared. I think that's where the --
2378Mr. Swalwell. Okay. So, understanding that, Mr. Strzok, was
2379the Trump campaign asked to report any offers from foreign governments
2380to interfere with the U.S. electoral process ? Without telling us what
2381they told you, were they asked?
2382Mr. Strzok. My recollection is that all the briefings to the
2383candidates, part of that briefing was to let us know if you see anything
2384unusual.
2385Mr. Swalwell. How many defensive briefings, to your knowledge,
2386were provided to the Trump campaign before election day?
2387Mr. Strzok. I believe there were two, one to candidate Trump and
2388one to Vice Presidential candidate Pence. But I'm not - - that was the
2389plan. I'm not certain if the one to then-Vice President candidate
2390Pence was provided. It may have been. I don' t recall. I don' t know.
2391Mr. Swalwell. Did you mention that General Flynn was a part of
2392one of the briefings?
2393Mr. Strzok. Well, he was part of a briefing. I don't recall if
2394he was part of the initial counterintelligence briefing or a later
2395briefing that was given following the election prior to the
2396inauguration.
2397Mr. Swalwell. And what did you want the candidate or the
2398candidate's team to do if they did have any contacts from the Russians?
2399What did you ask of them?
2400Mr. Strzok. I wasn't there so I don't know what was asked
2401specifically. The general practice in a defensive brief is not only
2402COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
240389
2404COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2405to sensitize and make the person being briefed what the threats are,
2406but also to ask and encourage them for any information that they have
2407or might come across that would indicate any such attempt or activity
2408to let us know.
2409Mr. Swalwell. So as I understand, you were not present at either
2410of the candidate Trump briefings?
2411Mr. Strzok.
2412Mr. Swalwell.
2413That's correct.
2414You're just aware that they occurred and the
2415content that was discussed?
2416Mr. Strzok. I don't know specific to those briefings what was
2417discussed. It is a typical part of a defensive briefing that that is
2418included.
2419Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
2420I'll yield.
2421Mr. Nadler. Mr. Strzok, I have two quick questions for you. Did
2422any of your opinions expressed in your text messages impact in any way
2423the evidence you collected as part of the Russia investigation?
2424Mr. Strzok. No.
2425Mr. Nadler. And I apologize for this question, but I want to get
2426it on the record: Did you ever fabricate evidence that was used in
2427the Trump/Russia investigation?
2428Mr. Strzok. No.
2429Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much.
2430Mr. Cohen. Congressman Cohen from Tennessee, and I just want to
2431thank you for your volunteering to come down here and talk.
2432COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
243390
2434COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2435Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
2436Mr. Cohen . Although I think the substance of your testimony is
2437not what's important. I think what's important is the venue and the
2438fact that this has been called and the idea that there is questions
2439being asked of you concerning bias, and I think that's the whole
2440picture. Doesn't matter what you answer or what happens here. It's
2441theater.
2442I appreciate the FBI. I appreciate you. I appreciate what
2443Mr. Corney did and what Mr. Mueller" s doing. I've heard Mr. Trump say
2444to Putin and to Kim Jong-un: I'm honored to meet you. I'm honored
2445to meet you. I thank you for your service" and I hope you continue
2446representing the United States of America and the FBI.
2447Mr. Strzok. Thank you, sir.
2448Mr. Cohen. You're welcome.
2449COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
245091
2451COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2452[12:14 p.m.]
2453Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Agent Strzok. I'm Congressman Ted Lieu.
2454I listened with great interest to your answers to what my
2455Republican colleagues asked you this morning, and it appears to me that
2456a number of your text messages have been misconstrued or
2457mischaracterized by the public and by the press. Is that correct?
2458Mr. Strzok. Good afternoon, sir.
2459Yes, that is correct.
2460Mr. Lieu. Would you like the opportunity to testify publicly to
2461explain your side of the story to the American people?
2462Mr. Strzok. I would.
2463Mr. Lieu. The text messages you wrote were to Lisa Page, correct?
2464Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
2465Mr. Lieu. They were not intended for public consumption,
2466correct?
2467Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
2468Mr. Lieu. And so when my Republican colleague asked, well, could
2469a reasonable person interpret this text message in so-and-so way, that
2470is completely irrelevant, because the only person we're worried about
2471is what did Lisa Page think and what did you think. Isn't that right?
2472Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
2473Mr. Lieu. And clearly what you thought and Lisa Page thought had
2474context behind it, because you all attended different meetings, you
2475were at the FBI, you had information the public did not. Isn't that
2476right?
2477COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
247892
2479COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2480Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
2481Mr. Lieu. All right. So it would be important to hear publicly
2482what you believe your text messages meant given the context that only
2483you and Lisa Page knew. Isn't that right?
2484Mr. Strzok. Yes.
2485Mr. Lieu. All right. To selectively take text messages in the
2486abstract and launch them on TV or used by my Republican colleagues to
2487take them out of context is wrong and it is not the truth. Isn't that
2488right?
2489Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
2490Mr. Lieu. All right. So despite all of that, Robert Mueller
2491called you into his office -- and, by the way, on our information, you
2492were removed from the special counsel investigation on July 28th, 2817,
2493not August.
2494So in that meeting you stated that Robert Mueller was regretful
2495because he wanted to not only run an investigation that was free of
2496bias and independent but also had the perception of being free of bias,
2497correct?
2498Mr. Strzok. That was my perception. I would defer to Special
2499Counsel Mueller as to what he actually thought. But my experience with
2500him and his investigation and his integrity as a man, not only as special
2501counsel but throughout his career, is that he absolutely is dedicated
2502to running any investigation or operation with the utmost integrity
2503and appearance of integrity.
2504Mr. Lieu. And he removed you without even giving you an ability
2505COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
250693
2507COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2508to even explain your texts because he was so concerned about the bias
2509that that could cause. Is that right?
2510Mr. Strzok. I don't want to characterize what his reasoning or
2511thoughts were behind that. My belief was that there was not a
2512discussion of that. It was an understanding that this was a -- not
2513at all an accusation of wrongdoing. This was a function of a perception
2514that
2515Mr. Lieu. And upon finding out about those text messages he
2516removed you pretty much immediately. Is that right?
2517Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
2518Mr. Lieu. Okay.
2519Now, the IG report that came out, in it, it specifically says,
2520the IG says: Our review did not find evidence to connect the political
2521views expressed in these text messages to the specific investigative
2522decisions that we reviewed. Rather, consistent with the analytical
2523approach described above, we found that these specific decisions were
2524the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an
2525investigation by the Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these
2526judgments were not unreasonable.
2527You would agree with that, wouldn't you?
2528Mr. Strzok. I would.
2529Mr. Lieu. And that's because we expect FBI agents, first of all,
2530would have personal views; but second, that when they go on duty, they
2531check those views at the door. Isn't that right?
2532Mr. Strzok. Yes.
2533COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
253494
2535COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2536Mr. Lieu. The IG report also found the following: We found that
2537Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker for any of the specific Midyear
2538investigati ve decisions we examined in that chapter. We further found
2539evidence that in some instances Strzok and Page advocated for more
2540aggressive investigative measures in the Midyear investigation~ such
2541as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search warrants to obtain
2542evidence.
2543So~ in fact~ you were pushing for a more aggressive investigation
2544of the Hillary Clinton email issue. Is that right?
2545Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
2546Mr. Lieu. Okay.
2547It is not disputed -- well~ you're still a current FBI employee~
2548right?
2549Mr. Strzok. Yes~ sir.
2550Mr. Lieu. So it is not disputed that FBI Director Christopher
2551Wray is a Republican nominated by a Republican President~ confirmed
2552by a Republican-controlled Senate. Also not disputed~ he gave over
2553$37~eee exclusively to Republican candidates.
2554Knowing that~ do you still trust Christopher Wray~ as I do~ to
2555be fair and impartial in doing his job?
2556Mr. Strzok . Yes~ I do.
2557Mr. Lieu. And that's because in America we allow FBI agents ~ FBI
2558directors~ law enforcement to have personal views~ but when they go
2559on duty we expect them to check those views at the door and to do their
2560job based on law and facts. Isn't that right?
2561COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2562COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2563Mr. Strzok. Yes.
2564Mr. Lieu. Is that what you did in this case?
2565Mr. Strzok. Yes~ it is.
2566Mr. Lieu. Thank you. I yield back.
2567Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
256895
2569Mr. Strzok, my name is Jamie Raskin. I represent the Eighth
2570District in Maryland.
2571Mr. Strzok. Good afternoon, sir.
2572Mr. Raskin. Welcome.
2573The IG report indicated that on October 21~ 2e16~ you briefed a
2574group of retired FBI personnel on the Midyear investigation during a
2575conference call. Do you remember that?
2576Mr. Strzok. I do.
2577Mr. Raskin. Can you explain to us what the purpose of the
2578briefing was?
2579Mr. Strzok. The purpose of that call was to provide a set of case
2580facts about what had been done with the Clinton email investigation
2581to a variety of~ as I recall it, senior retired FBI personnel who were
2582getting questions about the FBI's conduct of the investigation.
2583Mr. Raskin. Okay. What were some of the concerns about retired
2584FBI agents speaking to the media about the Clinton investigation?
2585Mr. Strzok. I think the, as I understood it, the direction from
2586the -- so, sir, I don't know that I can entirely answer the question.
2587Mr. Raskin. Were there concerns that you expressed or that
2588someone expressed about the retired FBI agents speaking to the media
2589COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
259096
2591COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2592about the Clinton investigation?
2593Mr. Strzok. I did not have concerns. I think the, as I
2594understood it, the direction from the senior management of the FBI was
2595to provide a briefing to these individuals so that they had the facts
2596of what had occurred and spoke to somebody who was much closer to the
2597line and they could ask whatever questions so that they could assure
2598themselves that they had the accurate information about what occurred
2599in the case.
2600Mr. Raskin. Who 'else from the FBI was on that call?
2601Mr. Strzok. So my recollection is Mike Corton, who is the head
2602of public affairs, was there. He mayor may not have had additional
2603staff in the room at the time. I believe Ms. Page was on the call.
2604I believe that's it, but I'm not certain.
2605Mr. Raskin. Okay. How often does the FBI brief retired FBI
2606personnel on active cases?
2607Mr. Strzok. So the case was closed. I don't know how often it
2608happens on active cases.
2609Mr. Raskin. So this was not a common practice to your knowledge?
2610Mr. Strzok. Well, so, again, sir, the case, I believe, was
2611closed at the time that call occurred. And as to how often personnel
2612are briefed to closed cases, I don't know the answer to that.
2613Mr. Goelman. May I have one moment?
2614[Discussion off the record.]
2615Mr. Raskin. Did you mention at any point during this call
2616follow-up investigative acts by the FBI, such as investigating the
2617COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
261897
2619COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2620emails on the Weiner laptop?
2621Mr. Strzok. No, because my recollection of the timeframe of that
2622call was it occurred before -- I believe temporally it occurred before
2623we had made the decision to reopen active investigations and seek a
2624search warrant.
2625Mr. Raskin. Okay. Shortly after this call Rudy Giuliani made
2626several TV appearances claiming that he was getting inside information
2627from both former and current FBI agents.
2628On October 25 and 26, a couple of days before Director Corney wrote
2629to Congress about reopening the investigation, former New York Mayor
2630Rudy Giuliani suggested that the Trump campaign had, quote, a couple
2631surprises, end quote, a couple things up our sleeves that should turn
2632things around.
2633Do you happen to recall those statements made by Mr. Giuliani?
2634Mr. Strzok. I recall them after the fact, reading about them in
2635the media, and I may have heard them at the time and just don't recall.
2636Mr. Raskin. On the 28th of October he claimed he had a, quote,
2637pipeline into the FBI, and agents were, quote, outraged at being turned
2638down by the Justice Department to open a grand jury, unquote. Do you
2639recall that statement?
2640Mr. Strzok. Well, I don't know -- I don't know if I recall that
2641,
2642specific statement. I remember broadly that Mr. Giuliani was making
2643statements to the effect of getting information from agents.
2644Mr. Raskin. He also said there was, quote, a revolution going
2645on inside the FBI about the original conclusion. I know that from
2646COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
264798
2648COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2649former agents. I know that even from a few active agents.
2650Do you recall that statement by Mr. Giuliani?
2651Mr. Strzok. Again, I certainly remember it from recent media
2652report, and I remember a variety of statements he was making at the
2653time, but not with specificity which exact ones.
2654Mr. Raskin. Got you. On November 4th, in an appearance on "Fox
2655& Friends," Mr. Giuliani was asked if he knew about the FBI's possession
2656of the laptop before Director Corney wrote to The Hill. He responded:
2657Did I hear about it? You're darn right I heard about it.
2658Do you recall that statement?
2659Mr. Strzok. Again, I don't remember at the time that specific
2660statement, other than just a variety of statements that he was making.
2661I have seen it reported since in the media.
2662Mr. Raskin. And have you ever served as a source for Mr. Giuliani
2663at any point?
2664Mr. Strzok. No.
2665Mr. Raskin. Are you aware of any former or current FBI personnel
2666who were communicating with Mr. Giuliani at this time?
2667Mr. Strzok. No.
2668Mr. Raskin. Or during the time of the Midyear investigation.
2669Mr. Strzok. No.
2670Mr. Raskin. Are you in communications with any former FBI agents
2671who are or were in contact with Mr. Giuliani?
2672Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge.
2673Mr. Raskin. Okay. And did you have any reason to believe that
2674COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2675COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2676any individual on that October 21 call were in contact with Mr.
2677Giuliani?
2678Mr. Strzok. I don't know.
267999
2680Mr. Raskin. Do you have any reason to know who his sources are?
2681Mr. Strzok. I do not.
2682Mr. Raskin. Or were. Do you have any reason to believe that the
2683sources in the FBI were actually speaking to Mr. Giuliani.
2684Mr. Strzok. I don't know.
2685Mr. Raskin. Okay. And let's see~ and forgive me~ I may have
2686missed this before. I just wanted to ask you one question about the
2687tweets that have been made famous through this process.
2688Do you believe that anything that you said in those tweets
2689reflected upon your determination to alter the public outcome of the
2690investigation in any way?
2691Mr. Strzok. Rephrase that question.
2692Mr. Raskin. I guess my question is~ did those private tweets
2693reflect your public determination to bias the investigation?
2694Mr. Strzok. So they're private texts -Mr.
2695Raskin. The private texts~ right.
2696Mr. Strzok. Absolutely in no way did they indicate~ nor would
2697I ever do anything to influence the election.
2698Mr. Raskin. So do you believe that the obsession with these texts
2699represents an irrelevant distraction?
2700Mr. Strzok. I do.
2701Mr. Raskin. Okay. Thank you for your testimony.
2702COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2703100
2704COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2705BY MS. KIM:
2706Q Thank you, Mr. Strzok.
2707I would like to go back to the questions about defensive briefings
2708with the Trump campaign.
2709So you said that you did not participate in these briefings. Is
2710that correct?
2711A Yes.
2712Q Did you supervise the individuals who gave these briefings?
2713A No.
2714Q No. Who would have supervised the individuals who gave
2715these briefings?
2716A My recollection of the personnel who attended that were
2717individuals from our Washington field office that fell under the
2718supervisory chain there.
2719Q Got it. And if the Trump campaign had reported any contacts
2720with foreign officials during this briefing would you have been
2721informed about that?
2722A Yes. I assume, yes. But, yes.
2723Q Did the Trump campaign report any contacts with foreign
2724officials during this briefing?
2725A Again, easily answered, but I don't know if I can in this
2726setting.
2727Ms. Besse. Right. That would go, again, into his investigative
2728role, so I would instruct him not to answer.
2729Ms. Kim. I understand.
2730COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2731101
2732COMMITTEE SENSI!IVE
2733We have asked this question to, I thinkJ at least two FBI witnesses
2734prior. So I believe we asked Mr. priestap about this and I believe
2735we asked Mr. McCabe about this. We were permitted to get the answer,
2736the easily answerable answer to this question before. So it is on the
2737record. I don't know if that sways the FBI equities or not.
2738Ms. Besse. Can I confer with the witness?
2739Ms. Kim. Sure.
2740[Discussion off the record.]
2741Ms. Besse. My instruction to the witness will stand for him not
2742to answer because of his investigative role.
2743Ms. Kim. I understand. Thank you.
2744COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2745COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2746BY MS. KIM:
2747Q Do you know when the defensive briefings occurred?
2748A Not offhand.
2749Q If I represent to you that the defensive briefing to
2750President Trump happened on July 19th, 2816, is that generally
2751concordant with your understanding of the facts?
2752A Yes.
2753102
2754Q Do you know if that was after the June 2816 meeting in Trump
2755Tower with senior campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr. ahd
2756Jared Kushner and a purported emissary from the Russian Government?
2757A All I can say to that is, based on open source reporting and
2758looking at the calendar, that it would have occurred afterwards.
2759Q I understand. Do you know if the defensive briefing
2760occurred in close proximity to an August 3rd, 2816, meeting that has
2761been publicly reported between Donald Trump Jr. and an emissary who
2762told Donald Trump Jr. that, quote, "The princes who led Saudi Arabia
2763and the United Arab Emirates were eager to help his father win the
2764election as President"?
2765A Again, based on a review of the public records and the dates
2766at hand, yes, they were in close proximity.
2767Q And, again, if any of these contacts, foreign contacts had
2768been reported to the FBI, would you have known about these?
2769A I would.
2770Q If the Trump campaign did not report these would you have
2771COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2772103
2773COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2774been surprised?
2775A I don't -- I don't want to speculate as to what my reaction
2776would be. My professional hope would be that any campaign following
2777particularly a defensive briefing, had they been approached by foreign
2778governments in a way that appeared to be -- involve any sort of
2779subterfuge or sort of - - anything inappropriate, that they would report
2780that to the FBI.
2781Q I think my time is running out, so this is my last question
2782for this round.
2783How important is it for national security purposes for political
2784campaigns, particularly national Presidential campaigns, to report
2785offers of foreign interference in U.S. elections to the FBI?
2786A I think it's extraordinarily important. If you look - - the
2787foundation of what we are as a democracy is people exercising their
2788right to vote to elect their representatives, and there's no higher
2789representative than the President of the United States. So the
2790suggestion that something so core to who we are as a Nation would be
2791under attack by not only a foreign nation, but a hostile, aggressive
2792foreign nation, is of extraordinary importance.
2793Ms. Kim. Thank you, Mr. Strzok.
2794We're going off the record. It is 12:31.
2795[Recess.]
2796Mr. Parmiter. Let's go back on the record. The time is
279712:41 p.m. And we'll turn it over to Mr. Gowdy.
2798Mr. Gowdy. Thank you.
2799COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2800104
2801COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2802Mr. Strzok, on July 21st, 2816, you texted Lisa Page: Trump is
2803a disaster. I have no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be.
2804NOw, July 21st, 2816. When did the Russia probe officially begin
2805from the Bureau standpoint?
2806Mr. Strzok. Good afternoon, sir.
2807My recollection is that it was at the end of July.
2808Mr. Gowdy. Who drafted the electronic communication?
2809Mr. Strzok. Can I -- I believe that's classified. Again,
2810easily answered, but I'm not sure I can discuss it here.
2811Mr. Gowdy. Did you draft it?
2812Mr. Strzok. Same answer, sir.
2813Ms. Besse. Congressman, since the document is classified I would
2814not have him answer any questions as to the contents of it.
2815Mr. Gowdy. Well, I haven't asked him whether or not he drafted
2816it or signed it. I haven't asked him about the contents of it, not
2817yet I haven't.
2818It's not a complicated qliestion, and you and I both know the answer
2819to it. Did you draft or sign the initiation document that began the
2820Russia probe?
2821Mr. Strzok. Sir, I can answer that question easily in a
2822classified information. My understanding is that --
2823Mr. Gowdy. I'm not asking you about the content. I'm
2824asking -- is your signature classified?
2825Ms. Besse. Congressman, the drafting of the -- who drafted the
2826communication is on the communication itself, and since the
2827COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2828105
2829COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2830communication - - the contents of the communication itself is classified
2831I would instruct him --
2832Mr. Gowdy. The date is also on there. Is the date classified?
2833Ms. Besse. I'm not aware that the date is classified", but who -Mr.
2834Gowdy. How is his signature classified if the date is not
2835classified?
2836Ms. Besse. Congressman", I'm sorry", the document itself is still
2837classified. He knows the answer and you know the answer", but because
2838this is not a classified setting --
2839Mr. Gowdy. Is it fair to say the Russia probe began on July
2840the 31st", 2816", officially?
2841Mr. Strzok. I would have to check the documentation to find out.
2842If you're representing that's the -- and that it is an unclassified
2843date -- I'm happy to accept that representation.
2844Mr. Gowdy. Did you take any steps with respect to the Russia
2845investigation before July 31st", 2816?
2846Ms. Besse. Congressman", that goes back into the investigation
2847itself. And because that is the substance of the special counsel
2848investigation", while Mr. Strzok may have been involved in the
2849investigation before it became - - went under the purview of the special
2850counsel - - because it is an ongoing investigation I'm going to instruct
2851him
2852Mr. Gowdy. Right. We're nowhere near the special counsel now.
2853That was in 2817. I'm still in July of 2816", and I want to know whether
2854or not this witness took any steps before the Russia investigation
2855COMMITTEE SENSITIVE .
2856106
2857COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2858officially began, with officially being July 31st.
2859Did you do anything before July 31st?
2860Mr. Strzok. Congressman, I can tell you I think in a way the FBI
2861will agree with that the acts I took were in accordance with FBI rules,
2862regulation, and policy and the law.
2863Mr. Gowdy. That's a great answer to a question I didn't ask.
2864Mr. Strzok. And, sir --
2865Mr. Gowdy. Did you take any steps with respect to the Russia
2866investigation before July the 31st of 2316?
2867Mr. Goelman. Congressman, as we indicated in the beginning and
2868as we have consistently done, we are going to accept instructions from
2869the FBI attorneys here as to what we can and cannot say. Continually
2870asking the same question is only going to continually get the same
2871nonanswer.
2872Mr. Gowdy. Did you go to in May of 2816?
2873Mr." Strzok. I don't believe I did.
2874Mr. Gowdy. When did you go to
2875Mr. Strzok. I made several trips
2876Mr. Gowdy. Did you do go in connection with the Russia
2877investigation?
2878Mr. Strzok. Again, I don't know that I can answer that in an
2879unclassified setting or with regard to an ongoing investigation.
2880Chairman Goodlatte. We are going to go in a classified setting,
2881so I would save some time in that setting by this side of what is truly
2882classified here rather than --
2883COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2884107
2885COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2886Mr. Gowdy. Well, here we are, Agent Strzok, July 21st, 2e16,
28871e days before the Russia investigation officially began from the FBI
2888standpoint, and you said: Trump is a disaster. I have no idea how
2889destabilizing his presidency would be.
2890What did you mean by "destabilizing"?
2891Mr. Strzok. Sir, my recollection of that text was it was a
2892private expression of my personal opinion to Ms. Page and just reflected
2893my belief based on the things I had seen him saying and doing on the
2894campaign trail.
2895Mr. Gowdy. Destabilizing to whom or to what?
2896Mr. Strzok. Sir, I don't know. I can't --
2897Mr. Gowdy. Well, you're the one that used the word, Agent Strzok.
2898Who should I ask what you meant by it if you're not the right witness?
2899Mr. Strzok. Absolutely it is my words, sir. I would tell you
2900it is my recollection at this point that statement was made in terms
2901of my personal opinion about the prospects of his candidacy and being
2902the President of the United States.
2903Mr. Gowdy. Destabilizing to whom or to what?
2904Mr. Strzok. I think destabilizing, sir, in the broadest sense
2905of the word, based on some of the statements he was making on any number
2906of topics and my personal belief about how that might impact the United
2907States.
2908Mr. Gowdy. So destabilizing to the United States? See, it
2909wasn't that tough. It didn't have to take that long. That's what you
2910meant, destabilizing to the United States, right?
2911COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2912108
2913COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2914Mr. Strzok. No, sir, I think --
2915Mr. Gowdy. That's what you just testified to.
2916Mr. Strzok. Sir, what I just said is my recollection now is that
2917destabilizing in the sense of how that might impact the United States,
2918but that is a nonspecific recollection --
2919Mr. Gowdy. Well, please help me understand how destabilizing
2920from the standpoint of how it might impact the United States is not
2921destabilizing to the United States.
2922Mr. Strzok. Sir, what I'm saying is that looking back almost
29232 years ago or roughly 2 years ago I cannot put myself at that point
2924in time with what current events or statements mayor may not have been
2925made at that point in time.
2926Mr. Gowdy. All right. Well, that's 10 days before the Russia
2927probe began from the Bureau's standpoint.
2928NOw, the day the Russia probe began, the day it was initiated,
2929the day you signed a document initiating it this is what you said: And
2930damn this feels momentous.
2931What feels momentous?
2932Mr. Strzok. Sir, I am happy to discuss that in the classified
2933setting.
2934Mr. Gowdy.
2935Agent Strzok.
2936No, no, no, the word "momentous" is not classified,
2937What felt momentous?
2938Mr. Strzok. Sir, the word "momentous" in the text is not
2939classified. The reference of that text and what it means is, and I
2940am happy to answer that question --
2941COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2942109
2943COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2944Mr. Gowdy. Was it the Russia probe in general?
2945Mr. Strzok. Sir, I am happy to answer that --
2946Mr. Gowdy. Is the Russia probe -- is the existence of -- is the
2947same investigation that Jim Comey publicly confirmed, that was then
2948later confirmed in the special counsel memo, the existence of that
2949investigation, is it your position that is classified?
2950Mr. Goelman. Congressman, if the witness' use of the word
2951"momentous" was based on evidence that he knew because of this
2952classified investigation then his answer will inevitably include
2953classified information, which is unlawful in this setting.
2954Mr. Gowdy. How about the next sentence: Because this matters.
2955What is "this"?
2956Mr. Strzok. Sir, again, I am happy to discuss that in a
2957classified setting and answer all of your questions --
2958Mr. Gowdy. So "this" is also classified. "Momentous" is
2959classified. "This" is classified.
2960Mr. Strzok. Sir, the text is not classified, as I have indicated
2961to you now two times. The context of that statement, the reasoning
2962and the meaning behind that statement is, and I would be very happy
2963to answer that question in a classified setting.
2964Mr. Gowdy. You will have the chance, I can assure you of that.
2965The other one did, too, "the other one" being what?
2966Mr. Strzok. "The other one" I believe refers to the Clinton
2967email investigation.
2968Mr. Gowdy. But that was to ensure we didn' t F something up. What
2969COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2970110
2971COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2972does the word "F," what's that short for?
2973Mr. Strzok. Fuck.
2974Mr. Gowdy. All right. So what you really were saying was that
2975was to ensure we didn't fuck something up.
2976Mr. Strzok. Sir, my text was a comparison between something we
2977can talk about in closed setting and my belief that the Clinton
2978investigation, while very important, was, when you strip away the
2979actors involved, the underlying allegation of a mishandling of
2980classified information was of a substantively different nature than
2981what Director Corney has publicly announced, that -- the initiation of
2982a case into clandestine Russian interference in the election.
2983Mr. Gowdy.
2984Mr. Strzok.
2985Mr. Gowdy.
2986Mr. Strzok.
2987Agent Strzok, I'm just using the words you used.
2988Yes, sir.
2989That was to ensure we didn't fuck something up.
2990Yes, sir. And what I'm explaining what I meant by
2991that is my use of that to compare a case, which is just looking at the
2992activity comparatively minor in terms of its impact on national
2993security compared to the allegation that the Government of Russia was
2994actively working to subvert the Presidential election of the United
2995States.
2996Mr. Gowdy. Is there any way they could both be important?
2997Mr. Strzok. Of course they are both
2998Mr. Gowdy. Do you have to choose?
2999Mr. Strzok. Sir, they are both important. Every investigation
3000that the Bureau has is important.
3001COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3002111
3003COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3004Mr. Gowdy. Well, then why did you say this matters because this
3005matters, and in case the reader missed how much it mattered you put
3006it in all caps?
3007Mr. Strzok. I did. And again, my recollection of that text, it
3008is drawing an objective comparison between a case which involves
3009alleged mishandling of classified information with a case which
3010involves allegations that the Government of Russia was colluding with
3011individuals in the campaign for President of the United States.
3012Mr. Gowdy. Well, on that same day you texted: I can protect our
3013country at many levels.
3014What did you mean by that?
3015Mr. Strzok. That statement was made in the context of a job that
3016I was considering applying for to be deputy assistant director and the
3017decision of whether to apply for that or not, what my role and
3018responsibilities would be either in either job, if I - - and I took - - if
3019I ended up taking that deputy assistant director job that I would be
3020at a higher level and removed from some of the ongoing case work.
3021In fact, I did apply for that job. I did -- was given that
3022position. And that's merely my reflection on where I wanted to work.
3023Mr. Gowdy. Well, what I find interesting in connection with your
3024response, Agent Strzok, is that that response would have been
3025interesting had the predicate text had something to do with Russia.
3026But it actually didn't.
3027"Maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you're meant
3028to protect the country from that menace."
3029COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3030112
3031COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3032Is it your testimony the "menace" was Russia?
3033Mr. Strzok. Sir, that text, if I recall correctly, was Ms.
3034Page's.
3035Mr. Gowdy. Yes, and this is the one you responded to, and now
3036what you're telling us is that you were responding in connection to
3037Russia' 5 efforts, but that's not what she sent you, Agent Strzok. She
3038sent you: Protect the country from that menace.
3039Mr. Strzok. Sir
3040Mr. Gowdy. What menace?
3041Mr. Strzok. You would have to ask Ms. Page that.
3042Mr. Gowdy. I'm asking you because you responded to it, and you
3043didn't say: What do you mean by menace? So I'm assuming that you
3044understood what she meant by "menace." What did you understand it to
3045mean?
3046Mr. Strzok. Sir, my understanding of the word "menace" and the
3047use of "menace" was the broad context of the Governm~nt of Russia's
3048attempts to interfere with our election.
3049To the extent those allegations involved credible information
3050that members of the Trump campaign might be actively colluding, I see
3051that as a broad effort by the Government of Russia. So I don't think
3052you can tease it apart, sir, but it is inaccurate to -- and I did not
3053see that as Mr. -- or then candidate Trump.
3054Mr. Gowdy. Well, maybe 2 days later we can gain a little bit of
3055clarity on August the 8th, where Lisa Page texted you not "Russia's
3056not ever going to become President, right?" "Trump's not ever going
3057COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3058113
3059COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3060to become president, right?"
3061Can we agree that that predicate text was about Trump and not about
3062Russia?
3063Mr. Strzok. Yes.
3064Mr. Gowdy. All right. And your response was: No, period. No,
3065he's not, period. We'll stop it.
3066What did you mean by "no"?
3067Mr. Strzok. No was my -- my recollection of "no" -- and let me
3068just say, there's been a lot written about this text. And what I can
3069tell you, Congressman, is in no way does that suggest that I did or
3070even considered taking any action to
3071Mr. Gowdy. I'll tell you what, Agent Strzok, before we get to
3072what you didn't mean by "no," how about we settle on what you did mean
3073by it, and then we can discuss the entire universe of what you didn't
3074mean by it.
3075The precise question was: Trump's not ever going to become
3076President, right? And then if you missed that" right" she put again,
3077"right," with a question mark. And the next word from you is "no."
3078So what did you think the question was?
3079Mr. Strzok. I thought that question was her personal question
3080as to-whether or not he would become President. My answer no was my
3081personal belief that I did not think he would be.
3082Mr. Gowdy. Well, then why did you say, "No, he's not"? Why
3083didn't you say, "No, I don't think he's going to, no, I don't think
3084he'll win the electoral college, no, I don't think he'll do well in
3085COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3086114
3087COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3088Ohio"? Why did you say, "No, he's not"?
3089Mr. Strzok. Sir, because my recollection of that text, which I
3090don't recall specifically writing, is it is late at night --
3091Mr. Gowdy.
3092Mr. Strzok.
3093Mr. Gowdy.
3094Mr. Strzok.
3095writing.
3096Are you denying writing it?
3097Oh, I'm not denying writing it at all.
3098So whether or not you recall it or not, it's yours?
3099Yes. Not recalling that, but I believe it is my
3100Mr. Gowdy. Okay. "No. No, he's not." He's not what?
3101Mr. Strzok. Going to be - - my belief that he is not going to be
3102President.
3103Mr. Gowdy. Okay. "We'll stop it." Who is "we"?
3104Mr. Strzok. Sir, my recollection is, looking at that time when
3105the then-candidate Trump had just come off of a speech where he was
3106insulting the immigrant family of a fallen military war hero, I found
3107it unbelievable the American people --
3108Mr. Gowdy. So the "we" was you and the Khan family?
3109Mr. Strzok. Sir, if I could finish.
3110Mr. Gowdy. Is that your testimony, you and the Kahn family,
3111that's who "we" was?
3112Mr. Goelman. Congressman, if you want testimony from a witness
3113you're going to need to allow the witness to answer your questions.
3114Mr. Strzok. Sir, my response to that was coming off a speech
3115where then-candidate Trump was insulting the family, the immigrant
3116family of a fallen war hero, it was so unbelievable to me that the
3117COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3118115
3119COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3120American people that I, that anybody, given those sort of sentiments
3121and statements, would elect him to the Presidency. That was my
3122personal belief.
3123Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Well, that helps, Agent Strzok. By "we" you
3124meant the United states. Is that what you meant by that?
3125Mr. Strzok.
3126Mr. Gowdy.
3127Mr. Strzok.
3128Mr. Gowdy.
3129Mr. Strzok.
3130elect him.
3131Mr. Gowdy.
3132Mr. Strzok.
3133Honestly, I don't know that I had any specific
3134Well, who wrote it?
3135My sense was we --
3136Who wrote it?
3137- - the United States and American people, would not
3138Who wrote it? Who wrote the "we'll"?
3139I wrote it, Congressman.
3140Mr. Gowdy. Okay. And it is really not that complicated of a
3141question.
3142Mr. Strzok. It's not.
3143Mr. Gowdy. You can go back through the Democrat convention again
3144if you want to, you can go through all the speakers that spoke, but
3145my question is going to still be the same at the end. Who did you mean
3146by "we"?
3147Mr. Strzok. And, sir, what I am telling you is my best sense,
3148looking at this text that I didn't recall until I read it very recently,
3149was that "we" is my belief that the American people, there is no way
3150that they're going to elect him.
3151And, sir, I would add what it does not mean, what it is not is
3152COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3153116
3154COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3155any statement that I would ever consider, let alone take any official
3156action, to impact the Presidency of the United States.
3157Mr. Gowdy. All right. That's great. I'm glad you got that out.
3158That actually wasn't my question, but we may get to that.
3159What did you mean by "it"?
3160Mr. Strzok. My plain reading of that text leads that me that "it"
3161is that the American people would elect then-candidate Trump to be the
3162President.
3163Mr. Gowdy. So the "we" is you speaking on behalf of what, the
3164all lee million that you thought would vote for Secretary Clinton?
3165Mr. Strzok. "We" is my -- as I sit here now my best
3166recollection -- that "we" is my sense that the American people would
3167not elect candidate Trump.
3168Mr. Gowdy. In March of 2e16 was the Midyear Exam still going on,
3169was that investigation still going on, the one where you didn't want
3170to -- you wanted to make sure you didn't fuck things up?
3171Mr. Strzok. March of 2e16 the case was still ongoing.
3172Mr. Gowdy. Right. And that's the same month you texted the vote
3173would be lee million to zero.
3174Mr. Strzok. I would have to check the dates, but I'll take your
3175representation that's the date.
3176Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Well, did you send the text? Are you the one
3177that wrote lee million to zero?
3178Mr. Strzok. Yes, I did.
3179Mr. Gowdy. You can't think of a single solitary American that
3180COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3181117
3182COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3183would vote for the Republican nominee?
3184Mr. Strzok. I think I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole and
3185personal interaction and conversation with a close friend.
3186Mr. Gowdy. You can't think of a single solitary
3187American -- well, who was the Republican nominee at that point?
3188Because I don't think there was one.
3189Mr. Strzok. I think that's right.
3190Mr. Gowdy. So you were just convinced that the person you were
3191investigating, that you had yet to even interview, wasn't going to be
3192indicted, wasn't going to plead to an information~ was going to be
3193available to win lee million to nothing.
3194Mr. Strzok. (ongressman~ as I said, that statement I firmly
3195believe was hyperbole.
3196Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Well, let's -- I'll tell you what -- how
3197about we
3198Mr. Strzok.
3199Mr. Gowdy.
3200Mr. Strzok.
3201ended up being.
3202I can envision a large number of people who would -How
3203about we do this then?
3204vote for the Republican nominee, whoever that
3205Mr. Gowdy. How about we just drop it down to 1e million to zero?
3206If it was hyperbole we'll just cut it, we'll cut it by a tenth, 1e million
3207to zero. You thought the person you had under investigation, you
3208hadn't even finished the investigation~ you hadn't even interviewed
3209the target of your investigation, but you already had her winning the
3210Presidency?
3211COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3212118
3213COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3214Mr. Strzok. I don't read that text that way. I read that text
3215as my --
3216Mr. Gowdy. Well, how can you win if you don't run, Agent Strzok?
3217Mr. Strzok. Sir, I read that text as my personal belief that,
3218based on whatever was occurring at that moment in time, led me
3219personally to believe that the --
3220Mr. Gowdy. Well, I'll tell you what was occurring at that time,
3221Agent Strzok. You were supposed to be investigating the very person
3222that you had winning the Presidency, that's what was going on at that
3223time, Agent. Is there something else going on at that time that would
3224have been more important to you?
3225Mr. Strzok. Well, there are a number of things that were going
3226on that were very important. The Midyear investigation was certainly
3227important.
3228Mr. Gowdy. Had you interviewed the target --
3229Mr. Strzok. There were a host of other investigations that were
3230going on.
3231Mr. Gowdy. Had you interviewed the target of the investigation
3232yet?
3233Mr. Strzok. I would not use the word "target." We had not
3234interviewed Secretary Clinton at the time.
3235Mr. Gowdy. Damn, you wouldn't use the word "target"?
3236Mr. Strzok. Congressman, as you know as a former prosecutor, the
3237word "target" is a word very specifically used by the Department of
3238Justice --
3239COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3240119
3241COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3242Mr. Gowdy. What word would you use, witness, potential witness,
3243suspect?
3244have
3245Mr. Strzok.
3246Mr. Gowdy.
3247Mr. Strzok.
3248I would say a critical player in the investigation.
3249Critical player.
3250Right. My recollection is that the case did not
3251Mr. Gowdy. Whose server was it, Agent Strzok?
3252Mr. Strzok. It was -- well, there are a variety of people who
3253used 'that server
3254Mr. Gowdy. Whose server was it? That's a really simple
3255question. Whose server was it, Agent Strzok?
3256Mr. Strzok. The server was run by a variety of entities and used
3257by people including the Clinton Foundation, Secretary Clinton, former
3258President Clinton. My understanding legally it was established and
3259run at one point in time --
3260Mr. Gowdy. Who sent and received -Mr.
3261Strzok. Sir, can --
3262Mr. Gowdy. Who sent and received information marked as
3263classified on that server?
3264Mr. Strzok. Secretary Clinton, amongst others who were -Mr.
3265Gowdy. So your position is that she was just an interesting
3266witness?
3267Mr. Strzok. No, sir, she was one of the -- she was one of the
3268individuals that we were looking at in the investigation.
3269When I answered you --
3270COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3271120
3272COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3273Mr. Gowdy. Looking at, looking at, but not target.
3274Mr. Strzok. Sir, when I answered you, it was in the context of
3275the formal use of the term "target" and the formal use of the term
3276"subject," both as DO] uses that term and as the way the FBI uses that
3277term.
3278Mr. Gowdy. Agent Strzok, we're both --
3279Mr. Strzok. It is clear, Congressman, that Secretary
3280Clinton -- we were -- the goals of the investigation were to, one,
3281understand why and how and i f classified information came to be placed
3282on that server; two, who did that and the circumstances by which they
3283did it; and, three, whether or not a foreign power gained access to
3284that.
3285So it was not -- Secretary Clinton was in that group of people
3286we were interested in, but she was not by any means the only person
3287that we had an investigative interest in.
3288Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Well, let's go back to March of 2e16 when you
3289wrote lee million to zero would be the election result, and you said
3290that was hyperbolic. So we're going to scale that down to just 1e
3291million to zero.
3292How many witnesses had yet to be interviewed at that point?
3293Mr. Strzok. I couldn't tell you, sir.
3294Mr. Gowdy. How many witness interviews did you do after March?
3295Mr. Strzok. I would have to check the record.
3296Mr. Gowdy. A dozen?
3297Mr. Strzok. I don't know. I would need to check. That is a
3298COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3299121
3300COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3301noble answer. I do not know that answer sitting here - - sitting before
3302you here today.
3303Mr. Gowdy. Give me your best estimate.
3304Mr. Strzok. I don't want to speculate on the numbers based on
3305that. Without a review of the case that would be irresponsible.
3306Mr. Gowdy. Ten?
3307Mr. Strzok. Sir -- more than five, but --
3308Mr. Gowdy. More than five, including what you consider to be an
3309interesting witness in this fact pattern. I use the word "target,"
3310but you're on the record as saying you don't agree with the word
3311"target," so that's fine.
3312Mr. Strzok. I'm on the record, sir, saying she was not
3313considered a target by the Department of Justice.
3314Mr. Gowdy. That's fine. That's fine. Just like I said, you're
3315on the record as saying she's not a target. That's my word, not yours.
3316But you had yet to interview her regardless of what you call her.
3317Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
3318Mr. Gowdy. But yet you had her winning the Presidency, Agent
3319Strzok. Can you see how that might possibly lead a cynic to think that
3320maybe you'd already made up your mind?
3321Mr. Strzok. Sir, I am telling you my sense and my belief of
3322whatever the Presidential election and the candidates and where that
3323was going had absolutely no bearing on any act I took as an FBI agent.
3324Mr. Gowdy. I hear you, Agent Strzok. That's about the eighth
3325time you've said that. But let me - - let me help you with this a little
3326COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3327122
3328COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3329bit. It is really difficult to run and win when you've been charged
3330with and/or convicted of a felony. It's a real challenge.
3331So the fact that you had her running and winning before you had
3332concluded the investigation, you can sit there and read whatever answer
3333your lawyer gave you to read about how it didn't impact your
3334decisionmaking all you want, but you had her running and winning before
3335you even bothered to interview her. That's what we're left with.
3336Mr. Strzok. Sir, I disagree that that is what you're left with.
3337What you are left with are my belief that I am telling you that my
3338personal opinion was that she was a compelling candidate and was likely
3339to win.
3340I am telling you what you can take away is the fact that my personal
3341belief, like the personal belief of every single FBI agent, did not
3342impact my official acts in any way.
3343Mr. Gowdy. All right. Now we're up to nine. You've made that
3344point really clear. You've done a good job of reciting that.
3345it. "
3346Now I want to go back to what you meant by "it" -- "We'll stop
3347Mr. Strzok. Sir, I think I've answered that.
3348Mr. Gowdy. What was the answer?
3349Mr. Strzok. The answer as I recall that I gave you was the " it"
3350that the American people would not elect candidate Trump.
3351Mr. Gowdy. No, no, that was the "we." That was the "we," Agent
3352Strzok. We spent a long time on the "we." What was the "it"?
3353Mr. Strzok. The "it" was the -- that President Trump would be
3354COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3355123
3356COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3357elected President -- or then-candidate Trump.
3358Mr. Gowdy. All right. So we are less than 18 days into an
3359investigation that you were at a minimum a major participant in and
3360perhaps running yourself, and you are talking about stopping the
3361Presidency of the person that you were supposed to be dispassionately
3362and objectively investigating?
3363Mr. Strzok. I can -- well, what's the question, sir?
3364Mr. Gowdy. Is that true?
3365Mr. Strzok. Is what true? I'm asking you to rephrase.
3366Mr. Gowdy. The whole predicate. We are less than -- we are
33678 days into an investigation that you either ran or were a major
3368participant in, and you're supposed to be dispassionately and
3369objectively looking at the facts, and you have already declared that
3370you are going to stop the Presidency of the Republican nominee.
3371Mr. Strzok. No, sir. That is not what I've said. What I have
3372said is my personal belief that the American people I did not believe
3373would elect the President. That is fundamentally different from what
3374you just said and suggested.
3375Mr. Gowdy. We'll let the reader decide how fundamentally
3376different it is, Agent Strzok.
3377A whopping week later, a whole week later, 15 days into your
3378dispassionate, objective investigation into what Russia did and with
3379whom, if anyone, did they do it: I want to believe the path you threw
3380out for consideration in Andy's office.
3381What path?
3382COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3383124
3384COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3385Mr. Strzok. My recollection of that text was, in light of the
3386predicating information that we had received from an extraordinarily
3387sensitive source, that there was a debate, as there frequently is with
3388sensitive sources and methods, about the protection of that source and
3389method weighed against the aggressiveness and pursuing the
3390investigation at a risk to that source.
3391And there were some, and my reading of this is that Ms. Page was
3392included in that some, who argued that it was unlikely that candidate
3393Trump would get elected and that, therefore, we did not need to risk
3394that source and method, that we could just kind of go in a traditional
3395CI manner and go slowly. I remember
3396Mr. Gowdy. When you say risk a source and method, you mean in
3397a trial, Agent Strzok?
3398Mr. Strzok. No, I'm meaning about the exposure and the
3399compromise of that source and method. So if I could finish --
3400Mr. Gowdy. In what, like a FISA -- hang on a second. Let me ask
3401my question. Let me ask my question.
3402Mr. Strzok. You asked a question about the path. Can I finish
3403that question or do you want to -- I would like to finish the answer.
3404Mr. Gowdy. If you can do it today, yeah, if you can do it today.
3405Mr. Strzok. Absolutely, Congressman. So the path was on the
3406one hand that argument that we need to protect this source. Polling
3407and all the pundits said it was a prohibitive favorite that Secretary
3408Clinton would be the President. One option, as I said, was we protect
3409that source and method, we don't put it at risk. We can afford to do
3410COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3411125
3412COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3413a slower counterintelligence investigation.
3414The counter argument, which I was making and which ultimately was
3415decided by a variety of people in the Bureau, is we have to approach
3416this investigation and do what the Bureau does. We need to investigate
3417these allegations for a couple of reasons.
3418One, if then-candidate Trump wins the Presidency, the people that
3419were allegedly or might be involved in that activity might be placed
3420in significant national security positions, and we need to protect
3421America by finding out whether or not these allegations are accurate
3422or not and make sure that the government, President Trump in that case,
3423was making special -- or making appropriate decisions.
3424Second, sir
3425Mr. Gowdy. Agent Strzok, your 2 weeks --
3426Mr. Strzok. I'm almost done. I'm almost done, sir.
3427Second, that candidate Trump and the American people would expect
3428us to do that. If there's an allegation, he, of all people, but
3429everybody would want to know: If this is going on in my campaign I
3430want you to tell me about it.
3431And the third option, these allegations might be proven false.
3432All those things were there, but my view that we need -- it doesn't
3433matter what the polls say.
3434You're probably not going to die before you're 40. The fact of
3435the matter is, you do things that are responsible even when they are
3436unlikely. And so my advocacy in that context was for the Bureau to
3437do what the Bureau does, to go out and responsibly investigate.
3438COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3439126
3440COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3441Mr. Gowdy. Yeah, I got that explanation. I guess I'm troubled
3442by the part where you put the dash, that there's no way he gets elected,
3443because it almost seems as if that was the path that was thrown out,
3444that there's no way he gets elected, but we can't take the risk.
3445Because I don't see anything about sources and methods, and I
3446don't see anything about risking sources and methods. What I see is:
3447I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's
3448office, dash, that there's no way he gets elected, dash, but I'm afraid
3449we can't take that risk. I see the word "elected." I don't see
3450anything about sources and methods.
3451Mr. Goelman. Is there a question there, Congressman?
3452Mr. Gowdy. Yeah. What am I missing?
3453Mr. Strzok. Sir, you are misinterpreting that text. I read it.
3454I know what I -- or I wrote it. I know what I meant.
3455Mr. Gowdy. Who is Andy?
3456Mr. Strzok. I am not going to get in on an unclassified text to
3457a dissertation about the protection of sources and methods and the ways
3458that we might do that and the weight. My statement was intended -Mr.
3459Gowdy. Agent Strzok --
3460Mr. Strzok. Sir, you wanted to know what you're missing, and I'm
3461telling you what you're missing.
3462Mr. Gowdy. No, no, no. I do want an answer to the question.
3463What I don't want you to do is s1 t there and regurgitate something that
3464you have worked on for weeks and weeks and weeks. I want you to answer
3465the question.
3466COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3467127
3468COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3469Mr. Goelman. Congressman, you have repeatedly and publicly
3470talked about how you want to hear from Agent Strzok. It now appears
3471that you don't want to hear his answers, you want to hear your questions
3472and then cut off his answers so that he can't give them.
3473Mr. Gowdy. No, he's had plenty of time to answer whatever you
3474prepped him to say. He's had plenty of time to do that. I just let
3475him go into three different scenarios, none of which involved him
3476possibly wanting to impact the Presidency or the election.
3477Mr. Goelman. Congressman, you and I are both former prosecutors
3478and we know that you would never get away with this in court, cutting
3479the witness off like this. If you want to hear him --
3480Mr. Gowdy. And good thing for us is we're not in court. That's
3481the good thing for us.
3482Mr. Goelman. If you want to hear what he has to say, you're going
3483to need to allow him to speak.
3484Mr. Gowdy. How are sources and methods going to be compromised?
3485Were you anticipating a criminal trial?
3486Mr. Strzok. Sir, my recollection of that text is, sources and
3487methods, there is always a tension. It doesn't matter if it's a
3488national security case, if you've got a snitch on a drug case, there's
3489always a tension between a source. It could be a mope on the street,
3490it could be a recruitment in the middle of Beijing somewhere.
3491There is always a concern that anything you do investigatively
3492is going to somehow allow the person who gave you that information to
3493be identified. And so in this case my concern was the investigation
3494COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3495128
3496COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3497might cause that source and method to be known and compromised.
3498Mr. Gowdy. Well, why don't we go 11 days forward and see if we
3499can put a little clarity on this, whether or not you're talking about
3500Trump or sources and methods.
3501Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could smell the Trump
3502support.
3503What did it smell like?
3504Mr. Strzok. Sir, that text is meant to convey my sense of how
3505radically different, even within the State of Virginia where I live,
3506that going from northern Virginia down to southern Virginia, how
3507different the population was in their support for the Presidential
3508candidates and congressional candidates.
3509Mr. Gowdy. Yeah, I get that, Agent Strzok. Unfortunately, that
3510doesn't come anywhere near what you actually typed. I get that.
3511My question, to refresh your recollection, was, what did it smell
3512like? You're the one who wrote that you could smell the Trump support.
3513You didn' t write anything about how northern Virginia is different from
3514southern Virginia and how the politics may be different in the bluer
3515parts of the State. That would have been great if you had actually
3516written that. That's not what you wrote. You wrote: I can smell the
3517Trump support.
3518And my question to you is, what did it smell like?
3519Mr. Strzok. Congressman, that phrase was used as an analogy to
3520describe what I saw is the vast demographic difference between the
3521electorate in southern Virginia and northern Virginia.
3522COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3523129
3524COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3525Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Well--
3526Mr. Strzok. These are conversational private texts. These are
3527not statements for the record. These are not any sort of process by
3528which I was conveying my intent and meaning. This is a conversation
3529done electronically.
3530Mr. Gowdy. So is it your --
3531Mr. Ratcliffe. Hold on, hold on, hold on.
3532Let me just clarify this for a second, based on what you just said
3533there, Agent Strzok. Let's talk about these texts generally as they
3534apply to Ms. Page.
3535You have described them as personal exchanges with a close
3536confidante a number of times today, correct?
3537Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
3538Mr. Ratcliffe. I don't mean to embarrass you, but is Lisa Page
3539someone that you do or at some point in time did love?
3540Mr. Strzok. Sir, I was engaged at one point in time in an
3541extramarital affair. As long as, you know, we're going there and you
3542want to discuss that, I would -- I would tell you that and the use and
3543exposure of that has been --
3544Mr. Ratcliffe. Look--
3545Mr. Strzok. Sir, you brought up, so you know what, if you want
3546to discuss it then I would ask you give me the dignity of kind of telling
3547you how I think about it.
3548I deeply regret the pain that all of these things have caused my
3549family. I will always regret that. I regret those texts in the way
3550COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3551130
3552COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3553that they have done that harm and I would ask -- you know, I am happy
3554to answer any work questions you have of me, but I would rather not
3555continue to cause any pain to my family by, you know, going down this
3556line of questioning.
3557Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Does that give you a chance to answer that
3558completely?
3559Mr. Strzok. Sir, yes, thank you.
3560Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So what I'm trying to establish through
3561all of that is, was Lisa Page someone that you cared about deeply at
3562the time you were sending these messages?
3563Mr. Strzok. Lisa Page at that time was somebody I was engaged
3564in an extramarital affair with.
3565Mr . Ratcliffe. All right. Well, she was a close confidante. I
3566know that because you've said it three times.
3567Mr. Strzok. Yes, that's right.
3568Mr. Ratcliffe. And you also know that these text messages, fair
3569to say that you thought you would never be sitting in a congressional
3570hearing and these text messages would see the light of day?
3571Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
3572Mr. Ratcliffe. All rig~t. These were always intended to be
3573private.
3574Mr. Strzok. Yes.
3575Mr. Ratcliffe. To a confidante, someone that you were having an
3576affair with and that you cared about.
3577Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
3578COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3579131
3580COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3581Mr. Ratcliffe. So explain to me, how given that context, we
3582shouldn't look at these text messages as your most honest and true
3583expression of what you were thinking at the time that you wrote them.
3584Mr. Strzok. Sir, what I would tell you is they are a reflection
3585of what I was thinking, and I would note they absolutely are also in
3586the realm of personal belief, of personal opinion of the political
3587process, and that I would tell you that and why that's important is
3588because I continually guarded to ensure that none of my personal
3589political beliefs ever influenced any act I took as an FBI agent.
3590Mr. Ratcliffe. Again--
3591Mr. Strzok. And, again, I feel like I have been asked this many
3592times and I'm giving the same answer in response many times. But I
3593can't, in light of the continued asking, drive home enough to you that
3594that isn't who I am and that is not who the FBI is. I would not tolerate
3595that in another agent any more than they would tolerate it in me. That
3596just isn't who we are.
3597And so the use and the suggestion that that is there deeply
3598undermines the institution of the FBI and what we do day in and day
3599out.
3600Mr. Ratcliffe. But with all due respect, Agent Strzok, you're
3601the one that's suggesting that. You just told us that these private
3602text messages that you thought no one was ever going to see, that would
3603never see the light of day, that you intended to only be seen by the
3604person you were having an affair with were the truest and most honest
3605expression of your thoughts, but you --
3606COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3607132
3608COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3609Mr. Goelman. Congressman, that's what you said. That is not
3610what the witness said.
3611Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, all right --
3612Mr. Gowdy. Well, let's ask him. Let's ask him.
3613Are you more or less -- are you more likely or less likely to be
3614candid and honest if you don't think anybody else is going to read it?
3615Mr. Strzok. I would -- I don't want to hypothesize. In
3616general, private conversations, I think there's an expectation of an
3617ability to speak candidly.
3618Mr. Gowdy. See, that's not tough. You're more likely to be
3619candid if you don't think anybody else is going to read it, if you think
3620it is private.
3621Mr. Strzok. Yes.
3622Mr. Gowdy. Right. That was John's point.
3623So what did you mean by smell the Trump support?
3624Mr. Strzok. What I meant by that was my sense and being struck
3625by the difference of the electorate between an area as small as northern
3626and southern Virginia, that I was struck by the -- just the number and
3627amount of Trump support.
3628Mr. Gowdy. And had you used the word "struck" that'd be an
3629interesting answer. Had you gone into a conversation about political
3630demographics, regional politics, that'd been an interesting answer.
3631But that's not what you said. You said you could smell the Trump
3632support.
3633Could you also smell Clinton support?
3634COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3635133
3636COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3637Mr. Strzok. I haven't ever tried. Again" this is an allegory.
3638I can envision 100 scenarios of ways in which a conversation might have
3639unfolded.
3640I am telling you" in this case, in this instance, my use of that
3641phrase was in the context of an analogy of how different the local
3642population was.
3643COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3644134
3645COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3646[1:21 p.m.]
3647Mr. Gowdy. Well, then, why not say, "I could see the Trump
3648support"?
3649Mr. Strzok. That would have been an even more appropriate word.
3650I'm not going to go back and defend the conversational selection of
3651a particular word at any given point.
3652Mr. Gowdy. Well, you put "SMELL" in all caps. That took you a
3653little time, didn't it?
3654Mr. Strzok. Not appreciably different than all lower case.
3655Mr. Gowdy. Certain intentionality when you put something in all
3656caps, isn't it?
3657Mr. Strzok. I think it's to emphasize - - again, Congressman, I
3658feel like we're repeating the same question --
3659Mr. Gowdy. I'm just waiting on the first answer. I agree we've
3660gone over the question a couple of times. I'm waiting on the answer,
3661what did it smell like?
3662Mr. Strzok. And I am telling you it did not smell like anything.
3663My use of the word "smell" is in the context of an analogy to make the
3664point that I was struck by the difference in the level of support between
3665the northern Virginia and southern Virginia voters over a very small
3666geographic region.
3667Mr. Gowdy. Do you think there are any Clinton or Stein or Johnson
3668supporters that shop at Walmart?
3669Mr. Strzok. Absolutely.
3670Mr. Gowdy. Was there something about being at Walmart that
3671COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3672135
3673COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3674enabled you to smell the Trump support more than some other place?
3675Mr. Strzok. No. It was just the big, local store that I
3676happened to be in.
3677Mr. Gowdy. All right. October 2e16, were you part of any
3678affidavits in support of FISA warrants?
3679Mr. Strzok. I don't believe I can answer that question without
3680getting into both classified information and ongoing investigations.
3681Mr. Gowdy. I think the existence of it has been declassified.
3682Mr. Strzok. That is true, but that's not what I just said.
3683Ms. Besse. Congressman, you asked him a question about FISA
3684warrants. Are you asking about a specific one?
3685Mr. Gowdy. Yeah, the one in October of 2e16, the one that's been
3686declassified, about the only one we can talk about in public.
3687Ms. Besse. May I confer with the client?
3688[Discussion off the record.]
3689Ms. Besse. Congressman, portions of the warrant have been
3690declassified, but the process itself for the FISA warrant have not been
3691declassified. 50--
3692Mr. Gowdy. I think the process is public. There's an affidavit
3693in support of it. It's submitted to a court. I don't think any of
3694that's classified. And I'm asking him whether or not he was part of
3695the process.
3696Ms. Besse. In general terms it is not. The way you just phrased
3697it
3698Mr. Gowdy. Right.
3699COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3700COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3701Ms. Besse. -- it's not classified.
3702Mr. Gowdy. Right.
3703136
3704Ms. Besse. But to the extent that he can answer in an
3705unclassified manner, he can answer. If he cannot, then I will instruct
3706him not to answer in an unclassified setting.
3707Mr. Gowdy. I don't think it can be all that classified because
3708there were emails and texts back and forth about providing extra
3709information in support of the affidavit. I'm sure no Bureau lawyers
3710or agents would be texting or emailing about FISA applications, given
3711that.
3712Were you part of the preparation of an affidavit in support of
3713a FISA application?
3714Ms. Besse. May we confer?
3715Mr. Gowdy. I don't think I've got a choice.
3716[Discussion off the record.]
3717Ms. Besse. Congressman, the witness will answer to the best of
3718his ability.
3719Mr. Gowdy. Okay.
3720Mr. Strzok. All right, sir. So following discussion with
3721counsel, I can tell you that I was aware of the FISA application, but
3722I did not participate in its -- what was your phrase? -- the
3723preparation.
3724Mr. Gowdy. Did you consult with anyone who did help prepare it?
3725Mr. Strzok. I was aware of it and had
3726Mr. Gowdy. See, I'm not sure what the word "aware" means.
3727COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3728137
3729COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3730Mr. Strzok. Again, I'm answering what I can, and I'm happy to
3731answer in a classified setting in greater detail.
3732Mr. Gowdy. I don't think we need to go to a classified setting.
3733Did you provide any information? Were you talking to folks who
3734actually drafted the affidavit or were going to submit the application
3735package?
3736Mr. Strzok. I did not provide information. I did speak with
3737people who were preparing it.
3738Mr. Gowdy. And when was this preparation going on?
3739Mr. Strzok. That I can't get into in an uncl'assi fied setting.
3740Mr. Gowdy. Well, when was the application signed? What's the
3741date of it?
3742Mr. Strzok. I don't know that, sir.
3743Mr. Gowdy. Is it fair to say it's late October 2016?
3744Mr. Strzok. Again, sir, I'd need to check the record for that.
3745Mr. Gowdy. Would you disagree if I represented it was late
3746October 2016?
3747Mr. Strzok. I would not.
3748Mr. Gowdy. Well, on October the 19th you said, "I'm riled up.
3749Trump is a fucking idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer. " This
3750would be about the same time there was preparation going on for a FISA
3751application.
3752What did you mean by "Trump is a fucking idiot"?
3753Mr. Strzok. As I recall, without looking at the calendar of what
3754was going on, I believe that was in the context of a debate, but I'm
3755COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3756138
3757COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3758not certain about that.
3759Mr. Gowdy. What part of the debate made you think he was a fucking
3760idiot?
3761Mr. Strzok. I couldn't tell you without going back in time.
3762There was something that I was, from the plain reading of the text,
3763didn't think his answer was an effective one.
3764Mr. Gowdy. Well, that's a little different to say somebody gave
3765an ineffective answer.
3766Ms. Sachsman Grooms. Would it help if perhaps we put the text
3767in the record? We've been doing this all day asking about text but
3768he's not able to see the text.
3769Mr. Gowdy. Well, that's up to his lawyer.
3770Ms. Sachsman Grooms. I don't think it's up to his lawyer.
3771Mr. Gowdy. And you can show him what you want when it's your turn.
3772When it's your turn you can show him what you want, but you're not going
3773to do it on my time. He's got a lawyer. He's actually got a good one.
3774Ms. Sachsman Grooms. So you would like to ask him questions about
3775a document that you refuse to show him?
3776Mr. Gowdy. That's up to his lawyer. He's the one that wrote it.
3777Look, as much as you want to represent this witness, he actually
3778has a lawyer. Let his lawyer do the job. If he wants time to look
3779at a text, he's welcome to ask for it.
3780Ms. Sachsman Grooms. Sir, it is common practice of our
3781committees, our committees that we have participated on together for
3782many years, to show a witness a document that we are asking that witness
3783COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3784139
3785COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3786about and mark it as an exhibit for the record.
3787That is not my interest or willingness or any participation in
3788the representation of the witness. That is just a common practice of
3789our committee.
3790Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Are you through?
3791"Trump is a fucking idiot, is unable to provide a coherent
3792answer." And your response was that he must have said something
3793ineffective during a debate. And my question was, do you agree there's
3794a difference between an ineffective answer and a someone being a fucking
3795idiot?
3796Mr. Strzok. What's the date of the text, sir?
3797Mr. Goelman. For the record, I'm showing the witness a printout
3798of the text, I think, that we got from -- Senator Johnson posted it
3799on the internet -- and directed the witness' attention to text dated
3800October 28, 2816.
3801Mr. Strzok. Yeah. So, sir, my read of this and from the
3802surrounding text, it is apparent that I'm watching the debates and there
3803was some answer that I was responding to.
3804BY MR. BAKER:
3805Q I just have a very general question about the text.
3806A Yes.
3807Q You've stated a few times -- more than a few times -- that
3808these were conversations believed to be in private between you and
3809Ms. Page.
3810Was there a belief at the FBI or a belief between you and Ms. Page
3811COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3812140
3813COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3814that these texts were -- texts in general -- were somehow not stored
3815or recorded or retrievable by the FBI?
3816A My understanding was that they are both stored and
3817retrievable, that nevertheless, because there is de minimus use allowed
3818by the text, that there is an expectation certainly of being monitored,
3819but also that they were -- they had a level of privacy attached to them.
3820Q But not a belief that technology-wise they were physically
3821not able to be retrieved?
3822A Correct.
3823Q Okay. Thank you.
3824BY MR. PARMITER:
3825Q Afternoon, sir.
3826A Afternoon.
3827Q Can I just clarify one thing? A little while ago you spoke
3828with Chairman Gowdy about the text about the path you threw out in Andy IS
3829office. For purposes of that text, you were speaking about Andy -A
3830McCabe.
3831Q Okay. And at the time he was in what position?
3832A Deputy director.
3833Q Okay.
3834Going back to something you were asked earlier today pertaining
3835to the Russia investigation, do you know who conducted an interview
3836of Michael Flynn?
3837A I do.
3838Q And who conducted the interview?
3839COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3840COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3841A Can I confer with counsel?
3842Q Sure.
3843[Discussion off the record.]
3844141
3845Mr. Strzok . Okay. $0 I can do this. And", Cecilia", if you want
3846to hop in.
3847I am aware of who conducted that interview. Because it's an
3848ongoing investigation", agency counsel has instructed me not to get into
3849the details of that.
3850Ms. Besse. One, we are not -- it's the -- it is an aspect of a
3851special counsel investigation. And also if it involves any employees
3852who are not at the SES level", we are not going to allow the witness
3853to give the names of those employees.
3854Mr. Baker. So it's fair to say the individual is not at the SES
3855level?
3856Ms. Besse. It is possible the individual is not at the SES level.
3857Mr. Parmiter. So it's been widely reported that during the
3858interview - - and you mayor may not be able to answer this - - that the
3859interviewing agents believed that Mr. Flynn had testified truthfully.
3860Did you share that view at the time?
3861Mr. Strzok . I don't know that I can answer a question about an
3862ongoing investigation.
3863Ms. Besse. Again, because you're asking about his sort of
3864interpretation based on being an agent involved in that investigation,
3865he will not be able to respond to that question because it is under
3866the special counsel's purview.
3867COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3868142
3869COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3870BY MR. PARMITER:
3871Q Okay. Well" in the short time we have remaining" let me just
3872ask you a couple other questions.
3873Are you aware whether the current President has ever been caught
3874on surveillance or the target of surveillance? I mean" I guess" as
3875the former deputy assistant director for counterintelligence" would
3876that be something you would be aware of?
3877A I would be aware of some aspects of sensitive sources and
3878methods and collection and who mayor may not be on there. But I
3879similarly would not be aware of all by any -- not even close.
3880Q So in response to the question about the current President?
3881A I can't answer that question in this setting.
3882Q Okay. Did you ever, as deputy assistant director for
3883counterintelligence" sort of put out a call or request that different
3884FBI units ensure you were looped in whenever such a thing might have
3885occurred, whether it's the President or senior White House officials?
3886A Again, I don't think I can answer that question in this
3887setting.
3888Q So let me go back to something you talked about with Chairman
3889Gowdy about the text referring to this matters, when "MATTERS" was in
3890all capitals. Understanding that your response to that was that this
3891is classified, we talked -- you talked a little bit about the
3892mishandling of classified information versus Russian interference and
3893the two investigations looking at them side by side.
3894Would you say that your response to that question indicated the
3895COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3896COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3897mishandling part was somehow less important than the Russian
3898interference part?
3899143
3900A I think the analogy that I tried to do is take any individual
3901or country out of it, so setting aside just, say, a hostile foreign
3902nation compared to the mishandling of classified information.
3903All FBI investigations are important. They all matter. If we
3904open them, we have a duty to pursue the facts where they lay and bring
3905them to a conclusion.
3906My statement, as I recall it, and certainly what I I m thinking now,
3907is that when you - - is certainly me, from my perspective and expertise,
3908that I think an objective observer -- look at the impact to national
3909security of a mishandling case compared to the impact on national
3910security of a hostile foreign nation potentially allegedly colluding
3911with members of the candidacy for the Presidency of the United States,
3912those are objectively demonstrably different impacts on - - potentially
3913different impacts on the national security of the United States.
3914Q Would the number of classified emails be relevant in that
3915consideration?
3916A Yes.
3917Q How many classified emails did the Bureau find on the Clinton
3918server?
3919A I I d have to refresh my recollection. At this time, I - - you
3920know, we count them in threads. I would have to refresh my recollection
3921with the documents in the case file.
3922Q Okay. Would you disagree if I said it was 2,eee emails at
3923COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3924144
3925COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3926varying levels of classification?
3927A My recollection is that -- the difficulty in counting
3928individual emails is that we tended to go by threads, because you would
3929see various appearance of threads that, you know, there were two, then
3930three, then four emails.
3931And so if that thread was repeated in each of those forms, you
3932could individually count those and come up with a very large number
3933when, in fact, there had been one email at the beginning that was
3934classified or in the middle that then got forwarded back and forth
3935between a bunch of people.
3936So I don't know the answer to the individual emails, and I think
3937trying to count individually is a little bit misleading because it
3938overcounts potentially that.
3939But I would, you know, if you're telling me that is absolutely
3940your representation, then I'll accept that.
3941Mr. Parmiter. I think our time is up. Thank you.
3942Mr. Breitenbach. I think we'll take a break for lunch now.
3943[Recess.]
3944COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3945145
3946COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3947BY MS. KIM:
3948Q We are back on the record. The time is 2:46.
3949Mr. Strzok, this round is for the Democrats to question you.
3950I would like to ask you some general questions about the FBI's
3951investigative techniques. Have you ever been involved in any
3952investigations where the FBI did not follow with established protocols
3953on the use of human informants?
3954A No.
3955Q So a human informant wouldn't be sent into a certain network
3956by the FBI and then told to report back to the FBI?
3957A Explain that question more.
3958Q Would the FBI ever just dispatch a human informant into a
3959certain pre-established network with the goal of entrapping people from
3960within that network?
3961A No, not for the purpose of entrapment.
3962Q And does FBI ever conduct investigations to frame u.S.
3963citizens for crimes they did not commit?
3964A No.
3965Q Does the FBI conduct investigations to entrap U. S . citizens?
3966A No.
3967Q Are you aware of any instance where the FBI and DO) used
3968politically biased unverified sources in order to obtain a FISA
3969warrant?
3970A No.
3971COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3972146
3973COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3974Q Have you ever made a decision on the Trump investigation on
3975your own?
3976A No.
3977Q Are you aware of any --
3978A Let me back up. I don't -- I would not characterize it as
3979either confirming or not confirming whether or not there is an
3980investigation towards President Trump. It's safe to say I have not
3981made investigative decisions on my own that I can recall in any case.
3982Q Sure. And let me restate it. Thank you for the precision.
3983I am discussing the investigation into collusion with Russia that
3984Director Comey publicly acknowledged in March 2017. So, consistent
3985with your general experience, you did not make any investigative
3986decisions in that case by yourself without --
3987A Correct.
3988Q going through the proper investigative channels.
3989Okay. Are you aware of any instances where the FBI and DO]
3990manufactured evidence in order to obtain a FISA warrant?
3991A No.
3992Q Are you aware of the FISA court ever approving a FBI or DO]
3993warrant that was not based on credible and sufficient evidence?
3994A No.
3995Q Are you aware of any instances at the FBI or DO] opening an
3996investigation failing to follow all proper protocols to obtain a FISA
3997warrant?
3998A I am generally aware that there are inspection processes.
3999COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4000147
4001COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4002There may have been cases in the past where people - - again, you know,
4003whether it was a Woods file that lacked sufficient documentation, but
4004those are more administrative findings, and I don't have any specific
4005recollection.
4006Q Have you been a part of any investigation where the FBI and
4007DO) did not follow the proper procedures to obtain a FISA warrant?
4008A No.
4009Q Have you been a part of any attempts by the FBI and DO) to
4010intentionally mislead FISA court judges in an application for a FISA
4011warrant?
4012A No.
4013Q And that includes by omitting evidence or manufacturing
4014evidence?
4015A Correct.
4016Q Can you explain briefly what the Five Eyes alliance is?
4017A So sure. The Five Eyes refers to the countries of the U.S.,
4018Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. It is an
4019intelligence-sharing arrangement that is much more open and robust by
4020the nature of kind of common shared Western democratic values and
4021strategic interests.
4022Q And despite the shared nature of that five-country forum,
4023we do, in fact, maintain bilateral information-sharing relationships
4024outside of the formal Five Eyes relationship, right?
4025A Correct.
4026Q And those would all be proper channels through which to
4027COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4028148
4029COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4030receive intelligence from a foreign country?
4031A Yes.
4032Q Thank you. If you could -- if we could jump quickly to the
4033initiation of the Midyear Exam.
4034I understand that the IC IG referred this matter to the FBI. Is
4035that correct?
4036A Yes, that's correct.
4037Q And do you recall what the IC IG gave the FBI in terms of
4038evidence and information?
4039A I don't recall. That was - - I joined the investigation after
4040it was underway.
4041Q At the inspector general's hearing before our committees on
4042June 19th, 2818, Mr. Meadows said about the IC IG, quote: They were
4043so concerned that there might have been foreign infiltration into
4044Secretary Clinton's server that they went immediately to the FBI to
4045let them know abqut that.
4046He also says that the IC IG himself indicated that he went
4047literally that day to the FBI because he was really -- quote, really
4048concerned that there were some anomalies in the metadata that would
4049suggest that a foreign actor was getting copies of potential emails.
4050Mr. Meadows then asked the DOJ ' s inspector general whether it was,
4051quote, curious that FBI investigators did not talk to the IC IG about
4052the allegation on anomalies of metadata before closing out the Clinton
4053investigation.
4054Did the IC IG say anything to you about anomalies of metadata?
4055COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4056149
4057COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4058A I don't recall any discussion about anomalies in metadata.
4059Q And does the FBI typically investigate matters referred from
4060an IG office jointly with that IG's office, or does the FBI conduct
4061its own independent investigation?
4062A My experience is that it varies depending on the nature of
4063allegation, the nature of the IG involved.
4064Q And in this case, did you investigate in tandem with the IC
4065IG, or did you conduct an independent investigation?
4066A We did. We conducted an independent investigation. We had
4067recurring coordination with the IC IG. They were great partners, but
4068it was an independent FBI investigation.
4069Q Great. Thank you. Does the FBI place spies in u.s.
4070political campaigns?
4071A We do not.
4072Q Are you aware of any information that would substantiate the
4073claim that the DOJ is, quote, out to frame Donald Trump?
4074A I am not aware of any information to that effect.
4075Q And has the FBI or DOJ ever investigated the Trump campaign
4076or the Trump Presidency for political purposes?
4077A Certainly not for political purposes, and I am not, by that
4078answer, implying that there is or is not any other lawful predicated
4079investigation.
4080Q In your career at the FBI, have you ever witnessed any
4081investigative personnel letting their personal political views
4082influence in any way their official actions?
4083COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4084150
4085COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4086A No.
4087Q Are you aware of any instances where Lisa Page made a
4088professional judgment or took an official action due to her personal
4089political views?
4090A No.
4091Q Are you aware of any instances where Lisa Page made a
4092professional judgment or took an official action in the Clinton
4093investigation due to her personal political views?
4094A No.
4095Q Would you say that you are ·the authoritative source on the
4096interpretation of what your intent was behind a text message?
4097A I would.
4098Q And given that you are the authoritative source on your
4099intent behind a text message" do people continue to interpret your texts
4100in a way different from your stated intent in sending that text?
4101A I believe they do.
4102Q They do. Yes. When you were texting with Lisa Page" were
4103those texts supposed to be official communications" that is" between
4104the lead agent on the Clinton case and the special counsel to Andrew
4105McCabe?
4106A No.
4107Q So they were intended to be personal communications?
4108A Yes. Yes" personally, in the conversational type of way,
4109they were not" you know, kind of any official sort of communication
4110back and forth.
4111COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4112151
4113COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4114Q Do you acknowledge that it was a mistake to engage in personal
4115communications on your work device?
4116A I deeply regret those texts and the way that they have come
4117out and certainly the harm to my family and in the personal way that
4118they have been used. And I - - I say that, and I would draw a distinction
4119between there is an allowance for personal use in the text messages
4120by the FBI, so I think that that is how I think of that.
4121Q Okay. Thank you.
4122I think we can now turn to discussing some of the specific text
4123messages that have been the subject of some discussion today.
4124Ms. Kim. I would like to introduce the following document as
4125exhibit 1. We will mark it as exhibit 1.
4126[Strzok Exhibit No. 1
4127Was marked for identification.]
4128BY MS. KIM:
4129Q It's the March 3rd, 2016, text exchange. Here is the
4130numbered copy.
4131So, Mr. Strzok, this exchange shows you and Ms. Page discussing
4132Donald Trump over the course of 2 hours on the evening of Thursday,
4133March 3rd, 2016. On this evening, FOX News hosted a Presidential
4134primary debate with the four remaining candidates. Was the
4135Trump/Russian investigation open at this time?
4136A The investigation announced by Director Comey into
4137allegations of Russian collusion with members of the Trump campaign
4138was not open.
4139COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4140COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4141Q Did you watch the Presidential primary debate?
4142A I believe I watched the debate. If this was a primary
4143debate, I watched it that night.
4144Q And do you know if Lisa Page was watching this debate?
4145152
4146A I don't know. I mean, I don't know if that's inferred from
4147some of the texts in here. I haven't gone through it.
4148Q Sure.
4149A It appears that she was watching it.
4150Q Thank you.
4151Ms. Kim. I'm going to introduce another document. It's - - we'll
4152mark it exhibit 2.
4153[Strzok Exhibit No. 2
4154Was marked for identification.]
4155BY MS. KIM:
4156Q It's a March 4th, 2016, CNN article entitled "Republican
4157Debate Turns Dirty."
4158So I will read aloud from it. I'd like to direct you to the second
4159paragraph of the article. It reads, quote: Donald Trump opened the
4160GOP debate here by boasting about the size of his genitals. He
4161responded to recent comments from Marco Rubio in which the Florida
4162Senator joked about the size of Trump's hands and said, "You know what
4163they say about men with small hands." On the debate stage, Trump
4164stretched his hands out for the audience to see, then insisted the
4165suggestion that, quote, "something else must be small," unquote, was
4166false. Quote, "I guarantee you there's no problem," unquote, Trump
4167COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4168COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4169said to howls from the audience at the FOX debate.
4170Do you remember this moment from the debate?
4171A I do.
4172Q And do you remember what your reaction was to Trump's
4173statement about the size of his genitals?
4174153
4175A I was appalled that that sort of conversation was going on
4176amongst candidates for the nomination for President of the United
4177States.
4178Q Did you believe the subject was appropriate for a
4179Presidential debate?
4180A I did not.
4181Q So, with that context in mind, let's return to exhibit 1,
4182your text messages this day. The fourth message down, it's from Ms.
4183Page. It reads, quote: God, Trump is a loathsome human.
4184The time stamp is in GMT, but if we translate that into Eastern
4185time, that is 9:10 p.m. Eastern. Do you recall, again, whether Ms.
4186Page was watching this debate?
4187A I don't recall. I'm inferring from her later comments that
4188she was.
4189Q And do you understand her comment that Trump is, quote,
4190loathsome to be a response to this debate performance?
4191A I do.
4192Q In fact, Donald Trump also stated during that debate, quote:
4193Department of environmental protection, we are going to get rid of it
4194in almost every form. We are going have little tidbits left, but we
4195COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4196154
4197COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4198are going to take a tremendous amount out.
4199If we return to the text messages, there is a text from you - - I
4200want to say just around the halfway point, e2:2e:e4, on Friday. It
4201reads: OMG, he's an idiot.
4202And 2 minutes after that text, if you go down about four texts,
4203it says: Department of environmental protection, question mark,
4204exclamation point, question mark, exclamation point.
4205And then the next text says: God, Hillary should win lee million
4206to zero.
4207Do you remember if this was a response to Trump's statement in
4208the Republican Presidential debate about the department of
4209environmental protection?
4210A My sense of that text, looking now, is that it was meant to
4211convey my disappointment in the quality of the debate and some of the
4212candidates that were before the Republican ticket and that my
4213assessment of their statements of the crude, crass nature that I was - - I
4214was surprised and disappointed.
4215Q To the best of your knowledge, does the Federal Government
4216have a department of environmental protection?
4217A Not that I'm aware of.
4218Q So, when you were calling him an idiot and then typed
4219"department of environmental protection," question mark, exclamation
4220point, 2 minutes later, were you making the point that Donald Trump
4221was promising in a nationally televised Presidential primary debate
4222to cut a Federal department that does not exist?
4223COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4224155
4225COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4226A That is a reasonable inference of what I was thinking at the
4227time" yes.
4228Q So" again" your next text 2 minutes after the one about the
4229department of environmental protection states" quote: God" Hillary
4230should win lee million to zero.
4231In this text" were you stating a literal opinion that no one in
4232the country should vote for Donald Trump?
4233A No.
4234Q Were you stating your intention to help Hillary Clinton win
4235the general election through your professional deeds?
4236A No.
4237Q What did you mean by this text?
4238A It was my personal opinion" based on my viewing of the debate"
4239that it did not seem like a compelling candidate was coming out of the
4240Republican primary.
4241Q Earlier on this day" on March 3rd" 2e16" two Republican
4242Presidential nominees" the ones from 2ee8 and 2e12" also publicly
4243denounced Donald Trump.
4244I will represent to you that Mitt Romney called Donald Trump"
4245quote" a fraud" and" quote" a phony who would drive the country to the
4246point of collapse.
4247He also said" quote: He is playing the American public for
4248suckers. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be
4249President.
4250As soon as he was done with that speech" Senator John McCain
4251COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4252156
4253COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4254endorsed Mr. Romney's statements and said that Mr. Trump had made,
4255quote, dangerous pronouncements on national security.
4256It seems clear to me that both Governor Romney and Senator McCain
4257had some anti-Trump things to say on March 3rd, 2016. Do you have any
4258reason to believe that Mitt Romney has a deep anti-Republican bias?
4259A No.
4260Q Do you have any reason to believe that John McCain has an
4261anti-Republican bias?
4262A No.
4263Q Thank you.
4264Ms. Kim. I would like to introduce my next exhibit. It will be
4265marked exhibit 3. It is a May 3rd, 2016 -- no, sorry. Strike that,
4266please. The document I will introduce as exhibit 3 is a July 2016 text
4267exchange. July 21st, 2016.
4268[Strzok Exhibit No. 3
4269Was marked for identification.]
4270BY MS. KIM:
4271Q Mr. Strzok, I will direct you to a text from Ms. Page. It's
4272about eight texts down from the top. It's where she is emailing you
4273an article link with a title "Donald Trump Sets Conditions for Defending
4274NATO Allies Against Attack" with her personal comment, quote: This
4275is really shocking.
4276Do you remember this text?
4277A Reading it in retrospect, I do, but not before refreshing
4278my recollection.
4279COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4280157
4281COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4282Q And do you remember reading the article that Ms. Page sent
4283to you?
4284A Vaguely. I believe I read it. I could not tell you right
4285now what it said. I recall generally the context that it was
4286questioning the NATO alliance and those terms under which we
4287would -- we, the United States, might respond to an attack.
4288Q NOw, you're a national security expert. How important is
4289the NATO alliance?
4290A I don't know if I'd -- well, I don't know that I'd call myself
4291a national security expert, but certainly, I think, based on my training
4292and experience both in school and the military and the FBI, the NATO
4293alliance is extraordinarily important for a number of reasons, both
4294from a defense perspective, politically for Western democracies.
4295Q In your view, would it be a major diplomatic shift for the
4296United States to set conditions for defending NATO allies against
4297attack?
4298A I think it would be very significant to certainly change any
4299understanding that existed and form the basis of a set of deterrents
4300and conditions amongst the NATO allies in Europe.
4301Q Around 18 minutes after Ms. Page sent you this article, Ms.
4302Page texts you another link to an article. I will direct you to that
4303one. It is the text that starts: This campaign is like watching a
4304train wreck happen over and over and over again.
4305The article is entitled "How Donald Trump Picked His Running
4306Mate."
4307COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4308COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4309Ms. Kim. I'll introduce that as exhibit 4.
4310[Strzok Exhibit No. 4
4311Was marked for identification.]
4312BY MS. KIM:
4313158
4314Q I'll direct you to the end of the first paragraph. It's
4315describing a call that Donald Trump, Jr., made to a senior adviser to
4316Governor John Kasich of Ohio.
4317A If I can interrupt you. I think I've gotten the exhibit
4318talking about the NATO Defense article in your attempts --
4319Q I see. My apologies. Well, let me read aloud from this
4320article to you.
4321A Okay.
4322Q And I'll strike exhibit 4. Exhibit 4 has not been
4323introduced.
4324Quote: Donald, Jr., wanted to make the senior adviser of Mr.
4325Kasich's an offer nonetheless. Did Mr. Kasich have any interest in
4326being the most powerful Vice President in history? When Mr. Kasich's
4327adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald, Jr., explained that
4328his father's Vice President would be in charge of domestic and foreign
4329policy. Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?
4330Quote, making America great again, unquote, was the casual reply.
4331Do you think you read this article when Ms. Page sent it to you?
4332A I'm sure I read the NATO article. I believe I read the
4333running mate article.
4334Q Are you generally familiar with the way that Presidents and
4335COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4336159
4337COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4338Vice Presidents, again, very generally, divide their job duties?
4339A Generally, yes.
4340Q Did it concern you that Donald Trump, Jr., was offering Vice
4341Presidential candidates the portfolio of, quote, domestic and foreign
4342policy so the President can focus on, quote, making America get again?
4343A It did.
4344Q Why did that concern you?
4345A How the - - my view and - - of the Presidency is he is the chief
4346executive of the United States. He is responsible for the national
4347security of the United States, and there is nothing more important to
4348the chief executive's role than the security of our Nation. And so
4349the notion that anybody would abrogate that most important of roles
4350to his number two struck me as inappropriate, unusual, and
4351irresponsible.
4352Q Great. Thank you. So, with that context in mind, let's
4353turn back to exhibit 3, which is your text with Ms. Page from that day.
4354So, after she emailed you these two -- after she texted you these two
4355articles, you texted back, quote: Trump is a disaster. I have no idea
4356how destabilizing his Presidency would be.
4357What did you mean by this text?
4358A Looking at it now - - and my recollection is very much in the
4359context of the NATO comments and not -- although I do remember the
4360article about the Presidency and Vice Presidential roles. My concern,
4361certainly from my military experience, from my education experience,
4362is that the vitality, the critical nature of the NATO alliance and the
4363COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4364160
4365COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4366way that that plays not only with regard to the stability of the European
4367Union but the back and forth between the various countries and powers
4368in Europe potentially vis-a-vis Russia is of extraordinary importance
4369and something historically we have had for decades and decades and
4370decades, and that anybody that would come in and so quickly throw
4371fundamentally radical and untested and unchartered ideas out
4372potentially presented a significant destabilizing force on the kind
4373of geopolitical realities of the United States.
4374But, again, this is my personal opinion, this is my personal
4375belief about how I saw the political environment at the time. It is
4376not at all related to anything which bears on my official duties.
4377Q Got it. So, from your personal perspective, when you were
4378commenting that his Presidency could be, quote, destabilizing, can you
4379explain for me one more time what you meant would be destabilized?
4380A Sure. Looking at in the context of these articles, I believe
4381my statement meant at the time that it was destabilizing from the
4382potential impact on our NATO allies and the leadership role that the
4383United States has historically held in the free world.
4384Q Thank you.
4385Ms. Kim. I would like to move on to the text message about you
4386protecting our country, quote, at many levels. I will introduce that
4387as exhibit 4.
4388[Strzok Exhibit No. 5
4389Was marked for identification.]
4390BY MS. KIM:
4391COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4392161
4393COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4394Q This is a two-sided exhibit. I just want to let you know.
4395So" Mr. Strzok" this is a series of texts from August 6th" 2816"
4396where you appear to be discussing whether you will be getting a
4397promotion. I'd like to instruct you to start reading on the first page
4398around halfway down" starting with the text" quote: And that's
4399weighing on me much more than I want to admit to you.
4400It's about a little more than halfway down.
4401A Yes.
4402Q And then the next text says" quote: Getting" slash" not
4403getting the job" comma" not advising Bill.
4404So were you up for promotion in this time period?
4405A I was.
4406Q And what promotion were you up for?
4407A To Deputy Assistant Director.
4408Q And what was the process like for that promotion?
4409A It was" like most processes" there were a lot of very
4410competent folks who would be qualified for the job. I had started as
4411section chief not long before that in the early" early in the year"
4412so I was somewhat junior" tenurewise" 'and I was - - I was torn. I mean"
4413there are a variety of factors that go into deciding whether or not
4414to apply for a job" and this is a reflection of that kind of internal
4415deliberation that I was engaged in.
4416Q Got it. I think you elaborated a little bit about the
4417process. Three texts from the bottom of this page" you say: I know.
4418And as it stands" I'm going to have (and already do) a pretty tough
4419COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4420162
4421COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4422time with it. Five months, Lisa. Out of 19 years, 5 months because
4423Giacalone was too busy interviewing to be there to SES board it earlier.
4424There was literally no difference in what I was doing day to day.
4425What did that text mean?
4426A As I recall, this text involved some -- there was some
4427discussion or consideration, appropriately, about tenure and the
4428amount of time you had spent in any given job. My recollection of this
4429is that when I was initially selected to be the section chief of the
4430espionage section, that that occurred, that board, that official
4431personnel action, occurred later because people who they're scheduling
4432and whether or not they were present or not present caused that to be
4433delayed.
4434And so my point was: I was doing this job. I had been doing that
4435job, but the official naming of the position, which I eventually got,
4436was several months delayed based on personnel availability. For this
4437reading, it was -- you know, Mr. Giacalone was not available, but my
4438concern that, while I had been doing the same job throughout this entire
4439period of time, the de facto date of my promotion was later than it
4440otherwise might have been.
4441. Q I see. So, if you turn to the other side of the exhibit,
4442Ms. Page texts back: And maybe you're meant to stay where you are
4443because you're meant to protect the country from that menace.
4444A Yes.
4445Q She then sent you a link to a New York Times op-ed.
4446A Yes.
4447COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4448163
4449COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4450Q Was the menace, in your understanding, Donald Trump?
4451A No. I think, as I mentioned or answered earlier, the menace
4452that I saw was primarily the interference of the Government of Russia
4453in the Presidential elections for the Presidency -- or that's
4454redundant, for the Presidency of the United states. It was certainly
4455true that that -- the allegations at that time were that they were
4456colluding or may be colluding with members of Trump campaign. So I
4457see menace broadly primarily in the context of Russia, but certainly
4458in the context that they were allegedly colluding with members of the
4459Trump campaign. That was the -- that was how I saw it. But it was
4460primarily, as it has been my whole career, protecting America from
4461foreign threats.
4462Q Did you understand Ms. Page to be advocating for you to
4463secretly scheme to prevent Donald Trump from becoming President?
4464A No.
4465Q And did you in fact scheme to prevent Donald Trump from
4466becoming President?
4467A No.
4468Q The next text you wrote, quote: Thanks. It's absolutely
4469true that we're both very fortunate. And of course I'll try and
4470approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can
4471protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps.
4472So, given that you were talking about the promotion that you were
4473hoping to be getting, what did you mean by "many levels"?
4474A I meant that whatever level I held in my job, that, you know,
4475COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4476164
4477COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4478clearly I had put in for the position; I wanted to get it; I was not
4479certain that I would; and this is, in a way, me - - you know, her saying,
4480"Hey, look, you have a great job whatever level you are at," and my
4481trying to, you know, say to myself, yes, that's true: Whether I'm a
4482section chief, whether I'm a Deputy Assistant Director, I am blessed
4483to be in the FBI protecting America, and so that whether I am doing
4484that as a section chief specific to espionage investigations, whether
4485I am doing that as a Deputy Assistant Director, that those many levels,
4486those different levels, I can still make a significant contribution
4487to national security.
4488Q In fact, the next text from Ms. Page reads, quote: I know
4489it will too. But it's just a job. It's not a reflection of your worth
4490or quality or smarts.
4491Do you think that is also contextual support for the fact that
4492you were talking about the promotion that you could get or the job that
4493you currently held?
4494A Yes, that's entirely it.
4495Q Great. During this exchange, Ms. Page also texted you an
4496article from The New York Times about Captain Khan's family.
4497Did you read that article?
4498A I did. I may have already read it.
4499Q So, later on this page, Ms. Page wrote, quote: Trump should
4500go F himself.
4501A I don't see that.
4502Q No, it's not in there. I'm sorry. I can represent to you
4503COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4504165
4505COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4506that that is the next text in the series.
4507A All right.
4508Q When you - - when Ms. Page texts you the article about Captain
4509Khan's family and then wrote, quote, "Trump should go F himself," did
4510you understand her to be expressing her anger at Mr. Trump's treatment
4511of Mr. Khan's family?
4512A I did.
4513Q And when you wrote, "God, that's a great article. Thanks
4514for sharing. And F Trump," was that also your reaction -- were you
4515expressing your personal view?
4516A I was. That was my personal view about the statements he
4517had made about the Khan family.
4518Q Thank you. Ma'am.
4519Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Strzok, let me thank you for your patience.
4520I understand that there was ongoing questioning and quite a bit of
4521intensity. So let me just again thank you for your service.
4522I want to focus on -- I want to focus on an exhibit, exhibit 6,
4523dated August 15, 2916, text message regarding insurance policy.
4524[Strzok Exhibit No. 6
4525Was marked for identification.]
4526Ms. Jackson Lee. In this August 15, 2916, text message to Ms.
4527Page, you wrote, quote: I want to believe the path you threw out for
4528consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets
4529elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an
4530insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 49.
4531COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4532166
4533COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4534Do you recall the meeting you referenced in Andy's office who was
4535present?
4536Mr. Strzok. I don't recall.
4537Ms. Jackson Lee. Is that -- is it because there were a lot of
4538people or why?
4539Mr. Strzok. It depended. You know~ it was -- when I attended
4540meetings on the 7th floor~ the Director is kind of down to one end in
4541his office suite. The Deputy's office is in the middle. It would
4542sometimes happen -- and Andy has a large conference room -- it would
4543sometimes happen that we would meet with the Deputy Director.
4544I think~ in this instance~ if I recall correctly from
4545calendar-type things~ we may have briefed the Director and that
4546sometimes~ following those meetings~ we would kind of retire to the
4547Deputy's office to get out of the Director's hair and office space and
4548continue a more granular discussion there.
4549Ms. Jackson Lee. And so~ in that meeting~ where you moved from
4550place to place or office to office~ were there a lot of people~ or are
4551there any names that you can recall?
4552Mr. Strzok. No. So my -- I am assuming this~ and I could be very
4553wrong with all of them~ but people who were typically involved in the
4554discussions of both -- well~ in Midyear earlier~ but in some of the
4555Russia collusion investigations~ if this was coming out of a briefing
4556to the Director~ typically those would include the Director~ the
4557general counsel~ the Director's chief of staff~ the Deputy Director~
4558the Deputy Director's counsel~ Ms. Page~ the executive assistant
4559COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4560167
4561COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4562director, the assistant director, who's Bill Priestap, me, typically
4563John Moffa, a colleague who we were partners throughout all of this.
4564So, following briefings to the Director, frequently, obviously,
4565the Director would not continue, but his chief of staff, the general
4566counsel might or might not then go to a follow-on discussion.
4567Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. What was discussed at the meeting
4568and how to handle a variety of allegations -- let me just say, what
4569was discussed at the meeting?
4570Mr. Strzok. So, Congresswoman, I don 't recall all of the things
4571that were discussed at that meeting without looking at some FBI
4572material, and I don't know that it would shed light on this, but from
4573the text, it is apparent to me that we had a discussion, given the
4574information that we had received from an extremely sensitive source,
4575which predicated the Russia collusion investigations, that there was
4576a debate about how · aggressively we wanted to investigate those
4577allegations because the trouble is that frequently the more sensitive
4578the source, the more likely the FBI doing something investigatively
4579is likely to expose that source, and that could lead from anything to
4580the source getting killed to fired to public embarrassment, and any
4581number of bad things.
4582And so the debate, as I recall it, was, on the one hand, and my
4583belief of what this text refers to, that there was one school of thought,
4584of which Lisa was a member, saying the polls, everybody in America is
4585saying Secretary Clinton is the prohibitive favorite to be the next
4586President, and therefore, based on that, these allegations about the
4587COMMITTEE _SENSITIVE
4588168
4589COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4590Trump campaign, we don't need to risk that source. We can just take
4591our time. We can run a traditional year's long counterintelligence
4592operation, and we don't really need to worry because he's not going
4593to be elected.
4594As I recall it, my response was I don't think that can be part
4595of our decisionmaking. The FBI's job and responsibility to the
4596American people is to investigate and that, if there are members of
4597the Trump campaign who are actively illegally colluding with the
4598Government of Russia, that's something the American people need to
4599know, that's something candidate Trump potentially needs to know. And
4600equally, if they aren't guilty of anything, that's also important.
4601So my statement there is: We can't consider - - we can't take into
4602consideration the likelihood or unlikelihood of anybody's electoral
4603process. We need to go, ,based on the gravity of this allegation, go
4604investigate it and get to the bottom of it.
4605Ms. Jackson Lee. What status was the investigation at that
4606point? The beginning? The middle?
4607Mr. Strzok. It was the beginning.
4608Ms. Jackson Lee. So you were discussing how aggressive to be in
4609the investigation?
4610Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am.
4611Ms. Jackson Lee. That meeting might have been --
4612Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am. And so -- and the point -- and the
4613point, the analogy I am drawing is, you know, you're unlikely to die
4614before you're 40, but nevertheless, many people buy life insurance.
4615COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4616169
4617COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4618The similarity is that, regardless of what the polls are saying,
4619that Secretary Clinton is the favorite to win, however likely or not
4620it is who's going to win, just like life insurance, you have to take
4621into account any potential possibility. And it was simply -- it was
4622simply: You need to do your job based on something, regardless of
4623whether it's highly likely or not likely?
4624Ms. Jackson Lee. In the Congress, we say things like regular
4625order. You needed to do what the FBI does when issues like this come
4626before it. Is that what you're trying to say?
4627Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am, that, but also in the context of
4628how -- how much risk and how aggressively you wanted to --
4629Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just say -- you just said "how
4630aggressive." What would be the most aggressive course of action?
4631Mr. Strzok. I think the most aggressive course of action would
4632be to go out and, you know, simply do very overt things, start talking
4633to people and interviewing people. The trouble with that is -- there
4634are many problems with that.
4635One, people don't frequently tell you the truth when you talk to
4636them. A lot of things that you might find by doing some background
4637information will allow you to conduct a far more effective interview,
4638and certainly going out and doing that, people are immediately going
4639to be aware that somebody told the FBI the nature of this predicating
4640information, which would be a considerable harm and cost potentially
4641to that source.
4642Ms. Jackson Lee. I think you have answered this, but why would
4643COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4644170
4645COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4646that be considered aggressive?
4647Mr. Strzok. I -- the reason -- if what you're asking is why I
4648thought we should be aggressive.
4649Ms. Jackson Lee. Or why would some of those actions be considered
4650aggressive?
4651Mr. Strzok. Because they are -- they are things that are
4652very -- they are risky, and they're precipitative. They cause things
4653to -- you're kind of jumping to a final point without necessarily a
4654lot of insurance of being successful and without having potentially
4655a lot of the tools that you would be able to use.
4656You know, if I'm going to talk to you about your background, I
4657can do it, but if I talk to all the staff members in here about your
4658background, I'm going to know a lot more and do a better interview.
4659So aggressive is go straight and interview you. Prudent would be to
4660get other information, and there's a balance, obviously, in there.
4661Ms. Jackson Lee. Was there another option on the table besides
4662that approach?
4663Mr. Strzok. There was. Yes. And so that was what I think some
4664were advocating for that, you know, traditionally, because of how
4665sensitive counterintelligence sources can be, the work in intelligence
4666work can frequently be very fastidious, very cautious, very slow, and
4667taking very deliberate steps to ensure that anything we might do can't
4668be traced back to the reason we're doing it.
4669So that was an option. The problem with that is that frequently
4670takes a long time, and so, because of that, you know, it might take
4671COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4672171
4673COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4674years. And so the question was, and the point of this is, hey, one
4675side saying: Well, since Clinton is likely to be elected, we've got
4676years. We can take years to figure it out.
4677And my point was: Maybe we do, but if Candidate Trump is elected,
4678we have months, and we may find ourselves in a position where we have
4679these allegations potentially about people who are being nominated for
4680senior national security roles, and then we're in a really bad spot
4681because we don't know whether these allegations are true or falsej we
4682don't know the extent of these allegations and the truth and how
4683extensive or not.
4684So my advocacy was we need to pursue these cases in a way that
4685will allow us to be responsible and protecting the national security
4686of the United States.
4687Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just quickly say the energy that you put
4688behind this, if you were sworn, would you be able to say your analysis
4689that you just made, the analysis that what if this individual became
4690President and we had not been aggressive, could you, under oath, say
4691that you are not motivated by bias?
4692Mr. Strzok. Yes.
4693Ms. Jackson Lee. Under oath?
4694Mr. Strzok. Yes.
4695Ms. Jackson Lee. You can say that?
4696Mr. Strzok. Yes.
4697Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me ask this. So the option was a slower
4698versus let's move forward to a certain extent?
4699COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4700172
4701COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4702Mr. Strzok. Yes.
4703Ms. Jackson Lee. Let's return to your text then. You stated
4704that it should be - - that: I'm afraid you can't take that risk. It's
4705like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're
470648.
4707Can you explain what you meant by that text?
4708Mr. Strzok. Yeah, absolutely. And so, in the context of what
4709I just said about the path, my point there -- and there has been a
4710tremendous amount read into this that is absolutely inaccurate. The
4711point I was making there is, it is unlikely that you will die before
4712you're 48, but you still act in a way that addresses that possibility.
4713That is an analogy to somebody saying, "Hey, look, every pollster
4714and talking head thinks that Secretary Clinton is going to be elected,
4715and my responding, "Well, that may be true, but nevertheless, we need
4716to responsibly investigate this in the unlikely event, based on the
4717polls and the pundits and the experts, that candidate Trump is elected."
4718Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me quickly -- why did you advocate for
4719continuing the investigation? Excuse me. Let me move to another
4720question.
4721Did you mean that you had an insurance policy to prevent Trump
4722from becoming President?
4723Mr. Strzok. No.
4724Ms. Jackson Lee. And would you - - you just said" no. " Would you
4725be willing to say that under oath?
4726Mr. Strzok. I would be.
4727COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4728173
4729COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4730Ms. Jackson Lee. In fact, you did have a potent way to affect
4731his electoral chances going public with the investigation, right?
4732Mr. Strzok. Yes.
4733Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you go public with the investigation?
4734Mr. Strzok. No.
4735Ms. Jackson Lee. But you didn't in fact leak the fact of this
4736investigation?
4737Mr. Strzok. We did not. I did not.
4738Ms. Jackson Lee. Under oath, you would be able to say that you
4739did not?
4740Mr. Strzok. Yes.
4741Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me again retract from putting the words in
4742your mouth. Under oath, would you be able to say that you did not leak
4743the investigation?
4744Mr. Strzok. Yes.
4745Ms. Jackson Lee. Okay. Let me just get a few points that I think
4746are important as we sort of wrap in to the Clinton analysis here.
4747Is it fair to say that the - - and I'm not sure if I went over this,
4748but I want to hear it again. Is it fair to say the Russian investigation
4749is one with exceptional national security importance?
4750Mr. Strzok. Yes.
4751Ms. Jackson Lee. How did the Russia investigation's national
4752security importance compare to the importance of potentially reviewing
4753more emails in the Hillary Clinton investigation?
4754Mr. Strzok. Congresswoman, I think the best way - - the best way
4755COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4756174
4757COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4758for me to explain to you is to take it out of the context of any
4759particular individual or country because I think putting it in that
4760terms leads to -- leads to a bunch of inferences that aren't helpful.
4761I would say objectively, on the one hand, if you have an allegation
4762that any person has mishandled classified information, you need to look
4763at what that information is and where it might have led to, but those
4764are -- well, not frequent, those are the sorts of investigations in
4765the Counterintelligence Division that are almost, not commonplace, but
4766they are frequent.
4767And when you look at the damage those might cause national
4768security -- and clearly they might cause damage -- they are nothing
4769of the sort if you look at, not just any foreign nation, but a large
4770super power hostile foreign nation who is involving itself in the
4771election - - again, any election in the U. S. would be bad - - but in this
4772context, the election for the President of the United States, those
4773are extraordinarily different. They are both important. It is both
4774important that the FBI follow through on all these investigations, but
4775the damage to national security, the threat to national security is
4776absolutely exponentially different.
4777Ms. Jackson Lee. And so -- and thank you. How frequently does
4778the FBI investigate possible mishandling of classified information?
4779Mr. Strzok. Every day.
4780Ms. Jackson Lee. And how frequently does the FBI investigate
4781possible collusion between a major party Presidential candidate and
4782a hostile foreign policy?
4783COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4784175
4785COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4786Mr. Strzok. This is the first time I'm aware of in history.
4787Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me finish as I yield to my good friends.
4788Given the number of people who knew, if you had wanted to bury the
4789laptop, would that have been possible?
4790Mr. Strzok. I don't know that it would have been possible.
4791Ms. Jackson Lee. So can you put the delay in the context for us.
4792Would a month be -- between the discovery of the laptop and seeking
4793legal process be a significant delay in other cases?
4794Mr. Strzok. No. My experience is, in the context of a
4795mishandling case, that a delay of weeks or even months, particularly
4796when it comes to something like computer forensics, is not unusual.
4797I have had computers and laptops get processed in 2 days, and I've had
4798it take 3, 4 months, so a few weeks is not unusual at all.
4799Ms. Jackson Lee. Just in closing, you realize that the idea that
4800no leak was made of the Trump issue and investigation, which is of great
4801national security impact, and, however it was decided, pronouncement
4802was made regarding the Clinton emails, would you view that as disparate
4803treatment or would you understand the impact it would have in the midst
4804of a Presidential election?
4805Mr. Strzok. I do. I believe - - understand the impact it had on
4806the election, certainly to the extent anyone can understand that.
4807I would draw some issue with - - I think that disparate treatment
4808was appropriate, given the nature of the investigations. One was a
4809closed criminal matter. The other was a pending counterintelligence
4810matter, so I see those as very different.
4811COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4812176
4813COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4814Director Corney, you know, admittedly, we even -- with closed
4815criminal matters, we don't discuss that typically, but I think Director
4816Corney has testified extensively as to his reasoning why the FBI did
4817that, and I would defer to that record as to the reasoning, but I do - - I
4818do see them as --
4819Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you then view the Clinton emails as a closed
4820thoroughly investigated matter?
4821Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am.
4822Ms. Jackson Lee. And the resolution, you were comfortable with?
4823Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am.
4824Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
4825BY MS. KIM:
4826Q Mr. Strzok, there have been some questions asked about how
4827much thought you put into your text messages, how accurately the text
4828messages reflect your state of mind, so I would like to talk with you
4829about how you draft text messages?
4830A Okay.
4831Q Would you say that you put a lot of thought into crafting
4832and crystalizing your thoughts before you send a text message?
4833A No.
4834Q Do you do like a repeated drafting process to make sure you
4835are being absolutely clear about what you mean?
4836A I do not. They are a written form of communication,
4837conversation.
4838Q Would you consider text messages to be a form of perfect
4839COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4840177
4841COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4842verbal expression?
4843A No.
4844Q Or you know, the attitude that I generally take towards my
4845text messages is flippancy. They're quick. They're easy to send.
4846Would you also that say that your text messages are flippantly composed?
4847A Sometimes, yes.
4848Q And that's a separate question from your honesty, is that
4849not?
4850A Absolutely.
4851Q So you can both be totally honest and genuine in sending a
4852text message and still craft it badly or not have it completely reflect
4853your intent when you sent it. Is that right?
4854A Right.
4855Q Thank you. And then I'd like to dive back into going over
4856your text messages again. So I think the next one we'll go to is the
4857text message -- the one about whether Donald Trump would become
4858President and whether we would stop it.
4859A Okay.
4860Q So I'm giving you a page from the inspector general's report.
4861We don't have these text messages in the production copy.
4862A Yes. Okay.
4863Q So, on August 8th, 2016, Ms. Page reportedly texted to you,
4864quote: He's not ever going to become President, right? Right?
4865And you responded, quote: No, no, he's not. We'll stop it.
4866Do you remember this text?
4867COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4868178
4869COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4870A I don't. I do, thinking about it now. I am not saying I
4871didn't write it, but at the time, I did not recall writing this.
4872Q And reading it today, do you understand Ms. Page to be asking
4873you about your work on the investigation that Director Corney disclosed
4874in March 2017?
4875A Not at all.
4876Q Do you take her comment as expressing her personal political
4877fears that Donald Trump will become President?
4878A I do.
4879Q You wrote, quote: No, no, he's not. We'll stop it.
4880Did you mean that you intended to affect the outcome of the
4881Presidential election through any official action?
4882A No.
4883Q Who is the "we" in that text message?
4884A Again, my sense is that writing that, this is reassuring
4885something that, no, the American people will never elect him to be the
4886President, and so the "we," whether that's the American people and
4887whether that's the democratic process, it's simply not going to happen
4888and don't worry about it. It's a personal sense of reassurance, not
4889anything else.
4890Q And again, did you have the ability to affect the outcome
4891of the Presidential election through a personal or professional action?
4892A Probably.
4893Q For example, you could have disclosed the existence of this
4894probe, right?
4895COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4896COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4897A Yes.
4898Q But you didn't. Is that correct?
4899A Correct.
4900179
4901Ms. Kim. You knowJ so much ink has been spilled on the secret
4902society that I think I would like to touch on that J so I will introduce
4903that text as exhibit 8.
4904[Strzok Exhibit No. 8
4905Was marked for identification.]
4906BY MS. KIM:
4907Q It's the November 3rd - - actually J exhibit 8 is a little bit
4908before the secret society text. It's the November 3rd J 2016 J text
4909message.
4910So I would like to direct your attention to the 3rd text from the
4911bottom of this page. On November 3 J 2016 J you wrote to Ms. Page: Shh J
4912don't tell anyone.
4913A Okay. I have a different set. I have starting on
4914November 8.
4915Q Starting on November 8. Let me show you my November 3rd
4916copy.
4917A Okay.
4918Q On November 3rd J 2016 you wrote: Shh J don't tell anyone.
4919Meeting invite. Thank you. Good job. Calendar handout.
4920Can you explain that text?
4921A Yes. I had -- and I had not recalled that text at all. I
4922had purchased a set of -- every year J somebody in Russia puts out a
4923COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4924180
4925COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4926Vladimir Putin calendar. Every month, there is a variety of photos
4927of Vladimir Putin riding a horse or a bear or holding a child or a kitten
4928or engaged in some military display of Russian patriotism, and as a
4929kind of a morale building and thank you to the senior members of the
4930Russian investigation, I got a series of these calendars to give out
4931as sort of a thank you for doing a good job, for working extraordinarily
4932hard because people had been working around the clock throughout the
4933summer and fall.
4934Q Right.
4935Ms. Kim. I think I have a picture of that calendar. I'm going
4936to introduce it as exhibit 8.
4937Mr. Strzok. 9, because we have 8?
4938Ms. Kim. Exhibit 9, pardon.
4939[Strzok Exhibit No. 9
4940Was marked for identification.]
4941BY MS. KIM:
4942Q Is this the calendar that you intended to hand out?
4943A I believe this is one of the months from the calendar, yes.
4944Q And you said that it was intended as a morale boosting?
4945A Yeah, kind of a snarky joke gift of, you know, related to
4946some of the absurdities of Russian patriotism and propaganda.
4947Q Got it . With that context, let .' s return to exhibit 8, which
4948I believe I've already marked. It's the November 8th text. I think
4949if you go to the sixth text from the bottom, Ms. Page wrote: Are you
4950even going to give out your calendars? Seems kind of depressing.
4951COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4952181
4953COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4954Maybe it should just be the first meeting of the secret society.
4955of?
4956Mr. Strzok, is there a secret society at the FBI?
4957A Absolutely not.
4958Q Has there ever been a secret society that you've been aware
4959A Not to my knowledge.
4960Q Did you understand Ms. Page's text to be suggesting that you
4961start a secret society?
4962A No.
4963Q Do you think Ms. Page was just making a joke about whether
4964you intended to hand out your Putin calendars?
4965A Yes.
4966Q I think we have about 4 minutes left. I'm sorry for jumping
4967around.
4968A That's all right.
4969Q My slimmest set of questions deal with the opening of the
4970Clinton investigation actually.
4971A Okay.
4972Q Was it the FBI's decision or the DO) 's decision to designate
4973that case with an unknown subject or unsub?
4974A I don't know. That occurred before I began.
4975Q To your knowledge, did the unsub designation change the FBI's
4976investigative decisions or strategies at all?
4977A No.
4978Q You discussed briefly what a headquarters special is. Did
4979COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4980COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4981that staffing decision or that designation change the FBI's
4982investigative decisions or strategies at all?
4983A No.
4984Q What's a sensitive investigative matter?
4985182
4986A A sensitive investigative matter, a SIM, I'd have to defer
4987to the guidebook for the exact definition, but essentially it's anytime
4988there's a particularly sensitive matter that's involved that might be
4989a politician, a member of the media, a clergyman, or some kind
4990of - - there are other categories, including a catchall, something that
4991requires, by our regulations, a higher level of oversight and approval.
4992Q And does that designation change the FBI's substantive
4993investigative decisions?
4994A No, except for the context with, you know, if you were going
4995after a lawyer, a clergyman, a member of the media, there might be
4996individual restrictions or regulations on obtaining records or doing
4997certain investigative techniques, but broadly, investigative
4998strategywise, no, it doesn't change it.
4999Q Who is George Toscas?
5000A George Toscas, I believe, was at the time, and maybe still,
5001the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the National Security Division
5002of DOJ.
5003Q Is he a career prosecutor?
5004A He is.
5005Q In your experience, is Mr. Toscas an unbiased and independent
5006prosecutor?
5007COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5008183
5009COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5010A Yes.
5011Q Have you ever witnessed Mr. Toscas acting based on improper
5012motives, such as political bias?
5013A No.
5014Q And where he disagreed with the FBI, w.ere those disagreements
5015based on legitimate legal differences?
5016A In my experience, yes.
5017Q Were they ever based on political differences?
5018A No.
5019Q Did any political appointee at the DO] ever intervene or
5020attempt to intervene in the Midyear investigation?
5021A Not to my knowledge.
5022Q Did any political appointee at DO] issue orders on how to
5023conduct the Midyear investigation?
5024A Not to my knowledge.
5025Ms. Kim. I think I'm fine ending the chapter -- this chapter
5026here. I will see you again soon. Thank you. The time is 3:40.
5027[Recess.]
5028COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5029184
5030COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5031[3:52 p.m.]
5032Mr. Baker. We'll go back on the record. And let the record
5033reflect it is 3:52 p.m.
5034BY MR. BAKER:
5035Q I want to go back just a minute to a topic we've talked about
5036earlier, certainly a topic that has also been in the media, the
5037relationship you had with Ms. Page.
5038Prior to the texts becoming public, was the relationship, the
5039improper part of the relationship, was that known in the
5040Counterintelligence Division prior to the texts?
5041A I am not aware if it was or was not. I don't believe so.
5042Q So were you ever called in by any of your superiors and
5043counseled or talked to about the matter, any concerns they had about
5044it or that they'd heard about it or --
5045A Yeah, I don't want to get into a discussion about the
5046relationship I had with Ms. Page or that discussion with others,
5047because I think what I can tell you, maybe, if what you're asking is
5048was, you know, anything inappropriate of that nature a decision point
5049or anything like that, not to my recollection. But I'd rather stay
5050away from discussion on --
5051Q Not even -- I'm asking not even whether it was a decision
5052point in anything. As part of their official supervisory duties, your
5053superior -- I believe you testified earlier, you answer -- as a DAD,
5054you answer to an assistant director. Do you have a recollection of
5055an assistant director, totally unrelated to any casework, calling you
5056COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5057185
5058COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5059in as a subordinate during any kind of official review or performance
5060appraisal and mentioning that the relationship had been brought to
5061their attention and just either admonishing you or letting you know
5062about it or making any mention to you of it at all?
5063A Again, I think my preference would be not to get into a
5064discussion about those sort of personnel-type matters. I'm happy to
5065answer questions you have about my work and my work performance and
5066what I did and didn't do, but I don't want to go down the path of talking
5067about things that were unrelated to work decisions or work activities
5068with regard to the extramarital affair.
5069Q Well, wouldn' t it be a work activity if a superior is calling
5070you in to ask you about some sort of conduct in the workplace?
5071A I see that as a separate and distinct issue. You've got a
5072personnel issue or potentially anything that has to do with that, as
5073opposed to what we're here today to discuss, which my understanding
5074is my actions with regard to the Clinton investigation, the Russia
5075investigations, and other work-type activity.
5076Q There's been talk about texts, texting. And there's been
5077some emails that the committees have reviewed. What type or how many
5078di fferent platforms of communication did you engage with with Ms. Page?
5079A Well, I mean, it varied. So there were certainly there
5080are the texts on the Bureau Samsungs. There were texts on personal
5081iPhones that we had. We exchanged and this is -- you know, we
5082exchanged Link messages, which are kind of an instant messaging
5083application on our Secret side computers at work. We certainly talked
5084COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5085186
5086COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5087on the phone~ talked in person~ emailed~ both on and~ again~ this
5088was work-type email -- the 0 side~ Secret side~ TS side.
5089Q You~ as a DAD in the Counterintelligence Division~ do you
5090work in a SClF? Is your office in a SCIF?
5091A Yes.
5092Q So~ when you're doing texts~ you were not in a SClF.
5093A Correct.
5094Q Okay. Because you wouldn't be allowed to have a -A
5095Right.
5096Q -- personal communication device in one.
5097Did you use as a platform~ with any frequency at all~ any
5098personally owned communication devices~ any personal email accounts?
5099A We - - yes~ both personal emails and~ as I think I mentioned~
5100personal iPhones.
5101Q Would you be willing to make the texts or contents of any
5102of those personal communications available to the committee?
5103A I was asked by the IG to do it. I agreed to do it. I reviewed
5104it~ and there were not any still resident on my personal devices.
5105Mr. Goelman. Just to clarify~ we were asked to provide any
5106work-related communications on Special Agent Strzok's personal
5107devices. And he reviewed and found that there weren't any ~ and we told
5108the IG that.
5109We have not agreed~ nor do we agree now~ to open up all of Special
5110Agent Strzok' s personal communications on his personal devices to the
5111committee or anybody.
5112COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5113187
5114COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5115BY MR. BAKER:
5116Q What about the official communications on the personal
5117devices that you made available or reviewed for the IG, would they be
5118made available to the committee?
5119A My recollection is there were no official communications on
5120any personal devices or personal emails that I had in my possession.
5121Mr . Breitenbach. Did you make that determination, whether they
5122were personal or work-related?
5123Mr. Strzok. Yes. And there were -- you know, as a fact of the
5124matter, following the -- at some point, I -- you know, it was related
5125to personal reasons - - deleted all those. But they were the personal
5126communications, not work ones.
5127Mr. Breitenbach. And, at any point, did the FBI, the IG, or any
5128other investigator attempt to obtain legal process to obtain those
5129personal communications?
5130Mr. Strzok. I am unaware of any.
5131Mr. Breitenbach. Thank you.
5132Mr. Baker. During any of the Midyear investigation meetings that
5133you would have, when -- I assume at some point, and maybe I'm wrong,
5134that there would be some discussion about possible charges. Often,
5135in an investigation, you look at possible charges early on to figure
5136what elements of a crime you might have to prove and adjust
5137investigative strategy accordingly.
5138Was there discussions at any point about what possible charges
5139could be levied based on the facts when the case was opened and then
5140COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5141188
5142COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5143as the case went on?
5144Mr. Strzok. Yes. I don't know -- again, I came in after the
5145case opening, but, certainly, in this case, as is my experience in most
5146cases, there was a discussion with the prosecutors about what charges
5147might be there and the elements of the crime, the strength and weakness
5148of the evidence, and applying the facts against the law.
5149BY MR. SOMERS:
5150Q At what point did those discussions, let's say, begin?
5151A I recall - - what typically - - and there are different sorts
5152of discussions. So I recall probably fairly early on. And I could
5153not tell you what or when those dates were.
5154But, you know, typically, you look at the set of facts that you
5155have before you, the set of allegations, and you say, okay, what laws
5156do we have that might apply to this and what are the elements of those
5157laws. And so that's kind of the initial way, as you're trying to scope
5158an investigation and understand what the various investigative avenues
5159are.
5160That evolves over time. You become aware of new facts, which may
5161give rise to looking at different laws or different statutes. You
5162begin to understand where the evidence is, where the facts are, and
5163where it's not.
5164And then, from that, you can begin -- and certainly this is
5165largely a prosecutor-driven exercise -- begin to understand what
5166charges are possible, likely, still unknown, or less likely.
5167So that -- it's a fluid process. It isn't a kind of --
5168COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5169189
5170COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5171Q Is the fluid process, are those discussions, I mean, are
5172there pure discussions of -- well, let's just back up for a second.
5173Which statutes were discussed that you recall?
5174A I could not give you an entire list. Broadly, I remember
5175discussions across the course of the investigation about statutes
5176regarding mishandling of classified information, statutes involving
5177obstruction, statutes involving false statements, statutes involving
5178Federal Records Act and that act.
5179I am sure there are others, but, again, I would have to go back
5180to, kind of, the case file and consult with the team and particularly
5181the attorneys about what they were thinking of.
5182Q Are those discussions, are those, here's what evidence we're
5183finding, how does that fit with the law? Or are they pure legal
5184discussions of the Espionage Act requires X to be proved?
5185A I think those are the same. I look at those as very similar
5186and connected, so I would say both.
5187I think the goal - - I mean, you're investigating - - in a criminal
5188case, you're investigating to determine whether or not there's a
5189violation of law. You're not just investigating to get info. So
5190investigations are driven towards establishing whether or not a
5191violation of law occurred.
5192In intel cases, it's different, obviously, but with this -- and
5193then, certainly, from the standpoint of, you know, any computer
5194intrusion-type statutes, whether we could show that or demonstrate
5195that.
5196COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5197COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5198But, to your question, both of those things are going on.
5199Q To the Clinton investigation, specifically servers -A
5200Yes.
5201Q -- because you differentiated between a
5202counterintelligence, I believe, investigation and a criminal
5203investigation in that last response.
5204190
5205A Yeah. And so the Clinton investigation, I think I laid out
5206earlier, you know, kind of, the three primary goals of the
5207investigation, of: Was there classified information, and how did it
5208come to be there; who put it there, and what was their state of mind,
5209and what was the reason it came to be placed there; and did a foreign
5210adversary gain access to it.
5211That last one is very intelligence in nature. I mean, yeah, maybe
5212you could prove a criminal violation of some sort of computer intrusion,
5213but the goal from that is much more of an intelligence community damage
5214assessment sort of perspective of, you know, did foreign power X get
5215this; if so, what does that mean, what's the impact in terms of
5216mitigating whatever if there was classified information, what we
5217would have to do to mitigate and protect things.
5218Q These discussions of the legal standards, were these FBI?
5219Were they all FBI-DO], or did you have FBI-FBI conversations about the
5220legal standards?
5221A I'm sure we had both. These are predominantly
5222attorney-driven conversations and predominantly DO] attorney-driven
5223conversations.
5224COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5225191
5226COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5227So, you know, again, prosecutors make a decision about what
5228statutes to charge or not charge. And they are the ones whose job
5229primarily is to focus on the elements of crime, the sufficiency of the
5230evidence, the paucity of evidence, and all the considerations that go
5231into admissibility and credibility and everything like that.
5232So, you know, it is frequently my experience that those are
5233largely attorney- and DOJ-driven discussions.
5234Q So did DOJ tell you what was legally required to prove gross
5235negligence under the Espionage Act?
5236A I remember a lot of discussion about the gross negligence
5237point, and it was -- I'm not an attorney. I remember the attorneys
5238talking at length about that, bec~use it's obviously relevant to one
5239aspect of 793. It also was relevant based on its, you know, appearance
5240or not in the speech that Director Corney gave. But the attorneys did
5241discuss that at some length.
5242Mr. Baker. When you say attorneys, that would include Department
5243of Justice attorneys and FBI attorneys?
5244Mr. Strzok. Yes.
5245BY MR. SOMERS:
5246Q Do you recall attorneys telling you that intent was a
5247required element of gross negligence?
5248A Well, it - - I don't recall with regard to the discussion of
5249gross negligence. I do remember there's a problem -- and, again, I'm
5250getting out and ahead of my nonlegal skis. One of the elements of 793
5251does not include an intent provision, and there was some legal question
5252COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5253192
5254COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5255about that and the strength of that statute.
5256Q Were you ever told that any of the provisions in 793, that
5257the Department would not charge under --
5258A I was never told the Department wouldn't charge something.
5259I think the discussion was always in the context of what the historical
5260record of using those statutes had been.
5261Q I'm going to ask you sort of a related question. Based on
5262your investigation, what is your understanding of why Secretary Clinton
5263used a private email server?
5264A What she told us -- and I believe this, I think is that
5265she used it for personal convenience, that she was not a technical
5266person, that she wanted one device where she could do work and personal
5267things, and, if I recall correctly, that she had set up - - or somebody
5268in the Clinton arena had set up that server during her Senate time or
5269that she began using it in that time and she simply wanted that same
5270convenience.
5271Q So there was a mix of emails on the server?
5272A Sure. That's correct, yes. What do you mean by mix?
5273Q Of all those categories you just described of
5274A There were a variety of things in that server, including
5275those categories of things that I described.
5276Q So the Clinton Foundation was on the server?
5277A I believe on one of the servers, if not others.
5278Q Were you given access to those emails as part of the
5279investigation?
5280COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5281193
5282COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5283A We were not. We did not have access. My recollection is
5284that the access to those emails were based on consent that was
5285negotiated between the Department of Justice attorneys and counsel for
5286Clinton.
5287Q Didn't the FBI have possession of the server?
5288A Initially, no, and then we obtained possession of servers
5289over time.
5290Q So, when you had possession of the servers, there was an
5291agreement that you weren't able to look for Clinton Foundation emails
5292on the server?
5293A The possession of those servers were based upon the
5294negotiation of Department of Justice attorneys for consent. My
5295understanding is, frequently -- you know, we wanted -- as an
5296investigator, I want as much information as I can get. I don't want
5297limitations. I don't want you to tell me a date range is off limits,
5298a domain is off limits, anything is.
5299But the reality is, as you well know, we are constrained by the
5300law. And I think there was a sense that, again, according to the
5301attorneys, we lacked probable cause to get a search warrant for those
5302servers and projected that either it would take a very long time and/or
5303it would be impossible to get to the point where we could obtain probable
5304cause to get a warrant, so they negotiated consent.
5305I think it's true, and somebody mentioned earlier that, you know,
5306we were -- I was, but that the FBI team was certainly, I think,
5307comparatively aggressive, which is my experience. Agents tend to be
5308COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5309194
5310COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5311much more aggressive in trying to get information. Prosecutors look
5312at it from a different set of perspectives.
5313But the answer is we had it voluntarily. We had it voluntarily
5314in the context -- in the case of the servers, voluntarily in the context
5315of a consent that was worked out between DO] attorneys and counsel for
5316Secretary Clinton.
5317Q So what does that mean in terms of a search of the servers,
5318that it was a -- so you have access to the entire universe.
5319A Yes.
5320Q Does that mean, are we talking search terms? I mean, what
5321was the
5322A I would have'to go back and check the file. It would include
5323things like search terms. We had a significant filter team that was
5324put in place to work through the various terms of the various consent
5325agreements. And those could be -- and this is not an exclusive
5326list -- limits of domains, of date ranges, of people. But that's not
5327an exclusive list.
5328Q Did you
5329BY MR. PARMITER:
5330Q Can I jump in just for a minute here and sort of drill down
5331a little bit more on the specific statutes?
5332A Uh-huh.
5333Q Let me show you, first of all -- we're going to mark it as
5334exhibit A for majority.
5335So this is 18 USC 793. One of my colleagues, or perhaps it was
5336COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5337195
5338COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5339you, mentioned gross negligence before. I believe if you turn to page
53402, you'll find that in 793(f).
5341A Yes.
5342Q So you had mentioned a little earlier that you thought there
5343was a - - not an intent requirement in one of the statutes. Do you see
5344an intent requirement in (f)l?
5345A Again, what I hesitate to do - - I am not an attorney, so when
5346I --
5347Q Sir, I don't want your legal opinion. I'm just, like,
5348wondering whether a plain reading of the statute indicates anything.
5349A My plain reading, understanding, and my historical
5350recollection through application of this statute is that (f) does not
5351contain a kind of scienter requirement.
5352Q Okay. At least not in (f)l.
5353A Correct.
5354Q (f)2 may, but -A
5355Yes.
5356Q -- (f)l does not.
5357A Granted.
5358Q All right. Great.
5359So, in your experience, what's the definition of Secret material?
5360A Secret material, if I recall correctly, is material that,
5361if disclosed without authorization, could reasonably be expected to
5362cause serious damage to national security.
5363Q Great. What about Top Secret material?
5364COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5365196
5366COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5367A Same definition but, I believe, exceptionally grave damage
5368to national security.
5369Q All right.
5370So, as Secretary of State -- would it be reasonable to conclude
5371that whoever the Secretary of State is has lawful possession of
5372classified material?
5373A It depends on what the classified material is. I don't want
5374to go down a technical rabbit hole, but, as you may know, it's not only
5375clearance-level but need-to-know. I can envision scenarios where the
5376Secretary of State might not have a need to know the details of some
5377covert action program that didn't involve State.
5378But that's a long answer for a -- I don't agree exactly with how
5379you worded the question, but --
5380Q Okay. But it would not be the case the Secretary of State
5381is an office that never is in contact with classified material.
5382A Correct. Correct.
5383Q Okay. So would it be reasonable to assume that the
5384classified material recovered by the FBI from Secretary Clinton's
5385private server related to the national defense, given the definition
5386of Secret material?
5387A The classified information, yes.
5388Q Okay. Would it be also reasonable to conclude that, by being
5389on a private, unsecure server, that the information had been removed
5390from its proper place?
5391A Yes.
5392COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5393197
5394COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5395Q Okay.
5396What role did you play in drafting the Director's press statement?
5397A I was one of several individuals who reviewed it, edited it.
5398There was kind of a couple -- several kind of parallel tracks. One
5399was kind of the case facts -- what we did, what we could say, assert,
5400what we couldn't assert. There was a tremendous amount of legal
5401back-and-forth about what was accurate, what was, you know,
5402appropriate. And then just kind of a broader, how to effectively
5403communicate what he was trying to say. But I was one of many people
5404making edits to it.
5405Q At any point did the words "gross negligence" appear in the
5406Director's statement?
5407A Yes, my recollection is that it did.
5408Q And when were those -- were those changed at some point?
5409A They were.
5410Q And what were they changed to?
5411A I believe "extremely careless" is the phrase that was used
5412instead.
5413Q Do you recall the discussion surrounding that change or why
5414it was deemed necessary and who was involved?
5415A I remember generally a discussion about that topic, amongst
5416many other topics. My recollection is attorneys brought it up, and
5417these, of course, were DOJ attorneys. And the discussion, as I recall
5418it, was kind of getting into the nitty-gritty of how "gross negligence"
5419is defined as a term of art in statute and whether or not that should
5420COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5421198
5422COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5423be used. But it was the OGe, it was the legal folks, the Director,
5424people who had, kind of, that legal experience turning that around.
5425Q Okay. Did you make that change, or did someone else do it?
5426A I believe it was done from my computer because I had the
5427biggest office. And so my recollection is several of us sat down and
5428made the first cut of taking 8, 9, 1e people's comments and putting
5429it all into the first revision - - or a revision. And then, as I'm sure
5430you've seen from production, there are about 8e billion subsequent
5431revisions by a similar number of people.
5432BY MR. BREITENBACH:
5433Q Yeah. Just to continue down this line, who is making the
5434call to the Director to recommend charges or not to charge Mrs. Clinton?
5435A I think that is ultimately the Director's call based on his
5436receipt of the facts from us.
5437So I think the investigative team -- me, Jon, you know,
5438Bill - - would sit there and say, kind of, here are all the things we Ire
5439saying. The attorneys would sit and say -- you know, and attorneys
5440from, kind of, line - - the line OGC attorneys up through Deputy General
5441Counsel and General Counsel saying, "Here's how we think about these
5442facts as they apply to the law," as well as, "In our discussions with
5443DOJ, this is their historical way that they have applied the law against
5444facts like these," and that, ultimately, the Director took into
5445consideration all those things and kind of came to his conclusions.
5446Q But it sounds like you sort of left the statutory
5447interpretation to the lawyers.
5448COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5449199
5450COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5451A Well, I leave the interpretation and legal understanding of
5452that to the attorneys. My experience, certainly, is that it is very,
5453you know, confoundingly difficult sometimes to get DO] excited and
5454interested in prosecuting baseline mishandling of classified
5455information cases. So the historical record of that - - and I'll defer
5456to the FBI for whether or not we've got statutory gaps in mishandling
5457of classified information or not. But those decisions, prosecution
5458decisions, decisions of whether or not facts represent a violation of
5459the law, are almost always done ultimately by the prosecutors.
5460Agents participate in those discussions. Agents are critical in
5461the gathering of those facts, and frequently there's a partnership
5462there. But that choice, that decision, that moving forward is a
5463prosecutorial one.
5464Q But, in this case, it wasn't.
5465A Right.
5466Q It was Director Comey making the prosecutorial or
5467nonprosecutorial decision.
5468A That's correct. And I believe, if I recall correctly, the
5469Attorney General indicated that she would accept the FBI's
5470recommendation of --
5471Q So is there a gap, do you think, as an agent, if your lawyers
5472are telling you that a particular statute requires an element if there
5473is another statute whose element is met by the evidence?
5474A I wouldn't call it a gap. My recollection and what I'm
5475assuming, if what you're asking is whether or not the elements of 793 (f)
5476COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5477200
5478COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5479were met, that was --
5480Q No. No, actually, if your lawyers are only telling you one
5481part of a statute, and you - - I think you indicated that you're relying
5482on your lawyers to interpret the law as it exists for you as the agent
5483A Uh-huh.
5484Q -- and your lawyers are failing to advise you that a
5485particular part of the statute would meet the elements of the offense
5486based on the evidence that you as the agent have collected, is that
5487problematic, in your mind, that you're -- is that a gap, in your
5488understanding? Or is that something that
5489A I don't think that happens. So that hypothetical is not my
5490experience, certainly in this case. I think you have different groups
5491of attorneys. For instance, you have the DO] attorneys who have their
5492perspective. But we also have extraordinarily competent FBI attorneys
5493who frequently will play the role of advocate for the agents. And
5494agents have their experience in working cases that, hey, I remember
5495we did it this time, why can't we do it now.
5496So, if that hypothetical were true, I might agree with you, but
5497I don't think that's an accurate hypothetical.
5498Q Did you ask whether there was an element of the offense with
5499regard to the mishandling statute that could have been met that did
5500not include willfulness or knowledge that you're sending classified
5501information?
5502A My recollection is we looked at the entirety of the -- you
5503know, 794 was not even considered. But we looked at the entire body
5504COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5505201
5506COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5507of statutes which applied to the mishandling of classified information
5508and had extensive discussions about it between prosecutors and the
5509investigative team and then certainly among the senior management team
5510of the FBI.
5511Q 50, I guess, to drill down, did you understand that there
5512was the possibility, if you had found evidence of mishandling of
5513classified information, that there was an offense that did not include,
5514as you mentioned, a scienter or an intent or willfulness statute?
5515A Yes. And, as was pointed out by multiple attorneys, the use
5516of that statute has been extraordinarily rare in U. 5. history. There
5517has been occasionally use, as I recall, in UCMJ action. But it is both
5518rare and, I believe, if I recall correctly, there have been some
5519indications that it might be constitutionally defecti ve because of lack
5520of intent. And, as a result of that and other reasons, DOJ has used
5521it exceedingly sparingly.
5522Q Well, it's never been held constitutionally defective, and
5523it's still good law in the books, as you are aware?
5524A It is good law in the books. And what I'm telling you is,
5525in the context of an analysis of that statute and applying it to the
5526facts of this case,. the attorneys were fairly unanimous that we did
5527not bring a fact pattern like this - - we have not brought fact patterns
5528like this to charges of that statute.
5529Q Okay.
5530Changing back to -- I know you're not interested in discussing
5531any details of your relationship with Ms. Page, but I think it's
5532COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5533202
5534COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5535important for us to know the level of knowledge that the Department
5536or the Bureau itself, Bureau management, had with regard to any
5537indiscretions that may have occurred. Did they?
5538A I don't know what they did or didn't. I would tell you - - and
5539I think why it's relevant that - - why I'm saying this isn't necessarily
5540relevant is that my understanding of Bureau regulation is that,
5541whatever morally you may think of an extramarital affair, it is not
5542prohibited by Bureau regulation or policy.
5543Certainly, if somebody is in your chain of command, if there's
5544any sort of impropriety, of favoritism, or things like that, it is.
5545But simply an extramarital relationship is not.
5546So, to the extent it's not, it does not strike me as relevant to
5547my work and --
5548Q Were you ever counseled on the affair?
5549A Again, I don't want to get into personnel counseling matters.
5550I am happy to discuss my performance on work-related matters, but,
5551again, as I said, this was not something that was at variance with FBI
5552regulation, and I --
5553Q You know, I understand, and we're not going into any details.
5554But I think it's important for us to understand, was there an awareness
5555of your relationship when either or both were transferred from the
5556Bureau, working on the MYE, to the special counsel investigation?
5557A And I'm telling you, I don't know the answer to how widely
5558that was or was not known within the FBI. And I just don't -- having
5559answered that a couple of times now, truly, I can't tell you - - I mean,
5560COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5561203
5562COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5563outside of the setting and everything going on, this has been -- and
5564the use and publicity of all this, extraordinarily painful and harmful
5565and hurtful to my family. And I just don't want to continue engaging
5566in that process. I think
5567Q I understand. But was it known to anyone prior to you being
5568transferred to the special counsel investigation?
5569A Again, I don't think that is relevant to my work performance,
5570and I don't want to discuss that.
5571Q I understand you don't think it's relevant, but was
5572it -- it's relevant to us, because we need to understand the level of
5573culpability with respect to the potential of someone being
5574transferred his, I believe, already went down this line of
5575questioning.
5576When an affair has the potential of being exploited by a foreign
5577adversary, we do need to understand whether there was, in fact, a
5578decision made by FBI management to transfer you to a special counsel
5579investigation.
5580A Yeah, and what I would tell you is I don't know the extent
5581to which it was or was not known. And I would defer to the various
5582people, of their, you know, recollections --
5583Q Does that mean -- I'm sorry to interrupt you, but -A
5584-- about what they knew about it or didn't.
5585Q You don't know whether it was known. So would that suggest
5586that you were not counseled?
5587A No. I am saying I don't know the extent to which it's known,
5588COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5589COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5590and I don't want to get into a discussion of any personnel-type
5591discussions that I had with anybody in the FBI.
5592Q Okay. Through your career, have you ever, as a
5593counterintelligence agent, made use of knowledge of an affair to
5594recruit a source?
5595A No.
5596Q Are you aware of that ever being done?
5597A Yes.
5598204
5599Q Have you ever supervised an investigation where usage of an
5600affair was made use of to exploit and recruit a source?
5601A Not to my recollection.
5602Q But you're fully aware that it is one of maybe a few avenues,
5603I would say, possibly, and you might agree - - finances is another area
5604of recruitment -- that the FBI might use to recruit a source.
5605A I think the important way, the right way to think of that
5606is you want to find those things which a person would be susceptible
5607for either enticement or blackmail or coercion. I've always found that
5608blackmail and coercion are typically crappy ways to try and recruit
5609somebody; it's much better to do it the other way.
5610But, at the end of the day, it isn't the individual of action;
5611it's how that action plays in the mind of the person you're trying to
5612recruit or whether or not it makes them vulnerable. And what I'm -Q
5613Okay. Well
5614A -- telling you and what I think I answered in this question
5615this morning is that the existence of my extramarital affair is not
5616COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5617205
5618COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5619anything that ever could've been used to coerce me. It is not anything
5620that could've been used to, you know, blackmail me or otherwise, you
5621know, exploit a vulnerability.
5622Q So you don't believe, personally, that the existence of the
5623affair becoming public to an adversary -- not public, but to an
5624adversary -~ would have made you susceptible to potential
5625exploitation.
5626A I do not.
5627Q Thank you.
5628Mr. Gowdy. Agent Strzok, when we left, we were in October
5629of 2816, and you were responding to a text where you wrote: I'm riled
5630up. Trump is a fucking idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer.
5631And if I remember correctly, that was in response to your watching
5632the debate. In October of 2816, were you still working on the Russia
5633probe?
5634Mr. Strzok. I was?
5635Mr. Gowdy. How about in November of 2816, were you still working
5636on the Russia probe then?
5637Mr. Strzok. Yes.
5638Mr. Gowdy. All right.
5639This is a text from Lisa Page to you: The New York Times
5640probability numbers are dropping every day. I'm scared for our
5641organization.
5642Understanding you're not the author of that text but the recipient
5643of it, do you know what organization she could be referencing?
5644COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5645Mr. Strzok.
5646Mr. Gowdy.
5647Mr. Strzok.
5648206
5649COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5650What date, sir?
5651November the 3rd, 2e16, is the date I have.
5652Do you have a copy I could look at?
5653Yeah, Congressman, I believe she -- again, you would have to ask
5654her, but my inference is she's talking about the FBI.
5655Mr. Gowdy. Were you and she both members of any other
5656organizations other than the FBI?
5657Mr. Strzok. The Department of Justice, the executive branch of
5658the United States, the Government of the United States. But my read
5659of this is the FBI?
5660Mr. Gowdy. Some of those may overlap a little bit.
5661Mr. Strzok. Absolutely.
5662Mr. Gowdy. Did you ever ask her or did you ever discuss why the
5663New York Times probability numbers dropping would have any impact on
5664your organization, whether it's the executive branch, the Department
5665of Justice, the FBI, or the Department of Justice?
5666Mr. Strzok. My sense, Congressman, looking back at the time was
5667then-candidate Trump was saying extraordinary amounts about the
5668incompetence of the FBI, particularly with regard to the investigation
5669of Secretary Clinton, was making very destructive and denigrating
5670comments about the professionalism of the FBI. And I was concerned
5671that those comments, particularly in comparison to most of the
5672Republican candidates, were undermining the ability of the FBI to
5673effectively do its job in the United States.
5674Mr. Gowdy. Oh, so despite the fact you're not the author of that
5675COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5676207
5677COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5678text, you share those exact same concerns.
5679Mr. Strzok. No, I didn't say that.
5680Mr. Gowdy. Well, you just said that. You just referenced the
5681reasons that you would be concerned with a Trump Presidency, but it
5682was actually her text.
5683Mr. Strzok. What I think I answered was my inference from
5684reading the text of what she meant.
5685Mr. Gowdy. Did you share those concerns?
5686Mr. Strzok. I certainly shared concerns about how
5687then-candidate Trump was referring to the actions of the FBI?
5688Mr. Gowdy. Did you share her concern that you were scared for
5689the organization of the FBI if the New York Times probability numbers
5690continued to drop?
5691Mr. Strzok. I wouldn't say I was scared. I think I thought
5692there might be a severe test of the rule of law in the FBI.
5693Mr. Gowdy. Well, on November the 3rd, you did text: Jill Stein
5694and Gary Johnson are F'ing everything up too.
5695What did "F'ing" stand for?
5696Mr. Strzok. Fucking.
5697Mr. Gowdy. So Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are fucking everything
5698up too. What did you mean by that?
5699Mr. Strzok. My sense was, again, from a personal perspective,
5700looking at the race, the Presidential race, that a variety of actors
5701were causing debates and shifts and movement in a way that was causing
5702core messaging or just general sentiment to be moved and shifted.
5703COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5704208
5705COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5706Mr. Gowdy. Well, whose chances did you think Stein and Johnson
5707were hurting, Clinton's or Trump's?
5708Mr. Strzok. No, I believe Clinton's.
5709Mr. Gowdy. Well, I could almost take from reading this text that
5710you wanted her to win.
5711Mr. Strzok. Congressman, I had -- like many agents, I have, you
5712know, certainly strongly held political opinions that are personal.
5713And I have - - there have been Presidents that I've liked that have been
5714elected; there have been Presidents that I didn't particularly care
5715for that were elected. I can --
5716Mr. Gowdy. So it's fair to say you were a Clinton supporter?
5717Mr. Strzok. Congressman, I think that's clear from the reading
5718of the text, certainly, that I wasn't a Trump fan.
5719Mr. Gowdy. Well, just to be on the safe side, we'll get you to
5720say it anyway, even if it is clear from the reading of the text. You
5721were a Clinton supporter?
5722Mr. Strzok. Sir, my personal perspective was that I supported
5723Secretary Clinton ahead of then-candidate Trump?
5724Mr. Gowdy. And when did you decide to start supporting her? Did
5725you support her in the primary?
5726Mr. Strzok. No. I -- you know, again, this makes me
5727uncomfortable, that the legislative branch is inquiring about the
5728personal views of an executive --
5729Mr. Gowdy. Well, your texts make us pretty damn uncomfortable
5730too, Agent Strzok.
5731COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5732209
5733COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5734Mr. Strzok. If I can finish your question. In the primaries,
5735I was considering -- Governor Kasich had a strong appeal, and I was
5736undecided at some point. Traditionally, I've been very conservative
5737in outlook from a law enforcement, military, national security
5738perspective?
5739Mr. Gowdy. So I don't know whether that's a "yes" or "no. " Were
5740you a supporter of hers in the primary?
5741Mr. Strzok. Whose primary?
5742Mr. Gowdy. Hers, the Democrat primary.
5743Mr. Strzok. For--
5744Mr. Gowdy. While you were working on her case, if that helps any.
5745The time you were working on her case, were you a supporter?
5746Mr. Strzok. I don't know when - - there is no point in time where
5747I can tell you I clearly became a, you know, my vote is going here or
5748my vote is going there.
5749Mr. Gowdy. Well, 4 days later -- we're getting close to the
5750election, I think -- referencing an article entitled "Victory by
5751Mr. Trump Remains Possible," you said: OMG, this is fucking
5752terrifying.
5753What does "OMG" stand for?
5754Mr. Strzok. Oh, my God.
5755Mr. Gowdy. Oh, my God, this is fucking terrifying. What was
5756terrifying about a victory by Trump?
5757Mr. Goelman. Congressman, can you just tell us the date and time
5758so we can follow along?
5759COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5760COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5761Mr. Gowdy. November the 7th~ 2016.
5762Mr. Goelman. The time?
5763Mr. Strzok. Yes~ your question?
5764210
5765Mr. Gowdy.' I think it was your lawyer's question whether or not
5766I could point you to the text~ and I gave you the date.
5767Mr. Strzok. Right~ but -- I see it.
5768Mr. Gowdy. What did you mean by "fucking terrifying"?
5769Mr. Strzok. I'm sorry?
5770Mr. Gowdy. What did you mean by "fucking terrifying"?
5771Mr. Strzok. The prospect that candidate Trump might be elected
5772President.
5773Mr. Gowdy. And just so I'm right in my mind~ this is why you were
5774also dispassionately~ objectively investigating whether or not he
5775colluded/coordinated with a -foreign actor to interfere with the
5776election?
5777Mr. Strzok. No. Those are independent things~ Congressman. I
5778have
5779Mr. Gowdy. No~ no, no. Is it the same time, not whether or not
5780you conflated the two. That's a separate question. Were those going
5781on at the same time?
5782Mr. Strzok. Yes.
5783Mr. Gowdy. So~ in November, when you said it would be fucking
5784terrifying for him to become the President, you were investigating
5785whether or not he had colluded/coordinated/otherwise conspired with
5786a foreign actor to interfere with the election.
5787COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5788211
5789COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5790Mr. Strzok. No, I don't think that's accurate. The allegations
5791that have been made public are that - - allegations that members of his
5792campaign may have been doing that.
5793Mr. Gowdy. Well, then why in the world would you be talking about
5794impeachment if you didn't think he'd done anything wrong?
5795Mr. Strzok. Because, without getting into details here that are
5796either classified or in the context of an ongoing investigation, my
5797concern, based on the credible allegations that members of his
5798campaign, numbers and coordination unknown, were actively colluding
5799with the Government of Russia struck me as an extraordinary threat to
5800America and represented --
5801Mr. Gowdy. Well, had you already --
5802Mr. Strzok. -- the most unbelievably severe and reprehensible
5803sort of behavior that any American could engage in.
5804Mr. Gowdy. Had you already concluded that he knew about it or
5805was part of it?
5806Mr. Strzok. I don't think I wanted -- I don't think I want to
5807go into speculation about an ongoing investigation and what I -Mr.
5808Gowdy. No, I think it's entirely appropriate whether or not
5809you had already concluded that he had colluded/conspired/confederated
5810with a foreign actor while you're investigating it.
5811Mr. Goelman. Are you talking, Congressman, about November 2916,
5812or are you talking about the impeachment text the following spring?
5813Mr. Gowdy. I think they're --
5814Mr. Goelman. What's the timeframe of your question?
5815COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5816212
5817COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5818Mr. Gowdy. That I s a good question. I think that there are texts
5819that reference impeachment both the day after the election and in the
5820spring of 2017.
5821Mr. Strzok. So which are you referring to? I think -Mr.
5822Gowdy. How about both?
5823Mr. Strzok. Well, I believe my statements in use of that was much
5824later into 2017.
5825My answer to your question is I had not made any judgment about
5826the culpability or lack of culpability of any of the matters that I
5827was aware of investigatively. We were absolutely still very much in
5828the process of gathering information. There were some areas which were
5829much stronger than others, as is true in most cases.
5830Mr. Gowdy. So the thing you found fucking terrifying, to use your
5831words, was that some members of his campaign may have wittingly or
5832unwittingly colluded/conspired/confederated with Russia, but yo'u had
5833no evidence that he knew anything about it.
5834Mr. Strzok. No. I think my recollection of that text is the
5835prospect of his winning the Presidency. It is a personal opinion
5836independent of the investigations of any members of his campaign.
5837Mr. Gowdy. On March the 14th, Lisa Page texted you: Finally two
5838pages away from finishing" All the President I s Men. " Did you know the
5839President resigns in the end?
5840And you replied: What? God, that we should be so lucky.
5841In March of 2017, were you still working on the Russia
5842investigation?
5843COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5844213
5845COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5846Mr. Strzok. Yes.
5847Mr. Gowdy. What did you think the President should
5848resign - - what was the cause - - what would the cause of his resignation
5849be?
5850Mr. Strzok. I think this is a figurative, snarky,
5851tongue-in-cheek remark. It is not some legal analysis of a violation
5852of viability of any active impeachment or crime. This is merely a
5853personal, snarky expression of my personal belief and nothing else.
5854Mr. Gowdy. You just referenced four different ways of referring
5855to the executive branch. Let's just go with the head of the executive
5856branch. You think the head of the executive branch resigning is just
5857a snarky thing to say?
5858Mr. Strzok. I think my personal opinion was that I had a - - not
5859a -- no love lost for President Trump.
5860Mr. Gowdy. Were you investigating what Russia did and with whom,
5861if anyone, they did it in March of 2e17?
5862Mr. Strzok. Yes.
5863Mr. Gowdy. And you still thought it'd be a good idea for him to
5864resign.
5865Mr. Strzok. I--
5866Mr. Gowdy. But yet you're somehow able to separate your
5867professional views from your private views.
5868Mr. Strzok. Absolutely. What every agent working every case
5869does every day.
5870Mr. Gowdy. Well, let's get to that.
5871COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5872214
5873COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5874On May 18, 2017, for your attorney's reference, you texted: For
5875me and this case.
5876What case would you be referring to?
5877Mr. Strzok. What's the date on that?
5878Mr. Gowdy. May the 18th. Anything important happen around May
5879the 17th or 18th that you can recall?
5880Mr. Strzok. Yeah. So, at that time, it was right around the
5881time that Special Counsel Mueller was appointed, I believe.
5882Mr. Gowdy. Now, when you say" right around the time," how about
5883the day after.
5884Mr. Strzok. Okay.
5885Mr. Gowdy. So, the day after Special Counsel Mueller was
5886appointed, you're still working on the Russia investigation at this
5887point?
5888to?
5889Mr. Strzok. I am.
5890Mr. Gowdy. Have you moved over to the special counsel team yet?
5891Mr. Strzok. No, I have not.
5892Mr. Gowdy. "For me and this case. " What case were you referring
5893Mr. Strzok. At that time, the Russia collusion investigations.
5894Mr. Gowdy. "I personally have a sense of unfinished business.
5895I unleashed it with Midyear Exam. Now I need to fix it and finish it. "
5896What is the "it"?
5897Mr. Strzok. Congressman, I don't -- we did this earlier, and I
5898don't want to get into parsing individual words. 1--
5899COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5900215
5901COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5902Mr. Gowdy. Well, actually, I do, Agent Strzok. That's why I
5903asked you what does "it" mean. You wrote it. What does it mean?
5904Mr. Strzok. The text, I'm telling you, Congressman, is my sense
5905that -- we had done Midyear Exam. We saw, and now it's been
5906declassified, and this is me, but the intelligence community watching
5907the Government of Russia take the results and the existence of that
5908examination and use it to influence the election. They did it through
5909social media; they did it through other means.
5910And my involvement in that case, watching that case go from start
5911to finish, watching a hostile nation -- who, by the way, has credible
5912allegations is colluding with members of a different
5913campaign - - watching that information be weaponized by the Government
5914of Russia and used in the context of our election, my feeling was: I've
5915been in this from the beginning. I worked through, with Jon and others,
5916Midyear. We came to a conclusion. The Government of Russia has taken
5917this and created this entire mess. And I want to sit there and see
5918this through and stop the Government of Russia from interfering in the
5919elections of the united states of America.
5920Mr. Gowdy. What I find so fascinating about that answer, Special
5921Agent Strzok, is what you also texted on May the 18th, which is: You
5922and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd
5923be there, no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and
5924concern there's no big "there" there.
5925What's not there?
5926Mr. Strzok. The context of that quote is, as I looked at the time
5927COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5928216
5929COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5930at the allegations, I was not certain at the time, one, if there was
5931any sort of illegal activity going on, the nature of that. We had yet
5932to determine, you know, was it going on, was it coordinated, was this
5933a bunch of individual opportunists acting out of their own personal
5934moti ves, and where that range of acti vi ty may lie, and not knowing that.
5935And, obviously, from the perspective of national security, if any
5936campaign has a couple of outliers who may be doing things improperly,
5937that's bad, but it is not nearly as bad as the prospect of a campaign
5938who has a coordinated effort colluding with a foreign nation. There's
5939a big range in there.
5940And that's -- it's independent of any party or any candidate.
5941And I can't stress that enough. My concern, my desire to work on this
5942wouldn't matter if it was candidate Trump or candidate Clinton or
5943candidate Sanders or candidate whoever. My dri ve, my interest in doing
5944this is, as a national security professional, was from the perspective
5945of protecting the United States.
5946Mr. Gowdy. And I find that interesting, because on exactly the
5947same day you texted those other things, you said: Who gives a fuck.
5948One more AD versus an investigation leading to impeachment.
5949It sounds to me like you'd already made up your mind. Impeachment
5950of whom?
5951Mr. Strzok. That's not true.
5952Mr. Gowdy. Impeachment of whom?
5953Mr. Strzok. That would've been impeachment of Trump, but the
5954text clearly --
5955COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5956217
5957COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5958Mr. Gowdy. For what?
5959Mr. Strzok. But the text clearly does not say "will. " My sense
5960was it might. That's undefined in the text, and I had not prejudged
5961or concluded that at all.
5962Mr. Gowdy. Who gives a fuck. One more AD versus an
5963investigation leading to impeachment.
5964Mr. Strzok. Right. My sense from that text is there is
5965Mr. Gowdy. We just went from you didn't know whether he was
5966involved or not to impeachment, and we're still on the same day, May
5967the 18th.
5968Mr. Strzok. Right. If you recall what I just said, in my mind
5969was a range of potential activities. One was nothing or some
5970uncoordinated individuals doing something they shouldn't. On the
5971other extreme
5972Mr. Gowdy. Wait a minute. Hang on a second.
5973Mr. Strzok. If I can finish, sir. On the other extreme, a
5974coordinated conspiracy to collude with the Government of Russia. That
5975is a big range. And I had not decid~d and had not prejudged
5976Mr. Gowdy. Well, you're looking at a range I'm not even looking
5977at, Mr. Strzok.
5978Mr. Strzok. In the event of the most grave circumstance, that
5979there was a coordinated effort by the Government of Russia to elect
5980somebody here in the United States, that's an extraordinary allegation.
5981And I think there's no national security professional out there worth
5982his salt who would not want to be fighting to protect America against
5983COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5984218
5985COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5986that.
5987Mr. Gowdy. Well, then why did you say "I hesitate in part"? Why
5988were you hesitating? If it was just your desire to figure out what
5989Russia did to this country, then why did you say you're hesitating?
5990Mr. Strzok. Because, Congressman, for the very reason I just
5991answered. I was not, at that time, sufficiently aware of the facts
5992to be able to make a judgment of whether or not it was nothing illegal
5993or a set of self-motivated individual actors on the one extreme, all
5994the way to the other extreme of something that would be the most
5995extraordinarily grave action in the Nation.
5996So my hesitation is simply I didn't know at that time where those
5997facts were, because we were pursuing the facts, objectively, wherever
5998they
5999Mr. Gowdy. Well, then why would you continue pursuing them?
6000Mr. Strzok. Because--
6001Mr. Gowdy. You're an investigator. Why wouldn't you be
6002interested no matter how it ends?
6003Mr. Strzok. Because every investigator is going to pursue it.
6004The question is with me, where I wanted to be in the context of, on
6005the one hand, I go and I focus on this set of allegations in this
6006investigationj on the other hand, I stay in the FBI, I have a wide range
6007of responsibilities of counterintelligence threats, of espionage
6008investigations, and where I would get the most fulfilment, where I best
6009could serve the Nation.
6010Of course, every investigator follows every fact to the end.
6011COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6012219
6013COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6014And, sir, you know. I don't need to tell you that. You know that.
6015Mr. Gowdy. Well, before I turn it over to Johnny, 4 days later,
6016this is you to Lisa Page: I'm torn, I think. No, I'm more replaceable
6017than you are in this. I'm the best for it, but there are others who
6018can. Okay. You're different and more unique. This is yours. Plus
6019leaving a special counsel, having been a special counsel, resulting
6020in an impeachment, as an attorney, is very different than leaving as
6021an investigator.
6022There you are, 4 days into Special Counsel Mueller's probe,
6023talking impeachment again, Special Agent Strzok.
6024Mr. Goelman.
6025Mr. Gowdy.
602621st.
6027Congressman, is this the 21st then?
6028That'd be better. I have the 22nd. I hope it is the
6029Mr. Goelman. I don't know. I'm just trying to find the text that
6030you're referring to.
6031Mr. Gowdy. I got it 4 days later, but maybe you found it 3 days
6032later.
6033Mr. Goelman. I didn't find it. Hang on. I'm looking for it.
6034Mr. Gowdy. The 22nd is what I have.
6035It's an email. Show him the email.
6036Mr. Strzok. So could you repeat the question?
6037Mr. Gowdy. Yeah. This is 4 days after Special Counsel
6038Mueller's probe has been announced. The day it was announced, you
6039referenced impeachment. Four days later, you referenced impeachment.
6040It sounds, I guess, to someone who might be a little bit cynical that
6041COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6042220
6043COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6044you had already made up your mind how you wanted it to end. Is that
6045true?
6046Mr. Strzok. I had absolutely not.
6047Mr. Gowdy. Well, then why would you just bring up impeachment?
6048Mr. Strzok. That was one of the possible and the most severe
6049outcome of the investigation. And when you read it in the context of
6050what was going on, President Trump firing Director Comey and on the
6051one hand saying it had to do with the Clinton investigation and then
6052telling a Russian diplomat that a great pressure had been lifted on
6053the Russia investigations of him, when in the context of that footnote
6054you'll see was news reporting that President Trump had asked
6055intelligence community chiefs to take certain actions, my concern and
6056thought was it was certainly possible. But in no way had I prejudged
6057or decided that any investigative outcome was going to happen.
6058Mr. Gowdy. We may be out of time.
6059You got anything?
6060Mr. Ratcliffe. Let me at least get started then.
6061Agent Strzok, I know he asked some questions -- I wasn't in the
6062room - - about the Midyear Exam, so I wanted to go back and explore with
6063you when the decision was made not to charge Hillary Clinton.
6064And the first expression that I see of that is a memorandum that
6065Jim Comey wrote, apparently, on May 2nd of 2816. Are you there
6066familiar with that?
6067Mr. Strzok. Congressman, I believe so. Is that his first draft
6068of what a statement might look like?
6069COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6070221
6071COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6072Mr. Ratcliffe. It is. And, in fairness to you, you are not one
6073of the four people that it was originally addressed to. It was
6074addressed to Andy McCabe, Jim Baker, Jim Rybicki. That's it. But
6075you're familiar with it?
6076Mr. Strzok. I am.
6077Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So are you familiar that in this -- I'm
6078just going to call it a memo, Jim Corney expresses what he describes
6079as his thoughts? Do you have any information that someone other than
6080Jim Corney put together this initial draft?
6081Mr. Strzok. I don't.
6082Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So this is the draft of Jim Corney, who is
6083a, what, about a 38-year Federal prosecutor?
6084Mr. Strzok. That's my understanding. I don't know his
6085biography that well.
6086Mr. Ratcliffe. And so, in it, he expresses a couple things:
6087one, the possibility of an FBI-only press event, correct?
6088Mr. Strzok. Yes, that's my recollection.
6089Mr. Ratcliffe. I'll represent to you it says
6090Mr. Strzok. Okay.
6091Mr. Ratcliffe. -- "If I decided to do an FBI-only press event."
6092The second thing is it sets forth some conclusions based upon what
6093he reflects is 8 months of work. And one of the conclusions that he
6094reaches in here is that, in his own words, that, after 8 months, that
6095Hillary Clinton had committed the elements for an offense under the
6096Espionage Act, that being handling classified information that she had
6097COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6098222
6099COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6100access to in a grossly negligent manner. Correct?
6101Mr. Strzok. I don't believe he stated that she had violated that
6102crime, if I recall that draft correctly.
6103Mr. Ratcliffe. Well--
6104Mr. Strzok. Do you have a copy?
6105Mr . Ratcliffe. Do we have an extra copy? This is the only copy
6106I have.
6107Mr. Goelman. We'll accept your representations as to what it
6108says. It's just he's not going to be able to answer from memory what
6109the document says.
6110Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, you reviewed the statute, right?
6111Mr. Strzok. Yes, I did.
6112Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And elements of a commission of an offense
6113under that would include handling classified information in a grossly
6114negligent manner.
6115Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
6116Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
6117In fairness, he goes on to explain why, despite the commission
6118of the elements as they' re written, that no reasonable prosecutor would
6119bring the case in that first draft. Correct?
6120Mr. Strzok. I'm sorry. I'm reading it because I'm very
6121familiar with the final version, but the prior ones I'm not at all
6122well-versed.
6123Yes, sir.
6124Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So a couple things that struck me about
6125COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6126223
6127COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6128that is a very experienced former Deputy Attorney General of the United
6129States, former United States attorney, Jim Corney, in his own words,
6130came to the initial conclusion that Hillary Clinton was grossly
6131negligent in the handling of classified information, and through a
6132series of edits and revisions that was changed from" gross negligence"
6133to "extreme carelessness." Correct?
6134Mr. Strzok. Yes.
6135Mr. Ratcliffe. Why was that done?
6136Mr. Strzok. My recollection was there was a great deal -- and
6137we spoke about this before, when you were not in the room. There was
6138a great deal of discussion by the attorneys about the -- I'm not an
6139attorney. But the attorneys went and talked at length about the nature
6140of "gross negligence," how that is defined, how it is poorly defined
6141in some cases, what the application of that term with regard to the
6142statute historically has been, how the Department has viewed the use
6143of that statute and, in fact, for this, has not used it, concerns about
6144the constitutionality of the statute based on the lack of a scienter
6145requirement, as well as the fact that an analysis of the broad set of
6146cases for mishandling classified information that we have
6147prosecuted -- we, the Department of Justice, have prosecuted kind of
6148fall into the big buckets that he articulates, and, based on that, that
6149it was not consistent with applying that statute?
6150And the attorneys, there was some, as I recall it, discussion of,
6151well, if we're going to use the descriptor "gross negligence," that
6152is going to key to a specific legal definition of that term. Is that
6153COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6154224
6155COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6156going to confuse things? Is it actually the appropriate use of the
6157term or not? And so, again, amongst this kind of extended legal
6158discussion, the decision was made to change that characterization to
6159"extremely careless."
6160Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. I appreciate that explanation. But
6161regardless of whether it was gross negligence or extreme carelessness,
6162it in some respects doesn't really matter, because the decision had
6163been made that no reasonable prosecutor would bring this and the team
6164had, as reflected in this, decided that she wasn't going to be charged.
6165Mr. Strzok. No, that's inaccurate. I think this is, as he
6166states at the beginning, envisioning a scenario in which we didn't - - or
6167he didn't recommend prosecution, what he might do.
6168My recollection is there was no final decision made until the end
6169of the case. You know, you're both veterans of u.s. attorney and
6170assistant u.s. attorney's offices. Any good investigator worth his
6171salt after an intensive many, many months of investigation will
6172frequently arrive at the point where you know if there are defects in
6173the evidence that you have that might be insurmountable.
6174COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6175225
6176COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6177[4:52 p.m.]
6178Mr. Strzok. So, in my mind, this is not a decision that somebody
6179is or isn't going to be prosecuted. This is very much a: If we choose
6180not to, I am thinking about doing this.
6181Mr . Ratcliffe. Okay. So if the decision was made at the end of
6182the case, when is the end of the case?
6183Mr. Strzok. Shortly after her interview in the beginning of
6184July?
6185Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Her interview was July 2nd, 2016.
6186Chairman Goodlatte. Mr. Ratcliffe, could you pause for just a
6187second on that?
6188Just one question on that. Is there another document in which
6189Director Corney says, envisioning a circumstance in which we will
6190prosecute her, these are the things I want to consider?
6191Mr. Strzok. Mr. Chairman, not to my knowledge?
6192Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you.
6193Mr. Ratcliffe. So, if that's the case, there's a number of text
6194messages back and forth between, frankly, different members of the
6195team, but including you, reflecting the fact that a decision had already
6196been made before her July 2nd --
6197Mr. Strzok. Again, I don't think it's a fair characterization
6198to say that a decision had been made. I think we saw the facts;
6199certainly, with the prosecutors, they understood where the gaps and
6200the problems were, and, you know, some level of understanding of whether
6201or not we would be able to develop evidence to fill those gaps. But
6202COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6203226
6204COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6205I would not say a decision had been made?
6206Mr. Ratcliffe. Again, not to -- but explain to me, then, why on
6207July 1st you and Ms. Page exchanged texts about the fact that, in
6208addition to the members of the Midyear team, the Attorney General,
6209Loretta Lynch, knew that Hillary Clinton was not going to be charged
6210and, therefore, was not a, quote/unquote, profile in courage?
6211Mr. Strzok. Because, as I indicated, I think the sense,
6212particularly amongst the career prosecutors, in particular at DOJ but
6213as well as those of us in the FBI, understood by that point in the
6214investigation that any of the statutes that we had available to us,
6215based on the way they had been applied and used in the past in
6216prosecutions, had significant gaps in our ability to successfully and
6217responsibly bring charges.
6218Mr. Goelman. Congressman, I think, by my watch, we are 4 minutes
6219past the hour.
6220Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. We'll pick up with that our next round.
6221[Recess.]
6222Ms. Kim. We will go back on the record. The time is 5:81.
6223Mr. Cummings. Mr. Strzok, welcome.
6224Mr. Strzok. Thank you, sir?
6225Mr. Cummings. In your experience, are criminal targets
6226considered innocent until they are proven otherwise?
6227Mr. Strzok. Yes?
6228Mr. Cummings. And your job is to search for evidence or proof
6229of their guilt. Is that right?
6230COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6231227
6232COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6233Mr. Strzok. Guilt or innocence, yes?
6234Mr. Cummings. Or innocence. And if you don't find evidence of
6235their guilt, ultimately, what do you do?
6236Mr. Strzok. You let them go. You close the investigation?
6237Mr. Cummings. So, in most investigations, even before the last
6238witness has been interviewed, do investigators and prosecutors discuss
6239whether there's enough evidence to charge a case with a search for
6240additional evidence and whether those searches for additional evidence
6241are successful?
6242Mr. Strzok. Yes?
6243Mr. Cummings. In your experience, when in the Ii fecycle of a case
6244do those discussions start?
6245Mr. Strzok. They start very early on. The initial allegation,
6246one of the first discussions with prosecutors involve, you know, what
6247violations might be at issue and what the elements of those crimes are.
6248And it continues throughout the case?
6249Mr. Cummings. So, even before the last witness has been
6250interviewed, do investigators and prosecutors typically discuss the
6251chances of success for a potential case, not just an indictment but
6252a trial?
6253Mr. Strzok. Yes, that's a fair statement?
6254Mr. Cummings. So that's not unusual.
6255Mr. Strzok. It's not unusual. That's correct?
6256Mr. Cummings. And is the amount of probative evidence that has
6257been discovered in the investigation a relevant metric in those
6258COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6259228
6260COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6261discussions?
6262Mr. Strzok. Yes?
6263Mr. Cummings. Was Secretary Clinton's knowledge and intent key
6264to the FBI's recommendation not to charge her?
6265Mr. Strzok. Yes?
6266Mr. Cummings. Why was the lack of evidence or intent fatal to
6267the case?
6268Mr. Strzok. Again, I would defer to - - as I've said, I'm not an
6269attorney, and I would defer to the expert attorneys both at the FBI
6270and the Department of Justice. But in the historic - - my understanding
6271of how statutes have been used with regard to the mishandling of
6272classified information, those have been done in the context of the
6273knowledge of the individual was always an element of those
6274prosecutions?
6275And in the case of Midyear, in the case of this investigation,
6276the Department of Justice, as well as the FBI, took a very exhaustive
6277look at all the times that those statutes had been applied and charged
6278with regard to the mishandling of classified information and developed
6279a series of criteria, one of which, certainly, was the ~nowledge or
6280the intent of the person who did it, and that that was a critical
6281element.
6282Mr. Cummings. So when did you first understand that the evidence
6283of Secretary Clinton's intent would be the lynchpin to the charging
6284decision?
6285Mr. Strzok. I don't know that I would characterize it as the
6286COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6287229
6288COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6289lynchpin. I would say that we understood -- maybe not so much the
6290lynchpin, but one of the significant hurdles we had was being able to
6291demonstrate through evidence that we knew she had an intent or a desire
6292to knowingly violate any of the statutes that we were looking at?
6293Mr. Cummings. So is it safe to say you were looking for evidence
6294of intent early on and in the document reviews and in the interviews?
6295Mr. Strzok. Yes, throughout?
6296Mr. Cummings. Now, sir, did you ultimately find sufficient
6297evidence of Secretary Clinton's knowledge and intent to recommend
6298charging a criminal case against her?
6299Mr. Strzok. Not that was consistent with past use of the
6300statutes by the Department of Justice?
6301Mr. Cummings. Uh-huh. And how was that so significant?
6302Mr. Strzok. Well, it's
6303Mr. Cummings. Past use.
6304Mr. Strzok. It's significant because there is a process. We
6305have a way in which the laws are applied by the Department of Justice.
6306We seek to do that in a manner that is blind. It does not take into
6307account a person' s position or race or sex or anything of that nature.
6308And the consistency of that practice is one of the hallmarks of the
6309rule of law?
6310Mr. Cummings. Uh-huh. Now, did you investigate this matter as
6311aggressively as you would any other matter?
6312Mr. Strzok. Yes?
6313Mr. Cummings. Did you investigate with the same determination
6314COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6315230
6316COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6317to make a case as in any other matter?
6318Mr. Strzok. Yes?
6319Mr. Cummings. Can you point to specific instances where you
6320investigated the matter aggressively and with the goal of finding
6321relevant evidence to make a case?
6322Mr. Strzok. Absolutely. There are any number of them. And~
6323you know~ there was frequently a disagreement between the Department
6324of Justice and the Bureau. My experience is typically that agents tend
6325to be more aggressive than prosecutors because we' re approaching things
6326a little differently?
6327But with regard to this specific case~ there are any number of
6328things. Probably one of the primary examples are: Secretary Clinton
6329gave the body~ the corpus of her emails to attorneys to sort through~
6330to determine what was work-related and what wasn't. We came to know
6331that those laptops existed~ and we had investigative concerns that the
6332sort process had not been rigorous~ that there might have been things
6333that it missed~ and that there might be --
6334Mr. Cummings. How did you come to that conclusion?
6335Mr. Strzok. That was what was told to me by our forensic
6336examiners~ by our analysts and our agents. As they looked at the body
6337of emails that we had~ we found work-related emails through a host of
6338material that we had obtained by consent or via search warrant in some
6339cases that were not amongst the material that Secretary Clinton had
6340produced as work-related email?
6341One of the hypotheses by -- and I forget who it was~ but one of
6342COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6343231
6344COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6345the great members of this extraordinary team, was that it was possible
6346that just the mechanics of the sort process used had been faulty. And
6347our desire was to -- you know, A, those laptops at one time had all
6348of the emails on them; B, that, by getting that, we could go through
6349and ensure that we did have all of the work- related emails by Secretary
6350Clinton and not just the ones that she had provided for us.
6351Certainly, whether it was a, you know, inadvertent or poorly
6352designed search or, worse, if there was some nefarious purpose and not
6353turn some things over -- I'm speaking too long.
6354The takeaway is that we felt strongly that we needed to get those
6355laptops. Defense counsel disagreed vehemently. They viewed them as
6356protected by a variety of privileges, and the Department of Justice
6357initially didn't think that we should pursue that.
6358But we, I, the entire team advocated aggressively that these were
6359essential to our understanding of the case and that we needed to get
6360that material before we could conclude with a sense of legitimacy and
6361completeness that we had gotten or looked at every possible place that
6362those emails might exist.
6363Mr. Cummings. Well, when did your team complete the review of
6364the emails?
6365Mr. Strzok. Sir, I would have to go back and check the record.
6366That's a -- I don't know without access to the file. It was prior to
6367the interview of Secretary Clinton, for sure. It was sometime in the
6368spring of 2016, if memory serves correctly?
6369Mr. Cummings. Did those emails --
6370COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6371232
6372COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6373Mr. Goelman. '17?
6374Mr. Strzok. '16. '16.
6375Mr. Cummings. Did those emails reveal any, quote, "smoking gun, "
6376unquote, evidence of Secretary Clinton's intent?
6377Mr. Strzok. No?
6378Mr. Cummings. When did your team interview the individuals who
6379had sent Secretary Clinton classified information in her emails?
6380Mr. Strzok. That took place throughout the course of the
6381investigation. There was no set period where we went out and
6382interviewed them. We identified as best we could the authors of every
6383piece of classified information and went out and talked to them about
6384how that material came to be placed into those emails?
6385Mr. Cummings. And, in those interviews, did you come up with any
6386smoking gun?
6387Mr. Strzok. No?
6388Mr. Cummings. Did the investigation ever yield smoking-gun
6389evidence of Secretary Clinton's intent?
6390Mr. Strzok. No?
6391Mr. Cummings. Now
6392Mr. Strzok. Congressman, if I can back up to that last question.
6393When you say "smoking gun," I am taking that to mean did we find any
6394evidence that she acted with ill intent to do what she did, and that's
6395how I'm responding to that question?
6396Mr. Cummings. Yes. Yes.
6397Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir?
6398COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6399233
6400COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6401Mr. Cummings. The Inspector General report states -- and this
6402is kind of a long quote, so listen carefully: Our review found that
6403the Midyear team concluded beginning in early 2816 that evidence
6404supporting a prosecution of former Secretary Clinton or her senior
6405aides was likely lacking. This conclusion was based on the fact that
6406the Midyear team had not found evidence that former Secretary Clinton
6407or her senior aides knowingly transmitted classified information on
6408unclassified systems because, one, classified information exchanged
6409in unclassified emails was not clearly or properly marked, and, two,
6410State Department staff introducing classified information into the
6411emails made an effort to, quote, "talk around it," end of quote.
6412Is this conclusion consistent with your experience on this case?
6413Mr. Strzok. It is. I would add there are probably even further
6414characteristics that created problems from any prospective
6415prosecution. But I agree with the statements in that paragraph you
6416just read?
6417Mr. Cummings. Okay.
6418To be very clear, at this point in early 2816, when the team had
6419examined much of the body of evidence but had not found evidence of
6420intent, did the team stop looking for evidence of intent?
6421Mr. Strzok. No?
6422Mr. Cummings. At this point in - - so, at this point in 2816, when
6423the team had examined much of the body of evidence but had not found
6424evidence of intent, did the team stop examining the evidence or
6425interviewing pertinent witnesses?
6426COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6427234
6428COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6429Mr. Strzok. No. We kept going?
6430Mr. Cummings. At this point in early 2016, when the team had
6431examined much of the body of evidence but had not found evidence of
6432intent, did the team stop conducting effective and aggressive
6433interviews to solicit evidence of intent?
6434Mr. Strzok. No?
6435Mr. Cummings. Now, in fact, the next sentence states, and I
6436quote: The Midyear team continued its investigation, taking the
6437investigative steps and looking for evidence that could change their
6438assessment, end of quote.
6439This is my question. At any point in the investigation, if the
6440team had found any evidence of intent, would the Midyear investigative
6441team have pursued that lead?
6442Mr. Strzok. Yes?
6443Mr. Cummings. And that includes in the actual interview of
6444Hillary Clinton. Is that correct?
6445Mr. Strzok. Yes?
6446Mr. Cummings. All right.
6447Now, many of your personal actions and texts have been used as
6448evidence that the FBI, its leadership, and the Justice Department
6449overall is deeply biased and corrupt.
6450I I d just like to give you the opportunity to directly respond to
6451anything you think is missing from the record or would better help the
6452American people understand whether they should trust the career
6453professionals at the FBI and DOJ who are protecting our country every
6454COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6455235
6456COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6457day.
6458Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir, and thank you for that opportunity.
6459I would tell you FBI agents are people, and all of us have personal
6460political opinions, and that is something that we all feel passionately
6461about. But I can tell you, all of us, me, but everybody I work with,
6462those personal opinions, when you walk in the door, those get left
6463behind.
6464The FBI that I know and have been a member of is made up of people
6465who pursue the facts where they lay and apply the law to those facts.
6466I did not, nor would I ever, take any act based on my personal beliefs
6467in the conduct of my official business, nor would anybody else that
6468I know working at the FBI. I would not tolerate it in myself or others,
6469and all those men and women at the FBI are exactly the same way.
6470I am deeply troubled by the way that -- the insinuation that
6471somehow these personal beliefs are inappropriate or, worse, are
6472necessarily evidence of some corrupt bias are being used to undermine
6473the integrity of the FBI, the way that they are being used to destroy
6474the image and trustworthiness of the FBI in the eyes of the American
6475public for purely partisan ways. It is destructive, it is corrosive
6476to the rule of law, and it is absolutely something terrible that's been
6477occurring.
6478Mr. Cummings. All right. Thank you very much.
6479Mr. Strzok. Thank you, sir.
6480Mr. Johnson. Mr. Strzok, I'm Hank Johnson.
6481In the Clinton investigation, did you generally advocate for
6482COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6483236
6484COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6485aggressively seeking and compelling evidence?
6486Mr. Strzok. Sir, good afternoon. Yes, I did?
6487Mr. Johnson. Did you generally advocate for or against the use
6488of compulsory process?
6489Mr. Strzok. I typically advocated for the use of compulsory
6490process, yes?
6491Mr. Johnson. Why?
6492Mr. Strzok. Because, in my experience, there is a point which
6493negotiating with counsel hits a stage that is not productive or is
6494taking too long. And my belief is that, if you have the ability,
6495through a subpoena, certainly a search warrant, to go get that evidence,
6496it is frequently the most effective way either to get it, or usually,
6497frequently, in my experience, the threat of that will cause counsel
6498to then come forward voluntarily and produce the information you want?
6499Mr. Johnson. Did Lisa Page advocate for or against the use of
6500compulsory process in the investigation?
6501Mr. Strzok. She advocated for it?
6502Mr. Johnson. Why do you think she did that?
6503Mr. Strzok. I think - - you would have to ask her. My belief is
6504that she felt a, you know, aggressive investigation is the appropriate
6505way that the Bureau should be pursuing all its work?
6506Mr. Johnson. Were there disagreements in when to use or not use
6507compulsory process between the FBI team and the DOJ team?
6508Mr. Strzok. There were?
6509Mr. Johnson. Generally, when there were disagreements, what was
6510COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6511237
6512COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6513the DOJ's position?
6514Mr. Strzok. I don't want -- it wouldn't be right for me to
6515generalize. I think, having said that, that typically Bureau agents
6516and investigators and certainly me in this context tend to be much more
6517aggressive in our desire to use compulsory process and to pursue
6518information, because our motivation tends to be just to get the
6519information. We want to build as comprehensive a picture and
6520understanding of what occurred, whereas DOJ attorneys are looking at
6521it from a little bit -- prosecutors -- from a different perspective.
6522They are not only -- of course they want the facts, but they have
6523concerns about how to introduce that at trial and whether or not this
6524is something that is going to address a particular element of the crime?
6525And that, in my career, has been a very natural tension point.
6526So I think it's entirely consistent in this case that we tended to be
6527more aggressive, in many instances, in pushing for a compulsory process
6528than DOJ was.
6529Mr. Johnson. Is it fair to say that, in the Clinton email
6530investigation, that you adhered to the general philosophy, if you will,
6531of FBI lawyers that you were going to demand and be on the side of those
6532seeking aggressive investigation using compulsory process?
6533Mr. Strzok. Yes, I think it's fair that me and the investigative
6534team were absolutely aggressive in trying to pursue the facts and,
6535specifically, to include compulsory process?
6536Mr. Johnson. You treated this investigation the same way that
6537you would treat any other investigation?
6538COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6539238
6540COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6541Mr. Strzok. I did?
6542Mr. Johnson. Did you ever come to believe or think that career
6543prosecutors disagreed with your more aggressive approach based on
6544legitimate legal differences of opinion?
6545Mr. Strzok. Yes. If I'm hearing you correctly, I did believe
6546that the disagreements were based on legitimate disagreements based
6547on legal reasons?
6548Mr. Johnson. Did you think that the DOJ career prosecutors were
6549making these decisions based on their personal political views?
6550Mr. Strzok. No?
6551[Strzok Exhibit No. 10
6552Was marked for identification.]
6553Mr. Johnson. Sir, I'd like to turn to what's been marked as
6554exhibit 10, which is a section of the Inspector General's report. And
6555I'd like to take you to chapter 5, section 3 and 4.
6556Mr. Strzok. What page is that, sir.
6557Okay. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
6558Mr. Johnson. And I'd like to go through that section to discuss
6559the use of compulsory process in the investigation.
6560Did you -- or have you had an opportunity to read this section
6561of the IG report?
6562Mr. Strzok. I have.
6563Mr. Johnson . Are you familiar with the use of compulsory
6564evidence in the MYE investigation?
6565Mr. Strzok. Compulsory instruments to get that evidence, yes,
6566COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6567239
6568COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6569I am.
6570Mr. Johnson. I will direct you to specific parts of this excerpt,
6571but if you need any additional time to review or read in depth, please
6572let me know.
6573Mr. Strzok. Thank you.
6574Mr. Johnson. On the page numbered 79, the first paragraph after
6575the subheader reads as follows: "Despite the public perception that
6576the Midyear investigation did not use a grand jury, and instead relied
6577exclusively on consent, we found that agents and prosecutors did use
6578grand jury subpoenas and other compulsory process to gain access to
6579documentary and digital evidence. According to documents we reviewed,
6580at least 56 grand jury subpoenas were issued, five court orders were
6581obtained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2703(d) (2703(d) orders), and
6582three search warrants were granted."
6583Were you part of the decision to issue any of the 56 grand jury
6584subpoenas?
6585Mr. Strzok. Yes, I was aware of them. I was -- again, those
6586issuance were at levels below me, but I was certainly aware of all of
6587them.
6588Mr. Johnson. Were you part of the decision to issue any of the
65895703(d) orders?
6590Mr. Strzok. Yes. 2703(d), yes, sir.
6591Mr. Johnson. Were you part of the decision to issue any of the
6592three search warrants?
6593Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
6594COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6595240
6596COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6597Mr. Johnson. In fact~ if you turn to page 85~ end of the first
6598line~ the IG report describes an instance where you and Lisa Page appear
6599to author a list of instances where you had clashed with the DOJ
6600prosecutQrs' decisions to negotiate with counsel.
6601The report reads~ quote~ "Strzok told us that at the time he wrote
6602this email, he was' aggravated by the limitations' that the prosecutors
6603were placing on the FBI' s ability to obtain evidence and felt that ' if
6604you add up this delta over a bunch of decisions~ all of a sudden it
6605becomes substantive.'"
6606Are these sections of the Inspector General's report consistent
6607with your general experience on the Midyear review, that you were
6608aggravated by DOJ's caution?
6609Mr. Strzok . At times, yes~ I was.
6610Mr. Johnson. Is the description that you were aggravated by the
6611DOJ's hesitance to seek compulsory process accurate?
6612Mr. Strzok. I was at times aggravated by it~ yes~ that's
6613accurate.
6614Mr. Johnson. You were aggravated at times.
6615Mr. Strzok. At times~ yes, sir.
6616Mr. Johnson. Generally, why did the FBI advocate for the use of
6617compulsory process?
6618Mr. Strzok. Again, because I think, in my experience~ that there
6619comes a time you can ask for something, and frequently that becomes
6620very slow~ or you end up in a series of negotiations which overly limit
6621access to the material that you'd like to have. And in those instances
6622COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6623241
6624COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6625where for those items of evidence you have enough to either issue a
6626subpoena or a search warrant or get a 2703(d) order, my experience is
6627that you just do it. It's faster. It's more aggressive. It cuts to
6628the chase. And more than that , it also sends a tone to all the parties,
6629to opposing counsel, to the team, to the prosecutors, that, you know,
6630we're being aggressive, we're driving down the process of this
6631investigation to get to a resolution.
6632So I think it's important for all of those reasons.
6633Mr. Johnson. And, again, generally, why did the career
6634pros~cutors in this case favor obtaining evidence through consent?
6635Mr. Strzok. Sir, I think you need to ask them. I think that
6636all - - I think everyone of those decisions is a little bit different.
6637I think that, again, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, they are
6638looking at -- they're looking with a different lens at the material.
6639They're looking at its relevance to the elements of the crime. They
6640are looking at the legality and the admissibility of some of the
6641evidence. They are looking at future back-and-forth with opposing
6642counsel and developing a relationship over the span of a case. So I
6643think every particular item probably has a different set of
6644circumstances.
6645Mr. Johnson. Did you think that the career prosecutors disagreed
6646with the FBI based on legitimate legal differences of opinion?
6647Mr. Strzok. Generally, yes. I think sometimes I was probably
6648frustrated. I wished they were a little more gung-ho. But,
6649generally, yeah, I think it was absolutely legitimate disagreement.
6650COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6651242
6652COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6653Mr. Johnson. Did you think that the DOJ career prosecutors were
6654making these decisions based on their personal political views?
6655Mr. Strzok. No.
6656Mr. Johnson. In your experience, did any senior political
6657leaders at DOJ intervene in the decision to seek or not seek compulsory
6658process? And I'll give you these names.
6659Loretta Lynch?
6660Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge.
6661Mr. Johnson. Sally Yates?
6662Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge.
6663Mr. Johnson. Matt Axelrod?
6664Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge.
6665Mr. Johnson. John Carlin.
6666Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge.
6667Mr. Johnson. Did any of the agreements on how to obtain evidence
6668affect the thoroughness of the investigation?
6669Mr. Strzok. No.
6670Mr. Johnson. In your experience, is it common to have
6671disagreements between FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors working on a case?
6672Mr. Strzok. Yes.
6673Mr. Johnson. Is it common for the FBI to want to move more quickly
6674or aggressively and for the DOJ to ask for more evidence or to take
6675a more cautious approach?
6676Mr. Strzok. Yes, that's fair.
6677Mr. Johnson. Based on your answers to this section, is it fair
6678COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6679243
6680COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6681to say that you were aggressive in suggesting that the Clinton email
6682investigation make use of compulsory process?
6683Mr. Strzok. Yes.
6684Mr. Johnson. And is it also fair to say that you believe that
6685prosecutors disagreed with your suggestions based on legitimate legal
6686differences in opinion and not because of political bias?
6687Mr. Strzok. Yes.
6688Mr. Johnson. Okay.
6689Sir, I want to turn your attention to the reopening of the Clinton
6690email investigation after the discovery of emails on Anthony Weiner IS
6691laptop. Were you a part of the process of reopening - - or the decision
6692to reopen the investigation?
6693Mr. Strzok. Yes.
6694Mr. Johnson. Did you help draft the December 2816 letter that
6695Director Corney sent to Congress announcing the reopening of the Clinton
6696email investigation?
6697Mr. Strzok. I believe it was October 2816. Yes.
6698Mr. Johnson. You participated in the drafting of that letter?
6699Mr. Strzok. I did.
6700Mr. Johnson. Was it your understanding that that letter would
6701be to Congress and would not be made public?
6702Mr. Strzok. My understanding was it was likely to immediately
6703be made public.
6704Mr. Johnson. Well, let me ask you this question. Did you still
6705support sending the letter even if it would become public?
6706COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6707244
6708COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6709Mr. Strzok. I ultimately supported the decision to send the
6710letter by Director Comey, to send the letter to Congress.
6711Mr. Johnson. Why did you support sending that letter to
6712Congress?
6713Mr. Strzok. Congressman, it was an extraordinarily difficult
6714decision, and I was one of a number of people who was in the debate
6715in advising Director Comey. I think he has spoken at length and
6716eloquently about his thought process before this body as well as in
6717his book and in public. It was a decision that none of us took lightly
6718and a decision that, I think, for all of us, was right on the margin.
6719I think for everybody it was a 51-49 sort of thought.
6720I think, at the end of the day, given the fact that Director Comey
6721had made the speech that he did on July 5th and the inference that,
6722if there was a change, that he - - in subsequent statements to Congress
6723that he had made, that for a variety of reasons, but certainly one of
6724those reasons, that were we to reopen active investigation, that he
6725and the FBI had an obligation to notify Congress.
6726So I don't want to speak to all of the reasons. That's not a
6727question for him, and I think he's answered that. But that's my
6728understanding of one of the many reasons why it was done.
6729Mr. Johnson. Did you agree with the d~cision to reopen the email
6730investigation after the discovery of the emails on Anthony Weiner's
6731laptop?
6732Mr. Strzok. Yes, I did.
6733Mr. Johnson. And you supported the sending of the letter that
6734COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6735245
6736COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6737you helped draft to Congress?
6738Mr. Strzok. With not nearly the same surety that I had that we
6739needed to reactivate the investigation, but, yes, I did support it.
6740Mr. Johnson. You knew that it would be made public?
6741Mr. Strzok. I did. Well, I -- yes, I suspected it to a level
6742of belief that it was almost certain.
6743Mr. Johnson. And you knew that it would hurt the Hillary Clinton
6744campaign, did you not, if it became public?
6745Mr. Strzok. I did. Yes, I did.
6746Mr. Johnson. But, still, you acquiesced in sending the letter?
6747Mr. Strzok. I don't think "acquiesce" is the right word. I
6748think, after debate, I agreed with the decision.
6749Mr. Johnson. Okay. Thank you.
6750Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
6751Ms. Kim. We' 11 go off the record for a second. Thank you. The
6752time is 5:32.
6753[Discussion off the record.]
6754Ms. Kim. We're going to go back on the record. The time is 5: 33.
6755Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Strzok, I'm David Cicilline from Rhode
6756Island.
6757Mr. Strzok. Sir, good afternoon.
6758Mr. Cicilline. Good afternoon.
6759I just want to begin with one brief question where Mr. Johnson
6760left off. I think you said you agreed with the decision and maybe even
6761participated in the discussion about the appropriateness of notifying
6762COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6763246
6764COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6765Congress about the reopening of the Clinton investigation.
6766Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
6767Mr. Cicilline. And you knew at the time that that was likely to
6768be made public and likely to do harm to her candidacy.
6769Mr. Strzok. Yes.
6770Mr. Cicilline. And did you contribute to that decision as a
6771result of bias that you had toward Hillary Clinton?
6772Mr. Strzok. No.
6773Mr. Cicilline. What contributed to your rendering that decision
6774along with your colleagues?
6775Mr. Strzok. It was solely driven by the objective pursuit of the
6776investigation and the right thing to do with regard to Bureau policies
6777and past actions.
6778Mr. Cicilline. So, when we heard our colleagues spend a lot of
6779time today suggesting you had bias against President Trump, or
6780candidate Trump, how would that square with your decision to divulge
6781something that you knew would be harmful to her election and may, in
6782fact, have significantly contributed to her loss?
6783Mr. Strzok. Sir, I think that's the absolute deep underlying
6784fallacy and irony of this entire line. The things that I
6785did - - immediately sending agents to contact New York, advocating that
6786we needed to open the case as soon as I found out that there was
6787potentially relevant information, drafting the letter to Congress,
6788while at the same time saying nothing, keeping extraordinarily
6789compartmented the work we were doing with regard to the Russian
6790COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6791247
6792COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6793influence investigations -- all of those actions universally -- and
6794none of these were driven by these considerations, but all of those
6795actions were to the detriment of the candidacy of Secretary Clinton
6796and to the benefit of candidate Trump.
6797So it's extraordinarily -- "ironic" is probably a very kind word,
6798that that's the perception being attempted to be portrayed.
6799Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
6800I now want to turn your attention to the July 5th, 2816, statement
6801that Director Corney drafted on the Clinton investigation recommending
6802not to prosecute Secretary Clinton, and I'd like to walk you through
6803what happened in a little more detail.
6804Can you describe the general process that Director Corney used in
6805drafting the July 5th statement on the Clinton investigation, and,
6806particularly, what was your role in drafting or editing the statement?
6807Mr. Strzok. So I don't know how he drafted it. When I was
6808forwarded - - my recollection is that I was forwarded an email by Deputy
6809Director McCabe of something Director Corney had written a draft. I
6810don't know the process or how he did it, but, in any event, it was
6811forwarded to me. A small number of folks on the team and kind of asked
6812for, you know, thoughts, what do you think about this.
6813And then, following that point in time, there were enumerable
6814discussions amongst the investigative team about that statement and
6815things ranging -- again, I mentioned earlier, factual accuracies,
6816things that we could state, the most appropriate and accurate way to
6817state things, interpretations of law, past practice of law,
6818COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6819248
6820COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6821characterization of law, and putting that all together in a way that
6822would be understandable by somebody who wasn't a lawyer.
6823Mr. Cicilline. And the first time that you saw that was receiving
6824a draft that you understood was prepared by Director Corney himself,
6825correct?
6826Mr. Strzok. That's my understanding.
6827Mr. Cicilline. And that would've been in an email that you
6828received from Mr. McCabe on May 6 of 2016.
6829Mr. Strzok. I don't know that. If you do, I'll take your
6830representation.
6831Mr. Cicilline. Okay.
6832Who held the authority to approve the final language of the
6833July 5th, 2016, statement?
6834Mr. Strzok. Director Corney.
6835Mr. Cicilline. So you didn't have the authority to approve the
6836final language or the statement recommending not to prosecute Secretary
6837Clinton. Is that right?
6838Mr. Strzok. That's right.
6839Mr. Cicilline. And did you ever make edits or suggestions,
6840modi fications to that statement with the purpose of helping Secretary
6841Clinton or damaging the Trump campaign?
6842Mr. Strzok. No.
6843Mr. Cicilline. Did anyone else, to your knowledge?
6844Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge, no.
6845Mr. Cicilline. Did you ever push back on the group consensus on
6846COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6847249
6848COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6849the legal conclusions that were made during the drafting process? Some
6850of them you have discussed already in this testimony.
6851Mr. Strzok. "Push back" I think -- I don't know that I would use
6852that word. There was a lot of robust discussion about the various legal
6853aspects. But all of the conclusions, I think, were supported by the
6854facts and law and precedent.
6855Mr. Cicilline. And were the members of the Midyear Exam FBI team
6856free to express their concerns throughout the drafting process?
6857Mr. Strzok. Yes.
6858Mr. Cicilline. And do you recall any member of the team
6859expressing significant disagreements about the statement's final
6860wording?
6861Mr. Strzok. I do not.
6862Mr. Cicilline. Did anyone significantly disagree with the final
6863language in Director Comey's July 5th, 2e16, press statement?
6864Mr. Strzok. No.
6865Mr. Cicilline. Now, there has been a lot of excitement by my
6866colleagues on the other side of aisle about the initial statement being
6867drafted before the FBI officially closed the Clinton investigation in
6868July 2e16. And some have even suggested something suspicious about
6869that.
6870Would you explain -- do you believe that Director Corney acted
6871improperly or prematurely by drafting an initial statement before
6872Secretary Clinton and other interviews occurred? Can you explain why
6873or why not? And is that an unusual practice in the normal course of
6874COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6875250
6876COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6877an investigation?
6878Mr. Strzok. So I don't think it is unusual to think about the
6879violations or exposure any particular individual mayor may not have.
6880This was unusual in that that statement was made with regard to an
6881individual that we were not going to recommend charges. But setting
6882that aside, I don't think the fact that prior to the conclusion of a
6883case, particularly one that's particularly intensive and has had a lot
6884of work done, that prosecutors and agents arrived at an understanding
6885before the case is complete that there are significant flaws in some
6886or all potential charges or absolutely strong, sustainable charges.
6887So it is not -- my observation is that, in a big case, it can
6888frequently occur that people have an idea well before the end of the
6889case whether or not you're going to be able to overcome hurdles to
6890prosecution.
6891Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
6892I'm going to now ask you to turn your attention to an exhibit that
6893I'd ask be marked as exhibit 11 and ask, do you recognize this email?
6894[Strzok Exhibit No. 11
6895Was marked for identification.]
6896Mr. Strzok. I do.
6897Mr. Cicilline. And was it written by you alone, or was it a
6898reflection of a collaborative discussion?
6899Mr. Strzok. It was a collaborative discussion.
6900Mr. Cicilline. And the email has a redacted name. Do you
6901remember who besides you and Jon Moffa collaborated on this email?
6902CO~MITTEE SENSITIVE
6903COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6904Mr. Strzok. I don't. It's one of two people, Ms. Page or
6905another OGC attorney.
6906251
6907Mr. Cicilline. And if you turn to the second page, under the
6908subheader, "Topic for Further Discussion," you wrote: "6) Whether
6909her conduct rises to the legal definition of gross negligence." Do
6910you see that?
6911Mr. Strzok. I do.
6912Mr. Cicilline. Why did the team need to have further discussion
6913about whether Secretary Clinton's conduct rose to the legal definition
6914of gross negligence?
6915Mr. Strzok. Because this -- my recollection, sir, is this came
6916up in the context of going through the draft statement. Some of the
6917attorneys, if I recall correctly -- it was not me, but I think it was
6918one of the attorneys raised the question, okay, well, he's saying here
6919gross negligence. Is that what he means, that is, I'm not an attorney,
6920but that is -- that carries a legal definition with it. Clearly it's
6921part of the statutes, but it also goes to, you know, an application
6922across a variety of statutes.
6923And so, as I recall the issue being raised by the attorneys, it
6924was: Hey, we need to talk about this because I'm not sure that it is
6925exactly right here. And that presence there on that list, this topic
6926number 6, is simply flagging that for future discussion.
6927Mr. Cicilline. And, in that discussion, do you recall whether
6928or not a member of the team was concerned specifically about using
6929language that is also a legal standard and that that might result in
6930COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6931252
6932COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6933some confusion?
6934Mr. Strzok. That is my recollection of part of what the concern
6935was.
6936Mr. Cicilline. And were you the first to raise this concern, or
6937was it a view of others in the group?
6938Mr. Strzok. I didn't raise it. It was the view of others in the
6939group. And my recollection is, certainly, on the team with the DO)
6940attorneys, this issue of demonstrating intent and the scienter elements
6941was something we had discussed in the past. I don't know if, in the
6942context of the Director, this point had been raised or not. It may
6943have been, but I just don't remember.
6944Mr. Cicilline. Do you recall whether you had a view on this
6945question?
6946Mr. Strzok. My view was that it was complicated, and I didn't
6947understand the issue in the way the really bright attorneys did.
6948Mr. Cicilline. Did the team ultimately reach a consensus on
6949whether Secretary Clinton had acted in a grossly negligent manner?
6950Mr. Strzok. I think the closest I would say - - and I would defer
6951to the attorneys. I think, as I recall it, there was some concern as
6952to whether or not we could demonstrate that because of how that was
6953defined in various ways in various courts. But, again, that is my
6954nonattorney, nonlegal understanding of the issue.
6955[Strzok Exhibit No. 12
6956Was marked for identification.]
6957Mr. Cicilline. Now I'm going to ask you, Mr. Strzok, to look at
6958COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6959253
6960COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6961a document that has been marked as exhibit 12. This is an exhibit of
6962a resolution introduced by Republican Members of Congress on May 22nd,
69632018, requesting that the Attorney General appoint a second special
6964counsel to investigate the Department of Justice and the FBI.
6965On page 4, the first clause begins, and I quote, "Whereas Director
6966Corney, in the final draft of his statement, allowed FBI Agent Peter
6967Strzok to replace 'grossly negligent,' which is legally punishable
6968under Federal law, with 'extremely careless,' which is not legally
6969punishable under Federal law."
6970Do you see that paragraph?
6971Mr. Strzok. I do.
6972Mr. Cicilline. And, Mr. Strzok, do you agree with the
6973characterization that Director Corney, and I quote, allowed you to
6974replace "grossly negligent" with "extremely careless"?
6975Mr. Strzok. No.
6976Mr. Cicilline. At the time" grossly negligent" was used in the
6977initial draft, did Director Corney's statement conclude that the FBI
6978recommended prosecution of Secretary Clinton?
6979Mr. Strzok. It did not recommend that.
6980Mr. Cicilline. Did the edit of replacing "grossly negligent"
6981with "extremely careless" change the FBI's substantive conclusion in
6982any way?
6983Mr. Strzok. No.
6984Mr. Cicilline. Do you recall specifically whether that edit was
6985made by you or someone else?
6986COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6987254
6988COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6989Mr. Strzok. It was not made by me. A bunch of us were sitting
6990in my office. It is possible I was typing that in, but it was -- that
6991change was not submitted by me.
6992Mr. Cicilline. And was that change a reflection of the opinion
6993of the group?
6994Mr. Strzok. It was certainly the opinion of the attorneys, who
6995I think explained to the group in a way that we said, yes, we agree
6996or that makes sense, to the extent we understand it.
6997Mr. Cicilline. And why, ultimately, was the edit made?
6998Mr. Strzok. I think because, one, the director decided he wanted
6999it made; two, I think it was the consensus that it was, from a legal
7000and common reading perspective, the most appropriate -- or a better
7001way to say what Director Comey was trying to convey.
7002Mr. Cicilline. So the assertion that's made in this official
7003document by Republican Members of Congress about you is false as it
7004relates to you changing the word.
7005Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
7006Mr. Cicilline. Now I'm going to ask you, Mr. Strzok, if you would
7007turn to page 3, where the fourth clause states, and I quote, "Whereas
7008according to transcripts obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee,
7009former Director Comey was prepared to exonerate Hillary Clinton as
7010early as April or May of 2016 when he began to draft a statement
7011announcing the end of his investigation, before up to 17 key witnesses,
7012including former Secretary Clinton and several of her closest aides,
7013were interviewed."
7014COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7015255
7016COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7017Mr. Strzok, is it accurate to say former Director Corney was
7018prepared to exonerate Hillary Clinton as early as April or May of 2816?
7019Mr. Strzok. I don't believe that's accurate.
7020Mr. Cicilline. If the FBI's interviews of Secretary Clinton and
7021others produced new evidence that supported prosecuting Secretary
7022Clinton, would the FBI have ignored that evidence and stuck with the
7023existing draft statement?
7024Mr. Strzok. No .
7025Mr. Cicilline. In other words, did the initial draft statements
7026in the spring of 2816 lock in the FBI's recommendations not to prosecute
7027regardless of any new evidence?
7028Mr. Strzok. No.
7029Mr. Cicilline. But the FBI did not actually receive new evidence
7030in these interviews that supported prosecuting Secretary Clinton.
7031Isn't that correct?
7032Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
7033Mr. Cicilline. And now I would ask you to turn --
7034Mr. Strzok. Congressman, let me -- I would expand on that a
7035little bit. The information that we developed subsequent to the
7036drafting of that statement did not get us to the point where I think
7037Director Corney could reasonably conclude that charges were
7038appropriate.
7039Mr. Cicilline. And I just want to say that the IG report, at page
7040238, and I quote, found: We found no evidence that Corney's public
7041statement announcing the FBI's decision to close the investigation was
7042COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7043256
7044COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7045the result of bias or an effort to influence the election. Instead,
7046the documentary and testamentary evidence reviewed by the OIG reflected
7047that Corney's decision was a result of his consideration of the evidence
7048that the FBI had collected during the course of the investigation and
7049his understanding of the proof required to pursue a prosecution under
7050the relevant statutes, end quote.
7051Mr. Strzok, is that conclusion consistent with your experience?
7052Mr. Strzok. Yes.
7053Mr. Cicilline. So bias or an effort to influence the election
7054was not part of the FBI's decisionmaking in any way.
7055Mr. Strzok. Correct.
7056Mr. Cicilline. Do you have any reason to believe that Director
7057Corney's recommendations against prosecuting Hillary Clinton was
7058influenced by any improper conversations, including political bias?
7059Mr. Strzok. No.
7060Mr. Cicilline. Was your opinion influenced by political bias?
7061Mr. Strzok. No.
7062Mr. Cicilline. Or was your opinion based on facts and evidence,
7063as you've already stated?
7064Mr. Strzok. Yes.
7065Mr. Cicilline. So I want to just turn just for a moment now,
7066Mr. Strzok, to this whole notion of political bias. I know the
7067suggestion has been made that the vast majority of the FBI and the agents
7068that serve the FBI are Democrats and they are biased in favor of
7069Democrats. Do you think that's a true statement?
7070COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7071257
7072COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7073Mr. Strzok. No.
7074Mr. Cicilline. Are FBI agents and professionals such as yourself
7075allowed to have personal political affiliations and opinions?
7076Mr. Strzok. Yes.
7077Mr. Cicilline. When the FBI staffs a politically sensitive
7078investigation - - for example, a public corruption case - - does the FBI
7079requester the personal political persuasion of its agents in making
7080those staffing decisions?
7081Mr. Strzok. No.
7082Mr. Cicilline. Why not?
7083Mr. Strzok. Because I don't know that it would be legal. That
7084is not a consideration that is taken into account, in my experience,
7085in staffing investigations.
7086Mr. Cicilline. And is it also not the expectation that an FBI
7087professional, whether they have a political persuasion or opinion, will
7088understand their obligation to separate that from their duties at the
7089FBI?
7090Mr. Strzok. They will understand that, yes.
7091Mr. Cicilline. In fact, when the FBI puts together a team of
7092investigators, is the consideration ever, I need a couple of
7093Republicans or a couple of Democrats?
7094Mr. Strzok. Never.
7095Mr. Cicilline. Does the FBI ask about the political affiliations
7096of its own agents?
7097Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge.
7098COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7099258
7100COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7101Mr. Cicilline. And" in fact" is it explicitly forbidden for the
7102FBI to ask about political affiliations for staffing investigations?
7103Mr. Strzok. That's my understanding" yes.
7104Mr. Cicilline. And how do FBI agents , know not to let political
7105bias interfere with their political work?
7106Mr. Strzok. Because it is engrained in everything we do. It is
7107part of our training. It is part of the law. It is part of the code
7108and culture of who we are.
7109Mr. Cicilline. And" in your experience" in your time at the FBI
7110and with the Justice Department, have you seen evidence of anybody
7111applying political bias in their 'investigation of any subject matter?
7112Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge" no.
7113Mr. Cicilline. Is there any reason to believe that Jim Comey's
7114political affiliation affected the way he investigated Secretary
7115Clinton's email server?
7116Mr. Strzok. No.
7117Mr. Cicilline. NOw, the final area -- do I have time?
7118Ms. Kim. Yes.
7119Mr. Cicilline. You indicated in response to some earlier
7120questioning that you -- in responding to some of your -- describing
7121some of your tweets" that you were contemplating some possibilities
7122about the potential involvement of the Trump campaign or officials
7123within the Trump campaign to have actively coordinated with Russian
7124adversaries during the course of the Presidential election.
7125Mr. Strzok. Yes.
7126COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7127259
7128COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7129Mr. Cicilline. And I take it that any good investigator, as
7130you're learning facts and conducting interviews and gathering
7131evidence, part of your responsibility is to sort of contemplate
7132possibilities.
7133Mr. Strzok. Yes.
7134Mr. Cicilline. It helps you decide where to go and what
7135additional evidence to look for.
7136Mr. Strzok. Yes.
7137Mr. Cicilline. So you came at some moment in this investigation
7138where the - - I think you described it as the gravest possibility - - you
7139began to contemplate what you call the gravest possibility.
7140Mr. Strzok. Yes.
7141Mr. Cicilline. And what was the gravest possibility, as you saw
7142it?
7143Mr. Strzok. The gravest possibility I saw, based on the
7144allegation that Russia was colluding with members of the Trump
7145campaign, the gravest possibility was that candidate Trump himself was
7146engaged in collusion with the Government of Russia to gain the
7147Presidency.
7148Mr. Cicilline. And I'd take it, as a national security
7149professional, that if you saw evidence that proved that to be true,
7150you would consider that to be worthy of removal from office.
7151Mr. Strzok. If that were true, I would, yes.
7152Mr. Cicilline. And without telling us the nature of the evidence
7153in this setting, did there come a time during the course of this
7154COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7155260
7156COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7157investigation that the reality that that grave description we just
7158gave did you see evidence to support that claim?
7159Ms. Besse. I'm sorrYJ Congressman. If I may interrupt
7160Mr. Cicilline. Do I have a choice?
7161Ms. Besse. For Mr. Strzok to answer thatJ it goes intoJ sort of,
7162what he looked at during the investigation that's now under the purview
7163of the special counsel. So I will instruct him not to answer that
7164question.
7165Mr. Cicilline . Okay. Even if I - - I certainly respect thatJ and
7166I'm not asking you in any way to comment on what you saw or the quality.
7167I'm asking you to describe your state of mind after having done that.
7168Ms. Besse. His state of mind is going to be based on evidence
7169that he was privy to and information that he knew --
7170Mr. Cicilline. Okay. I'll try something else.
7171As you spent time during the course of this investigation doing
7172your work of interviewing witnesses, looking at evidence, did that
7173grave example that you usedJ as you would consider the gravest, most
7174dangerous thing, did you develop more or less concern that that was
7175a possibility?
7176Ms. Besse. CongressmanJ I think that would also --
7177Mr. Cicilline. I'm going to ask a much more skilled staffer to
7178help me.
7179Mr. Goelman. I don't know that it's a matter of skill. It's the
7180question.
7181BY MS. KIM:
7182COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7183261
7184COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7185Q Mr. Strzok, I'd like to touch quickly on a letter coming out
7186of the Senate today. So Senator Lindsey Graham sent a letter to the
7187Deputy Attorney General. I am asking the questions that are being
7188posed to the DO] today.
7189A Uh-huh.
7190Q So he asked: Did you, Mr. Strzok, have any role in retaining
7191or supervising the confidential informant who Lindsey Graham
7192characterizes as targeting the Trump campaign and Trump associates at
7193the beginning of the Russia probe?
7194A I can answer that, but my concern goes to a point that was
7195made earlier, that, by answering that,
7196And I don't know that that's a path
7197that we can go down.
7198Ms. Besse. I'm sorry. Is that a letter that was drafted to go
7199out -- or went out today?
7200Ms. Kim. It has gone out today, yes.
7201Ms. Besse. So the FBI would have to look at that and make a
7202decision as to how and if it can respond to that. So I don't think
7203that Mr. Strzok can respond to that.
7204Ms. Kim. I understand. Let me try to phrase it in a more general
7205way.
7206Mr. Strzok, have you had any role in instructing a confidential
7207informant to infiltrate or investigate a major Presidential campaign?
7208Ms. Besse. Again, if it's based on his involvement in a specific
7209investigation, he will not be able to answer that question.
7210COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7211262
7212COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7213Ms. Kim. I understand the FBI's equities. The concern that I
7214have is that, by not being able to clarify that he has never participated
7215in the infiltration of the campaign, his good name is unnecessarily
7216being dragged through the mud.
7217Mr. Cicilline. Can I just say one thing? If, for sake of
7218argument, the answer to that were "no," then it's clearly not revealing
7219anything about an investigation because it's a fact that didn't happen.
7220So I think if the answer is "no," you can answer "no" without having
7221to comment on an ongoing investigation.
7222Ms. Kim. And one more thing I'll raise is I am rephrasing almost
7223exactly a question I asked earlier to which Mr. Strzok was allowed to
7224respond.
7225Mr. Goelman. Was allowed to respond?
7226Ms. Kim. He was indeed.
7227Mr. Goelman. Can we just have one moment?
7228Ms. Kim. Yes.
7229[Discussion off the record.]
7230Ms. Kim. I think we'll go back on the record. It's 6:00 p.m.
7231BY MS. KIM:
7232Q Mr. Strzok, have you ever been a part of the FBI's efforts
7233to infiltrate a u.S. political campaign?
7234A No.
7235Q Have you ever been a part of an effort to put a spy in aU. s.
7236political campaign?
7237A No.
7238COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7239263
7240COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7241Q I think if that's the best we can do, you've given those
7242answers, and I have no reason to doubt that you are --
7243Mr. Cicilline. Can I add one thing?
7244To your knowledge, at the time that you were at the Bureau, have
7245you ever heard of that happening?
7246Mr. Strzok. No. No, I do not have personal knowledge of that
7247happening?
7248Ms. Kim. Did you have any role in reviewing, approving, or
7249supplying information for the FISA warrant obtained to surveil Carter
7250Page?
7251Mr. Strzok. I think we've asked and been unable to answer that
7252in the past?
7253Ms. Besse. Yes. I think how it was phrased earlier was about
7254whether you signed --
7255Ms. Kim. An affidavit.
7256Ms. Besse. Right. So may we confer?
7257Ms. Kim. Sure. Certainly.
7258[Discussion off the record.]
7259Ms. Kim. We will go back on the record. It is 6:81.
7260Mr. Goelman. The witness has been instructed by counsel for the
7261agency not to answer that question, and we'll abide by that direction.
7262Ms. Kim. Thank you very much.
7263I'll turn it over to Mr. Raskin.
7264Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much.
7265Mr. Strzok, the criticism of you seems to come down to the
7266COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7267264
7268COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7269suggestion that the few texts that were identified somehow reflected
7270a general conspiracy that was going on to fix the Pres~dential contest.
7271Was there any political conspiracy at the FBI to alter the outcome of
7272the election?
7273Mr. Strzok. Not that I'm aware of.
7274Mr. Raskin. Okay. And do your texts reflect a conspiracy or an
7275agreement between you and your close friend to alter the outcome of the
7276election?
7277Mr. Strzok. No.
7278Mr. Raskin. Okay. Is all of this much ado about nothing?
7279Mr. Strzok. I believe so~ yes.
7280Mr. Raskin. Do you view it as a massive distraction and red
7281herring?
7282Mr. Strzok. I don't know that I'm ready to~ kind of~ go through
7283what I think it is. I do believe~ yes~ it is absolutely a distraction
7284and is not accurate in any way.
7285Mr. Raskin. Okay.
7286When we first got some portion of the texts that were disclosed
7287to us by the Department of Justice~ I noticed that there were these
7288offhand political slams~ I suppose I would call them~ directed not just
7289at President Trump but at Eric Holder ~ I think Hillary Clinton. I think
7290my friend Martin 0' Malley came in for some hits. Bernie Sanders I think
7291was described at one point as an idiot~ which was a word that was also
7292used for President Trump.
7293Even at the informal level of personal banter~ which your texts
7294COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7295265
7296COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7297about the President appeared to me, would you agree that you were making
7298the same kinds of offhanded casual comments about other political
7299figures that people do in friendships all the time?
7300Mr. Strzok. Yes.
7301Mr. Raskin. And even within the paranoid view of these texts as
7302relating to, you know, some kind of ongoing belief system, if we accepted
7303that, we would have to accept that basically the dialogue reflects a
7304general irreverence or a general skepticism about politicians. Isn't
7305that right?
7306Mr. Strzok. That's fair.
7307Mr. Raskin. Okay.
7308And as I read the dialogue, it could have appeared in the texting
7309history of probably tens of millions of American. I mean, even the most
7310damning nuggets that your critics have seized upon, things like "he's
7311an idiot," could probably be found in tens of millions of texts.
7312I mean, I suppose you're no expert on that, but would you agree
7313that the things that were said were said in the course of general
7314political vernacular that people speak to with their friends?
7315Mr. Strzok. I do agree.
7316Mr. Raskin. Okay.
7317Okay. That's all I've got. Thanks.
7318Ms. Kim . We will be going off the record now. It is 6:86.
7319[Recess.]
7320COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7321266
7322COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7323[6:12 p.m.]
7324Chairman Goodlatte. We'll go back on the record at 6:12 p.m.
7325Agent Strzok, you were asked earlier who made -- if you made the
7326decision on how to classify the Midyear Exam investigation, and you said
7327that you did not. Is that correct?
7328Mr. Strzok. Mr. Chairman, that's correct.
7329Chairman Goodlatte. Who did make that decision?
7330Mr. Strzok. I don't know. That was done before I joined the
7331case, and it would have been somebody at headquarters. But I don't know
7332who did that.
7333Chairman Goodlatte. Who was in charge of the case at
7334headquarters?
7335Mr. Strzok. My understanding was that it was run out of the
7336Counterintelligence Di vision initially. Section Chief Sandy Kable had
7337that effort and he had folks in his section working on it. At the time,
7338he reported to Randy Coleman, who was Bill Priestap's predecessor, and
7339then the chain, the deputy at the time was Mark Giuliano. The EAD, I
7340don't know who that was at the time.
7341Chairman Goodlatte. Who ordinarily would make that
7342classification?
7343Mr. Strzok. Ordinarily, if -- well, because it was at
7344headquarters, that is hard to answer. In the field, ordinarily that
7345would be the case agent and the supervisory special agent on the squad
7346that was opening the case.
7347At headquarters, that would typically -- I don't think there's a
7348COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7349267
7350COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7351typically when it's at headquarters.
7352Chairman Goodlatte. Now, on the Trump-Russia investigation, who
7353was the subordinate supervisor to you that you referenced earlier?
7354Mr. Strzok. There were a couple of them. There was a supervisory
7355special agent. There was a supervisory intelligence analyst. Jon
7356Moffa and I, as we did in Midyear, kind of had parallel roles, but we
7357were, for the Russia influence investigations, kind of at a higher level.
7358But there was both the supervisory special agent and the supervisory
7359intelligence analyst.
7360Chairman Goodlatte. NOw, I want to talk to you about your
7361communications with Lisa Page.
7362Earlier you were asked whether you didn't think that some of the
7363expressions you made involving various obscene comments about Donald
7364Trump were hateful. I think you said you wouldn't call them that. You
7365would call them a reflection of personal belief in a private
7366conversation.
7367Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
7368Chairman Goodlatte. So do you not believe that you can make a
7369statement of personal belief in a private conversation that is of a
7370hateful nature?
7371Mr. Strzok. Well, I do believe you can make a statement in a
7372private conversation that is of a hateful nature.
7373Chairman Goodlatte. So would you characterize the statements
7374that you made about Donald Trump in the private conversation as being
7375hateful?
7376COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7377268
7378COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7379Mr. Strzok. I would not.
7380Chairman Goodlatte. Why would you not?
7381Mr. Strzok. Because my -- when I think when you ask me what
7382it means for me to hate somebody, I do not hate President Trump.
7383That's - - in my mind, that is reserved for something entirely different
7384from that.
7385I would characterize these, again, as I did before, private
7386expressions of personally held belief, certainly emotive, certainly
7387charged, but not hateful.
7388Chairman Goodlatte. NOw, you were asked about a text in which you
7389referenced being in a place where there were Trump supporters, and how
7390did you characterize them?
7391Mr. Strzok. Sir, what I think I characterized them as earlier is
7392that I was struck by the difference in the way political support existed
7393in a constituency in southern Virginia so radically different from the
7394same State just lee miles away that was of vastly different character.
7395Chairman Goodlatte. You said you could smell.
7396Mr. Strzok. Oh, yes, sir, I did say that.
7397Chairman Goodlatte. And what does that mean?
7398Mr. Strzok. Sir, I -- and, again, I appreciate Congressman Gowdy
7399trying to dissect what that meant.
7400For me, that was a quick analogy. I'm typing a text. It was just
7401as likely if I could have used "see" or "hear." It was not anything
7402other than just it is strikingly apparent to me the level of Trump support
7403here and how different that is from northern Virginia.
7404COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7405269
7406COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7407Chairman Goodlatte. NOw, you talked about risking the source
7408versus pu~suing the investigation as an explanation for your text
7409involving a reference to an insurance policy. Can you explain to me
7410why you would be saying this to Ms. Page in the first place?
7411Mr. 5trzok. Yes, sir, because she was -- my recollection from the
7412text -- was part of a discussion that we had in the context of having
7413received information from an extremely sensitive source, and that the
7414debate -- one of the debates on how to pursue this information was how
7415much risk to put that sensitive source in because, in my experience,
7416the more aggressive an investigation, the greater chance of burning or
7417compromising that source.
7418And the reason, I believe, I mentioned it to Ms. Page, and
7419certainly from the context of the text in saying she threw it out, there
7420was a kind of thought process or a set of -- a proposal by some that,
7421look, the polls, the pundits, everybody, Republicans, Democrats, think
7422it's very unlikely that candidate Trump would win the Presidency.
7423And because of that, some people were arguing these allegations
7424of collusion, whatever they mayor may not be in terms of accurate, it
7425doesn't really matter as much because he's not going to get elected.
742650 we can take, as many counterintelligence investigations do, 3,
74274 years, because we have that time.
7428My argument back to those people advocating that was, look, we
7429can't assume anybody, one or the other, is going to get elected, even
7430i f it's unlikely, even if it's unlikely that you're going to die before
7431you're 48, even if it's unlikely that he, President -- then-candidate
7432COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7433270
7434COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7435Trump would be elected President. We need to do our job because the
7436mission of the FBI, what the American people, what Congress, what
7437candidate Trump expect is that we would go out and aggressively look
7438at those allegations because, if he were elected, some of those people
7439which might be wrapped up in those allegations might be placed in
7440positions of significant authority and responsibility in the national
7441security staffing of the White House.
7442Chairman Goodlatte. So you call that an insurance policy?
7443Mr. Strzok. Sir, that's an analogy that I use to try and say, when
7444there is something unlikely that probably isn't going to happen,
7445nevertheless you --
7446Chairman Goodlatte. Can you understand why somebody reading that
7447would believe that the insurance policy was a way to stop Donald Trump
7448from becoming President or preventing him from continuing on as
7449President based upon improperly using the aggressive investigation that
7450you refer to here?
7451Mr. Strzok. Mr. Chairman, I would tell you, one, it wasn't. And
7452two, I think the most commonsense reading of that, particularly given
7453my explanation, makes -- it is the most persuasive, simplest
7454understanding of that, because it's true, and that it was not.
7455I know many people have said, you know, there's this inference,
7456and many people can have many interpretations of it, but I'm - - I wrote
7457it and I'm telling you what I meant.
7458Chairman Goodlatte. Did you ever have any conversations with
7459Director Corney regarding these texts?
7460COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7461COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7462Mr. Strzok. No.
7463Chairman Goodlatte. At any time?
7464Mr. Strzok. No.
7465Chairman Goodlatte. Never.
7466271
7467Did you ever have any conversations with Lisa Page that are printed
7468other than the ones that we have been -- have been made available to
7469us?
7470Mr. Strzok. I don't understand your question, sir.
7471Chairman Goodlatte. The question is, are there existing texts
7472other than the ones that you and I both have been provided for in
7473preparation for this?
7474Mr. Strzok. I believe there are texts that the inspector general
7475is in the process of recovering. I don't have those and haven't seen
7476them. But there is a -- my understanding, the FBI data systems had some
7477sort of faulty software that did not preserve all the texts and that
7478the IG is recovering some of those.
7479Mr. Goelman. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, can I have 1 minute?
7480[Discussion off the record.]
7481Mr. Strzok. Right. So, sir, would you re-ask the question?
7482Chairman Goodlatte. Yes. So the question is, are there other
7483communications, written communications with Lisa Page, other than the
7484ones that we are asking you about based upon documents produced to us
7485and to you in preparation for today?
7486Mr. Strzok. Yes. My understanding is that the inspector general
7487recovered texts that are purely of a personal nature that were not
7488COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7489272
7490COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7491produced to me, to FBI, and I don't believe they've been produced to
7492the Hill.
7493Chairman Goodlatte. And who made the determination that they were
7494of a personal nature?
7495Mr. Strzok. I don't know.
7496Chairman Goodlatte. You don't know. And was the inspector
7497general involved in his office, or was it somebody at the FBI or somebody
7498in the Department of Justice?
7499Mr. Strzok. No. My belief is that the entirety of the texts were
7500produced to the inspector general and the inspector general did the
7501separation, but you'd have to ask him.
7502I also know that there has been a in the production kind of
7503review to say, okay, you know, if there are things that are personal
7504to redact it. But my understanding, but you'd have to ask the IG, is
7505that the IG and his staff did that separation.
7506Chairman Goodlatte. Have you ever had conversations of the nature
7507regarding, I call them reflecting animus, if not hatefulness, with
7508regard to these communications with Ms. Page with any other person?
7509Mr. Strzok. I have had conversations with some close friends
7510about my personal beliefs.
7511Chairman Goodlatte. Are they -- are these communications
7512written?
7513Mr. Strzok. No. The ones --
7514Chairman Goodlatte. No texts with anybody other than Lisa Page?
7515Mr. Strzok. I have had communications, including texts with
7516COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7517COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7518friends, about personal topics, including my personal political
7519beliefs.
7520273
7521NOw, to, sir, to your question as of this nature, content, no.
7522Chairman Goodlatte. Reflecting what I would call -- you've
7523decided to characterize it simply as a personal opinion, but personal
7524opinions can be characterized by yourself and by others as reflecting
7525an attitude, including a hateful attitude or an attitude of animus
7526towards somebody. Have you done that?
7527Mr. Strzok. Not of the same nature, volume, no.
7528Chairman Goodlatte. All right.
7529Have you had conversations with other officials at the FBI
7530regarding these texts?
7531Mr. Strzok. Yes.
7532Chairman Goodlatte. With whom?
7533Mr. Strzok. Then-Deputy Director McCabe, Associate Deputy
7534Director Bowdich.
7535Chairman Goodlatte. Were these conversations before these texts
7536became known to the public or after?
7537Mr. Strzok. These were before the texts became known to the
7538public.
7539Chairman Goodlatte. Who else?
7540Mr. Strzok. Sir, I'd have to think about it. What I'm -- what
7541I'm - - the reason I'm pausing is there may be in the context of friends,
7542whether or not discussing the fact that we had had these exchanged and,
7543you know, reasons for returning to the FBI.
7544COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7545274
7546COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7547I remember speaking to both deputy director -- then-Deputy
7548Director McCabe and associate -- then-Associate Deputy Director Bowdich
7549in the context of the -- when I returned to the FBI and my placement
7550in the Human Resources Division. But I can't give you a specific answer
7551to whom else I might have discussed the texts with.
7552Chairman Goodlatte. How about after they were made public?
7553Mr. Strzok. Yes" the same answer. There were - - I could not give
7554you a list of people. There were folks obviously who were aware of it.
7555A large number of folks" you know" expressing support.
7556Chairman Goodlatte. Surely you must remember some of them.
7557Mr. Strzok. Sure" yes" I do. I mean" I remember a lot of people
7558being very supportive and reaching out and saying" "Hey" hang in there,,"
7559and things of that nature. So" yes" it was obviously very well
7560publicized and known.
7561Chairman Goodlatte. So are there texts on personal devices that
7562haven't been produced to the inspector general or to the Congress?
7563Mr. Strzok. Not that I am aware of" but I don't know where the
7564Chairman Goodlatte. Whether they were personal or not?
7565Mr. Strzok. Not that I'm aware of" and I don't know the status
7566of the IG's work.
7567Mr. Goelman. One second.
7568[Discussion off the record.]
7569Chairman Goodlatte. Are there texts or emails or other written
7570communications with anyone else inside or outside the Department of
7571Justice or the Federal Bureau of Investigation with whom you have had
7572COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7573275
7574COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7575a personal relationship of a nature similar to the relationship you have
7576had with Lisa Page?
7577Mr. Strzok. No.
7578Chairman Goodlatte. None whatsoever?
7579Mr. Strzok. If you're imp1ying an extramarital or romantic
7580relationship?
7581Chairman Goodlatte. Correct.
7582Mr. Strzok. No.
7583Chairman Goodlatte. You were asked, I think by the minority,
7584regarding FBI morale --
7585Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
7586Chairman Goodlatte. related to this. After the Comey
7587announcement of the decision not to indict former Secretary of State
7588Hillary Clinton, were there expressions of low morale that you received
7589from anybody in the Department related to that announcement and
7590decision?
7591Mr. Strzok. Sir, I wouldn't characterize it as low morale. I
7592think it is absolutely fair to say that there were a significant number
7593of agents who either disagreed or didn't understand the reasoning behind
7594the decision not to charge her or with the decision to make a statement
7595about it. But I would not characterize those concerns or questions,
7596I would not at all equate those with low morale.
7597Chairman Goodlatte. And how about after the decision made by
7598Director Comey to reopen the investigation and the announcement through
7599a letter to me and others to reopen the investigation just days before
7600COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7601276
7602COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7603the' Presidential election? What kind of expressions were made to you
7604by others regarding their attitude toward that at that time?
7605Mr. Strzok. I don't recall any specific statements. My
7606general - - my recollection of the general sense was this case just keeps
7607continuing, and it was neither a morale thing at all. I wouldn't even
7608say it's positive or negative other than, oh, you know, wow, we're still
7609here, still with this case. But that's a general sense, Mr. Chairman,
7610not a specific text or any conversation.
7611Chairman Goodlatte. You indicated that you were surprised and
7612stunned by the firing of Director Corney.
7613Mr. Strzok. Yes.
7614Chairman Goodlatte. Did you ever speak to the deputy attorney
7615general or anyone in his office regarding your reaction to the deputy
7616attorney general's comments reinforcing the decision to terminate
7617Director Corney?
7618Mr. Strzok. Not to my recollection.
7619Chairman Goodlatte. Did you review those comments by the deputy
7620attorney general?
7621Mr. Strzok. Yes, I read them, if you're talking about his -- the
7622material that he provided to the White House that was used and released
7623in the context of the reasoning for the firing for Director Corney.
7624Chairman Goodlatte. Correct.
7625Mr. Strzok . Yes, I read them.
7626Chairman Goodlatte. And what was your reaction to that?
7627Mr. Strzok. My reaction -- I had two reactions, Mr. Chairman.
7628COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7629277
7630COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7631The first was the kind of independent assessment of the deputy attorney
7632general about the precedential nature of what Director Comey had done
7633and his assessment of that and whether or not I thought that was a valid
7634assessment.
7635And then my second reaction was, particularly in the face of the
7636statements by President Trump to Lester Holt, to Russian diplomats, that
7637the reason he had fired Mr. Comey had nothing to do with the rationale
7638in the deputy attorney general's letter and everything to do with the
7639Russia investigations gave me great pause about what the reasoning truly
7640was behind Director Comey's firing.
7641Chairman Goodlatte. Getting back to this issue regarding Trump,
7642you can smell the Trump supporters, what are the different demographics
7643between northern Virginia and southern Virginia that would allow you
7644to smell that difference?
7645Mr. Strzok. Sir, again, smell, smell is the analogy that I
7646pulled. It could easily have been see, heard.
7647What I observed from my very quick text, which was not at all a
7648scientific description, was that my observation was the area that I was
7649in, in central-southern Virginia, was almost exclusively and very
7650demonstrably pro-Trump, from the number of signs in front of homes and
7651bumper stickers, and was very much different from my experience here
7652in northern Virginia where it was a much more evenly split population.
7653And my observation was simply, we're the same State, we're lee or
7654however many miles apart, and it is radically different, and just that
7655was striking to me.
7656COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7657278
7658COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7659Chairman Goodlatte. Now, you also testified earlier that the
7660existence of these texts could never have been used to blackmail you.
7661Why do you say that?
7662Mr. Strzok. Because, sir, I am not -- my sense of duty, my
7663devotion to this Nation, if you or anybody else came to me and said,
7664"Pete, I'm aware of your extramarital affair and I have all these texts
7665and I am going to do whatever it is unless you do this," I would not
7666do thatj that my love of country and my sense of who I am could not be
7667bought, let alone bought by something like this that, again, I absolutely
7668regret, that caused extraordinary pain to my family. But the notion
7669that something like that could be used to turn me against my country
7670is absurd.
7671Chairman Goodlatte. Isn't that a very common consideration by not
7672just the Department of Justice and the FBI when they do background checks
7673on all kinds of applicants for all kinds of positions all across our
7674government?
7675Mr. Strzok. It is a consideration, but I would say a couple of
7676things.
7677One, in my experience, successful recruitments, whether by the
7678United States or whether by a foreign adversary, has rarely been in my
7679experience through blackmail about an affair. It occurs but it's not
7680frequent.
7681The other thing, I'm maybe being a little cynical, but if you look
7682at the number of people in the government who have or are having affairs,
7683I would think that would cast some problems with your proposition.
7684COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7685279
7686COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7687Chairman Goodlatte. Well, not with the impact of it, because,
7688obviously, that's why these questions are asked.
7689If you were asked that question for review for a new position with
7690the government, a promotion or a transfer to another agency or department
7691or appointment to a position that required confirmation by the United
7692States Senate, how would you have answered that question? It's on every
7693form.
7694Mr. Strzok. Sir, what I would answer is, truthfully, and I would
7695to the extent that it -- and I don't know. I would have to reviewer
7696the SF-86 form to see how that's worded -- but certainly with regard
7697to, you know, your hypothetical of a confirmation hearing to say what
7698I said here: I deeply regret the relationship, the affair, and the pain
7699that it's caused my family, and I always will. And I take responsibility
7700for that. And I am seeking to make amends and make things right where
7701I've caused pain in my personal life.
7702Chairman Goodlatte. Would you acknowledge that that would be
7703grounds for suspending a security clearance?
7704Mr. Strzok. I don't think it would be grounds for suspending a
7705security clearance. I think it is one of a mosaic--
7706Chairman Goodlatte. Really?
7707Mr. Strzok. I think it is one of a mosaic of factors that would
7708be taken into account.
7709Sir, I am personally familiar with a number of individuals who have
7710had extramarital affairs who retain -- after knowledge of that has
7711become known -- who've retained their clearances. So it is a factor,
7712COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7713COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7714but it is not the sole determinant factor.
7715Chairman Goodlatte. So what would you say are those other
7716factors?
7717280
7718Mr. Strzok. I think there are a host. And again" I'm not a - - the
7719people who do security clearances have a -- are very professional and
7720they have a set of guidelines.
7721But I think a wide variety of things from -- I don't even want to
7722speculate down the list. But financial exposure" alcoholism" gambling
7723problems" there are a host of things that go into the consideration about
7724the determination to grant a clearance.
7725Chairman Goodlatte. So are you a registered voter in the
7726Commonwealth of Virginia?
7727Mr. Strzok. I'm an independent" sir.
7728Chairman Goodlatte. But you're registered to vote?
7729Mr. Strzok. This question came up earlier. I am registered to
7730vote. And what I couldn't recall in Virginia is whether or not you have
7731to register as an independent to not
7732Chairman Goodlatte. There's no party registration in Virginia.
7733I know that very well.
7734Mr. Strzok. I believe -- I will
7735Chairman Goodlatte. So no party registration" but you are
7736registered to vote in Virginia?
7737Mr. Strzok. Yes" sir.
7738Chairman Goodlatte. Okay. So do you generally vote in
7739elections?
7740COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7741COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7742Mr. Strzok. Yes, I do.
7743Chairman Goodlatte. Consistently?
7744Mr. Strzok. Yes.
7745Chairman Goodlatte. General elections and primaries?
7746281
7747Mr. Strzok. General elections certainly; primaries, it varies.
7748Chairman Goodlatte. Important primaries, like Presidential
7749primaries?
77502016?
7751Mr. Strzok. Yes.
7752Chairman Goodlatte. Did you vote in the Presidential primary in
7753Mr. Strzok. I did.
7754Chairman Goodlatte. And which party did you cast a vote in?
7755Mr. Strzok. Sir, I see a bedrock of our democracy being the
7756privacy of an individual's vote, and I don't think it's appropriate at
7757all.
7758Chairman Goodlatte. I didn't ask who you voted for; I asked you
7759which primary you voted in.
7760Mr. Strzok. I actually -- because, again, you would know better
7761than I. I don't know if Virginia - - I think you may be allowed to vote
7762in both, but I don't recall.
7763Chairman Goodlatte. No, you're not allowed to vote in both. You
7764have to pick.
7765Mr. Strzok. Yes. And I don't recall. If I voted, I believe I
7766voted in the Democratic primary because I did not vote in the Republican
7767primary. But I'm not certain I voted in the Democratic primary.
7768COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7769282
7770COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7771Chairman Goodlatte. Yet earlier you said you were considering
7772voting for John Kasich.
7773Mr. Strzok. I was.
7774Chairman Goodlatte. All right. But if you decided to vote in the
7775Democratic primary, John Kasich would not have been on the ballot in
7776that primary.
7777Mr. Strzok. That's right.
7778Mr. Goelman. Was he still in the race?
7779Mr. Strzok. Yeah. I don't know if he was -- yeah, sir, that's
7780a good question. I don't know if Governor Kasich was in the race at
7781the time of the primary or not.
7782Chairman Goodlatte. All right. In a Supreme Court case handed
7783down just last year, the court reviewed whether statements made by a
7784juror that indicated racial bias required the piercing of jury
7785deliberations.
7786Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the court holding that racial
7787bias exhibited by a juror provided an exception to the rule that jury
7788deliberations must remain confidential because it is necessary to ensure
7789that our legal system remains capable of coming ever closer to the
7790promise of equal treatment under the law that is so central to a
7791functioning democracy.
7792On several occasions you have referenced that the texts, in your
7793questions, were simply p~rsonal opinions exchanged with a close
7794confidant and in no way reflected your intent to act on your opinions.
7795Is that correct?
7796COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7797283
7798COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7799Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
7800Chairman Goodlatte. Yet, if you made these statements while on
7801a jury , it is hard to imagine that you would not be kicked off immediately
7802because of the risk that your bias would undermine a functioning
7803democracy, to quote Justice Kennedy.
7804Do you still hold that personal opinions, even in the face of this
7805Supreme Court precedent, should not have tainted your involvement in
7806any investigation relating to Secretary Clinton or President Trump?
7807Mr. Strzok. Sir, I don't think that Supreme Court decision
7808applies at all. I think you're talking about apples and oranges. I
7809think the Supreme Court decision is talking about opinions about
7810protected classes, race, religion, sexual orientation, things that by
7811law you must not take into account.
7812I see that as entirely different from political belief, which is
7813not only specifically enumerated in the First Amendment, saying you're
7814entitled to it, but that this very body held in passing the Hatch Act
7815that there are things which in the interest of a functioning government
7816you're not allowed to do, and anything else not only is allowed, but
7817it's encouraged.
7818So when it comes to political opinion, that is something that our
7819Nation, through the Constitution, has said we, unless specifically
7820prohibited, want to encourage everybody, government employee or not,
7821to engage in, which is very, very different from a protected class of
7822race, sexual orientation, gender, or anything else.
7823And one more thing, sir. I disagree with you. You've said just
7824COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7825284
7826COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7827now and before that you make this equivalence that political opinion
7828equals bias, and I couldn't disagree more. I have political opinions.
7829I do not have bias, because bias implies act, and I have never acted
7830on the basis of any of my political opinion.
7831Chairman Goodlatte. So you're sitting in a jury box and there's
7832a lawsuit involving President Trump and you have before you -- or
7833candidate Trump before, because most of this occurred before he was
7834elected President, right, most of the comments you made he was not
7835President of the United States -- you have an attorney before you who
7836reads to the judge the comments that you've made repeatedly over many
7837months' period of time reflecting what some of us would characterize
7838as hatefulness or an animus, and you do not think that that judge would
7839order you struck from that jury?
7840Mr. Strzok. Sir, I don't want to -- I can't put myself in the
7841hypothetical of what would happen in that event. In the context of if
7842that same attorney had followed each of the jurors home and listened
7843to their conversations over a backyard barbecue where they discussed
7844Chairman Goodlatte. No, that didn't happen here.
7845Mr. Strzok. But this is the analogy, sir.
7846Chairman Goodlatte. No.
7847Mr. Strzok. If they were to get those personal opinions and read
7848the thinking -- everybody has a personal opinion, sir, whether
7849you're -- in your mind or writing it --
7850Chairman Goodlatte. Everybody has a personal opinion.
7851Everybody has a personal opinion. But the personal opinion is weighed
7852COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7853285
7854COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7855by the court to determine whether or not they can give a fair and
7856impartial decision in a case that's before them.
7857Do you believe that a judge, acting in those circumstances, would
7858view the comments that you made -- and knowing that you made them in
7859private, not thinking they would ever be made public - - that judge would
7860leave you on that jury?
7861Mr. Strzok. Sir, I can't answer that question.
7862Chairman Goodlatte. Okay. Thank you. Those are all the
7863questions I have.
7864Mr. Ratcliffe. Agent Strzok, I was asking you about when the
7865decision was made not to charge Hillary Clinton. And we were talking
7866about a text exchange between you and Lisa Page on July the 1st where
7867she related that the Attorney General was hardly a profile in courage
7868since she knows she -- meaning Hillary Clinton -- is not going to be
7869charged. Do you recall that?
7870Mr. Strzok. I do.
7871Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. As it turns out, the very next day,
7872July 2nd, is the day that Hillary Clinton was interviewed, correct?
7873sir.
7874Mr. Strzok. I believe the 2nd or 3rd, but the 2nd sounds right,
7875Mr. Ratcliffe. Saturday, July the 2nd?
7876Mr. Strzok. Yes.
7877Mr. Ratcliffe. And you were part of that interview team?
7878Mr. Strzok. I was.
7879Mr. Ratcliffe. How many folks from the FBI and DOJ attended
7880COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7881286
7882COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7883secretary Clinton's interview?
7884Mr. Strzok. There were three from the FBI and there were five from
7885DOJ.
7886Mr. Ratcliffe. Who were the three from the FBI?
7887Mr. Strzok. Me and two case agents.
7888Mr. Ratcliffe. Who were the five from the Department of Justice?
7889Mr. Strzok. Dave Laufman, who's a section chief, and then four
7890non-SES, two AUSAs from EDVA and two NSD attorneys.
7891Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So eight folks from the Department of
7892Justice and the FBI?
7893Mr. Strzok. A total of eight, yes.
7894Mr. Ratcliffe. A total of eight, okay.
7895Do you recall what prompted that text exchange earlier that week
7896between you and Ms. Page?
7897Mr. Strzok. I think it was the -- it was the announcement by the
7898then attorney general following -- I believe it was following the
7899meeting she had had with President Clinton on the tarmac that she was
7900going to accept the recommendations of the FBI as to the charging
7901decision.
7902Mr. Ratcliffe. Right. And probably the most · famous tarmac
7903meeting that -- in American history.
7904Mr. Strzok. I'm not an expert on tarmac meetings, but it
7905certainly was notable.
7906Mr . Ratcliffe. Do you recall - - let's put it in context - - do you
7907recall that Director Corney called that tarmac meeting a game changer,
7908COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7909287
7910COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7911the reason that he held a press conference without the Department of
7912Justice?
7913Mr. Strzok. I don't recall him using - - I remember him saying the
7914word "game changer." I don't recall -- he may well have said it in
7915regard to that. I do know that it was a certainly very significant
7916consideration in his
7917Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you recall the attorney general testifying
7918before Congress and admitting that that meeting cast a shadow over the
7919Department of Justice?
7920Mr. Strzok. I don't recall that, but I'll take your
7921representation of it.
7922Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Well, do you recall a text exchange with
7923Ms. Page that week where you described it as stupid, stupid, stupid on
7924June the 30th?
7925Mr. Strzok. I think that's right, but I just want to read the
7926context.
7927Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, regardless of what the text says, it's
7928June the 30th.
7929Mr. Strzok. I think that's Lisa Page saying that, sir.
7930Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Regard -- and my point about it being the
7931most famous tarmac meeting, much of the country was speculating about
7932what happened and what was said in that meeting.
7933Mr. Strzok. Yes, I was, too.
7934Mr. Ratcliffe. Got a lot of media attention?
7935Mr. Strzok. It did.
7936COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7937288
7938COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7939Mr . Ratcliffe. All right. And do you know what was said in that
7940meeting?
7941Mr. Strzok. I don't.
7942Mr. Ratcliffe. So 5 days after that meeting, that I'll represent
7943to you Jim Corney called a game changer and that the Attorney General
7944said cast a shadow, you went in with eight folks from the Department
7945of Justice to interview Mrs. Clinton?
7946Mr. Strzok. I went in with seven, but there were eight of us, yes.
7947Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And that wasn't a recorded interview?
7948Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
7949Mr. Ratcliffe. All right. But we do have a 302?
7950Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
7951Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Have you had a chance to review the 302?
7952Mr. Strzok. Not recently, no, sir.
7953Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. But at any point in time?
7954Mr. Strzok. Oh, yes, sir.
7955Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. This is my only copy, so I'd like to get
7956it back. But tell me where in that 302 there's a discussion with Hillary
7957Clinton about the tarmac meeting.
7958Mr. Strzok. Sir, so this is the LHM summary of the investigation,
7959not the 302. But I'll stipulate to you having a copy of the 302.
7960My recollection is that I would need to review that 302 to see if
7961we asked about that or not. I don't recall whether we did or not.
7962Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, you told me earlier, I asked you the question
7963do you know what was said in that meeting, and you said no.
7964COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7965289
7966COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7967Mr. Strzok. I do not know what was said in that meeting.
7968Mr. Ratcliffe. I'll represent to you the 302 doesn't reference
7969the word "tarmac" anywhere.
7970So my question to you is, if eight of the Department of Justice
7971and FBI's truth seekers were in a room with Hillary Clinton about a
7972meeting that everyone in the country was talking about that had happened
79735 days earlier, why didn't she get asked a single question about the
7974meeting between her husband and their boss at the Department of Justice?
7975Mr. Strzok. Sir, I'm not certain that she wasn't. I would need
7976to - - it may be the case, but I don't recall at this point. And I would
7977need to look at the 302 and talk with the folks in the room to see whether
7978or not we did and what she said and the reasoning behind it. I just
7979don't remember that fact and whether or not it was asked about or not.
7980Mr. Ratcliffe. Again, you already told me that you don't know what
7981was said in that meeting.
7982Mr. Strzok. I do not know what was said in the meeting on the
7983tarmac, that's correct.
7984Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So if Attorney General Lynch talked to the
7985subject's husband, Bill Clinton, about serving as the attorney general
7986in the -- in a Clinton administration, how would we know that?
7987Mr. Strzok. I do not know how we'd know that, sir.
7988Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, they could have talked about that?
7989Mr. Strzok. I don't want to speculate. It's possible they could
7990have talked about anything, but I have no idea what they did or didn't
7991talk about.
7992COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7993290
7994COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7995Mr. Ratcliffe. But if they talked about anything, wouldn't it be
7996reflected in the 302?
7997Mr. Strzok. Secretary Clinton was not part of that conversation.
7998President Clinton was.
7999Mr. Ratcliffe. Yeah. If a question was asked -- what does the
8000302 do, for the benefit of the folks reading this transcript?
8001Mr. Strzok . 302 records the statements of the interview of the
8002person being interviewed.
8003Mr. Ratcliffe. And would it record all of the topics covered?
8004Mr. Strzok. Yes.
8005Mr . Ratcliffe. And if a topic included a discussion about a tarmac
8006conversation between the subject's husband and the boss of five of the
8007people that walked in that room, would that be in the 302?
8008Mr. Strzok. It would be.
8009Mr. Ratcliffe. And if it's not, would that reflect that no
8010question was asked about that topic?
8011Mr. Strzok. That is a possible explanation for it. That's a
8012hypothetical and that is --
8013Mr. Ratcliffe. What other explanation would there be?
8014Mr. Strzok. That's hard to answer. I would want to review that
8015302 and talk to the agents, because honestly, Congressman, I don't
8016remember whether or not that was asked or not, sitting here now.
8017Mr. Ratcliffe. And if it wasn't?
8018Mr. Strzok. Congressman, I would note to you the purpose of our
8019investigation was to understand how classified information came to be
8020COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8021291
8022COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8023placed on her server. It was not to talk about the staffing of her
8024administration. It was not to talk about the Clinton Foundation. It
8025was not to talk about the price of tea in Chappaqua. It was to understand
8026the circumstances by which she set up a private server and how classified
8027information came to be placed on that server.
8028So our interview and the scope of that interview were -- was to
8029address those concerns. And what we don't do if we're -- this is
8030not -- this is very much a standard procedure. We're going to go into
8031that interview to ask the matter about which we are investigating. If
8032we have allegations of another crime, of course, we might ask about that.
8033But at this point, the optics of a what I believe to be a very
8034ill-advised meeting on the tarmac were not indicia of illegal activity.
8035So for us to get into a discussion, as I think about it, we may have
8036asked. You're saying we didn't. My sense is, if we did not ask, it's
8037because it had nothing to do with the matter and facts we were
8038investigating.
8039Mr . Ratcliffe. But you're telling us under oath that eight folks
8040from the Department of Justice and FBI wouldn't think it was important
8041to ask a question of the subject's husband having a meeting with their
8042boss?
8043Mr. Goelman. Just for the record, he's not under oath,
8044Congressman.
8045Mr. Strzok. I'm saying to you that the -- it is not at all true
8046that we did not see it as important or relevant.
8047Mr. Ratcliffe. You just answered a question about it.
8048COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8049292
8050COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8051Mr. Strzok. Without, sir, without talking to the team about what
8052the reasoning about asking that or not, I can't give you a definitive
8053answer. My sense, and I'm doing the very dangerous thing of
8054~peculating, my sense is that we were focused on that interview on the
8055facts at hand in the investigation.
8056But I would defer to talking to the team, because" again, it's been
8057a couple of years and --
8058Mr. Jordan. Well" just a quick fOllow-up. I didn't plan on
8059asking this. Was it more important than the price of tea in Chappaqua?
8060Mr. Strzok. Congressman, good afternoon.
8061Yes, absolutely , it was more important. I don't know that, again,
8062with regard to the relevance to the question as to why Secretary Clinton
8063set up a private server and whether or not classified information came
8064to be placed there, whether or not she knew that and her involvement.
8065Mr. Jordan. Did you ask about the price of tea in Chappaqua at
8066the interview with Secretary Clinton?
8067Mr. Strzok. No, we did not.
8068Mr. Jordan. No, you didn't. But you can't tell us whether you
8069asked about the fact that her husband just met with the Attorney General
8070just 2 days before your interview?
8071Mr. Strzok. Congressman, what I'm saying to you is I don't recall
8072asking about that and I don't know whether we did or didn't. If we did
8073not, it was my assumption because we were focused on the gravamen of
8074the case and the investigation.
8075Mr. Jordan. When did you first get a chance to look at the dossier?
8076COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8077293
8078COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8079Mr. Strzok. I think that's a -- I defer to FBI counsel as to
8080whether or not I can answer that question.
8081Mr. Jordan. It's been - - the dossier - - the whole darn thing has
8082been printed in the press. I just want to know when you first saw it.
8083Mr. Strzok. That's true, and that's a different question.
8084Ms. Besse. Congressman, what's printed in the press may not be
8085accurate and may not be what he was privy to. So I would not allow him
8086to answer that question.
8087Mr. Jordan. Have you read the dossier?
8088Mr. Strzok. I have.
8089Mr. Jordan. You have?
8090Mr. Strzok. I have, yes.
8091Mr. Jordan. When did you first read it?
8092Mr. Strzok. Again, that gets into a level of investigative detail
8093about an ongoing investigation that I don't think the FBI or the special
8094counsel want me to answer. I am happy to answer it, but I defer to what
8095I think the appropriate FBI equities are in this regard.
8096Ms. Besse. Congressman, I would not allow him to answer that
8097question because it gets into the special counsel's investigation.
8098Mr. Jordan. I'm not asking about the special counsel -- we've
8099been through this -- I'm not asking about the special counsel
8100investigation. I'm asking about what you all did in the Russia
8101investigation that was launched in late July. I want to know when you
8102first had access to the dossier and when you first looked at it.
8103Ms. Besse. The FBI investigation was subsumed into the special
8104COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8105294
8106COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8107counsel's investigation. So anything that Mr. Strzok did on the
8108investigation while it was under the FBI's purview would still be a part
8109of the special counsel investigation.
8110Mr. Jordan. Did you read it all at once, Mr. Strzok, or did you
8111read it in parts?
8112Mr. Strzok. Again, sir, same answer. I don't think I can tell
8113you about the timing and manner I read it without getting into details
8114about the investigation.
8115I am happy - - there is a very straightforward answer that I'm happy
8116to provide, but the FBI practice, which I believe and understand and
8117support, is that we do not talk about ongoing investigations.
8118Mr. Jordan. Do you ever communicate with Christopher Steele?
8119Ms. Besse. Congressman, that's another question I would instruct
8120the witness not to answer.
8121Mr. Jordan. All I'm asking is if he ever talked to him.
8122Ms. Besse. It goes into his responsibility as an agent on the
8123investigation itself, so it would still --
8124Mr. Jordan. Did you ever talk to Glenn Simpson?
8125Chairman Goodlatte. Let me interrupt you, because I think this
8126is very important.
8127We have an investigation going on here into the disparate handling
8128of the Hillary Clinton investigation and the so-called Trump-Russia
8129collusion investigation. And we' re entitled to know answers, not about
8130anything substantive found in that investigation, but we're entitled
8131to have answers about how Mr. Strzok, who was a central player in that
8132COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8133295
8134COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8135investigation, handled his own responsibilities and what he did or
8136didn't do, not related to the substance, but related to the process and
8137form. And I think that this question is entirely appropriate.
8138Ms. Besse. Mr. Chairman, my position would still remain the same.
8139Because while it is a part of your investigation, it does impact what
8140the special counsel is doing. And we would have to confer with the
8141special counsel in order to be able to appropriately respond to your
8142question.
8143Chairman Goodlatte. What he -- whether or not he talked to
8144somebody before the special counsel was even appointed?
8145Ms. Besse. He talked -- if he --
8146Chairman Goodlatte. We're not even asking what he talked to him
8147about. We're just asking whether he talked to him.
8148Ms. Besse. Mr. Chairman, the fact that he would have talked to
8149him would have been as a result of him being an investigator in that
8150specific --
8151Chairman Goodlatte. Maybe, maybe not. Mr. Steele has been
8152involved in other matters for the FBI, has he not?
8153Ms. Besse. And it would still go to whether -- again, if it is
8154an ongoing or if the FBI has other investigations, I don't know that
8155we can sort of confirm or deny any such thing. So I would still instruct
8156him not to answer that question unless -- until we confer with the
8157special counsel.
8158Chairman Goodlatte. Well, you can be sure we will. I would
8159prefer not to involve the special counsel since we have --
8160COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8161296
8162COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8163Mr. Jordan. Agent Strzok --
8164Chairman Goodlatte. - - clearly attempted to stay away from that.
8165Mr. Jordan. Agent Strzok, who paid for the dossier?
8166Mr. Strzok. Sir, under guidance from agency counsel, I am not
8167able to answer that question.
8168Mr. Jordan. The whole world knows who paid for it. I'm asking
8169you, do you know who paid for it?
8170Mr. Strzok. Again, under direction from agency counsel, I can't
8171answer that question.
8172Ms. Besse. If Mr. Strzok learned that information as part of his
8173duties investigating or being -- participating in the investigation,
8174I would instruct him not to answer.
8175Chairman Goodlatte. So is it the position of the Department of
8176Justice under Federal investigation that you're going to stonewall
8177answers to questions that do not go to the substance of Mr. Mueller's
8178work?
8179Because we have, for months now, investigated what the events were
8180leading up to that without ever asking questions about the investigation
8181has found with regard to Trump-Russia collusion.
8182Ms. Besse. Mr. Chairman, I'm hot in a position to really tell you
8183what will or will not impact Mr. Mueller's investigation since I'm not
8184part of that. So I cannot have the witness answer questions that may
8185impact the investigation without knowing for sure from the special
8186counsel that it will not impact - -
8187Chairman Goodlatte. So if Mr. Jordan asks the witness, "Have you
8188COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8189297
8190COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8191ever met Robert Mueller?" are you going to allow him to answer that
8192question?
8193Ms. Besse. Yes, because Mr. Mueller was also once the FBI
8194Director.
8195Chairman Goodlatte. Right. So the question that we just asked
8196was related to an individual who has worked for the FBI for many years.
8197Why can't he answer that question?
8198Ms. Besse. I don't believe that individual was an employee.
8199Mr. Mueller and Mr. Steele are in two different levels, so I would not
8200compare the two.
8201Mr. Jordan. Agent Strzok, ever communicate with Glenn Simpson?
8202Mr~ Strzok. Sir, I think it's the same answer.
8203Mr. Jordan. It's not even close. It is not even close.
8204Christopher Steele was -- hang on, if you could, Mr. Chairman,
8205please -- it's not even close.
8206Glenn Simpson is not former MIG. Glenn Simpson is a journalist.
8207Did you ever talk to Glenn Simpson?
8208Mr. Strzok. May I answer that question?
8209Ms. Besse. May we confer?
8210Chairman Goodlatte. Yes. I just want to say, and I'm going to
8211leave because I've got to go somewhere else, but all of these questions
8212will be raised with the Director and with the deputy attorney general
8213of the United States tomorrow morning if we're not getting answers today.
8214Ms. Besse. Sure, Mr. Chairman.
8215[Discussion off the record.]
8216COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8217298
8218COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8219Ms. Besse. Congressman, any questions that relate to
8220Mr. Strzok' s involvement in the investigation in the Russian collusion
8221that's under the purview of the special counsel I will instruct him not
8222to answer.
8223Of course, if the Director or the deputy attorney general make a
8224different decision or the special counsel makes a different decision
8225then we can answer those questions. But for right now, I will instruct
8226the witness not to answer as it relates to that ongoing investigation.
8227Mr. Jordan. Did you ever talk to Bruce Ohr?
8228Chairman Goodlatte. Let me say one more thing. So we're going
8229to have this discussion publicly or privately with those individuals,
8230and we will subpoena Mr. Strzok to return and answer the questions at
8231a time that's appropriate because we feel very strongly we are entitled
8232to his answers.
8233Mr. Jordan. Agent Strzok, did you ever talk to Bruce Ohr?
8234Mr. Strzok. On advice of agency counsel, I've been told not to
8235answer that question.
8236Mr. Jordan. Holy cow. He works in the Justice Department.
8237Mr. Strzok. He does.
8238Mr. Jordan. Never talked to him?
8239Mr. Strzok. May I answer that question?
8240Ms. Besse. You can answer that question.
8241Mr. Strzok. I have.
8242Mr. Jordan. When?
8243Mr. Strzok . Without looking at my calendar , it would be difficult
8244COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8245299
8246COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8247for me to tell you. My recollection is I met him either two or three
8248times in 2016 into 2017. I know I have not seen him in -- I have not
8249seen him this year, but those three meetings I'd have to refer to my
8250calendar.
8251Mr. Jordan. What'd you talk about?
8252Mr. Strzok. May I answer that question?
8253Ms. Besse. If the conversations did not involve anything relating
8254to an ongoing or possible investigation.
8255Mr. Jordan. You talked to him in 2016 and 2017? What'd you talk
8256about? You said three times.
8257Mr. Strzok. So, Congressman, let me refresh my recollection on
8258that as I think about it and make sure I'm absolutely accurate about
8259that.
8260Sir, so I talked to him in 2016 and 2017, as I indicated. And based
8261on the direction of agency counsel, I cannot discuss the content of our
8262discussions.
8263Mr. Jordan. Ever talk with Nellie Ohr?
8264Mr. Strzok. No. Agency counsel may get angry with me, but no.
8265Mr. Jordan. So you can answer that. She worked for Glenn
8266Simpson, Fusion. You can tell me you didn't talk to her, but you can't
8267tell me -- you won't answer whether you talked with Glenn Simpson.
8268Mr. Strzok. Sir, I was answering that question in the context of
8269her being Bruce Ohr's wife.
8270Mr. Jordan. Well, I know she was Bruce Ohr's wife, but she also
8271worked for Glenn Simpson and Fusion. You're saying you never talked
8272COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8273COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8274to her.
8275Mr. Strzok. I did say that, and that's accurate.
8276Mr. Jordan. All right.
8277300
8278I'll yield because we've only got 18 minutes. I'm going to yield
8279to the gentleman from North Carolina, but I may want to jump back in.
8280Mr. Meadows. So let me go fairly quickly.
8281Towards the end of July 2816 there's a text message between you
8282and Lisa Page talking about: Do you want me to reach out to Gurvais
8283Grigg? Well, it says Gurvais. I assume it's Gurvais Grigg.
8284is?
8285Mr. Strzok. My understanding, it's pronounced Gurvais.
8286Mr. Meadows. Huh?
8287Mr. Strzok. Gurvais.
8288Mr. Meadows. Okay. Yeah. So Gurvais Grigg, do you know who that
8289Mr. Strzok. I do.
8290Mr. Meadows. And so what is Mr. Grigg in charge of?
8291Mr. Strzok. At the time, I believe he was involved in the Bureau's
8292interface with the election and the transition offices of folks -Mr.
8293Meadows. Electronic surveillance and so forth?
8294Mr. Strzok. No. No. At the time - - he does something currently
8295with regard to that I think in the lab, but at the time he was -- the
8296Bureau had an office set up to deal with initially both the nominees,
8297and that whoever won the election, that then the FBI's interface for
8298providing them briefings and things of that sort, he ran that effort,
8299is my recollection.
8300COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8301301
8302COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8303Mr. Meadows. Yeah. So there was another text message and you
8304said: Well, why should you reach out to him. And I think Lisa Page
8305just says: We want to see if he has the five names already.
8306What would that be in reference to? Do you recall?
8307Mr. Strzok. Sir, what's the date of those texts? I don't recall
8308offhand.
8309Mr. Meadows. June - - July 29th, 2816. It's a redacted form, but
8310in the redaction it would say: Or just ask if the names -- if he has
8311the names already, was under the redaction on it.
8312Mr. Goelman. What time, Congressman?
8313Mr. Meadows. It would have been at 23:17:11, so 11:17 at night.
8314Mr. Strzok. So do you have a copy of the un redacted version?
8315Sir, so my recollection was that
8316Mr. Meadows. Why would you be reaching out to him in regards to
8317your investigation of either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Why would
8318you be reaching out to --
8319Mr. Strzok. It was not in regard to either of those
8320investigations. My recollection in dealing with him was that we were
8321providing and coordinating counterintelligence briefings to both of the
8322candidates and their staffs, and part of that was determining who it
8323was from the campaign that was going to receive those briefings. And
8324because he had that role on kind of the transition team staff, he was
8325the person that would know it.
8326My assumption -- and, again, this is only an assumption -- is it
8327was redacted because it's irrelevant to either the Clinton investigation
8328COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8329302
8330COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8331or the Russian influence investigations.
8332Mr. Meadows. Yeah, and perhaps so. That -- since we don't have
8333a privileged log, we wouldn't know that. But let me go on a little bit
8334further.
8335You mentioned that you didn't show any bias because you didn't act
8336on that, earlier. Is that correct?
8337Mr. Strzok. Sir, no. I don't think that's what I said. I
8338said
8339Mr. Meadows. So would you - -
8340Mr. Strzok. I said I do not have bias, that political belief and
8341opinion is something that is different and distinct from bias. And I
8342don't agree with the analogy that if you have opinion, therefore you're
8343biased that way.
8344And what I said about bias was in response to, well, what makes
8345bias, and my belief that bias is when somebody is acting on those beliefs.
8346We all have political beliefs. Everyone of us in this room.
8347Mr. Meadows. Sure.
8348Mr. Strzok. And that doesn't make us biased.
8349Mr. Meadows. So would you agree with the inspector general's
8350report that you prioritized the Russia investigation over the Hillary
8351Clinton investigation, would you agree or disagree with that?
8352Mr. Strzok. I disagree with that conclusion.
8353Mr. Meadows. So you didn't prioritize it?
8354Mr. Strzok. I did not prioritize in that it was not a binary
8355decision. There was not a "I'm moving resources from this Clinton case
8356COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8357303
8358COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8359to this Trump case" or vice versa.
8360If I may, sir
8361Mr. Meadows. So the 3e-day window where you didn't look at the
8362Anthony Weiner laptop was just because it wasn't - - it didn't float back
8363up to the top?
8364Mr. Strzok. Sir, I'm glad you asked that. What I would like to
8365draw you to are the facts of what happened.
8366Mr. Meadows. No, I know the facts.
8367Mr. Strzok. Within hours of finding out about that --
8368Mr. Meadows. Hold on just a second, and I'll let you answer. I'll
8369let you answer before your counsel takes back your mike. So if you can
8370keep your answers succinct because we've got limited time.
8371Mr. Strzok. Yeah, absolutely, sir. I think -- I disagree with
8372both the inspector general's broad suggestion and yours just now that
8373I waited. If you look at what the record reflects --
8374Mr. Meadows. Mine was a question.
8375Mr. Strzok. -- it was an immediate action on my part to assign
8376supervisors and their subordinate agents and analysts to follow up.
8377I did that within hours, and they followed up within hours. And
8378they were left with at the time the und~rstanding that New York
8379would -- that the material was crashing, hadn't finished processing,
8380and that New York was going to let them know when it happened.
8381My experience is that processing computer evidence is like black
8382magic. It can take 2 days. It can take 2 months. And so I do not find
8383that unreasonable at all.
8384COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8385304
8386COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8387Mr. Meadows. All right. So Mr. Pientka, Agent Pientka works for
8388you. Is that how you say his name?
8389Mr. Strzok. Sir, I don't want to get into non-SES personnel.
8390Mr. Meadows . Does he work for you? I mean, I'm giving you the
8391name, and it showed up in some of your text messages. So does
8392Mr. Pientka work for you? This is a confidential briefing of which that
8393answer is critical. Does he work for you?
8394Ms. Besse. Congressman, the Director has not authorized us to
8395acknowledge the names or to divulge names of agents or employees who
8396are not at the SES level. So that specific question --
8397Mr. Meadows. But where in statute does it say that you have that
8398ability to do that and keep that from Congress? Is there anywhere in
8399statute that gives you the right to do that, counselor?
8400Ms. Besse. Congressman, it may not be in a statute, but I believe
8401it's based on --
8402Mr. Meadows. Fine. All right. Let me go on a little bit further
8403since we're out of time.
8404Mr. Pientka worked for you. I will make that assumption based on
8405org charts and what we have. Are you aware of any time that 302s were
8406modified, changed, or adapted?
8407Mr. Strzok. Sir, I am --
8408Mr. Meadows. With regards to either investigation?
8409Mr. Strzok. Sir, without making any representation about the
8410names you were throwing out there, my experience is that every 302 in
8411the course of being drafted is a collaborative effort between the people
8412COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8413305
8414COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8415who conducted that interview. And I - - it is the rare, unusual example
8416of a 302 that is not edited and revised in the course of the drafting
8417of that.
8418Mr. Meadows. There are allegations that you instructed
8419Mr. Pientka to change 302 that would materially have altered either a
8420prosecutorial or the lack thereof decision in that. Would you deny
8421those claims?
8422Mr. Strzok. Sir, what I would say - - and I think I can answer your
8423question without any specifics -- is I did not, have not, in the course
8424of drafting any 302 make any change or do anything other than ensure
8425that 302 was an accurate representation of the statements of the person
8426being interviewed.
8427Mr. Meadows. Okay. The IC that started this, the intelligence
8428community, the IC, under earlier questioning, you said you don' t recall
8429ever being told that there were anomalies in the metadata when they came
8430in to alert you of the case or their concern about potential foreign
8431invasion into the Hillary Clinton server. Is that correct?
8432Mr. Strzok. Sir, what I think I said is I do not recall being aware
8433personally of that. I would not be the logical person on the team. We
8434had a variety of forensic experts whose job it was
8435Mr. Meadows. Right. But we have people --
8436Mr. Strzok. to look at things like that and that then they
8437would bring that to my - - to the team, to Mr. Moffa have and my attention
8438if there were anomalies or anything unusual or of note in the course
8439of the investigation.
8440COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8441306
8442COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8443Mr. Meadows. But my understanding was you were in the initial
8444meeting when they brought this to the attention of you and others, that
8445you were in the initial meeting. And then the last contact they had
8446with you was 10 minutes after the exoneration speech by Director Corney,
8447that you called and called them back to say close out the case and give
8448the proper paperwork for closing out the referral.
8449Is that not accurate?
8450Mr. Strzok. Sir, I am -- I do not recall a meeting where the Ie
8451IG made any reference to changes in the metadata
8452Mr. Meadows. Mr. McCullough.
8453Mr. Strzok. What I can tell you, Congressman, is that our
8454technical experts, any allegation of intrusion, any review of metadata
8455that might be indicative of an act, was pursued by our technical folks,
8456and I am very confident that they did that thoroughly and well. I am
8457certainly unaware of anything that we did not pursue or had not pursued.
8458Mr. Meadows. Did you ever use devices, either your personal or
8459your official devices, in a capacity to try to keep information from
8460being detected from others?
8461Mr. Strzok . Yes, from my spouse.
8462Mr. Meadows. Okay. How about from others that might be willing
8463to investigate at a later date?
8464Mr. Strzok. No.
8465Mr. Meadows. There are text messages which suggest that devices
8466were used in such a way as to not allow them to be recoverable. And
8467you're saying that that's not accurate?
8468COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8469307
8470COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8471Mr. Strzok. I do not recall ever using it to prevent it from being
8472recovered, any official work-type communication, to prevent it from
8473being recovered, no.
8474Mr. Jordan. One quick question, Agent Strzok. When a FISA
8475application is put together, what is the typical timeframe it takes to
8476compile that application so that it I s then ready to go to the FISA court?
8477Mr. Strzok. Again, my experience is that varies wildly. I've
8478seen FISA applications go through within a day, and I've seen some
8479literally take years.
8480COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8481308
8482COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8483Mr. Jordan. And any -- any timeframe reference you can give us
8484on the FISA application that was taken to the court to get the warrant
8485for Carter Page; how long did that one take to put together? Was it
8486a day, or was it a year?
8487Mr. Strzok. So, first off, I think any discussion of any specific
8488FISA becomes classified, and then I'd defer to agency counsel if that's
8489something that I'm --
8490Mr. Jordan. I'm not asking about specifics. Again, I'm asking
8491how long did it take to put together?
8492Mr. Strzok. Sir, I wouldn't -- I think it's threading close to
8493classified information to talk about the timeframe for a specific FISA,
8494but, one - - and I'd defer to agency counsel. I understand we're looking
8495at a
8496Mr. Jordan. Did you ever talk to George Papadopoulos?
8497Mr. Strzok. Sir, that's squarely in the realm of the area that
8498agency counsel has directed me not to speak about.
8499Mr. Jordan. Thank you.
8500Mr. Meadows. So, Agent, let me go back. Are you aware of any
8501surveillance, any confidential informants, confidential human sources,
8502which obviously are two different things, that shared information with
8503the FBI during the month of July?
8504Mr. Strzok. Yes. I'm aware of -- the Bureau term now, we had a
8505variety over the years, but current term is "confidential human
8506sources." I think you're talking about human sources. Yes, I'm aware
8507COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8508309
8509COMMITTEE SENSITIV~
8510of CHSes who provided information to the Bureau in the month of the July.
8511I assume you mean '16, but every July.
8512Mr. Meadows. 2e16, yes. Thanks.
8513Mr. Strzok. Yes.
8514Mr. Meadows. So, at that point, was there an ongoing
8515investigation that we now know as "crossfire hurricane"? Was that
8516ongoing at that point?
8517Mr. Strzok. It in late - - well, two things, sir. I am not going
8518to comment on the name of what that investigation mayor may not have
8519been because, again, that's classified.
8520Mr. Meadows. I think the FBI leaked it to the New York Times, but
8521we'll leave it at that. So whatever it may be.
8522So, at this point, you are saying that there were confidential
8523human sources, plural, that you had information from during the month
8524of July?
8525Mr. Strzok. Sir, I want to say this, and I know nobody in this
8526Chamber would ever take anything out of context and repeat it in the
8527media, but to be very clear, of the thousands of cases that I had
8528oversight responsibility of, I was aware in those thousands of cases
8529Mr. Meadows. I'm talking specifically --
8530Mr. Strzok. - - there were CHSes providing information. I am not
8531making any representation whatsoever whether or not there were CHSes
8532providing information about the Russian influence investigation.
8533Mr. Meadows. Well, obviously, that's where you were the lead
8534investigator --
8535COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8536310
8537COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8538Mr. Strzok. I know it clearly is not --
8539Mr. Meadows. - - and it seemed like it was going, so let me go ahead
8540and make that distinction. In the month of July, was there any
8541information from confidential human sources given to you as it relates
8542to the Russia investigation?
8543Mr. Strzok. Following advice of counsel, I can't answer that
8544question. It's answerable, but I, under advice of agency counsel, I
8545can't answer that.
8546Mr. Meadows. Did you get any of that in June?
8547Mr. Strzok. Again, same answer.
8548Mr. Meadows. All right. Did you ever give information to
8549Christopher Steele?
8550Mr. Strzok. Same answer.
8551Mr. Meadows. What do you mean "same answer"?
8552Mr. Strzok. Same answer. Under direction by agency counsel, I
8553can't answer that question.
8554Mr. Meadows. And what reason is that? Counsel?
8555Ms. Besse. Congressman, anything that relates to an ongoing
8556investigation that's --
8557Mr. Meadows. Well, I would like to point out to the counsel that
8558the investigation I'm asking about concluded because there's a new
8559investigation. The special counsel actually started a new independent
8560investigation - - investigation, mind you. And so the investigation I'm
8561talking about was the one that actually concluded, so are you maintaining
8562the same argument?
8563COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8564COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8565Ms. Besse. Which investigation are you saying concluded,
8566Congressman?
8567311
8568Mr. Meadows. Well, obviously, the investigation that Mr. Strzok
8569was the lead investigator on. He's no longer the lead investigator of
8570an investigation. We have a new independent counsel that is doing a
8571separate investigation, counterintelligence investigation. So, at
8572this point, are you suggesting that everything is off limits if Mr.
8573Mueller happens to be looking at anything that Peter Strzok has done?
8574Ms. Besse. My understanding is that it was not concluded. It was ·
8575subsumed into the special counsel investigation. So it is -- it's not
8576that it ended and another one began. That same information became a
8577part of the special counsel investigation. So I would instruct the
8578witness not to answer.
8579Mr. Breitenbach. Time is done.
8580[Whereupon, at 7:22 p.m., the interview continued in classified
8581session.]
8582COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8583312
8584COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8585Certificate of Deponent/Interviewee
8586I have read the foregoing ____ pages, which contain the correct
8587transcript of the answers made by me to the questions therein recorded.
8588Witness Name
8589Date
8590COMMITTEE SENSITIVE