Yp5zBr7C

1COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
2U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
3
4WASHINGTON, D.C.
5
6INTERVIEW OF: PETER STRZOK
7
8Wednesday, June 27, 2018
9
10Washington, D.C.
11
12 
13
14The interview in the above matter was held in Room 2141, Raybur
15COMMITEE SEhNSLIELVE
16 
17
18House Office Building, commencing at 10:05 a.m.
19 
20Mr. Somers. Good morning. This is a transcribed interview of
21Peter Strzok, the former Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's
22Counterintelligence Division.
23
24Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Gowdy requested this interview
25as part of a joint investigation by the House Judiciary Committee and
26the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to conduct
27oversight into Department of Justice's investigation of former
28Secretary Clinton's handling of classified information and related
29matters.
30
31Would the witness please state his name and position at the FBI
32for the record?
33
34Mr. Strzok. Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director, Human
35Resources Division.
36
37Mr. Somers. I want to thank you for appearing here today
38voluntarily, and we appreciate your willingness to do so.
39
40My name is Zachary Somers, and I am the majority general counsel
41for the Judiciary Committee.
42
43I will now ask everyone else who is here in the room to introduce
44themselves for the record, starting to my right with Arthur Baker, who
45
46will be leading the questioning for today.
47
48Mr. Baker. Arthur Baker, investigative counsel, House Judiciary
49
50Committee majority staff.
51
52Mr. Parmiter. I'm Robert Parmiter, chief counsel for Crime and
53
54 
55
56Terrorism, House Judiciary Committee majority.
57 
58Mr. Breitenbach. Ryan Breitenbach, senior counsel, House
59Judiciary majority.
60
61Mr. Ratcliffe. Congressman John Ratcliffe, representing the
62Fourth District of Texas.
63
64Mr. Castor. Steve Castor with the Committee on Oversight and
65Government Reform, the majority staff.
66
67Mr. Jordan. Jim Jordan, Fourth District of Ohio.
68
69Mr. Don. Ethan Don, FBI OCA.
70
71Mr. Wellons. Paul Wellons, associate general counsel, FBI OGC.
72
73Ms. Besse. Cecelia Besse, acting deputy general counsel, FBI
74
75Mr. Goelman. Aitan Goelman, attorney for Special Agent Strzok.
76Ms. Sachsman Grooms. Susanne Sachsman Grooms, OGR minority.
77Ms. Adamu. Marta Adamu, OGR minority.
78
79Ms. Wasz-Piper. Lyla Wasz-Piper, Judiciary minority.
80
81Mr. Hiller. Aaron Hiller, Judiciary minority.
82
83Ms. Hariharan. Arya Hariharan, OGR minority.
84
85Ms. Kim. Janet Kim, OGR minority.
86
87Ms. Shen. Valerie Shen, Oversight minority.
88
89Mr. Lieu. Ted Lieu, southern California.
90
91Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois.
92
93Mr. Dalton. Jason Dalton, FBI congressional affairs.
94
95Chairman Goodlatte. Bob Goodlatte, chairman, House Judiciary
96
97Ms. Husband. Shelley Husband, Judiciary Committee minority.
98
99 
100
101Ms. Clarke. Sheria Clarke, Oversight and Government Reform
102 
103majority.
104
105Mr. Brebbia. Sean Brebbia, OGR majority.
106
107Mr. Buddharaju. Anudeep Buddharaju, House Oversight majority
108
109Ms. Green. Meghan Green, OGR majority.
110
111Mr. Marino. Congressman Tom Marino, Pennsylvania 1@ and member
112of the Judiciary Committee.
113
114Mr. Johnson. Mike Johnson, Louisiana Four.
115
116Mr. Biggs. Andy Biggs, Arizona.
117
118Mr. Swalwell. Eric Swalwell, California.
119
120Mr. Nadler. Jerry Nadler, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary
121Committee.
122
123Mr. Deutch. Ted Deutch from Florida.
124
125Mr. Cohen. Steve Cohen from Memphis.
126
127Mr. King. Steve King, Iowa Four, House Judiciary Committee.
128
129Mr. Gohmert. Louie Gohmert, Judiciary Committee, First District
130of Texas.
131
132Mr. Massie. Thomas Massie, OGR, Kentucky.
133
134Mr. Gaetz. Matt Gaetz, First District of Florida, Judiciary.
135
136Mr. Somers. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply
137in this setting, but there are some guidelines that we follow that I'11
138go over.
139
140Our questioning will proceed in rounds. The majority will ask
141
142questions for the first hour, and then the minority will have the
143
144 
145
146opportunity to ask questions for an equal period of time if they so
147 
148choose. We will go back and forth in this manner until there are no
149more questions and the interview is over.
150
151Although a subpoena was issued, as I noted earlier, Mr. Strzok
152is appearing today voluntarily. Accordingly, we anticipate that our
153questions will receive complete responses. To the extent that
154Mr. Strzok declines to answer our questions or if counsel instructs
155him not to answer, we will consider whether we need to proceed under
156our subpoena.
157
158Typically, we take a short break at the end of each hour of
159questioning, but if you would like to take an additional break apart
160from that, please let us know. We will also take a break for lunch
161at the appropriate point in time.
162
163As you can see, there is an official reporter taking down
164everything we say to make a written record, so we ask that you give
165verbal responses to all questions. Do you understand this?
166
167Mr. Strzok. I do.
168
169Mr. Somers. So that the reporter can take down a clear record,
170
171we will do our best to limit the number of Members and staff directing
172
173questions at you during any given hour to just those Members and staff
174whose turn it is. It is important that we don't talk over one another
175or interrupt each other if we can help it.
176
177Both committees encourage witnesses who appear for transcribed
178interviews to freely consult with counsel if they so choose. And
179
180you're appearing with counsel today.
181
182 
183
184Could you please state your name and position for the record, Mr.
185 
186Goelman?
187
188Mr. Goelman. Aitan Goleman, counsel for Special Agent Strzok.
189
190Mr. Somers. We want you to answer our questions in the most
191complete and truthful manner possible, so we will take our time. If
192you have any questions or if you do not understand one of our questions,
193please just let us know.
194
195If you honestly don't know the answer to a question or if you do
196not remember, it is best not to guess. Please just give us your best
197recollection. And it is okay to tell us if you learned the information
198
199from someone else. Just indicate how you came to know the information.
200
201If there are things you don't know or can't remember, just say
202
203so, and please inform us who, to the best of your knowledge, might be
204able to provide a more complete answer to the question.
205
206Mr. Strzok, you should also understand that, although this
207interview is not under oath, you are required by law to answer questions
208from Congress truthfully. Do you understand that?
209
210Mr. Strzok. I do.
211
212Mr. Somers. This also applies to questions posed by
213congressional staff in an interview. Do you understand this?
214
215Mr. Strzok. I do.
216
217Mr. Somers. Witnesses who knowingly provide false testimony
218could be subject to criminal prosecution for perjury or for making false
219statements. Do you understand this?
220
221Mr. Strzok. I do.
222
223 
224
225Mr. Somers. Is there any reason you are unable to provide
226 
227truthful answers to today's questions?
228
229Mr. Strzok. No.
230
231Mr. Somers. Finally, I would like to note, as the chairman of
232the Judiciary Committee stated at the outset of our first transcribed
233
234interview in this investigation, the content of what we discuss here
235
236today is confidential. Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Gowdy ask that
237
238you do not speak about what we discuss in this interview to anyone not
239present here today to preserve the integrity of our investigation.
240This confidentiality rule applies to everyone present in the room
241today.
242
243This is the end of my preamble. Do you have any questions before
244we begin?
245
246Mr. Goelman. Noquestions. I just have a few brief comments for
247the record.
248
249As you indicated, Special Agent Strzok is here voluntarily and
250of his own free will.
251
252You stated that the committee anticipates that he's going to give
253complete answers to every question asked. Special Agent Strzok hopes
254that he can answer every question asked by the committee. He has no
255intention of invoking his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
256
257There are certain questions that he is not going to be able to
258answer, and I just want to enumerate those categories and explain why.
259
260Any questions that breach a testimonial privilege, like the
261
262attorney-client privilege. I understand that the committee purports
263
264 
265
266that these privileges do not apply in the committee testimony. Idon't
267 
268think that's the law, and I will be instructing Special Agent Strzok
269not to answer any questions that breach those privileges.
270
271If there are questions to which the answers impinge on FBI
272equities, Special Agent Strzok will follow the instructions of agency
273counsel who are here at the table.
274
275If there are questions to which the answers would contain
276classified information, Special Agent Strzok will be unable to provide
277that information since Federal law prohibits divulging classified
278information in an unclassified setting, which my understanding is this
279is.
280
281Finally, all of Special Agent Strzok's answers here will be
282
283truthful and accurate to the best of his recollection. Regrettably,
284
285this committee's insistence that Special Agent Strzok testify this
286
287week, despite first contacting us last week and despite declining to
288provide us with a complete list of expected subject areas of
289questioning, has made it impossible for Special Agent Strzok to prepare
290as thoroughly as we would have liked -- a dynamic that was exacerbated
291by Special Agent Strzok's difficulty in accessing some of his FBI
292materials because of the suspension of his security clearance, which
293was only restored a couple days ago.
294
295For these reasons, while Special Agent Strzok will answer
296questions to the best of his recollection sitting here today, some of
297his answers will not be as precise or fulsome as they would be had the
298
299committee not insisted on taking his testimony this week.
300
301 
302
303Mr. Somers. I would just note for the record -- and then we'l
304 
305leave it at that -- that the committee has requested, maybe not of you,
306
307but we have requested Mr. Strzok's appearance before the committee for
308quite some time now. And I would just -- you can have your admonition
309about it, and I'll have mine.
310
311And I will turn it over now to Mr. Baker to begin the first round
312of questioning. The time is 10:15.
313
314Mr. Baker. Thank you.
315
316Mr. Swalwell Can I ask a quick point of order, Mr. Chairman?
317Why is the witness not under oath?
318
319Chairman Goodlatte. Because it's a voluntary interview.
320
321Mr. Swalwell. But if it's a penalty to lie to Congress anyway,
322what's the difference? It's just better for the committee if the
323witness is under oath, isn't it?
324
325Chairman Goodlatte. I'11 ask counsel to explain the difference
326between the two processes, but if he had appeared under subpoena, he
327would be sworn in under oath and it would be a different process
328followed.
329
330But I'm going to defer to Mr. Somers.
331
332Mr. Swalwell. I only bring this up because I've heard in the past
333that when Secretary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI, she wasn't under
334oath, and that was used as an attack against her. And I just want to
335make sure that it's clear. Is the witness being offered to go under
336oath?
337
338Mr. Somers. It is the practice of both committees, OGR and
339
340 
341
342Judiciary, not to swear witnesses for transcribed interviews. We
343COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
344
345 
346would if --
347
348Mr. Swalwell. So that's your decision, not the witness's.
349
350Mr. Somers. That's the committees’ practice. It's not my
351decision; it's the practice of --
352
353Mr. Swalwell. But it's not the witness's decision. I just want
354to make sure.
355
356Mr. Somers. I do not know what the witness's preference is. We
357did not ask him. That's not the practice of either committee.
358
359Mr. Goelman. Just for the record, the witness is willing to be
360sworn and willing to testify without being sworn as per the committees’
361practice.
362
363Mr. Somers. All right. Well, let's go ahead and start this.
364The time is now 10:15.
365
366Mr. Baker. Okay. Just a quick reminder for folks that are
367participating from the table: Be cognizant of the microphones when
368you speak. Either bring them forward or lean forward, just to make
369sure that what you're saying is heard by the folks that are doing the
370transcription and for the people that are participating from a place
371other than the table.
372
373EXAMINATION
374BY MR. BAKER:
375Q Good morning, Mr. Strzok. Just as a very preliminary
376
377matter, what is the correct pronunciation of your name? I've heard
378
379it all different ways. I know you said it earlier, but I'd like you
380
381 
382
383to just set the record straight on that.
384 
385
386COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
387Ay "Struck" is the correct pronunciation.
388
389Q Okay. And you are a special agent with the Federal Bureau
390of Investigation.
391
392SAT
393
394When did you enter on duty with the Bureau?
395
396I entered on duty with the Bureau in September of 1996.
397
3981996. You are currently at the rank of Deputy Assistant
399Director. Is that correct?
400
401A That's correct.
402
403Q = And a Deputy Assistant Director in the FBI is a fairly high
404rank, as I understand it.
405
406A- I would call it a midlevel senior executive.
407
408Q Okay. So you are a member of the Senior Executive Service.
409
410rN AL
411
412Q And prior to your current assignment in the Human Resources
413Division, you were in the Counterintelligence Division?
414
415A Yes.
416
417Q So, in the Counterintelligence Division, as a Deputy
418Assistant Director, who do you answer to? What is the rank structure
419in that division?
420
421A So, within the Counterintelligence Division, my boss is
422
423Assistant Director, currently held by Bill Priestap. And then
424
425Counterintelligence Division is part of the National Security Branch,
426
427headed currently by Executive Assistant Director Carl Ghattas.
428
429 
430
431Q Okay. And who does an Executive Assistant Director report
432COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
433
434 
435The Deputy Director.
436
437So an EAD is fairly high up in the pecking order.
438
439NT
440
441The Assistant Director below that is who you answer to.
442That's correct.
443
444Q = And then who answers to you? Who is below you in the
445ae alone rs
446
447A You're asking in the Counterintelligence Division?
448
449Q In Counterintelligence.
450
451Mr. Somers. We can't hear you down at this end of the table. If
452you could move the mike a little closer to you.
453
454Mr. Strzok. So, within the Counterintelligence Division, there
455were a variety of section chiefs. I don't know if the organization
456chart is classified, so let me try and see if I can answer that in way.
457
458Mr. Baker. Just in general.
459
460Mr. Strzok. -- that satisfies your information.
461
462There are a variety of sections, which are headed by Senior
463
464Executive Service section chiefs, which address a variety of threats
465
466globally from a counterintelligence perspective. Those are both by
467
468region as well as by nature of the threat.
469So there are three Deputy Assistant Directors within the
470Counterintelligence Division. My branch at the time had, I
471
472believe -- let's see, two, three, four -- five or six section chiefs
473
474 
475
476who handled a variety of both geographic/regional threats as well as
477 
478
479 
480topical threats.
481BY MR. BAKER:
482Q Okay. Before you were promoted to Deputy Assistant
483Director, you, yourself, were a section chief.
484That's correct.
485And what section did you supervise?
486The espionage section.
487Okay.
488Very generally and very succinctly, what does the
489
490Counterintelligence Division do? What does a counterintelligence
491
492agent do? I mean, in an unclassified -- just for people that might
493
494not understand what the difference in those types of investigations
495are from someone who's maybe working bank robberies.
496
497A Absolutely. So there's a blend of both intelligence-type
498work and investigations that go on as well as criminal work. The way
499the Bureau looks at counterintelligence is, broadly, any foreign
500adversary, any foreign nation who is working to clandestinely work
501against American interests, whether that is the Government of America,
502the executive branch, the legislative branch, or into areas of private
503industry through things like economic espionage.
504
505So the mission of the FBI domestically is to protect America, not
506only the government but America broadly, against any number of foreign
507actors -- the Government of China, the Government of Russia, anybody
508
509who has a foreign intelligence service working against us.
510
511 
512
513Q Okay. And part of those investigations, especially in your
514 
515role in the counterespionage section, could some of those
516investigations involve employees of the Federal Government?
517
518A Yes.
519
520Q Okay. And that would be for espionage?
521
522A Espionage, leaks of information to the media. You know, I
523could envision, kind of, one-off esoteric scenarios involving economic
524espionage, but those --
525
526(0 ©) ¢- Ya
527
528A -- would be the primary --
529
530Q So the subjects of your investigations are not always just
531foreign actors. They could be employees that are possibly recruited
532or of interest by those foreign actors.
533
534A Yes, that's correct.
535
536Qs Okay.
537
538What did you do to prepare for your appearance and interview
539today?
540
541A I -reviewed material in the possession of the FBI. I worked
542with counsel. And, yes, again, reviewing those materials that were
543online through, you know, things that were released via FOIA or produced
544to Congress that were made public.
545
546Q Have you met recently, either in preparation for this
547
548interview or for any reason, with any FBI employees or former employees
549
550that have come before the committee-to be interviewed?
551
552EN For the purpose of preparation?
553
554 
555
556Q No. For any reason.
557 
558
559COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
560Yes.
561
562And who was that?
563
564John Giacalone I met probably 1-1/2, 2 weeks ago for lunch.
565
566And what is his role in the FBI?
567
568He is a retired Executive Assistant Director.
569
570Q Did you report to him at all during the investigation that
571we're going to pivot to very --
572
573A Ina two-layers-removed place, yes.
574
575Q So he was an EAD at the beginning of this investigation that
576was code name Midyear.
577
578bE
579
580And your role at the very beginning was at what rank?
581
582I was an Assistant Special Agent in Charge in the Washington
583field office when I -- Midyear predated -- it started before I became
584involved.
585
5860 <a
587
588A lot of the questions we'll ask today -- and I'll just get this
589out of the way -- you've probably already been asked, you've probably
590already answered. Some have been reported in the media. But, as
591you're aware, the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight and Government
592Reform Committee are conducting their own investigation, and it's
593prudent for any investigator to give a de novo look at all the evidence.
594
595That's why we've requested and reviewed documents. That's why we're
596
597bringing witnesses in here and asking some of the questions you've
598
599 
600
601probably already been asked.
602 
603
604COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
605Within the last week or 2 weeks, there was media reporting that
606you were escorted out of the FBI building and that your security
607clearances were suspended. Is that correct?
608
609A Yes. I would add, they are reinstated as of this last
610weekend for the purpose of allowing me to review material in the FBI's
611possession and appear here today.
612
613Q So they were reinstated for the purpose of today's
614appearance, not for the purpose of your position at the FBI.
615
616A TI do not know the entirety of the reasons they were
617reinstated. One of the reasons that I am aware of is that they were
618reinstated so that I could review that material and appear here today.
619
620Q Okay.
621
622You may not know the answer to this, but I'm very curious. You
623have been -- I mean, at some point -- and we'll get into this later -- you
624were transferred from the Counterintelligence Division to the Human
625Resources Division, but you've been in place during the pendency of
626the various investigations, the various media reporting,
627
628significantly, during the Inspector General's investigation. You've
629
630been in place and doing Bureau business, different than what you were
631
632used to doing, but still on the rolls and in the building doing things.
633What has happened recently that the FBI management, executive
634management, felt there was a need to have you removed from the building?
635A So, two answers to that. One, answering it would call for
636
637speculation. And the second thing is my understanding of the FBI's
638
639 
640
641personal disciplinary process is one which I'm bound by
642 
643confidentiality, and I can't talk about what I do know.
644
645Q Okay. But you are still an FBI employee.
646
647A 1
648
649Q Have you been proposed for any discipline, or that's under
650a= AR 1g
651
652A Again, I can't get -- my understanding is I can't get into
653discussion about the particulars of the disciplinary process.
654
655But you are currently a paid FBI employee.
656
657Yes, I am.
658
659Okay. So you are not suspended in any way.
660
661Well, my -- I am suspended from -- I can't -- I'm not able
662to report for work within the FBI building, but that's a function of
663what's going on with the security process. But beyond that, I don't
664think I can comment on the process.
665
666Q Okay. So you're not in the building because your clearances
667
668have been suspended, not because you're under any kind of discipline
669
670that's already been handed out.
671
672A My understanding is that I cannot go into the building
673because my clearances are suspended.
674
675Q Okay. And do you have any idea what the duration of the
676suspension for clearances will be, other than this temporary one?
677
678A I don't.
679
680Q Okay.
681
682Mr. Jordan. Could we have -- we're still having trouble hearing.
683
684 
685
686Can we have the witness, just if you wouldn't mind, Mr. Strzok, just
687 
688
689COMMITTEB SENSITIVE
690really -- no, just pull the mike right up like that. That way, we can
691hear down here. Thank you.
692BY MR. BREITENBACH:
693
694Q You have been informed why you were walked out and why you
695have lost your security clearance?
696
697A I have been told that my security clearance has been
698suspended.
699
700Q But have you been given the reasons as to why it was
701suspended?
702
703A I think getting into the reasons gets into the area of
704confidentiality that --
705
706Q I understand, but were you told by the Bureau --
707
708A TI have been informed within the process and procedures of
709the FBI disciplinary process those elements that employees are told
710about. And I'mnot -- my understanding is I'mnot at liberty to further
711discuss that.
712
713Q Okay.
714
715BY MR. BAKER:
716
717Q And you've been given no timetable as to how long it would
718
719take whoever is reviewing your clearances for a resolution of that
720
721matter.
722A I have not.
723Q = Andno idea why all of a sudden this became an issue. Because
724
725you've been in place, doing essentially FBI function, although in a
726
727 
728
729different division, during the pendency of the various investigations,
730 
731and it hasn't been an issue up until now.
732A I'msorry, what's the -- there are a couple of issue questions
733in there. What's --
734
735Q Your clearances haven't been an issue during the pendency
736
737of the Inspector General's report and the various other reports, but
738
739all of a sudden it seems like something happened, that you have been
740taken out of the building and your clearances revoked, that whatever
741happened didn't happen during all of this time that the investigations
742have been going on.
743
744A Right. My understanding is that is part of the Bureau's
745disciplinary process.
746
747Q = Okay.
748
749What was your role -- actually, before we get to that, have you
750always been a counterintelligence agent? Have you worked other
751violations, or that has pretty much been your career?
752
753A No, I. started as an analyst working domestic terrorism and
754weapons of mass destruction related to domestic terrorism. Asa first
755office agent, I worked national security matters broadly. That was
756largely counterintelligence but not exclusively CI. I did some
757terrorism work as well.
758
759Q On your way from new agent out of Quantico to Deputy Assistant
760Director, in addition to substantive expertise in terrorism,
761counterintelligence, I believe you have probably, to get to a DAD rank,
762
763you have probably also been required to do various managerial things
764
765 
766
767and to accomplish certain managerial milestones ina career development
768 
769program. Is that correct?
770
771A Yes.
772
773Q As part of that, you have had various lower-level supervisory
774roles, evaluated and promoted to other supervisory roles. Correct?
775
776A Yes.
777
778Q And part of that has been, I am assuming, but correct me,
779you have done inspections of other field offices, other headquarter
780entities, other FBI entities.
781
782A Yes.
783
784Q And an inspection involves you going in and taking a step
785back, looking at and analyzing another office, another FBI entity,
786another agent's work to make sure it's in compliance with the law, in
787compliance with administrative guidelines, and ultimately looking to
788see if the resources, human and monetary resources, put into that
789investigation are, ultimately, at the end of your inspection, efficient
790and effective. Is that correct?
791
792A Yes.
793
794Q = Somy point in all of that is, because of you doing all that,
795you are uniquely qualified as a Deputy Assistant Director to look at
796an investigation, to run an investigation, to participate in the
797
798investigation of an investigation, because you have a really good
799
800handle on what an investigation is supposed to look like based on your
801
802investigative experience and your managerial experience. You've been
803
804trained to evaluate programs. You'll know what a good investigation
805
806 
807 
808A I would not say it's unique, but I would say that is true.
809It is true, I would say, of people who have gone through that path and
810done those things and arrived at the same position.
811
812Q Okay.
813
814So, as it pertains to the investigation known as Midyear Exam,
815what was your role in that?
816
817I'm sure it changed, or you can correct me if it didn't, but my
818understanding with that and any investigation, it's opened up, and
819
820then, once people actually start looking at it, it evolves to either
821
822what you thought it might evolve to when you first looked at it or maybe
823
824something different based on facts and circumstances that you see.
825
826What was your initial role in Midyear Exam?
827
828A My initial role, I was an Assistant Special Agent in Charge
829at FBI's Washington field office. The case had been opened out of
830headquarters by then-Assistant Director Coleman. I know Section Chief
831Sandy Kable was also involved in the effort.
832
833At some point, I would say months in, maybe less than 2 months,
834but certainly after some time of running, they reached out to the FBI's
835Washington field office and said they needed greater staffing based
836on what they were looking at, based on some of the investigative steps
837that were under consideration, that they wanted to bring in field
838elements to work on that investigation.
839
840And so that was my first exposure to it and my entry into the
841
842investigation.
843
844 
845
846Q So why would this matter or this case have been opened up
847 
848by FBI headquarters as the office of origin, for lack of a better term,
849and not opened up at the Washington field office?
850
851A I don't know, because I was not present when it occurred.
852My understanding is that decision was made by senior executives at the
853FBI, certainly at and likely above Assistant Director Coleman's level.
854But I don't know what the reasoning or discussion was as to why that
855occurred.
856
857Q In the normal course of business, would a case have been
858opened up at the Washington field office as the office of origin?
859
860A The typical -- I don't know how to define normal for you.
861The ordinary course of business is that cases are opened up out of field
862offices and run and supervised there. I amalso aware of circumstances
863where cases are opened and -- or have been opened and run out of FBI
864headquarters.
865
866Q Okay. So this was not the first time that a case had been
867opened and run from headquarters.
868
869A That's correct.
870
871Q But, in the normal course of business, it's kind of unusual.
872
873A Again, saying something's normal course of business and then
874saying something's unusual are, kind of, differences. It is not the
875typical case, but this was not the first, in my experience.
876
877Qs Okay.
878
879How did it come to be that this particular case was classified
880
881in the Bureau's classification system as to where the case would land,
882
883 
884
885where it would ultimately be investigated from, how was it that it wa
886 
887classified as a counterintelligence matter versus something maybe on
888
889the criminal side of the house, a public corruption case or something
890like that? How did it end up in Counterintelligence?
891
892A  Idon't know. That was a decision made before and above my
893level.
894
895Q Would it be that any matter relating to, in very general
896terms, a spillage of potentially classified information, that is where
897that particular investigation or any potential criminal violations
898that went with that, that's just where those matters would be
899investigated from? -
900
901A Well, we don't investigate spills of classified information.
902That's typically an administrative process is followed. For any
903potentially criminal matters involving classified information, that
904is typically within the arena of the Counterintelligence Division.
905
906Qs Okay.
907
908BY MR. BREITENBACH:
909
910Q Going back real quickly, you mentioned you were ASAC of WFO
911when the investigation began.
912
913A That's correct.
914
915Q Who was the Assistant Director in Charge of WFO at the time?
916
917A TI believe that was then-Assistant Director Andy McCabe, but
918I'mnot -- I would have to refresh my recollection. I know he was there
919at some point during that time at WFO, but when I first became aware
920
921of it, I'd need to check notes and material.
922
923 
924
925Q Were you the only agent at the time at WFO that was brough
926 
927over to headquarters to work the case?
928
929A Noe
930
931Q Are you aware of how many agents in total were brought over
932from WFO?
933
934A Iam -- I could be aware with a review of materials.
935Speaking from recollection -- and this is going to be kind of
936vague -- there was a supervisory special agent, a significant portion
937of his squad made up of both agents and analysts, augmented by various
938computer forensic personnel, analytic personnel. So, roughly -- and
939it varied throughout the course of the investigation, anywhere from
94018 to 2@ WFO personnel.
941
942But that's a vague recollection, and I wouldn't want to say I'm
943absolutely certain about that number.
944
945Q So Mr. McCabe, running the office in the Washington field
946
947office, would he be aware why individuals were leaving WFO to go to
948
949headquarters to run a case?
950
951A My recollection in this case is that he was not. I would
952defer to my boss, the -- I think it was SAC Greg Cox, I believe -- about
953any discussions, but I did not have a discussion with Mr. McCabe about
954what we were doing at headquarters.
955
956Q So you left WFO, went to headquarters. You did not discuss
957the reasons why you were leaving an office to go to headquarters with
958Mr. McCabe.
959
960A My recollection is I did not discuss with Mr. McCabe the
961
962 
963
964reasons why the team was going to WFO -- or from WFO to headquarters.
965 
966Sh | re 71d a
967Q We've entertained some questions and tried to figure out what
968the term means that has been associated with this particular
969
970investigation, a "special," a "headquarters special.” What is that
971
972designation as it is assigned to an investigation that the FBI is doing?
973
974A So TI think "special" is a term that was used in previous,
975earlier Bureau times. And that was something where a task force would
976be created, my recollection is, that there was frequently with a
977special -- a particular costing and administrative process would be
978set up so that resources could be tracked and funded as part of
979supporting that special.
980
981Again, my recollection is that was something that was done much
982earlier in the FBI and that we don't tend to -- the formal structure
983of a special is not the same as, you know, kind of, the colloquial use
984of it.
985
986So I certainly have heard that used. I would say it is more
987accurate simply to say that it was an investigation where the personnel
988were at FBI headquarters, they were largely made up of Washington field
989and FBI headquarters personnel.
990
991Q So, to be clear, it sounds like the term "special," either
992in an older FBI, and maybe the term has just carried over, it meant
993how something administratively was done with the case, not the subject
994matter of the case.
995
996A Both. I mean, typically, I think it was an administrative
997
998 
999
1000process, but there was also a recognition that, you know, if there was
1001 
1002a major terrorist event or if there was a major kidnapping or violent
1003
1004crime or something, where you were creating an investigation that
1005
1006merited a special process, which I can't define to you today. I'msure
1007
1008if we pulled out an old MAOP or MIOG, documents that haven't existed
1009for 28 years, they might define "special," but it was a
1010not-unprecedented practice to create an entity like that to
1011investigate.
1012
1013Q So you were recruited for the Midyear Exam investigation?
1014Did they solicit applications? How did you come to be on the team?
1015
1016A My understanding is that Assistant Director Coleman asked
1017for me and a team to come over. But that is -- that's secondhand
1018information. I don't know that Mr. Coleman ever told me -- I don't
1019know that I know exactly how it came to be that I was selected and
1020directed to go to headquarters.
1021
1022Q I have heard that you are regarded as the number-one
1023counterintelligence agent in the world. Comment on that?
1024
1025A That's kind for whoever said it. I believe there are a
1026number of very competent, qualified FBI agents who have spent their
1027careers working counterintelligence, love the work, love protecting
1028America, and I would count myself in that group.
1029
1030Q So you would be a logical resource for the FBI to go to for
1031a matter that ended up in the Counterintelligence Division.
1032
1033A NAT
1034
1035Q At any time, either yourself or anybody else that came onto
1036
1037 
1038
1039the team, was there any assessment, other than your expertise in
1040 
1041particular violations, was there ever an assessment of political bias
1042or political activity beyond what would just be normal for a
1043rank-and-file employee anywhere, to, you know, go and vote or
1044participate in the process like that?
1045
1046A Are you asking were political beliefs taken into account in
1047a staffing perspective?
1048
1049Q Yes.
1050
1051A No, they were not.
1052
1053Q = Okay.
1054
1055What was your understanding, in general terms for now, of what
1056the Midyear Exam investigation was about? You're on it now; what's
1057it about?
1058
1059A My understanding, broadly, was at least, one, whether or not
1060classified information came to be placed on Secretary Clinton's servers
1061and email accounts; if so, how that came to be; and, if so, whether
1062or not that information had been compromised or otherwise accessed by
1063a foreign power.
1064
1065Q = Okay.
1066
1067We're going to get back to that ina littlewhile. I want to pivot
1068
1069just briefly. This is something that's been widely, widely reported,
1070
1071but I have a question beyond, I think, what the obvious interest in
1072the media has been, and I think you're uniquely qualified to answer
1073that.
1074
1075It's been widely reported -- the Inspector General's report makes
1076
1077 
1078
1079a reference to it, so I'm assuming it's true -- you were involved in
1080 
1081an extramarital affair at the Bureau.
1082
1083A Yes.
1084
1085Q In your role as a counterintelligence expert, is an
1086extramarital affair -- and I mean that in its truest sense, not known
1087by the spouse -- is that a situation, a scenario, that makes the person
1088committing or involved in the affair vulnerable to potential
1089recruitment by a hostile intelligence service?
1090
1091A Yeah, I don't think I would characterize it that way. I
1092think it is not so much any particular action as it is the way that
1093action might be used to coerce or otherwise get somebody to do
1094something. I can tell you in no way would that extramarital affair
1095have any power in coercing me to do anything other than obeying the
1096law and doing honest, competent investigation.
1097
1098Q But it would be something that an intelligence service, if
1099
1100they're looking for a vulnerability, if they're looking for someone
1101
1102that is an employee of the U.S. Government doing the sensitive types
1103
1104of investigations that the FBI does -- if there were a recruitment
1105effort or a desire by a hostile service to penetrate that particular
1106government entity, would that be a vulnerability that they would look
1107at and assess to potentially try to exploit?
1108
1109A I think there are a variety of factors that would be looked
1110at by any government to -- again, the issue is not the particular
1111activity but the way in which those activities or desires might be used
1112
1113to persuade or coerce somebody to work for a foreign intelligence
1114
1115 
1116
1117service.
1118 
1119Q You were never approached by a foreign intelligence service?
1120
1121AN No.
1122
1123Q Hypothetically, if you were, with the affair pending over
1124you, and that is what the intelligence service brought or assessed to
1125be a vulnerability, how would you respond?
1126
1127A I would absolutely respond not, you know -- and, well,
1128getting into, you know, terms of art here. One argument is you would
1129
1130tell the service, "Let me get back to you." I would immediately go
1131
1132report that to my superiors and see how they wanted to follow up. But
1133
1134it is -- I absolutely would not have been vulnerable or even let alone
1135consider any sort of recruitment attempt.
1136
1137Q Okay. Were --
1138
1139Mr. Ratcliffe. May I jump in?
1140
1141Mr. Baker. Yes, sir.
1142
1143Mr. Ratcliffe. Agent Strzok, a number of us have other
1144obligations today, so we'll be coming back and forth and may not be
1145able to hear the entirety of your testimony. So I wanted to make sure
1146I get to a couple of things before some Members have to leave.
1147
1148We'll come back to the Midyear Exam, but, just chronologically,
1149I'm trying to get a picture of the roles that you played throughout
1150all of the investigations that are subject to our jurisdiction that
1151we're asking questions about.
1152
1153So, in addition to the Midyear Exam, you were involved in an
1154
1155investigation regarding potential Russian interference into our
1156
1157 
1158
1159election, correct?
1160COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1161
1162 
1163Mr. Strzok. Yes.
1164
1165Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And when did that begin?
1166
1167Mr. Strzok. It began in late July of 2017.
1168
1169Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And was --
1170
1171Mr. Strzok. I'm sorry, ‘16.
1172
1173Mr. Ratcliffe. 2016. And is that the investigation that's
1174referred to by code name Crossfire Hurricane?
1175
1176Mr. Strzok. Sir, I can't get into that in an unclassified
1177setting.
1178
1179Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Can you tell us when you first learned
1180about that investigation?
1181
1182Mr. Strzok. Yes. At the same time it was opened, in late July
1183oh myc oa
1184
1185Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And what was your initial role with
1186respect to that investigation?
1187
1188Mr. Strzok. My initial role was as a supervisor over a series
1189of subordinate supervisors and elements who were conducting the
1190investigation. At the time, I was a section chief and was shortly
1191thereafter promoted to Deputy Assistant Director.
1192
1193Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. It's been reported that that
1194investigation began on or about July 27th of 2016.
1195
1196Mr. Strzok. I don't think the specific date has been
1197declassified.
1198
1199Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. It has also been reported that you were
1200
1201 
1202
1203in charge of leading that investigation. Is that a
1204 
1205fair characterization?
1206
1207Mr. Strzok. I would say I was among the leadership structure.
1208I was one of the senior leaders. But the investigative structure
1209involved, certainly, subordinate supervisors and subordinate
1210supervisors to them, as well as case agents and analysts. Me, AD
1211Priestap were all involved in a leadership capacity.
1212
1213Mr. Ratcliffe. Would you have been involved in putting together
1214an investigative plan?
1215
1216Mr. Strzok. Yes.
1217
1218Mr. Ratcliffe. Would you have been in charge or played a role
1219in managing confidential human sources?
1220
1221Mr. Strzok. Typically that's done at a lower supervisory level.
1222
1223Mr. Ratcliffe. Typically it is, but --
1224
1225Mr. Strzok.
1226
1227Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
1228
1229So what was your official title with respect to the Russia
1230investigation?
1231
1232Mr. Strzok. My title was first initially as the Section Chief
1233
1234of the Counterespionage Section and later as the Deputy Assistant
1235
1236Director of Branch 1 of the Counterintelligence Division.
1237Mr. Ratcliffe. Section Chief, and then became what?
1238Mr. Strzok. Deputy Assistant Director.
1239Mr. Ratcliffe. And when did that change take place, and why did
1240
1241it take place?
1242
1243 
1244
1245Mr. Strzok. Sir, I was promoted -- I believe it was October o
1246 
1247that year. It might have been September. I would have to check my
1248
1249personnel records.
1250
1251Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
1252
1253Did you open what we would refer to as the Russia investigation?
1254
1255Mr. Strzok. I can't answer that in an unclassified setting.
1256
1257Mr. Ratcliffe. How long were you on what we're calling the Russia
1258investigation?
1259
1260Mr. Strzok. Well, so, I would correct your use of the word "on."
1261It was an area of which elements were under my subordinate supervisor's
1262supervision for the pendency of my time in Counterintelligence Division
1263and work at the special counsel's office.
1264
1265Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So, at some point -- you mentioned
1266special counsel. At what point were you assigned to, or were you
1267assigned to, the special counsel investigation?
1268
1269Mr. Strzok. I was assigned to the investigation in the -- and,
1270again, I don't have the specific dates, but it was shortly after the
1271establishment of the office. If memory serves, it was the
1272late -- well, I'm sure it was the late spring of 2017, but I don't have
1273a specific date.
1274
1275Mr. Ratcliffe. Yeah, May 17 of 2017 is the order appointing
1276Special Counsel --
1277
1278Mr. Strzok. It was after that.
1279
1280Mr. Ratcliffe. -- Mueller. How soon after?
1281
1282Mr. Strzok. Again, my recollection is probably within a month,
1283
1284 
1285
1286but I am not certain about that. Shortly after the creation, but it
1287 
1288was certainly weeks after the creation.
1289
1290Mr. Ratcliffe. And were you part of the initial group of folks
1291that were assigned to the special counsel, or were you added to the
1292special counsel probe?
1293
1294Mr. Strzok. Again, "initial" is a kind of ill-defined word. I
1295was not the first person assigned. Iwas inthe -- I wouldn't be able
1296to tell you sequentially how people were assigned, but I was assigned,
1297I would say, relatively early in the process.
1298
1299Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. You mentioned earlier Ms. Page, Lisa
1300Page. Was she assigned before or after you?
1301
1302Mr. Strzok. I believe she was assigned before.
1303
1304Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you know if her involvement had anything to
1305do with your addition to the special counsel team?
1306
1307Mr. Strzok. I don't know. I don't believe so.
1308
1309Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Whowas it that approached you about being
1310
1311appointed to or involved with the special counsel investigation?
1312
1313Mr. Strzok. I don't remember specifically who. I remember that
1314was a combination of discussions between special counsel staff, the
1315special counsel, and the FBI, but I don't recall who it was who first
1316approached me about that.
1317
1318Mr. Ratcliffe. At that point in time, was the Russia
1319investigation still active?
1320
1321Mr. Strzok. Yes.
1322
1323Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Were you still one of the folks leading
1324
1325 
1326
1327that investigation?
1328 
1329Mr. Strzok. I was one of the people involved in the leadership
1330structure of that, yes.
1331
1332Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And is it fair for me to say, if you were
1333
1334involved in the leadership structure, that you were involved in taking
1335
1336actions and making decisions regarding the gathering or collecting of
1337evidence or information? ©
1338
1339Mr. Strzok. Yes. And I would add to that, sir, that
1340it's -- what's difficult here in an unclassified setting is to explain
1341the structure of things. And so, without getting into any classified
1342territory, I think it would be fair to say that I certainly had a
1343supervisory role but there were a variety of other people who were
1344involved in supervisory roles.
1345
1346Mr. Ratcliffe. So explain for us how, if at all, the information
1347that was gathered, evidence that was gathered or collected that we've
1348just talked about from the Russia investigation became part of the
1349special counsel investigation.
1350
1351Mr. Strzok. I don't think I can answer that in an unclassified
1352setting. I can tell you that FBI rules and policies and procedures
1353were followed throughout the conduct of the investigation.
1354
1355Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. If we can make
1356the room right -- this room is a SCIF -- and go into a classified
1357setting, I'd move that we do that if the testimony is calling for --
1358
1359Chairman Goodlatte. Rather than going in and out, I would as
1360
1361you to remember what questions are asked that require a classified
1362
1363 
1364
1365setting, and then we can address that further on in the process.
1366 
1367Mr. Ratcliffe. But you can, without getting into the details,
1368you can confirm that evidence or information from the Russia
1369investigation ultimately became part of the special counsel
1370investigation.
1371
1372Mr. Strzok. I'm concerned both from a classification
1373perspective as well as I defer to Bureau counsel about whether or not
1374we want to get into a discussion about ongoing investigations, and I'm
1375not certain the Bureau wants that. |
1376
1377Mr. Ratcliffe. Again, I'm not getting into the specifics of the
1378information, but I think it's important for everyone to understand the
1379connection, if there is one, between the Russia investigation and the
1380
1381special counsel matter, in which you obviously were involved with both.
1382
1383Ms. Besse. Congressman, to the extent that he may be, sort of,
1384
1385encroaching on the special counsel territory, I think he's going to
1386
1387be very cautious.
1388
1389Mr. Ratcliffe. Ihave no problem with that. Alls I'm asking for
1390is confirmation that the work that was done, whatever that work was
1391done -- he's related decisions were made, actions were taken, evidence
1392was gathered and collected -- that the sum and substance of that, at
1393least in part, transferred over or became part of the consideration
1394of the special counsel.
1395
1396Ms. Besse. To the extent you know the answer, Pete.
1397
1398Mr. Strzok. I -- so would you restate the question?
1399
1400Mr. Ratcliffe. Yeah. I'm just asking you to confirm whether the
1401
1402 
1403
1404information or evidence that was gathered and collected as part of the
1405 
1406Russia investigation, where you were making decisions and taking
1407
1408actions, whether any of that became part of the special counsel's probe
1409
1410and consideration.
1411
1412Mr. Strzok. Yes.
1413
1414Mr. Ratcliffe. All right.
1415
1416So, when you became part of the special counsel team sometime in
1417May of 2017, how long did you continue and in what role?
1418
1419Mr. Strzok. I was there until the beginning of August. I was
1420the -- kind of, essentially the -- one of the lead agents involved in
1421the office.
1422
1423Mr. Ratcliffe. Lead agents?
1424
1425Mr. Strzok. In more of a kind of supervisory oversight. There
1426were -- and, again, I don't want to get into specifics of staffing,
1427but my role was at a more senior level than -- I'm pausing because I
1428do not want to talk about --
1429
1430Mr. Ratcliffe. Let me ask you this.
1431
1432Mr. Strzok. -- the special counsel's staffing structure.
1433
1434Mr. Ratcliffe. Were the actions that you were taking and the
1435decisions you were making in the special counsel probe similar to or
1436consistent with the same ones that you had been taking in the Russia
1437investigation?
1438
1439Mr. Strzok. No. I would say they were reduced, in as much as
1440the special counsel and the structure of that office was more one -- it
1441
1442was -- my analogy is, you know, kind of, in the conduct of a criminal
1443
1444 
1445
1446investigation, there comes a point where the agent's role lowers and
1447 
1448
1449COMMITTEE SENSLTIVE
1450the attorney's role rises, that the special agent -- or that the special
1451
1452counsel's office and the attorneys were in more of a leadership role
1453
1454of that process.
1455
1456Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
1457
1458The Inspector General report indicates that you were removed from
1459the special counsel investigation team on or about August 27th of 2017.
1460Does that date sound correct?
1461
1462Mr. Strzok. No. I think it was earlier.
1463
1464Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Do you know -- well, tell us the
1465circumstances by which you were removed, to the best of your
1466recollection and understanding.
1467
1468Mr. Strzok. My recollection is that there was a brief discussion
1469between me, the special counsel, and one of his attorneys, a discussion
1470of his desire and, you know, expression that he thought it would be
1471appropriate for me to return to the FBI.
1472
1473Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Soa brief conversation with the special
1474counsel and his attorney?
1475
1476Mr. Strzok. No, not -- one of his -- one of the staff of the
1477special counsel's office.
1478
1479Mr. Ratcliffe. Who was thate
1480
1481Mr. Strzok. I would defer to the special counsel to discuss the
1482matters within his administration of that office.
1483
1484Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. But when you say the special counsel,
1485
1486you're referring to Robert Mueller.
1487
1488 
1489
1490Mr. Strzok. I am.
1491 
1492Mr. Ratcliffe. So you had a brief conversation with Robert
1493Mueller about your removal from his investigative team.
1494
1495Mr. Strzok. I did.
1496
1497Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. On or about what date?
1498
1499Mr. Strzok. Again, sir, it is knowable, so if I refresh my
1500recollection with my calendar -- but my recollection is it was in the
1501early August timeframe.
1502
1503Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. How long was that brief conversation, to
1504the best of your recollection?
1505
1506Mr. Strzok. I don't recall. Less than 30 minutes, more
1507than -- I don't recall.
1508
1509Mr. Ratcliffe. Allright. Inthe less than 30 minutes that you
1510
1511talked with Special Counsel Mueller, did he give you reasons why you
1512
1513were being removed?
1514
1515Mr. Strzok. We discussed generally the existence of the text
1516messages.
1517
1518Mr. Ratcliffe. And what do you remember about the conversation
1519as it pertained to the text messages?
1520
1521Mr. Strzok. My recollection was there was a sense of regret.
1522There was a sense that Special Counsel Mueller absolutely wanted to
1523run an investigation that was not only independent but also presented
1524the appearance of independence, and the concern that these texts might
1525be construed otherwise. And that was the substance of it.
1526
1527Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. In that less-than-30-minute conversation
1528
1529 
1530
1531with Special Counsel Mueller, did you review any of the individual
1532 
1533texts?
1534
1535Mr. Strzok. No.
1536
1537Mr. Ratcliffe. Did Special Counsel Mueller or the other lawyer,
1538who you can't recall or that you defer -- did you say you couldn't
1539recall?
1540
1541Mr. Strzok. Oh, I recall. I defer to the special counsel
1542for discussions of personnel.
1543
1544Mr. Ratcliffe. There were two, a special counsel and a lawyer
1545from the investigative --
1546
1547Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
1548
1549Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Did either one of them ask you about any
1550individual or specific texts?
1551
1552Mr. Strzok. No.
1553
1554Mr. Ratcliffe. Did either one of them ask you whether or not
1555the -- well, first of all, let me just generally -- do you think it's
1556fair, as these texts have been characterized, do you think it's fair
1557to say that there were hateful texts with respect to Donald Trump?
1558
1559Mr. Strzok. I wouldn't call them hateful. I would call them an
1560expression of personal belief in an individual conversation with a
1561close associate.
1562
1563Mr. Ratcliffe. Did you have any discussion with Special Counsel
1564
1565Mueller or the other attorney about whether or not those text messages
1566
1567reflected bias or prejudice against Donald Trump?
1568
1569Mr. Strzok. No.
1570
1571 
1572
1573Mr. Ratcliffe. Did Special Counsel Mueller or the other attorne
1574 
1575in the room ask you whether or not your expression of personal belief
1576
1577about Donald Trump influenced any of the actions or decisions that you
1578
1579had taken or any of the evidence or information that you had gathered?
1580Mr. Strzok. No.
1581
1582Mr. Ratcliffe. In looking at the specific texts, on August 6th
1583
1584of 2016, one of the texts that you sent toMs. Page, you said, "F Trump.”
1585
1586Do you recall that?
1587
1588Mr. Strzok. Irecall reading that. Idon't recall specifically
1589sending that. But I've read it, yes.
1590
1591Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you have any reason to doubt the veracity of
1592that texte
1593
1594Mr. Strzok. I do not.
1595
1596Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay
1597
1598So did Special Counsel Mueller or anyone with the special counsel
1599investigative team make any inquiry as to whether or not any bias or
1600prejudice reflected in that text that I just referred to impacted any
1601actions or decisions or the manner in which the evidence you gathered,
1602that information was affected?
1603
1604Mr. Strzok. So, if you're asking whether or not any -- if any
1605of my personal beliefs ever influenced any --
1606
1607Mr. Ratcliffe. No, I'm asking you --
1608
1609Mr. Strzok. -- official action, the answer to that is never.
1610
1611Mr. Ratcliffe. I'm not asking that question. I'm asking you
1612
1613whether the special counsel or anyone with the special counsel's
1614
1615 
1616
1617investigative team made inquiry to you whether or not any bias or
1618 
1619
1620COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1621prejudice that would be reflected in the text "F Trump" impacted any
1622actions that you took, any decisions you made, any information or
1623evidence that you gathered.
1624
1625Mr. Strzok. No.
1626
1627Mr. Ratcliffe. All right.
1628
1629That very same day, you sent a text message to Ms. Page saying
1630that you can protect the country at many levels. Do you recall that?
1631
1632Mr. Strzok. Sir, I think that is -- chronologically, I think
1633that was earlier than the August 2017 timeframe.
1634
1635Mr. Ratcliffe. No, it was August -- do you all have a copy of
1636the text messages? I can provide
1637
1638Mr. Strzok Right, but I believe that's a full year prior, sir,
1639not 2017.
1640
1641Mr. Ratcliffe. Oh, okay. Yeah. August 6th of 2016, you sent
1642a text message that said, I can protect the country at many levels.
1643
1644Mr. Strzok. That was a -- that is part of a larger text, yes.
1645
1646Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Did Special Counsel Mueller or anyone
1647
1648with the special counsel investigative team make any inquiry to you
1649
1650as to what you meant by that?
1651
1652Mr. Strzok. No.
1653
1654Mr. Ratcliffe. Did they make any inquiry as to whether or not,
1655when you said I can protect the country at many levels, that reflected
1656any bias or prejudice against Donald Trump?
1657
1658Mr. Strzok. Did they ask?
1659
1660 
1661
1662Mr. Ratcliffe 4
1663 
1664Mr. Strzok. No.
1665
1666Mr. Ratcliffe. Did Special Counsel Mueller or anyone on the
1667investigative team ask you whether or not what you stated in that text
1668message in any way impacted the actions or decisions that you took or
1669the manner in which you collected evidence or information?
1670
1671Mr. Strzok. No.
1672
1673Mr. Ratcliffe. On August 8th of 2016, in response to a text
1674message from Lisa Page making inquiry as to whether or not Donald Trump
1675would become President, you responded, "No. No, he‘snot. We'll stop
1676it." Correct?
1677
1678Mr. Strzok. Yes.
1679
1680Mr. Ratcliffe. Did Special Counsel Mueller or anyone with the
1681special counsel investigative team make any inquiry as to whether or
1682not what is reflected in that text impacted your actions or decisions
1683or the manner in which you collected evidence either as part of the
1684Russia investigation or during your involvement with the special
1685counsel team?
1686
1687Mr. Strzok. No.
1688
1689Mr. Ratcliffe. On August 15th of 2016, you sent a text message
1690
1691to Ms. Page saying, "I want to believe the path that you set forth in
1692
1693Andy's office but feel we can't take that risk." Do you remember saying
1694
1695sa hers
1696Mr. Strzok. I remember reading the text and having that refresh
1697
1698my memory.
1699
1700 
1701
1702Mr. Ratcliffe. You don't have any reason to doubt the veracity
1703 
1704of that text.
1705
1706Mr. Strzok. No, I do not.
1707
1708Mr. Ratcliffe. Allright. Andis the risk that you were talking
1709
1710about the risk of a Trump Presidency?
1711
1712Mr. Strzok. It is not.
1713
1714Mr. Ratcliffe. What was the risk that was reflected in that?
1715
1716Mr. Strzok. My recollection of that discussion was that we had
1717received information from a very sensitive source alleging collusion
1718between the Government of Russia and members of the Trump campaign.
1719
1720As is frequently the case in counterintelligence investigations
1721and any national security investigations, there's a tension between
1722the protection of a sensitive source and method and pursuing the
1723investigation related to that information.
1724
1725Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
1726
1727Mr. Strzok. There was a debate -- if I may, sir, finish, because
1728it's important to understanding the context of what I said.
1729
1730The debate was how aggressively to pursue investigation, given
1731that aggressive pursuit might put that intelligence source at risk.
1732And there were some who looked and said, well, the polls are
1733overwhelmingly in Secretary Clinton's favor; we can not risk this
1734source by just not really investigating that aggressively.
1735
1736And my perspective was, you know, we need to do our job. We're
1737the FBI. We need to investigate. The country deserves this. If
1738
1739there is a problem within the membership of the Trump campaign, that,
1740
1741 
1742
1743if they are elected, that those people might be named to senior national
1744 
1745security positions, and that is something, certainly, that the American
1746people deserve and, indeed, candidate Trump might want to know.
1747So my use of the phrase "insurance policy" was simply to say, while
1748
1749the polls or people might think it is less likely that then-candidate
1750
1751Trump would be elected, that should not influence -- that should not
1752
1753get in the way of us doing our job responsibly to protect the national
1754{-rel an aa
1755
1756Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Sowhowas the source of that information,
1757and when did you receive it?
1758
1759Mr. Strzok. Sir, I can't get into that in an open setting.
1760
1761Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, you were asked about this text message by
1762the Inspector General, correct?
1763
1764Mr. Strzok. I was.
1765
1766Mr. Ratcliffe. And the Inspector General also asked you whether
1767or not it was reasonable for people to assume that the risk that you
1768were talking about was Donald Trump, based in light -- or based upon
1769other messages, text messages, that you sent about Donald Trump,
1770correct?
1771
1772Mr. Strzok. I don't remember the exact -- I don't remember the
1773phrasing and questions from the Inspector General.
1774
1775Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you remember telling the Inspector General
1776that you thought it would be reasonable for people to have that
1777assumption based on the other text messages that you sent about
1778
1779Mr. Trump?
1780
1781 
1782
1783Mr. Strzok. I absolutely, whatever is recorded in his report and
1784 
1785my transcript, would agree with, but I would say that there are a variety
1786of interpretations. What I'mtelling you, because I wrote it, it means
1787we need to err on the side of aggressively investigating this and not
1788just, you know --
1789
1790Mr. Ratcliffe. I understand that, but I'm asking you, do you
1791
1792think it's reasonable for other people to have a different
1793
1794mca laces of what you meant by that when they read it in context
1795
1796with other text messages?
1797
1798Mr. Strzok. I think it's reasonable that people would have any
1799number of interpretations of things.
1800
1801Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And what you're telling us, though, is
1802that Robert Mueller didn't make inquiry into either of those, yours
1803or anyone else's interpretation.
1804
1805Mr. Strzok. I don't know what he did or didn't do. I can only
1806speak to what he talked or asked me.
1807
1808Mr. Ratcliffe. Right. Well, you're the only one that would be
1809able to give that interpretation, right?
1810
1811Mr. Strzok. Sir, I don't know who he might have, between the IG
1812or anybody else, who he might have spoken to. I can tell you, with
1813regard to me, he did not.
1814
1815Mr. Ratcliffe. Right. So he didn't even make inquiry.
1816
1817Mr. Strzok. With me, he did not ask.
1818
1819Mr. Ratcliffe. All right.
1820
1821When you joined the special counsel investigative team, shortly
1822
1823 
1824
1825before you did, you sent a text message to Lisa Page where you talked
1826 
1827
1828COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
1829about unfinished business and the need to fix it and finish it.
1830
1831Did Special Counsel Mueller or anyone on the special counsel
1832investigative team make any inquiry to you as to whether or not that
1833text message related to Donald Trump?
1834
1835Mr. Strzok. No.
1836
1837Mr. Ratcliffe. Did it relate to Donald Trump?
1838
1839Mr. Strzok. Sir, in my recollection, that referred to a much
1840broader effort of the Government of Russia to interfere with our
1841Presidential election. I saw that, from our observation, from
1842information from the U.S. intelligence community that has since been
1843
1844declassified, that the Government of Russia, in social media and other
1845
1846places, were making use of the Clinton investigation in a way to disrupt
1847
1848 
1849
1850our election.
1851 
1852[11:05 a.m. ]
1853
1854Mr. Strzok. I was concerned in that context that the work that
1855
1856we had done that was professional and extraordinary and complete was
1857
1858being twisted and turned in a way by a foreign adversary to undermine
1859our electoral process.
1860
1861And so, as I looked at that going on, as I looked at my background
1862on the Midyear case and my career's work against hostile foreign powers,
1863I wanted to -- my sense was I wanted to continue the work of making
1864sure that, in fact, the Government of Russia would not be successful
1865in interfering with our election, that they would not be successful
1866in using the investigative results of the FBI with regard to the Clinton
1867server.
1868
1869Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I know a lot of Members are going to have
1870questions regarding what you meant by that, but, again, to be clear,
1871Special Counsel Mueller and no one on his investigative team just heard
1872the explanation that you gave for what that text message meant because
1873they didn't ask about it, right?
1874
1875Mr. Strzok. That's a two-part question. They did not ask about
1876it of me; I don't know what they heard.
1877
1878Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. That same day, you talked about an
1879investigation leading to impeachment. Are we talking about
1880impeachment of Donald Trump?
1881
1882Mr. Strzok. Idon't -- yes. I don't know if it was the same day,
1883
1884but I defer to your notes.
1885
1886 
1887
1888Mr. Ratcliffe. I'll represent to you that it's a text message
1889 
1890dated May 18 of 2017. Did Special Counsel Mueller or anyone on the
1891special counsel investigative team make an inquiry to you as to whether
1892or not your reference to impeachment related to Donald Trump?
1893
1894Mr. Strzok. No.
1895
1896Mr. Ratcliffe. Did they make any inquiry as to whether or not
1897the text message that you spent -- that you sent talking about the
1898impeachment of Donald Trump in any way impacted the actions or decisions
1899that you took or the manner in which you had gathered evidence, either
1900in the Russia investigation or as part of Robert Mueller's special
1901counsel team?
1902
1903Mr. Strzok. No.
1904
1905Mr. Ratcliffe. On that same day, May 18, 2017, in the text
1906
1907message toMs. Page, you talked about whether or not to join the special
1908
1909counsel investigative team and said, "If I thought it was likely" -- let
1910
1911me read it to you exactly because I don't want to paraphrase.
1912
1913You said: You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought
1914it was likely, I'd be there, no question. I hesitate in part because
1915of my gut sense and concern there's no big "there" there.
1916
1917Do you remember sending that text message?
1918
1919Mr. Strzok. I don't remember sending it, but I have -- I believe
1920it to be true and my words.
1921
1922Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. The odds are nothing about what?
1923
1924Mr. Strzok. So my recollection, my thought at the time was we
1925
1926had a credible allegation that the Government of Russia had offered
1927
1928 
1929
1930assistance to elements and members of the Trump team to -- in the
1931 
1932election.
1933Our look, which was still ongoing and, I believe to be still
1934
1935ongoing, it was not clear to me based on the investigators' skepticism
1936
1937whether we didn't know what we had, whether this was a large coordinated
1938
1939activity, whether this was a group of people pursuing their own agendas
1940or, you know, their own motivations or desires and not knowing at that
1941point whether or not -- what that interaction might have been or what
1942it was.
1943
1944Mr. Ratcliffe. So you said
1945
1946Mr. Meadows. Can I ask one clarification?
1947
1948Mr. Ratcliffe. Yeah, you can.
1949
1950Mr. Meadows. You indicated that there was evidence. There was
1951evidence that Russia was trying to do it. There was no evidence the
1952other way around. Is that correct?
1953
1954Mr. Strzok. Sir, the --
1955
1956Mr. Meadows. Iwant you to be clear in -- that Russia was trying.
1957
1958Mr. Strzok. I understand your question, and I can't answer with
1959a specificity that you would like in an unclassified setting.
1960
1961Mr. Meadows. Well, you just answered with specificity the other
1962way. So I guess what I'm saying is, based on what I know, I want to
1963give you a chance to clarify the record.
1964
1965Mr. Strzok. Absolutely, sir. And what I would tell you is, my
1966statements -- my recollection just now is that I was talking about the
1967
1968initial allegations that we had received that have been talked about
1969
1970 
1971
1972and described.
1973COMMITT
1974
1975 
1976Mr. Meadows. That Russia was trying to interfere?
1977
1978Mr. Strzok. Right. And what I don't want to do, though, is to
1979extrapolate into our -- your second question, which is whether or not
1980there was any reciprocity because there's a difference between the sum
1981and substance of the initial --
1982
1983Mr. Meadows. But you were extrapolating based on your answer,
1984so -- and, again, I'm just trying to get clarification.
1985
1986Mr. Goelman. Yeah. If you'd like clarification, I'd ask the
1987Congressman to allow the witness to finish his answer.
1988
1989Mr. Strzok. So, sir, I would -- as to the second question as to
1990whether or not there was information about whether elements of the Trump
1991
1992Campaign were themselves engaging in that, I can't answer that in an
1993
1994unclassified setting, and furthermore, I don't think the FBI or special
1995
1996counsel would want me commenting on ongoing investigations.
1997
1998Mr. Ratcliffe. You said in response to the question that I asked
1999that you -- you said: We didn't know what we had.
2000
2001That was after 9 months of your involvement in the Russia
2002investigation, correct?
2003
2004Mr. Strzok. Yeah. I -- I'm going to take your representation
2005that it's 9 months, but yes.
2006
2007Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
2008
2009Mr. Strzok. I don't -- anyway, but it was after -- it was after
2010the initiation of the Russia investigation.
2011
2012Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So you went on to say that you were
2013
2014 
2015
2016concerned that there's no big "there" there. What did that mean?
2017 
2018Mr. Strzok. What I just said, that I think at that point, at the
2019early stage of the investigation, there were a variety of things going
2020
2021on, and it was not clear to me what that represented, whether it was
2022
2023the activities of a group of individuals or something larger or more
2024
2025coordinated or, in fact, nothing at all, which is frequently the case
2026in early stages of the investigation. I think it was less than
20279 months, sir, but I defer to the record.
2028
2029Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. But you didn't say, "I'mnot sure there's
2030no big ‘there’ there"; you said, "I'm concerned there's no big ‘there’
2031sds] ae
2032
2033Mr. Strzok. Yes.
2034
2035Mr. Ratcliffe. "Concern" is worry.
2036
2037Mr. Strzok. "Concern," I think, I would take a different context
2038of that. "Concern" is in regard to what my choice of whether or not
2039I wanted to stay as a Deputy Assistant Director in the
2040Counterintelligence Division, whether I wanted to go and work for the
2041special counsel, which of those were a -- did a -- provided more of
2042an opportunity for me to protect the Nation. And so "concern" is
2043not -- I would not use "concern" in the way that you're inferring.
2044
2045Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
2046
2047Mr. Strzok. I understand it's my word, but I'm telling you
2048that's not what I meant --
2049
2050Mr. Ratcliffe. Right. It's your word, and do you think it's an
2051
2052unreasonable interpretation, in the context of the other text messages
2053
2054 
2055
2056that you sent about Donald Trump, that folks might think that you were
2057 
2058rooting against him
2059
2060Mr. Strzok. No, I don't think in the context of that
2061conversation or that text that it is -- I think it's very reasonable
2062to believe the truth, which is that I was not sure whether or not I
2063should go to special counsel or remain at the FBI.
2064
2065Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So what did Special Counsel Mueller or
2066anyone on his investigative team ask you about what you meant when you
2067said that?
2068
2069Mr. Strzok. They did not.
2070
2071Mr. Ratcliffe. Made no inquiry as to whether or not the bias or
2072
2073prejudice against Donald Trump that may be reflected in that in any
2074
2075way impacted the decisions that you made, the actions that you took,
2076or the evidence that you gathered as part of the Russia investigation
2077or as part of his special counsel investigative team?
2078
2079Mr. Strzok. Sir, I'd push back on your characterization that
2080that reflected bias. I don't believe that's the case at all. But in
2081answer to your question of whether or not they asked me about it, they
2082did not.
2083
2084Mr. Ratcliffe. Fair enough.
2085
2086Four days later, on May.22, you sent Ms. Page, in response to her
2087sending you a Washington Post article, your response was: God, I
2088suddenly want on this. You know why.
2089
2090Tell us what you meant when you said that.
2091
2092Mr. Strzok. I don't recall sitting here now what I meant. My
2093
2094 
2095
2096inference looking at that was that it was based on some investigative
2097 
2098event that happened, but I don't recall what it was.
2099
2100Mr. Ratcliffe. Did it have anything to do with wanting on it so
2101that -- because you thought it might lead to Donald Trump being
2102impeached?
2103
2104Mr. Strzok. No, not at all. My desire has always been kind of
2105cases that are interesting, cases that are important to national
2106security. It has nothing to do with the individual or the party of
2107the individual. It is driven by my -- my career has been driven by
2108where I can best protect the national security of the United States.
2109
2110Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So did Bob Mueller ask you if that's what
2111you meant by that?
2112
2113Mr. Strzok. No.
2114
2115Mr. Ratcliffe. Anyone on his investigative team?
2116
2117Mr. Strzok. No.
2118
2119Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So just to -- because our time is about
2120expired here for this first hour, is it fair to say that, again, to
2121recap, about these text messages that Special Counsel Mueller and/or
2122anyone on Special Mueller -- Special Counsel Mueller's investigative
2123
2124team never made inquiry as to whether these text messages reflected
2125
2126bias or prejudice against Donald Trump or asked you whether or not they
2127
2128impacted the actions or decisions that you took or the information that
2129you gathered in the Russia investigation or as part of the special
2130counsel probe?
2131
2132Mr. Strzok. So your first question, I don't know who they did
2133
2134 
2135
2136or did not ask. I can tell you in answer to your second question, the
2137 
2138did not ask me.
2139Mr. Ratcliffe. All right. And did Special Counsel Mueller or
2140
2141anyone on the Special Counsel Mueller's investigative team ever ask
2142
2143you whether any hatred or any, as you characterize it, expression of
2144
2145personal belief about Donald Trump ever impacted any of the actions
2146or decisions you took or any of the evidence or information you
2147collected?
2148
2149Mr. Strzok. No.
2150
2151Mr. Ratcliffe. I think our time has expired.
2152
2153Mr. Breitenbach. We will take a 5-minute break and come back on
2154
2155with the minority.
2156
2157 
2158
2159cae
2160eee
2161
2162Ms. Kim. We will now go back on the record. The time is 11:30.
2163
2164NUE MRO)
2165BY MS. KIM:
2166
2167Q Mr. Strzok, thank you for being here today. My name is Janet
2168Kim. I'm a counsel with Ranking Member Elijah Cummings of the House
2169Oversight Committee. Iwill be asking you some questions, and we also
2170have many Members here who are interested in speaking with you today.
2171
2172I'd like to go back to something -- a dialogue that you were having
2173with Mr. Ratcliffe about your performance on Mr. Mueller's
2174investigation. So, in your conversation where Special Counsel Mueller
2175and you agreed that it was time for you to go back to the FBI, was there
2176a mutual understanding between the two of you that you, Mr. Strzok,
2177did not believe that your personal, political views expressed in those
2178text messages impacted your work in any way?
2179
2180A Ican't speak to whether or not it was mutual. I certainly
2181
2182believe and know that my personal beliefs never impacted any action
2183
2184that I took as an FBI agent.
2185
2186Q Have your personal political views ever affected any action
2187you've taken?
2188
2189A They have not.
2190
2191‘0 e M at-1a) aun 20) 00
2192
2193Mr. Nadler, I think -- if you're ready.
2194
2195Mr. Nadler. I am. Thank you.
2196
2197 
2198
2199Mr. Strzok, in March 2017, Director Comey disclosed in public
2200 
2201testimony that the FBI had begun investigation into, quote, "the
2202Russian Government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential
2203
2204election," close quote, including, quote, "the nature of any links
2205
2206between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian
2207
2208Government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign
2209
2210and Russia's efforts," close quote.
2211
2212We now know the investigation began before the election in July
2213of 2016. But no news of that investigation regarding President
2214Trump's campaign leaked out to the press. Were you aware of this
2215investigation before the election?
2216
2217Mr. Strzok. I was.
2218
2219Mr. Nadler. Was Lisa Page?
2220
2221Mr. Strzok. She was.
2222
2223Mr. Nadler. Andrew McCabe?
2224
2225Mr. Strzok. He was?
2226
2227Mr. Nadler. James Comey?
2228
2229Mr. Strzok. Yes?
2230
2231Mr. Nadler. Approximately how many FBI officials were aware of
2232this investigation before the election?
2233
2234Mr. Strzok. Sir, I would -- I would estimate between 15 to 30.
2235But that's an estimate.
2236
2237Mr. Nadler. Okay. That's fine. Are you aware of any FBI
2238officials leaking information about this investigation before the
2239
2240election?
2241
2242 
2243
2244Mr
2245 
2246Mr. Nadler Did you make any disclosures about this
2247investigation to the press or the public before election day?
2248
2249Mr. Strzo No.
2250
2251Mr. Nadler. Why not?
2252
2253Mr. Strzok. That would have been improper. We don't talk about
2254pending investigations. We don't talk about investigations.
2255
2256Mr. Nadler. How do you think a disclosure to the press or to the
2257public would have impacted Donald Trump's electoral prospects?
2258
2259Mr. Strzok. I think it would have had an adverse impact on his
2260electoral chances.
2261
2262Mr. Nadler. If someone at the FBI was trying to stop Donald Trump
2263
2264from being elected President, do you think they would have publicly
2265
2266disclosed that his campaign was under investigation for potentially
2267
2268colluding with Russian Government actors?
2269
2270Mr. Strzok. That might be one way they would seek to impact it.
2271
2272Mr. Nadler. But to your knowledge, no one at the FBI did disclose
2273this fact publicly, correct?
2274
2275Mr. Strzok. Correct.
2276
2277Mr. Nadler. Would you consider this strong evidence that there
2278was not a deep state conspiracy at the FBI to stop Donald Trump from
2279being elected?
2280
2281Mr. Strzok. Sir, I can both tell you that it would be strong
2282evidence and, in fact, there was no conspiracy to stop candidate Trump
2283
2284from being President.
2285
2286 
2287
2288Mr. Nadler. And this would be strong evidence of that
2289 
2290proposition?
2291
2292Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
2293
2294Mr. Nadler. And was this also strong evidence that you
2295personally were not trying to stop Donald Trump from being elected
2296President?
2297
2298Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
2299
2300Mr. Nadler. Why didn't the FBI disclose the existence of this
2301investigation before election day?
2302
2303Mr. Strzok. It was a pending counterintelligence matter, both
2304because we don't talk about pending investigations generally and,
2305specifically, those that relate to counterintelligence matters, we
2306don't discuss them.
2307
2308Mr. Nadler. Do you recall the specific discussion about whether
2309or not to publicly disclose the existence of the Trump investigation
2310before the 2016 election?
2311
2312Mr. Strzok. I don't recall one. I recall a variety of
2313discussions about how to potentially publicly address the various
2314efforts that the Government of Russia was making to interfere with the
2315
2316election.
2317
2318Mr. Nadler. But not a discussion of revealing the investigation
2319
2320of possible collusion with the Trump campaign?
2321Mr. Strzok. There was a discussion or series of discussions, to
2322my recollection, about how to appropriately and aggressively
2323
2324investigate them and what that path might look like, but not
2325
2326 
2327
2328pecifically to publicly disclose them.
2329 
2330
2331COMMITTEE SENSLTLVE
2332Mr. Nadler. Okay. Do you recall when Director Comey made the
2333
2334decision to disclose the existence of the investigation into the Trump
2335
2336campaign?
2337
2338Mr. Strzok. I don't know specifically when he decided. But
2339there were discussions with Mr. Comey and his senior staff that I
2340participated in, and I'm sure others that I didn't, about whether or
2341not to do that as part of the appearance before Congress in making that
2342known to Congress, but I don't know when that occurred.
2343
2344Mr. Nadler. Now, Mr. McCabe's deposition to us states as
2345follows, quote: Well, I think eventually we had that discussion
2346because eventually we made that decision, and the Director sought and
2347received the Department's authorization to make that investigation
2348public in March of 2017, close quote.
2349
2350Do you know why Director Comey made the decision to disclose this
2351in March 2017?
2352
2353Mr. Strzok. I don't know why.
2354
2355Mr. Nadler. Or what events occurred that led to that specific
2356pen malas
2357
2358Mr. Strzok. That timing, I think, was in the context of the broad
2359efforts that were going on with regard to the Government of Russia's
2360intrusion into our election process. I don't recall sitting here what
2361it was that specifically precipitated that decision in the March
2362se =a are
2363
2364Mr. Nadler. Okay. March 2017 timeframe?
2365
2366 
2367
2368Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
2369OMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2370
2371 
2372Mr. Nadler. Now, Mr. Strzok, there have been many public
2373criticisms coming from all sides against former FBI Director James
2374
2375Comey and the decisions that he made in the handling of the Clinton
2376
2377investigation. However, the President and other Republicans have gone
2378
2379well beyond that and have made extremely serious allegations that
2380attack Director Comey's fundamental honestly and integrity or even
2381accuse him of committing crimes. I'd like to go through some of them
2382with you now to see if you can shed some light.
2383
2384Last week, after the inspector general released its report on the
2385FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, the President's
2386personal attorney Rudy Giuliani went on FOX News and stated, quote:
2387Peter Strzok was running the Hillary information. That's a total fix.
2388That's a closed book now, total fix. Comey should go to jail for that
2389and Strzok. Let's investigate the investigators. Let's take a halt
2390to the Mueller investigation, unquote.
2391
2392First, just to be clear, was the Hillary Clinton email
2393investigation a total fix?
2394
2395Mr. Strzok. Not at all.
2396
2397Mr. Nadler. Do you believe Director Comey should, quote, "go to
2398jail for that"?
2399
2400Mr. Strzok. No.
2401
2402Mr. Nadler. Do you believe you should go to jail for that?
2403
2404. Strzok. No.
2405
2406. Nadler. Has the inspector general accused you of any
2407
2408 
2409 
2410Mr. Strzok. No.
2411
2412Mr. Nadler. Has anything Director Comey said or done indicate
2413there should be a halt to the Mueller investigation?
2414
2415Mr. Strzok. No.
2416
2417Mr. Nadler. After the inspector general's report President
2418Trump also stated, quote: I think Comey was the ring leader of this
2419whole, you know, den of thieves. They were plotting against my
2420election, close quote.
2421
2422Was Director Comey a ring leader of a den of thieves who was
2423plotting against Donald Trump during the election?
2424
2425Mr. Strzok. No.
2426
2427Mr. Nadler. Do you have any reason to believe Director Comey was
2428plotting against Donald Trump during the election?
2429
2430Mr. Strzok. No.
2431
2432Mr. Nadler. On April 13th of this year, 2018, President Trump
2433also tweeted, quote: James Comey's a proven leaker and liar.
2434Virtually everyone in Washington thought he should be fired for the
2435
2436terrible job he did until he was, in fact, fired. He leaked classified
2437
2438information for which he should be prosecuted. He lied to Congress
2439
2440under oath, close quote.
2441Do you believe Director Comey's a proven liar?
2442Mr. Strzok. No.
2443Mr. Nadler. Why not?
2444
2445Mr. Strzok. My experience and information I have, I have not
2446
2447 
2448
2449seen any statement that he's made that was untrue.
2450 
2451Mr. Nadler. Are you aware of Director Comey ever lying to
2452Congress under oath?
2453
2454Mr. Strzok. No.
2455
2456Mr. Nadler. Has Director Comey ever lied to youP
2457
2458Mr. Strzok. No, not to my knowledge.
2459
2460Mr. Nadler. Are you aware of any instances of Director Comey
2461
2462lying?
2463
2464Mr. Strzok. I'm not.
2465
2466Mr. Nadler. Mr. Strzok, are you familiar with Director Comey's
2467testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on
2468June 8th, 2017?
2469
2470Mr. Strzok. Generally, yes.
2471
2472Mr. Nadler. Okay.
2473
2474Mr. Strzok. And, sir, I'd say, there were a variety of
2475testimonial settings where Director Comey was coming to the Hill
2476between the Intel, the Gang of Eight, and others, so they all kind of
2477blur together at this time.
2478
2479Mr. Nadler. It's okay.
2480
2481Did you generally find that Director Comey's descriptions of
2482events in his written and oral testimony were consistent with the
2483contemporaneous descriptions that he shared with you at the time of
2484those events?
2485
2486Mr. Strzok. Yes.
2487
2488Mr. Nadler. Do you believe that Director Comey accurately shared
2489
2490 
2491
2492with the Senate Intelligence Committee his memory of his interactions
2493COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2494
2495 
2496
2497COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2498with President Trump to the best of his recollection?
2499
2500Mr. Strzok. As I understand that testimony, yes.
2501
2502Mr. Nadler. Did you find that Director Comey's descriptions of
2503his meetings with President Trump were consistent with the
2504descriptions he shared with you immediately after his meetings with
2505President Trump?
2506
2507Mr. Strzok. Again, to the extent I was aware of any of those
2508interactions, yes.
2509
2510Mr. Nad er Overall, do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy
2511of Director Comey's oral or written testimony or representation of the
2512facts from when he was the FBI Director?
2513
2514Mr. Strzok. No.
2515
2516Mr. Nadler. Mr. Strzok, I have attended every interview in this
2517investigation. Actually, I'mnot sure that's -- let me take that back.
2518
2519Let me just say, your opinion, as far as I know, is consistent
2520
2521with that of every FBI employee who has come before you. Director Comey
2522
2523is an honest person, and there's no reason that he should not be a
2524credible witness for the special counsel. That's correct, is it not?
2525
2526Mr. Strzok. Yes, it is.
2527
2528Mr. Nadler. Thank you on that.
2529
2530Now, when did you join the special counsel's probe?
2531
2532Mr. Strzok. Again, it was -- my recollection is that it was the
2533late spring, early summer of 2017.
2534
2535Mr. Nadler. And what were your responsibilities on the special
2536
2537 
2538 
2539Mr. Strzok. I was the lead agent, and that's not to say case
2540agent or investigator but kind of putting together the FBI's structure
2541within that office.
2542
2543Mr. Nadler. And when did you first learn that the IG's office
2544was examining your texts with Lisa Page?
2545
2546Mr. Strzok. My recollection is that it was sometime between late
2547July or early August of that year.
2548
2549Mr. Nadler. And when were you removed from Special Counsel
2550Mueller's probe?
2551
2552Mr. Strzok. Shortly thereafter.
2553
2554Mr. Nadler. So far, Special Counsel Mueller's probe has resulted
2555
2556in 18 indictments against 2@ individuals and 3 companies, cataloging
2557
255875 criminal acts. Five different individuals have so far pled guilty.
2559Were you involved in the prosecutorial decisions that resulted in these
2560indictments and guilty pleas?
2561
2562Mr. Strzok. I would defer to the special counsel's office to
2563talk about the process that they went through with prosecution
2564decisions. Generally, prosecution decisions are made by the
2565prosecutors, but I don't want to comment on the process that Special
2566Counsel Mueller did or didn't use. I defer to them to describe that.
2567
2568Mr. Nadler. Okay. And what would you say to those who allege
2569that the special counsel's probe has become irredeemably tainted
2570because you and Lisa Page were once a part of the Russia investigation?
2571
2572Mr. Strzok. I'd say that is utterly nonsense.
2573
2574 
2575COMMITTER SENSITIVE
2576
2577 
2578Mr. Strzok. Because, first of all, I never, ever considered or
2579let alone did any act which was based on any personal belief. My
2580actions were always guided by the pursuit of the truth, and moreover,
2581anything I did was done in the context of a much broader organization.
2582It was done with other agents, with agents and analysts below me, with
2583agents and analysts above me, with the rules and regulations that govern
2584everything we do in the FBI.
2585
2586And so I think when you look at the totality of what occurred,
2587the procedures that were followed, demonstrably followed and followed
2588in accordance with law and our procedures, they were complete. They
2589were thorough. They were absolutely done with no motive other than
2590a pursuit of the truth.
2591
2592And I think the fact that you, as you noted, without getting into
2593
2594any details about what the special counsel is or isn't doing, simply
2595
2596the public record of the charges and guilty pleas speak for themselves.
2597
2598Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much. I'‘11l now hand over the
2599questioning to Congressman Krishnamoorthi.
2600
2601Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Good morning.
2602
2603Mr. Strzok. Good morning, sir.
2604
2605Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you so much.
2606
2607Mr. Strzok, as you -- as I am sure you're aware, there has been
2608a litany of attacks from the highest levels of government accusing the
2609FBI and DOJ of conducting investigations driven by political bias
2610
2611instead of just facts and the rule of law. The question is this: Are
2612
2613 
2614
2615you aware of any FBI or DOJ investigations motivated by political bias?
2616COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2617
2618 
2619Mr. Strzok. I'm not.
2620
2621Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Why not?
2622
2623Mr. Strzok. That's not who we are. That is not -- my decades
2624of FBI experience, we are driven by a pursuit of the truth. Just as
2625I would never allow any personal opinion or belief to drive an action,
2626I wouldn't tolerate it in others, and that is a -- the code of the
2627Bureau. And what distresses me the most are people's suggestion that
2628the FBI is the sort of place where that even could possibly occur is
2629destructive to the rule of law and the mission of the FBI to protect
2630the United States.
2631
2632Mr. Krishnamoorthi. On February 2nd, 2018, President Trump
2633tweeted, quote: The top leadership and investigators of the FBI and
2634Justice Department have politicized the sacred investigative process
2635in favor of Democrats and against Republicans, something which would
2636have been unthinkable just a short time ago. Rank and file are great
2637people, exclamation point.
2638
2639The question is this: Do you agree that the top leadership and
2640
2641investigators of the FBI and the Justice Department have politicized
2642
2643the sacred investigative process in favor of Democrats and against
2644
2645Republicans?
2646
2647Mr. Strzok. No.
2648
2649Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Throughout your career at the FBI, are you
2650aware of any instances of the FBI conducting investigations in favor
2651
2652of Democrats and against Republicans?
2653
2654 
2655
2656Mr. Strzok. No.
2657 
2658Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Are any investigations staffed based on
2659whether you're a Democrat or Republican?
2660Mr. Strzok. No.
2661
2662Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Are you aware of any actions ever taken to
2663
2664damage the Trump campaign at the highest levels of the Department of
2665
2666Justice or the FBI?
2667
2668Mr. Strzok. No.
2669
2670Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Are you aware of any actions ever taken to
2671personally target Mr. Trump at the highest levels of the Department
2672of Justice or the FBI?
2673
2674Mr. Strzok. No.
2675
2676Mr. Krishnamoorthi. By the way, how many people were on the
2677Hillary Clinton investigation?
2678
2679Mr. Strzok. It varied. I would say it would range between 20
2680to 3@ at a minimum and 6@ to 7@ at the highest point.
2681
2682Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you.
2683
2684Is there any evidence that the FBI or DOJ had any officials that
2685took any actions biased in favor of Clinton?
2686
2687Mr. Strzok. No.
2688
2689Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Is there any evidence that President Obama
2690ordered any investigative activity that was biased in favor of Clinton
2691or, alternatively, biased against President Trump?
2692
2693Mr. Strzok. To my knowledge, no.
2694
2695Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Is there any evidence that President Obama
2696
2697 
2698
2699ordered a wiretap of Donald Trump or the Trump campaign?
2700COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
2701
2702 
2703Mr. Strzok. To my knowledge, no.
2704Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I've been troubled by escalating attacks
2705
2706against the DOJ and the FBI, attacks against the independence of the
2707
2708institutions, the integrity of their employees, and the legitimacy of
2709
2710the DOJ's and FBI's investigations. I want to ask you about some of
2711these statements and get your personal reaction.
2712
2713On December 3, 2017, the President tweeted, quote: PN a=) ct)
2714of Comey, with the phony and dishonest Clinton investigation -- and
2715more -- running the FBI, its reputation is in tatters. Worst in
2716history, exclamation point. But fear not; we will bring it back to
2717greatness.
2718
2719Question: Do you agree with the President's statement that the
2720FBI's reputation is in, quote/unquote, "tatters" and is in -- and it
2721is the, quote/unquote, "worst in history"?
2722
2723Mr. Strzok. No.
2724
2725Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Do you agree with the President's
2726characterization that the Clinton investigation was, quote, "phony and
2727dishonest," closed quote?
2728
2729Mr. Strzok. No.
2730
2731Mr. Krishnamoorthi. In your opinion, what kind of impact does
2732statements like these have on the morale of rank-and-file FBI agents?
2733
2734Mr. Strzok. I think they are terribly destructive. I think the
2735FBI is an extraordinarily competent, proud, and vital part of the
2736
2737protection of the rule of law in this country, and I think those are
2738
2739 
2740
2741harmful statements.
2742 
2743Mr. Krishnamoorthi. When you say "they're terribly
2744
2745destructive," what do you mean? How does that impact your work?
2746
2747Mr. Strzok. I think it has a variety of impacts. I think,
2748certainly, the impact on public faith and confidence of the FBI and
2749its ability to do its job; I think an impact on the morale of the men
2750and women of the FBI who are doing extraordinary work, as they always
2751have done.
2752
2753Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Now, I know that the FBI is going to continue
2754to do its job and the men and women of the FBI will continue to do their
2755jobs. But did you personally see morale erode as the President made
2756
2757such tweets?
2758
2759Mr. Strzok. I think it is fair to say that the politicized
2760
2761situation in which we find ourselves has been very difficult amongst
2762
2763the men and women of the FBI.
2764
2765Mr. Krishnamoorthi. At the White House press briefing, the day
2766after Director Comey was fired, Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated that the
2767termination happened because, and I quote: Most importantly, the rank
2768and file of the FBI had lost confidence in their Director.
2769
2770This is the question: Looking back on the lead-up to Director
2771Comey's dismissal, do you agree with Ms. Sanders that the rank and file
2772of the FBI had lost confidence in Director Comey?
2773
2774Mr. Strzok. I do not.
2775
2776Mr. Krishnamoorthi. What was your reaction when you learned that
2777
2778Director Comey was fired?
2779
2780 
2781 
2782something like that would happen, and particularly in the graceless
2783ay that it happened was shocking to me.
2784
2785Mr. Krishnamoorthi. What do you mean "graceless way"? Can you
2786explain?
2787
2788Mr. Strzok. My understanding from media reports is that he
2789learned about it from a news feed while he was in Los Angeles field
2790office, and I -- regardless of belief or opinion of anybody, that a
2791career public servant would be treated in that way was stunning to me.
2792
2793Mr. Krishnamoorthi. What was the reaction of FBI agents with
2794whom you spoke regarding the firing of Director Comey?
2795
2796Mr. Strzok. I believe the consensus of the people that I spoke
2797with and was aware of is that people were surprised and stunned.
2798
2799Mr. Krishnamoorthi. On that same day, President Trump tweeted,
2800quote: James Comey will be replaced by someone who will do a far better
2801job bringing back the spirit and prestige of the FBI.
2802
2803Question is this: Did you agree with the President's assertion
2804that there was some problem with the spirit and prestige of the FBI
2805under Director Comey?
2806
2807Mr. Strzok. No.
2808
2809Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Why not?
2810
2811Mr. Strzok. Because my experience throughout my career at the
2812
2813FBI to this day is that the spirit and the prestige of the FBI is strong,
2814
2815that the men and women of the FBI believe in their mission, are
2816
2817extraordinarily competent, and people of character and integrity, and
2818
2819 
2820
2821that that did not and has not wavered.
2822 
2823Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And how long have you been at the FBI?
2824
2825Mr. Strzok. I've been at the FBI for just under 22 years.
2826
2827Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Following the inspector general's report,
2828President Trump has stated, and I quote: I think Comey was the ring
2829leader of this whole, you know, den of thieves. They were plotting
2830against my election.
2831
2832Question: Do you have any reason to believe the FBI is a, quote,
2833
2834"den of thieves," closed quote?
2835Mr. Strzok. No.
2836Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Why not?
2837
2838Mr. Strzok. Because it's not. Again, the men and women of the
2839
2840FBI have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. My
2841
2842experience is that is not -- that is something that they live every
2843
2844day, and it is a hall of honor, not at all the opposite of some sort
2845of den of thieves.
2846
2847Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Did you personally witness anyone at the FBI
2848attempting to plot against Donald Trump's election?
2849
2850Mr. Strzok. No.
2851
2852Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to turn it
2853over to my colleagues. Thank you.
2854
2855Ms. Jackson Lee. Good morning.
2856
2857Mr. Strzok. Good morning.
2858
2859Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. None of
2860
2861us have probably said where we're from. I'm from Houston, Texas, and
2862
2863 
2864
2865have been a member of this committee for a long period of time.
2866 
2867I'll note that you are an Army veteran or a veteran of a branch,
2868correct?
2869
2870Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am.
2871
2872Ms. Jackson Lee. And it is your view, as I understand it and not
2873put words in your mouth, your view of the Bureau and its service to
2874this Nation, how do you view the Bureau now?
2875
2876Mr. Strzok. I love the Bureau. I think the role of the Bureau
2877is of extraordinary importance to the FBI, to the rule of law, to the
2878maintenance of liberty and justice, and I couldn't be prouder to be
2879a part of that.
2880
2881Ms. Jackson Lee. I understand there are about 35,000 members of
2882the FBI, maybe give or take some.
2883
2884Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am.
2885
2886Ms. Jackson Lee. Would you attribute to them some of the
2887disparaging remarks that have been made about them nationally, or are
2888you seeing, through your 22 years, hardworking individuals in the
28891-1 enV oto 2) Foe Re) aa
2890
2891Mr. Strzok. Very much the latter. I would not attribute any of
2892those remarks that have been discussed earlier.
2893
2894Ms. Jackson Lee. So let me pursue a line of questioning that I
2895
2896hope that I won't do a little bit of a mishmash on it, but I want to
2897
2898begin just very briefly on the questions of bias. Do you have any
2899
2900reason to believe that the vast majority of FBI agents are partisan;
2901
2902they are Democrats, Republicans, or, in this instance, Democrats?
2903
2904 
2905
2906Mr. Strzok. All FBI agents have political opinions. I have
2907 
2908never seen that expressed in any partisan way.
2909
2910Ms. Jackson Lee. There's no bar for FBI agents of having
2911political affiliations, or is there?
2912
2913Mr. Strzo That's correct. Yes, ma'am.
2914
2915Ms. Jackson Lee. And so, when FBI staffs a politically sensitive
2916investigation, for example, a public corruption case, does the FBI
2917consider the personal political persuasion of its agents in making
2918those staffing decisions?
2919
2920Mr. Strzok. They do not.
2921
2922Ms. Jackson Lee. In your 22 years, have you been uncomfortable
2923
2924in national security sensitive investigations by looking over and
2925
2926saying, "This is a Democrat or Republican, and he or she is showing
2927
2928mars
2929
2930Mr. Strzok. No, I have not.
2931
2932Ms. Jackson Lee. And that the results of the investigation has
2933been influenced by a party affiliation?
2934
2935Mr. Strzok. I've never seen that.
2936
2937Ms. Jackson Lee. Therefore, as the Clinton investigation began
2938to mature, you and your affiliation -- and may I ask your affiliation?
2939
2940Mr. Strzok. I'm Independent.
2941
2942Ms. Jackson Lee. And let me also ask, your status at the FBI now
2943aM lat- Leas
2944
2945Mr. Strzok. I'manemployee. I'ma special agent, DAD and HOD.
2946
2947Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. So you're still employed?
2948
2949 
2950
2951Mr. Strzok. Yes, I am.
2952 
2953Ms. Jackson Lee. It is your intent to stay employed?
2954
2955Mr. Strzok. Yes.
2956
2957Ms. Jackson Lee. You would be disappointed if, for some reason,
2958they reached down and determined that you needed to stay -- needed to
2959xorg
2960
2961Mr. Strzok. Oh, very much so.
2962
2963Ms. Jackson Lee. And you still think you have the ability to
2964serve this Nation in a fair and impartial manner?
2965
2966Mr. Strzok. Without question.
2967
2968Ms. Jackson Lee. So let me, Mr. Strzok, the inspector general
2969found that you placed a high priority on the Trump/Russia investigation
2970
2971fall of 2616 but stated that we did not have the confidence that Strzok's
2972
2973decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on
2974
2975the Midyear-related investigative lead was free from bias. What is
2976your reaction to this conclusion?
2977
2978Mr. Strzok. I was deeply disappointed by that conclusion for a
2979couple of reasons. The first is, I think the record, which the IG has,
2980is very clear that, within hours of learning of the existence of the
2981laptop, I assigned a subordinate supervisor, his agents, and some of
2982his analysts, and an attorney to go up to New York and follow up on
2983the laptop, which --
2984
2985Ms. Jackson Lee. And this is -- this was the Weiner laptop?
2986
2987Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am, that's correct. And --
2988
2989Ms. Jackson Lee. Always put that word in front of it. There are
2990
2991 
2992
2993a lot of laptops floating around.
2994 
2995Mr. Strzok. That's an excellent point. There are?
2996
2997Ms. Jackson Lee. Including my own maybe. Thank you.
2998
2999Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am. And, again --
3000
3001Ms. Jackson Lee. You sent it to New York or you sent the
3002instruction --
3003
3004Mr. Strzok. Right. I asked them to go up to New York within
3005hours. They ended up having --
3006
3007Ms. Jackson Lee. Give me that timeframe. What --
3008
3009Mr. Strzok. My recollection is either that evening, literally
3010
3011ithin 2 to 3 hours, or the following morning I had a conversation and
3012that they ended up having a --
3013
3014Ms. Jackson Lee. And you recall that they --
3015
3016Mr. Strzok. I can't, but it's in the record. I want to say it
3017was either on or about September 29.
3018
3019Ms. Jackson Lee. End of September, I think that's an important
3020point.
3021
3022Mr. Strzok. Endof September, yes. And they did, and they ended
3023up calling because they wanted to see what the state was. They had
3024an extended discussion with the New York folks who told them that the
3025processing of the Weiner laptop was not complete and that they hadn't
3026processed it, and they talked about some legal issues so -- and that
3027they would get back when it was complete.
3028
3029So my belief, you know, certainly that the inspector general's
3030
3031inference that somehow I back-burnered it is directly rebutted by the
3032
3033 
3034
3035fact of following up and dispatching a team to do it.
3036 
3037Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me tie -- can you explain why you
3038prioritize the Russia investigation in September/October? Did you do
3039Wares
3040
3041Mr. Strzok. No. I don't see that as a binary decision. There
3042were a lot of things that were going on at the Counterintelligence
3043Division at the time. Iwas a Deputy Assistant Director, and so that's
3044a fairly senior executive within Counterintelligence Division. So
3045there are a number of things that were going on at the time.
3046
3047I can tell you: I never took resources off one and put it onto
3048the other. But I'd also say, Congresswoman, the -- there's a -- the
3049nature of the allegations about the Russia investigations, I cannot
3050
3051think of a more grave allegation to the Counterintelligence Division
3052
3053or let alone the Nation that a hostile foreign power was seeking to
3054
3055clandestinely influence our Presidential election.
3056
3057Mr. Nadler. So let me just ask --
3058
3059Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Nadler, I'm yielding.
3060
3061Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
3062
3063Let me just ask you this point on that point. So, in other words,
3064given the fact that you instructed some people to look into the Weiner
3065laptop, you would characterize the assertion that you prioritized the
3066Russian investigation as inaccurate?
3067
3068Mr. Strzok. I would.
3069
3070Mr. Nadler. Because they were both going on and --
3071
3072Mr. Strzok. Right. And, sir, what I would say is, there
3073
3074 
3075
3076were -- in my mind, in my recollection, I had put the appropriate
3077COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3078
3079 
3080immediate managerial and subordinate staff on the matter to address
3081it. I think, as the DAD, as any manager, as any executive, your job
3082is to look at a host of competing priorities and decide where your
3083limited resources, your limited time, how you're going to address them.
3084
3085So I saw that as immediately appropriately addressed, and I
3086continued then to look at the wide range of responsibilities I had,
3087one which was -- is truly significant, the Russia investigations, but
3088there are any number of other espionage cases or counterintelligence
3089matters that were going on at the same time.
3090
3091Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much.
3092
3093I yield back.
3094
3095Ms. Jackson Lee. Yeah. If I recall your testimony, you sort of
3096heightened the national security issue, not prioritizing, but just it
3097
3098struck you being in that arena that you better look into the potential
3099
3100of a campaign actually dealing with Russian operatives. If so, they
3101
3102were important, but you -- that struck you, is that correct, that
3103some --
3104
3105Mr. Strzok. Yes. Allthese things -- I say all these things are
3106important. These are all legitimate, reasonable investigative
3107avenues. When you look at the severity of impact to national security,
3108I think it is demonstrably true that a foreign nation clandestinely
3109putting themselves into a Presidential election, it doesn't get much
3110more serious or grave than that.
3111
3112Ms. Jackson Lee. So, in September, you were working on the
3113
3114 
3115
3116Trump/Russia investigation 2016. Does that ringabell? You can just
3117 
3118say yes or no.
3119
3120Mr. Strzok. I -- Congresswoman, I'm not trying to be cute, but
3121without getting into kind of our organizational structure classified
3122information, I was involved in that process.
3123
3124Ms. Jackson Lee. Yeah. Would you say it was a majority of your
3125work?
3126
3127Mr. Strzok. A significant portion of it. I don't know that it
3128was the majority. It might have been close to the majority but a lot
3129of it for sure.
3130
3131Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you have any reason to -- let me just ask
3132
3133you this: What would be your understanding why the Clinton email
3134
3135investigation was made public and the Trump/Russia email was not by
3136
3137the FBI?
3138
3139Mr. Strzok. So that decision, my understanding of that, by
3140Director Comey was that he believed that based on the nature of the
3141Clinton email investigation, which was not a -- there were
3142counterintelligence elements to it, but it was primarily a pretty
3143straightforward mishandling investigation of classified information,
3144and that I don't want to speak for the Director's reasons. He's spoken
3145at length in front of this body and others. But I see that as a
3146different prospect than that of an ongoing counterintelligence
3147investigation.
3148
3149Ms. Jackson Lee. Somewhere like a mountain and a molehill?
3150
3151Mr. Strzok. Iwould not -- I don't think I would use those terms.
3152
3153 
3154
3155I think it is a fair -- if you're taking -- stepping back from any
3156 
3157particular case, if you were to compare a generic case of the -- of
3158
3159mishandling of classified information compared to a generic hostile
3160
3161and foreign power interfering with the electoral process and allegedly
3162
3163colluding with members of the candidate of a major party for the
3164Presidency of the United States, those are vastly different threats
3165to national security.
3166
3167Ms. Jackson Lee. I'11 accept that they're vastly different.
3168
3169Let me just understand, can we say that the Trump/Russia
3170investigation was a top priority?
3171
3172Mr. Strzok. My understanding from Director Comey is that, yes,
3173en
3174
3175Ms. Jackson Lee. Were you looking to influence the election with
3176the results of this process of investigation Trump/Russia?
3177
3178Mr. Strzok. No.
3179
3180Ms. Jackson Lee. I may have said this, but would you have
3181acknowledged publicly the email investigation for Mrs. Clinton in the
3182summer of 2016?
3183
3184Mr. Strzok. That decision was made by Director Comey after a lot
3185of discussion and debate. So he is the head of the FBI and that was
3186his decision.
3187
3188Ms. Jackson Lee. Would you have done it?
3189
3190Mr. Strzok. I don't want to get into a hypothetical because I
3191wasn't -- that was not the position I was in.
3192
3193Ms. Jackson Lee. Is that usually done?
3194
3195 
3196
3197Mr. Strzok. It is not usually done.
3198 
3199Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you take any actions to bury or back-burner
3200that laptop that seems to be floating around?
3201
3202Mr. Strzok. No.
3203
3204Ms. Jackson Lee. And would you consider some of the accusations
3205of political bias -- and I'm just going to say between yourself and
3206
3207Lisa -- legitimate to the extent that you downplayed your oath, you
3208
3209diminished your responsibilities, and you were engaged in selecting
3210
3211internally support for one candidate over another --
3212
3213Mr. Strzok. No.
3214
3215Ms. Jackson Lee. -- in the Presidential election 2016?
3216
3217Mr. Strzok. I don't agree with that at all. I consider those
3218personal opinions exchanged with a close confidant and nothing else.
3219
3220Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just -- I think that I have concluded
3221those. I just want to just finish by the point of -- the concept of
3222burying the laptop and not doing the work, you don't believe -- on the
3223Clinton investigation, you do not believe -- or you -- let me ask the
3224question so that it is not my words. What is your opinion of what you
3225did with respect to that investigation, burying, not pursuing it?
3226
3227Mr. Strzok. Idon't believe I buriedit atall. I believe I too
3228immediate action to assign subordinate personnel and subordinate
3229managers who were completely uninvolved with the Russian
3230investigations to pursue the matter and that they did that.
3231
3232Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
3233
3234Mr. Strzok. Thank you.
3235
3236 
3237
3238Mr. Swalwell. Good afternoon, Mr. Strzok.
3239 
3240Mr. Strzo Good afternoon, sir?
3241
3242Mr. Swalwell. My name is Eric Swalwell. I serve on House
3243Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.
3244
3245Mr. Strzok, do you regret the text messages that you sent to
3246Ms. Page with respect to Mr. Trump?
3247
3248Mr. Strzok. Very much I regret them.
3249
3250Mr. Swalwell. Okay. Are you sorry that you had sent them?
3251
3252Mr. Strzok. I'msorry because of the -- I'msorry because of the
3253
3254deep pain and suffering that they have caused my family. That's
3255something I'll always regret. I regret the way that they've been used
3256by some to turn into some sort of political weapon that they are not
3257and the damage that has been done with that.
3258
3259Mr. Swalwell. Was it your decision alone to open the July 2016
3260investigation into the Trump campaign on a counterintelligence basis?
3261
3262Mr. Strzok. No.
3263
3264Mr. Swalwell. Okay. Did you recommend the opening of that
3265investigation?
3266
3267Mr. Strzok. I don't know that I needed to recommend it. I
3268believed it's the appropriate thing to do.
3269
3270Mr. Swalwell. But, I mean, were you the first person to recommend
3271opening it?
3272
3273Mr. Strzok. No.
3274
3275Mr. Swalwell. Is it safe to say that others had also recommended
3276
3277fo] e114 nN ayaa es
3278
3279 
3280
3281Mr. Strzok. Yes.
3282 
3283Mr. Swalwell. Now, you mentioned earlier that July 2016 is when
3284the investigation was opened, but we know that actions are taken by
3285the FBI before an investigation is officially open because, of course,
3286that's how you gather the evidence. That informs the opening. When
3287did you first learn that the FBI was taking actions to learn more about
3288concerning contacts between Russians and the Trump campaign?
3289
3290Mr. Strzok. Again, I want to be careful to not step on any FBI
3291equities or ongoing investigations. I think it is fair to say, without
3292getting into classified detail, that the case was opened shortly upon
3293receipt of the predicating information.
3294
3295Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Strzok, did you -- and, again, you've been
3296accused of being the reason this investigation started, accused of
3297
3298being the reason that the Clinton investigation did not find the Anthony
3299
3300Weiner laptop sooner, did you tell Michael Cohen to try and do a Trump
3301
3302Tower deal with Moscow in December 2015?
3303
3304Mr. Strzok. So my trouble is that question is easily answered,
3305but what I don't want to do, as you know from your time on the Intel
3306Committee, even denying something can be classified. So I defer to
3307agency counsel on that answer and if I can or can't.
3308
3309Ms. Besse. Just in terms of him, if he confirms or denies
3310something, that it can be revealing, so it would be better for him not
3311to be able to answer that question.
3312
3313Mr. Swalwell. Again, I just have a few more with respect to this.
3314
3315Did you set up a June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting where the President's
3316
3317 
3318
3319son-in-law, campaign chairman, and son met with people offering dirt
3320 
3321on the Russians? Was that your doing?
3322
3323Mr. Strzok. Again, easily answered, but -- I mean, I think -- I
3324would defer to the FBI and perhaps if there is -- that question is easily
3325answered very much in a classified setting so I think it would be --
3326
3327Mr. Swalwell. Let me put it this way, Mr. Strzok: Is it fair
3328to say that, aside from the opinions that you expressed to Ms. Page
3329about Mr. Trump, there was a whole mountain of evidence independent
3330of anything you had done that related to actions that were concerning
3331about what the Russians and the Trump campaign were doing?
3332
3333Ms. Besse. So, Congressman, that may go into sort of the -- that
3334will -- for Mr. Strzok to answer that question, that goes into the
3335special counsel's investigation, so I don't think he can answer that
3336question.
3337
3338Mr. Swalwell. Sure. I understand. But I have to ask.
3339
3340Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield?
3341
3342Mr. Swalwell. Yes.
3343
3344Mr. Nadler. I have to say that the answer to that question is
3345readily available from the public record having nothing to do with the
3346CIA or the FBI private records. I find it -- saying you can't answer
3347questions that are readily available in the public record is a little
3348not right.
3349
3350Mr. Swalwell. Again, Mr. Strzok has been accused of being a lot
3351
3352of things that seem quite ridiculous, and I just want to make sure that
3353
3354it's clear that all of these other things that the Trump campaign did,
3355
3356 
3357 
3358Mr. Goodlatte has actually offered for us to go into a classified space
3359later if we may, and perhaps we can address that there.
3360
3361Mr. Strzok --
3362
3363Chairman Goodlatte. If I may, I don't think it relates to whether
3364it's classified or not. I think it relates to whether or not we are
3365going into the underlying substance of the investigation with regard
3366that it be conducted by the special counsel, which we have for a long
3367time determined we're not going into that.
3368
3369Mr. Swalwell. Okay. So we just want to keep it with Hillary
3370Clinton's emails?
3371
3372Chairman Goodlatte. No. No. It relates to Mr. Strzok's
3373involvement in all of these matters and the issues that he has been
3374answering questions about today related to his involvement in each and
3375
3376bias. But if you get into questions about the substance of what he's
3377
3378doing, you're getting into a, first, a gray area, and it may be a very
3379
3380clear area that he shouldn't go to.
3381
3382Mr. Swalwell. Understood.
3383
3384Chairman Goodlatte. So I'm going to respect the advice of
3385counsel for the Department.
3386
3387Mr. Swalwell. So, Mr. Strzok, were you involved in the defensive
3388briefing that was given to the Trump campaign in July 2016?
3389
3390Mr. Strzok. I was involved in the planning for that.
3391
3392Mr. Swalwell. And when you were planning for that, were you
3393
3394aware -- well, let me back up. Was this a general defensive briefing,
3395
3396 
3397
3398or was it motivated by what you had learned the Russians were intending
3399COMMITTEE
3400
3401 
3402to do?
3403
3404Mr. Strzok. So which briefing? There were a couple of
3405briefings.
3406
3407Mr. Swalwell. July 19, 2016.
3408
3409Mr. Strzok. Yes. Okay. So I think that was in the context of
3410general CI briefings that were given to both nominees.
3411
3412Mr. Swalwell. Who was given that briefing on the Trump campaign?
3413
3414Mr. Strzok. Who within the Trump campaign or who by the FBI?
3415
3416Mr. Swalwell. In the Trump campaign.
3417
3418Mr. Strzok. I would have to refer to the FBI's records.
3419Certainly, then-candidate Trump was involved. I don't recall
3420there -- I have some vague recollection that Mr. Christie might have
3421been there. Mr. Flynn might have been there. But I would -- I don't
3422remember ?
3423
3424Mr. Swalwell. Did any of the individuals in the briefing
3425
3426disclose to you or your counterparts, your FBI colleagues, any contacts
3427
3428they had received from the Russians?
3429
3430Mr. Strzok. I don't -- I know the answer to that, but I defer
3431to agency counsel.
3432
3433Ms. Besse. So it's very -- it's a very thin line for Mr. Strzok
3434because he was involved in the investigation, so going into sort of
3435the facts of what was said and how what was discussed goes into methods
3436and how --
3437
3438Mr. Swalwell. Sure. I understand.
3439
3440 
3441
3442Ms. Besse. -- sort of briefings or investigations are conducted.
3443 
3444Mr. Swalwell. Was the campaign -- a defensive briefing, as I
3445understand it, is making a campaign aware of what threats could exist
3446around them from foreign nationals who would seek to penetrate their
3447campaigns and either steal secrets or recruit them. Is that right?
3448
3449Me. Strzok. That's right.
3450
3451Mr. Nadler. Excuse me 1 minute.
3452
3453The Republican questioner, I forget who it was, asked a whole
3454series of questions about conversations between Special Counsel
3455Mueller and Mr. Strzok. Those questions were allowed. Why is this
3456ohare ee
3457
3458Ms. Besse. Congressman, I believe those questions were asked of
3459Mr. Strzok about what occurred with the conversation with Mr. Mueller.
3460
3461Mr. Nadler. Yes, what was the conversation with Mr. Mueller.
3462
3463Ms. Besse. About the text and the substance of the text messages.
3464
3465Mr. Nadler. And this is different how?
3466
3467Ms. Besse. This is going into the investigation itself and what
3468was discussed in terms of the subject matter and things that were
3469involved in the investigation.
3470
3471Mr. Swalwell. Well, without disclosing what was said by the
3472
3473Trump --
3474
3475Chairman Goodlatte. Let me interject, and maybe I'll help you
3476
3477out here. I think it's appropriate to ask questions about how two or
3478more defensive briefings were handled if there's a contrast and
3479
3480comparison. I think it's appropriate to ask who was involved. He said
3481
3482 
3483
3484he doesn't recall some of that. But you can't get into the substance
3485 
3486of what was shared. I think that's where the --
3487
3488Mr. Swalwell. Okay. So, understanding that, Mr. Strzok, was
3489the Trump campaign asked to report any offers from foreign governments
3490to interfere with the U.S. electoral process? Without telling us what
3491they told you, were they asked?
3492
3493Mr. Strzok. My recollection is that all the briefings to the
3494
3495candidates, part of that briefing was to let us know if you see anything
3496
3497unusual.
3498
3499Mr. Swalwell. How many defensive briefings, to your knowledge,
3500were provided to the Trump campaign before election day?
3501
3502Mr. Strzok. I believe there were two, one to candidate Trump and
3503one to Vice Presidential candidate Pence. But I'mnot -- that was the
3504plan. I'm not certain if the one to then-Vice President candidate
3505Pence was provided. It may have been. Idon't recall. I don't know.
3506
3507Mr. Swalwell. Did you mention that General Flynn was a part of
3508one of the briefings?
3509
3510Mr. Strzok. Well, he was part of a briefing. I don't recall if
3511he was part of the initial counterintelligence briefing or a later
3512briefing that was given following the election prior to the
3513inauguration.
3514
3515Mr. Swalwell. And what did you want the candidate or the
3516candidate's team to do if they did have any contacts from the Russians?
3517What did you ask of them?
3518
3519Mr. Strzok. I wasn't there so I don't know what was asked
3520
3521 
3522
3523specifically. The general practice in a defensive brief is not only
3524 
3525to sensitize and make the person being briefed what the threats are,
3526
3527but also to ask and encourage them for any information that they have
3528
3529or might come across that would indicate any such attempt or activity
3530
3531to let us know.
3532
3533Mr. Swalwell. So as I understand, you were not present at either
3534of the candidate Trump briefings?
3535
3536Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
3537
3538Mr. Swalwell. You're just aware that they occurred and the
3539content that was discussed?
3540
3541Mr. Strzok. I don't know specific to those briefings what was
3542discussed. It is a typical part of a defensive briefing that that is
3543included.
3544
3545Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
3546
3547I'll yield.
3548
3549Mr. Nadler. Mr. Strzok, I have two quick questions for you. Did
3550any of your opinions expressed in your text messages impact in any way
3551the evidence you collected as part of the Russia investigation?
3552
3553Mr. Strzok. No.
3554
3555Mr. Nadler. And I apologize for this question, but I want to get
3556it on the record: Did you ever fabricate evidence that was used in
3557the Trump/Russia investigation?
3558
3559Mr. Strzok. No.
3560
3561Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much.
3562
3563Mr. Cohen. Congressman Cohen from Tennessee, and I just want to
3564
3565 
3566
3567thank you for your volunteering to come down here and talk.
3568 
3569
3570COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
3571Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
3572
3573Mr. Cohen, Although I think the substance of your testimony is
3574not what's important. I think what's important is the venue and the
3575fact that this has been called and the idea that there is questions
3576being asked of you concerning bias, and I think that's the whole
3577picture. Doesn't matter what you answer or what happens here. It's
3578theater.
3579
3580I appreciate the FBI. I appreciate you. I appreciate what
3581
3582Mr. Comey did and what Mr. Mueller's doing. I've heard Mr. Trump say
3583
3584to Putin and to Kim Jong-un: I'm honored to meet you. I'm honored
3585to meet you. I thank-you for your service, and I hope you continue
3586representing the United States of America and the FBI.
3587
3588Mr. Strzok. Thank you, sir.
3589
3590 
3591
3592Mr. Cohen. You're welcome.
3593ose |
3594
3595Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Agent Strzok. I'm Congressman Ted Lieu.
3596
3597I listened with great interest to your answers to what my
3598Republican colleagues asked you this morning, and it appears to me that
3599a number of your text messages have been misconstrued or
3600mischaracterized by the public and by the press. Is that correct?
3601
3602Mr. Strzok. Good afternoon, sir.
3603
3604Yes, that is correct.
3605
3606Mr. Lieu. Would you like the opportunity to testify publicly to
3607explain your side of the story to the American people?
3608
3609Mr. Strzok. I would.
3610
3611Mr. Lieu. The text messages you wrote were to Lisa Page, correct?
3612
3613Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
3614
3615Mr. Lieu. They were not intended for public consumption,
3616correct?
3617
3618Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
3619
3620Mr. Lieu. And so when my Republican colleague asked, well, could
3621a reasonable person interpret this text message in so-and-so way, that
3622
3623is completely irrelevant, because the only person we're worried about
3624
3625is what did Lisa Page think and what did you think. Isn't that right?
3626
3627Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
3628Mr. Lieu. And clearly what you thought and Lisa Page thought had
3629context behind it, because you all attended different meetings, you
3630
3631were at the FBI, you had information the public did not. Isn't that
3632
3633 
3634
3635ara ier?
3636 
3637Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
3638
3639Mr. Lieu. All right. So it would be important to hear publicly
3640
3641what you believe your text messages meant given the context that only
3642
3643you and Lisa Page knew. Isn't that right?
3644
3645Mr. Strzok. Yes.
3646
3647Mr. Lieu. All right. To selectively take text messages in the
3648abstract and launch them on TV or used by my Republican colleagues to
3649take them out of context is wrong and it is not the truth. Isn't that
3650anaes
3651
3652Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
3653
3654Mr. Lieu. All right. So despite all of that, Robert Mueller
3655called you into his office -- and, by the way, on our information, you
3656were removed from the special counsel investigation on July 28th, 2017,
3657not August.
3658
3659So in that meeting you stated that Robert Mueller was regretful
3660because he wanted to not only run an investigation that was free of
3661bias and independent but also had the perception of being free of bias,
3662correct?
3663
3664Mr. Strzok. That was my perception. I would defer to Special
3665Counsel Mueller as to what he actually thought. But my experience with
3666him and his investigation and his integrity as aman, not only as special
3667counsel but throughout his career, is that he absolutely is dedicated
3668to running any investigation or operation with the utmost integrity
3669
3670and appearance of integrity.
3671
3672 
3673
3674Mr. Lieu. And he removed you without even giving you an ability
3675 
3676to even explain your texts because he was so concerned about the bias
3677that that could cause. Is that right?
3678
3679Mr. Strzok. I don't want to characterize what his reasoning or
3680thoughts were behind that. My belief was that there was not a
3681discussion of that. It was an understanding that this was a -- not
3682at all an accusation of wrongdoing. This was a function of a perception
3683say hee
3684
3685Mr. Lieu. And upon finding out about those text messages he
3686removed you pretty much immediately. Is that right?
3687
3688Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
3689
3690Mr. Lieu. Okay.
3691
3692Now, the IG report that came out, in it, it specifically says,
3693the IG says: Our review did not find evidence to connect the political
3694
3695views expressed in these text messages to the specific investigative
3696
3697decisions that we reviewed. Rather, consistent with the analytical
3698
3699approach described above, we found that these specific decisions were
3700the result of discretionary judgments made during the course of an
3701investigation by the Midyear agents and prosecutors and that these
3702judgments were not unreasonable.
3703
3704You would agree with that, wouldn't you?
3705
3706Mr. Strzok. I would.
3707
3708Mr. Lieu. And that's because we expect FBI agents, first of all,
3709would have personal views; but second, that when they go on duty, they
3710
3711check those views at the door. Isn't that right?
3712
3713 
3714
3715Mr. Strzok. Yes.
3716 
3717Mr. Lieu. The IG report also found the following: We found that
3718Strzok was not the sole decisionmaker for any of the specific Midyear
3719investigative decisions we examined in that chapter. We further found
3720evidence that in some instances Strzok and Page advocated for more
3721aggressive investigative measures in the Midyear investigation, such
3722as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search warrants to obtain
3723evidence.
3724
3725So, in fact, you were pushing for a more aggressive investigation
3726of the Hillary Clinton email issue. Is that right?
3727
3728Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
3729
3730Mr. Lieu. Okay.
3731
3732It is not disputed -- well, you're still a current FBI employee,
3733and shee
3734
3735Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
3736
3737Mr. Lieu. So it is not disputed that FBI Director Christopher
3738Wray is a Republican nominated by a Republican President, confirmed
3739by a Republican-controlled Senate. Also not disputed, he gave over
3740$37,000 exclusively to Republican candidates.
3741
3742Knowing that, do you still trust Christopher Wray, as I do, to
3743be fair and impartial in doing his jobe
3744
3745Mr. Strzok Yes, I do.
3746
3747Mr. Lieu. And that's because in America we allow FBI agents, FBI
3748
3749directors, law enforcement to have personal views, but when they go
3750
3751on duty we expect them to check those views at the door and to do their
3752
3753 
3754
3755job based on law and facts. Isn't that right?
3756 
3757Mr. Strzok. Yes.
3758
3759Mr. Lieu. Is that what you did in this case?
3760Mr. Strzok. Yes, it is.
3761
3762Mr. Lieu. Thank you. I yield back.
3763
3764Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
3765
3766Mr. Strzok, my name is Jamie Raskin. I represent the Eighth
3767
3768District in Maryland.
3769
3770Mr. Strzok. Good afternoon, sir.
3771
3772Mr. Raskin. Welcome.
3773
3774The IG report indicated that on October 21, 2016, you briefed a
3775group of retired FBI personnel on the Midyear investigation during a
3776conference call. Do you remember that?
3777
3778Mr. Strzok. I do.
3779
3780Mr. Raskin. Can you explain to us what the purpose of the
3781briefing was?
3782
3783Mr. Strzok. The purpose of that call was to provide a set of case
3784facts about what had been done with the Clinton email investigation
3785to a variety of, as I recall it, senior retired FBI personnel who were
3786getting questions about the FBI's conduct of the investigation.
3787
3788Mr. Raskin. Okay. What were some of the concerns about retired
3789FBI agents speaking to the media about the Clinton investigation?
3790
3791Mr. Strzok. I think the, as I understood it, the direction from
3792the -- so, sir, I don't know that I can entirely answer the question.
3793
3794Mr. Raskin. Were there concerns that you expressed or that
3795
3796 
3797
3798someone expressed about the retired FBI agents speaking to the media
3799 
3800about the Clinton investigation?
3801
3802Mr. Strzok. I did not have concerns. I think the, as I
3803understood it, the direction from the senior management of the FBI was
3804to provide a briefing to these individuals so that they had the facts
3805of what had occurred and spoke to somebody who was much closer to the
3806line and they could ask whatever questions so that they could assure
3807themselves that they had the accurate information about what occurred
3808in the case.
3809
3810Mr. Raskin. Who’else from the FBI was on that call?
3811
3812Mr. Strzok. So my recollection is Mike Corton, who is the head
3813of public affairs, was there. He may or may not have had additional
3814staff in the room at the time. I believe Ms. Page was on the call.
3815I believe that's it, but I'm not certain.
3816
3817Mr. Raskin. Okay. How often does the FBI brief retired FBI
3818personnel on active cases?
3819
3820Mr. Strzok. So the case was closed. I don't know how often it
3821
3822happens on active cases.
3823
3824Mr. Raskin. So this was not a common practice to your knowledge?
3825
3826Mr. Strzok. Well, so, again, sir, the case, I believe, was
3827closed at the time that call occurred. And as to how often personnel
3828are briefed to closed cases, I don't know the answer to that.
3829
3830Mr. Goelman. May I have one moment?
3831
3832[Discussion off the record. ]
3833
3834Mr. Raskin. Did you mention at any point during this call
3835
3836 
3837
3838follow-up investigative acts by the FBI, such as investigating the
3839 
3840emails on the Weiner laptop?
3841
3842Mr. Strzok. No, because my recollection of the timeframe of that
3843call was it occurred before -- I believe temporally it occurred before
3844we had made the decision to reopen active investigations and seek a
3845search warrant.
3846
3847Mr. Raskin. Okay. Shortly after this call Rudy Giuliani made
3848several TV appearances claiming that he was getting inside information
3849from both former and current FBI agents.
3850
3851On October 25 and 26, a couple of days before Director Comey wrote
3852to Congress about reopening the investigation, former New York Mayor
3853Rudy Giuliani suggested that the Trump campaign had, quote, a couple
3854surprises, end quote, a couple things up our sleeves that should turn
3855things around.
3856
3857Do you happen to recall those statements made by Mr. Giuliani?
3858
3859Mr. Strzok. I recall them after the fact, reading about them in
3860the media, and I may have heard them at the time and just don't recall.
3861
3862Mr. Raskin. On the 28th of October he claimed he had a, quote,
3863pipeline into the FBI, and agents were, quote, outraged at being turned
3864down by the Justice Department to open a grand jury, unquote. Do you
3865recall that statement?
3866
3867Mr. Strzok. Well, I don't know -- I don't know if I recall that
3868
3869specific Bee te I remember broadly that Mr. Giuliani was making
3870
3871statements to the effect of getting information from agents.
3872
3873Mr. Raskin. He also said there was, quote, a revolution going
3874
3875 
3876
3877on inside the FBI about the original conclusion. I know that from
3878 
3879former agents. I know that even from a few active agents.
3880
3881Do you recall that statement by Mr. Giuliani?
3882
3883Mr. Strzok. Again, I certainly remember it from recent media
3884report, and I remember a variety of statements he was making at the
3885time, but not with specificity which exact ones.
3886
3887Mr. Raskin. Got you. On November 4th, in an appearance on "Fox
3888
3889& Friends,” Mr. Giuliani was asked if he knew about the FBI's possession
3890
3891of the laptop before Director Comey wrote to The Hill. He responded:
3892
3893Did I hear about it? You're darn right I heard about it.
3894
3895Do you recall that statement?
3896
3897Mr. Strzok. Again, I don't remember at the time that specific
3898statement, other than just a variety of statements that he was making.
3899I have seen it reported since in the media.
3900
3901Mr. Raskin. And have you ever served as a source for Mr. Giuliani
3902at any point?
3903
3904Mr. Strzok. No.
3905
3906Mr. Raskin. Are you aware of any former or current FBI personnel
3907who were communicating with Mr. Giuliani at this time?
3908
3909Mr. Strzok. No.
3910
3911Mr. Raskin. Or during the time of the Midyear investigation.
3912
3913Mr. Strzok. No.
3914
3915Mr. Raskin. Are you in communications with any former FBI agents
3916who are or were in contact with Mr. Giuliani?
3917
3918Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge.
3919
3920 
3921
3922Mr. Raskin. Okay. And did you have any reason to believe that
3923 
3924any individual on that October 21 call were in contact with Mr.
3925Giuliani?
3926
3927Mr. Strzok. I don't know.
3928
3929Mr. Raskin. Do you have any reason to know who his sources are?
3930
3931Mr. Strzok. I do not.
3932
3933Mr. Raskin. Orwere. Do you have any reason to believe that the
3934sources in the FBI were actually speaking to Mr. Giuliani.
3935
3936Mr. Strzok. I don't know.
3937
3938Mr. Raskin. Okay. And let's see, and forgive me, I may have
3939missed this before. I just wanted to ask you one question about the
3940tweets that have been made famous through this process.
3941
3942Do you believe that anything that you said in those tweets
3943reflected upon your determination to alter the public outcome of the
3944investigation in any way?
3945
3946Mr. Strzok. Rephrase that question.
3947
3948Mr. Raskin. I guess my question is, did those private tweets
3949
3950reflect your public determination to bias the investigation?
3951
3952Mr. Strzok. So they're private texts --
3953
3954Mr. Raskin. The private texts, right.
3955
3956Mr. Strzok. Absolutely in no way did they indicate, nor would
3957I ever do anything to influence the election.
3958
3959Mr. Raskin. Sodo you believe that the obsession with these text
3960represents an irrelevant distraction?
3961
3962Mr. Strzok. I do.
3963
3964 
3965
3966Mr. Raskin. Okay. Thank you for your testimony.
3967 
3968BY MS. KIM:
3969
3970Q Thank you, Mr. Strzok.
3971
3972I would like to go back to the questions about defensive briefings
3973
3974with the Trump campaign.
3975
3976So you said that you did not participate in these briefings. Is
3977that correct?
3978
3979A NAT
3980
3981Q Did you supervise the individuals who gave these briefings?
3982
3983A No.
3984
3985Q No. Who would have supervised the individuals who gave
3986these briefings?
3987
3988A My recollection of the personnel who attended that were
3989individuals from our Washington field office that fell under the
3990supervisory chain there.
3991
3992Q Gotit. And if the Trump campaign had reported any contacts
3993with foreign officials during this briefing would you have been
3994informed about that?
3995
3996py Yes. I assume, yes. But, yes.
3997
3998Q Did the Trump campaign report any contacts with foreign
3999officials during this briefing?
4000
4001A Again, easily answered, but I don't know if I can in this
4002setting.
4003
4004Ms. Besse. Right. That would go, again, into his investigative
4005
4006role, so I would instruct him not to answer.
4007
4008 
4009
4010Ms. Kim. I understand.
4011COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4012
4013 
4014We have asked this question to, I think, at least two FBI witnesses
4015
4016prior. So I believe we asked Mr. Priestap about this and I believe
4017
4018e asked Mr. McCabe about this. We were permitted to get the answer,
4019
4020he easily answerable answer to this question before. So it is on the
4021record. I don't know if that sways the FBI equities or not.
4022
4023Ms. Besse. Can I confer with the witness?
4024
4025Ms. Kim. Sure.
4026
4027[Discussion off the record. ]
4028
4029Ms. Besse. My instruction to the witness will stand for him not
4030
4031to answer because of his investigative role.
4032
4033 
4034
4035Ms. Kim. I understand. Thank you.
4036BY MS. KIM:
4037
4038Q Do you know when the defensive briefings occurred?
4039
4040A Not offhand.
4041
4042Q If I represent to you that the defensive briefing to
4043President Trump happened on July 19th, 2016, is that generally
4044concordant with your understanding of the facts?
4045
4046A Yes.
4047
4048Q Do you know if that was after the June 2016 meeting in Trump
4049Tower with senior campaign officials, including Donald Trump Jr. and
4050Jared Kushner and a purported emissary from the Russian Government?
4051
4052A All I can say to that is, based on open source reporting and
4053looking at the calendar, that it would have occurred afterwards.
4054
4055Q I understand. Do you know if the defensive briefing
4056
4057occurred in close proximity to an August 3rd, 2016, meeting that has
4058
4059been publicly reported between Donald Trump Jr. and an emissary who
4060told Donald Trump Jr. that, quote, "The princes who led Saudi Arabia
4061and the United Arab Emirates were eager to help his father win the
4062election as President"?
4063
4064A Again, based on a review of the public records and the dates
4065at hand, yes, they were in close proximity.
4066
4067Q And, again, if any of these contacts, foreign contacts had
4068been reported to the FBI, would you have known about these?
4069
4070Ay I would.
4071
4072 
4073
4074Q If the Trump campaign did not report these would you have
4075COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4076
4077 
4078been surprised?
4079
4080A  Idon't -- I don't want to speculate as to what my reaction
4081would be. My professional hope would be that any campaign following
4082particularly a defensive briefing, had they been approached by foreign
4083governments in a way that appeared to be -- involve any sort of
4084subterfuge or sort of -- anything inappropriate, that they would report
4085
4086that to the FBI.
4087
4088oe think my time is running out, so this is my last question
4089
4090for this round.
4091
4092How important is it for national security purposes for political
4093campaigns, particularly national Presidential campaigns, to report
4094offers of foreign interference in U.S. elections to the FBI?
4095
4096A I think it's extraordinarily important. If you look -- the
4097foundation of what we are as a democracy is people exercising their
4098right to vote to elect their representatives, and there's no higher
4099representative than the President of the United States. So the
4100suggestion that something so core to who we are as a Nation would be
4101under attack by not only a foreign nation, but a hostile, aggressive
4102foreign nation, is of extraordinary importance.
4103
4104Ms. Kim. Thank you, Mr. Strzok.
4105
4106We're going off the record. It is 12:31.
4107
4108[Recess. ]
4109
4110Mr. Parmiter. Let's go back on the record. The time is
4111
411212:41 p.m. And we'll turn it over to Mr. Gowdy.
4113
4114 
4115
4116Mr. Gowdy. Thank you.
4117 
4118
4119COMMITTERE SENSITIVE
4120Mr. Strzok, on July 21st, 2016, you texted Lisa Page: Trump is
4121a disaster. I have no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be.
4122
4123Now, July 21st, 2016. When did the Russia probe officially begin
4124from the Bureau standpoint?
4125
4126Mr. Strzok. Good afternoon, sir.
4127
4128My recollection is that it was at the end of July.
4129
4130Mr. Gowdy. Who drafted the electronic communication?
4131
4132Mr. Strzok. Can I -- I believe that's classified. Again,
4133easily answered, but I'm not sure I can discuss it here.
4134
4135Mr. Gowdy. Did you draft it?
4136
4137Mr. Strzok. Same answer, sir.
4138
4139Ms. Besse. Congressman, since the document is classified I would
4140not have him answer any questions as to the contents of it.
4141
4142Mr. Gowdy. Well, I haven't asked him whether or not he drafted
4143it or signed it. I haven't asked him about the contents of it, not
4144yet I haven't.
4145
4146It's not a complicated question, and you and I both know the answer
4147
4148to it. Did you draft or sign the initiation document that began the
4149
4150Russia probe?
4151
4152Mr. Strzok. Sir, I can answer that question easily in a
4153classified information. My understanding is that --
4154
4155Mr. Gowdy. I'm not asking you about the content. I'm
4156asking -- is your signature classified?
4157
4158Ms. Besse. Congressman, the drafting of the -- who drafted the
4159
4160 
4161
4162communication is on the communication itself, and since the
4163 
4164
4165COMMITTEE. SENSILTIVE
4166communication -- the contents of the communication itself is classified
4167I would instruct him --
4168
4169Mr. Gowdy. The date is also on there. Is the date classified?
4170
4171Ms. Besse. I'mnot aware that the date is classified, but who --
4172
4173Mr. Gowdy. How is his signature classified if the date is not
4174classified?
4175
4176Ms. Besse. Congressman, I'msorry, the document itself is still
4177classified. He knows the answer and you know the answer, but because
4178this is not a classified setting --
4179
4180Mr. Gowdy. Is it fair to say the Russia probe began on July
4181the 31st, 2016, officially?
4182
4183Mr. Strzok. I would have to check the documentation to find out.
4184If you're representing that's the -- and that it is an unclassified
4185date -- I'm happy to accept that representation.
4186
4187Mr. Gowdy. Did you take any steps with respect to the Russia
4188investigation before July 31st, 2016?
4189
4190Ms. Besse. Congressman, that goes back into the investigation
4191itself. And because that is the substance of the special counsel
4192
4193investigation, while Mr. Strzok may have been involved in the
4194
4195investigation before it became -- went under the purview of the special
4196
4197counsel -- because it is an ongoing investigation I'm going to instruct
4198ae
4199Mr. Gowdy. Right. We're nowhere near the special counsel now.
4200
4201That was in 2017. I'mstill in July of 2016, and I want to know whether
4202
4203 
4204
4205or not this witness took any steps before the Russia investigation
4206 
4207
4208COMMITTBE SENSITIVE
4209officially began, with officially being July 31st.
4210
4211Did you do anything before July 31st?
4212
4213Mr. Strzok. Congressman, I can tell you I think in a way the FBI
4214will agree with that the acts I took were in accordance with FBI rules,
4215regulation, and policy and the law.
4216
4217Mr. Gowdy. That's a great answer to a question I didn't ask.
4218
4219Mr. Strzok. And, sir --
4220
4221Mr. Gowdy. Did you take any steps with respect to the Russia
4222investigation before July the 31st of 2016?
4223
4224Mr. Goelman. Congressman, as we indicated in the beginning and
4225as we have consistently done, we are going to accept instructions from
4226the FBI attorneys here as to what we can and cannot say. Continually
4227asking the same question is only going to continually get the same
4228
4229nonanswer.
4230
4231Mr. Gowdy. Did you go to | in May of 2016?
4232
4233Mr. Strzok. I don't believe I did.
4234
4235Mr. Gowdy. When did you go to
4236
4237Mr. Strzok. I made several trips to
4238
4239Mr. Gowdy. Did you do go in connection with the Russia
4240investigation?
4241
4242Mr. Strzok. Again, I don't know that I can answer that in an
4243unclassified setting or with regard to an ongoing investigation.
4244
4245Chairman Goodlatte. We are going to go in a classified setting,
4246
4247so I would save some time in that setting by this side of what is trul
4248
4249 
4250
42511 ified here rather than --
4252 
4253Mr. Gowdy. Well, here we are, Agent Strzok, July 21st, 2016,
42541@ days before the Russia investigation officially began from the FBI
4255standpoint, and you said: Trump is a disaster. I have no idea how
4256destabilizing his presidency would be.
4257
4258What did you mean by "destabilizing"?
4259
4260Mr. Strzok. Sir, my recollection of that text was it was a
4261private expression of my personal opinion to Ms. Page and just reflected
4262my belief based on the things I had seen him saying and doing on the
4263campaign trail.
4264
4265Mr. Gowdy. Destabilizing to whom or to what?
4266
4267Mr. Strzok. Sir, I don't know. I can't --
4268
4269Mr. Gowdy. Well, you're the one that used the word, Agent Strzok.
4270Who should I ask what you meant by it if you're not the right witness?
4271
4272Mr. Strzok. Absolutely it is my words, sir. I would tell you
4273it is my recollection at this point that statement was made in terms
4274of my personal opinion about the prospects of his candidacy and being
4275
4276the President of the United States.
4277
4278Mr. Gowdy. Destabilizing to whom or to what?
4279
4280Mr. Strzok. I think destabilizing, sir, in the broadest sense
4281of the word, based on some of the statements he was making on any number
4282of topics and my personal belief about how that might impact the United
4283States.
4284
4285Mr. Gowdy. So destabilizing to the United States? See, it
4286
4287wasn't that tough. It didn't have to take that long. That's what yo
4288
4289 
4290
4291meant, destabilizing to the United States, right?
4292 
4293Mr. Strzok. No, sir, I think --
4294
4295Mr. Gowdy. That's what you just testified to.
4296
4297Mr. Strzok. Sir, what I just said is my recollection now is that
4298destabilizing in the sense of how that might impact the United States,
4299but that is a nonspecific recollection --
4300
4301Mr. Gowdy. Well, please help me understand how destabilizing
4302from the standpoint of how it might impact the United States is not
4303destabilizing to the United States.
4304
4305Mr. Strzok. Sir, what I'm saying is that looking back almost
43062 years ago or roughly 2 years ago I cannot put myself at that point
4307in time with what current events or statements may or may not have been
4308made at that point in time.
4309
4310Mr. Gowdy. All right. Well, that's 10 days before the Russia
4311probe began from the Bureau's standpoint.
4312
4313Now, the day the Russia probe began, the day it was initiated,
4314
4315the day you signed a document initiating it this is what you said: And
4316
4317damn this feels momentous.
4318
4319What feels momentous?
4320
4321Mr. Strzok. Sir, I am happy to discuss that in the classified
4322setting.
4323
4324Mr. Gowdy. No, no, no, the word "momentous" is not classified,
4325Agent Strzok. What felt momentous?
4326
4327Mr. Strzok. Sir, the word "momentous" in the text is not
4328
4329classified. The reference of that text and what it means is, and I
4330
4331 
4332
4333am happy to answer that question --
4334 
4335Mr. Gowdy. Was it the Russia probe in general?
4336
4337Mr. Strzok. Sir, I am happy to answer that --
4338
4339Mr. Gowdy. Is the Russia probe -- is the existence of -- is the
4340same investigation that Jim Comey publicly confirmed, that was then
4341later confirmed in the special counsel memo, the existence of that
4342investigation, is it your position that is classified?
4343
4344Mr. Goelman. Congressman, if the witness’ use of the word
4345"momentous" was based on evidence that he knew because of this
4346classified investigation then his answer will inevitably include
4347classified information, which is unlawful in this setting.
4348
4349Mr. Gowdy. How about the next sentence: Because this matters.
4350What is "this"?
4351
4352Mr. Strzok. Sir, again, I am happy to discuss that ina
4353classified setting and answer all of your questions --
4354
4355Mr. Gowdy. So "this" is also classified. "Momentous" is
4356classified. "This" is classified.
4357
4358Mr. Strzok. Sir, the text is not classified, as I have indicated
4359
4360to you now two times. The context of that statement, the reasoning
4361
4362and the meaning behind that statement is, and I would be very happy
4363
4364to answer that question in a classified setting.
4365Mr. Gowdy. You will have the chance, I can assure you of that.
4366The other one did, too, "the other one" being what?
4367Mr. Strzok. "The other one" I believe refers to the Clinton
4368
4369email investigation.
4370
4371 
4372
4373Mr. Gowdy. But that was to ensure we didn't F something up. What
4374 
4375
4376COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4377does the word "F," what's that short for?
4378
4379Mr. Strzok. Fuck.
4380
4381Mr. Gowdy. All right. So what you really were saying was that
4382was to ensure we didn't fuck something up.
4383
4384Mr. Strzok. Sir, my text was a comparison between something we
4385can talk about in closed setting and my belief that the Clinton
4386investigation, while very important, was, when you strip away the
4387actors involved, the underlying allegation of a mishandling of
4388classified information was of a substantively different nature than
4389what Director Comey has publicly announced, that -- the initiation of
4390a case into clandestine Russian interference in the election.
4391
4392Mr. Gowdy. Agent Strzok, I'm just using the words you used.
4393
4394Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
4395
4396. Gowdy. That was to ensure we didn't fuck something up.
4397
4398Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir. And what I'm explaining what I meant by
4399
4400that is my use of that to compare a case, which is just looking at the
4401
4402activity comparatively minor in terms of its impact on national
4403security compared to the allegation that the Government of Russia was
4404actively working to subvert the Presidential election of the United
4405States.
4406
4407Mr. Gowdy. Is there any way they could both be important?
4408
4409Mr. Strzok. Of course they are both --
4410
4411Mr. Gowdy. Do you have to choose?
4412
4413Mr. Strzok. Sir, they are both important. Every investigation
4414
4415 
4416
4417that the Bureau has is important.
4418COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4419
4420 
4421Mr. Gowdy. Well, then why did you say this matters because this
4422matters, and in case the reader missed how much it mattered you put
4423it in all caps?
4424
4425Mr. Strzok. Idid. And again, my recollection of that text, it
4426is drawing an objective comparison between a case which involves
4427
4428alleged mishandling of classified information with a case which
4429
4430involves allegations that the Government of Russia was colluding with
4431
4432individuals in the campaign for President of the United States.
4433
4434Mr. Gowdy. Well, on that same day you texted: I can protect our
4435country at many levels.
4436
4437What did you mean by that?
4438
4439Mr. Strzok. That statement was made in the context of a job that
4440I was considering applying for to be deputy assistant director and the
4441decision of whether to apply for that or not, what my role and
4442responsibilities would be either in either job, if I -- and I took -- if
4443I ended up taking that deputy assistant director job that I would be
4444at a higher level and removed from some of the ongoing case work.
4445
4446In fact, I did apply for that job. I did -- was given that
4447position. And that's merely my reflection on where I wanted to work.
4448
4449Mr. Gowdy. Well, what I find interesting in connection with your
4450response, Agent Strzok, is that that response would have been
4451interesting had the predicate text had something to do with Russia.
4452But it actually didn't.
4453
4454"Maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you're meant
4455
4456 
4457
4458to protect the country from that menace."
4459 
4460
4461COMMITTER SENSITIVE
4462Is it your testimony the "menace" was Russia?
4463
4464Mr. Strzok. Sir, that text, if I recall correctly, was Ms.
4465ee) 4
4466
4467Mr. Gowdy. Yes, and this is the one you responded to, and now
4468what you're telling us is that you were responding in connection to
4469Russia's efforts, but that's not what she sent you, Agent Strzok. She
4470sent you: Protect the country from that menace.
4471
4472Mr. Strzok. Sir --
4473
4474Mr. Gowdy. What menace?
4475
4476Mr. Strzok. You would have to ask Ms. Page that.
4477
4478Mr. Gowdy. I'm asking you because you responded to it, and you
4479didn't say: What do you mean by menace? So I'm assuming that you
4480understood what she meant by "menace." What did you understand it to
4481Tera
4482
4483Mr. Strzok. Sir, my understanding of the word “menace” and the
4484use of "menace" was the broad context of the Government of Russia's
4485attempts to interfere with our election.
4486
4487To the extent those allegations involved credible information
4488that members of the Trump campaign might be actively colluding, I see
4489
4490that as a broad effort by the Government of Russia. So I don't think
4491
4492you can tease it apart, sir, but it is inaccurate to -- and I did not
4493
4494see that as Mr. -- or then candidate Trump.
4495Mr. Gowdy. Well, maybe 2 days later we can gain a little bit of
4496
4497clarity on August the 8th, where Lisa Page texted you not "Russia's
4498
4499 
4500
4501not ever going to become President, right?" "Trump's not ever going
4502 
4503o become president, right?”
4504Can we agree that that predicate text was about Trump and not about
4505Russia?
4506Mr. Strzok. Yes.
4507Mr. Gowdy. Allright. And your response was: No, period. No,
4508not, period. We'll stop it.
4509What did you mean by "no"?
4510Mr. Strzok. No was my -- my recollection of "no" -- and let me
4511say, there's been a lot written about this text. And what I can
4512you, Congressman, is in no way does that suggest that I did or
4513considered taking any action to --
4514Mr. Gowdy. I'11 tell you what, Agent Strzok, before we get to
4515
4516what you didn't mean by "no," how about we settle on what you did mean
4517
4518by it, and then we can discuss the entire universe of what you didn't
4519
4520mean by it.
4521The precise question was: Trump's not ever going to become
4522President, right? And then if you missed that "right" she put again,
4523
4524"right," with a question mark. And the next word from you is "no."
4525So what did you think the question was?
4526
4527Mr. Strzok. I thought that question was her personal question
4528as to whether or not he would become President. My answer no was my
4529personal belief that I did not think he would be.
4530
4531Mr. Gowdy. Well, then why did you say, "No, he's not"? Why
4532
4533didn't you say, "No, I don't think he's going to, no, I don't think
4534
4535 
4536
4537he'll win the electoral college, no, I don't think he'll do well in
4538 
4539Ohio"? Why did you say, "No, he's not"?
4540
4541Mr. Strzok. Sir, because my recollection of that text, which I
4542don't recall specifically writing, is it is late at night --
4543
4544Mr. Gowdy. Are you denying writing it?
4545
4546Mr. Strzok. Oh, I'm not denying writing it at all.
4547
4548Mr. Gowdy. So whether or not you recall it or not, it's yours?
4549
4550Mr. Strzok. Yes. Not recalling that, but I believe it is my
4551
4552Mr. Gowdy. Okay. "No. No, he's not." He's not what?
4553
4554Mr. Strzok. Going to be -- my belief that he is not going to be
4555President.
4556
4557Mr. Gowdy. Okay. "We'll stop it." Who is "we"?
4558
4559Mr. Strzok. Sir, my recollection is, looking at that time when
4560the then-candidate Trump had just come off of a speech where he was
4561insulting the immigrant family of a fallen military war hero, I found
4562it unbelievable the American people --
4563
4564Mr. Gowdy. So the "we" was you and the Khan family?
4565
4566Mr. Strzok. Sir, if I could finish.
4567
4568Mr. Gowdy. Is that your testimony, you and the Kahn family,
4569
4570that's who "we" was?
4571
4572Mr. Goelman. Congressman, if you want testimony from a witness
4573you're going to need to allow the witness to answer your questions.
4574Mr. Strzok. Sir, my response to that was coming off a speech
4575
4576where then-candidate Trump was insulting the family, the immigrant
4577
4578 
4579
4580family of a fallen war hero, it was so unbelievable to me that the
4581 
4582
4583 
4584American people that I, that anybody, given those sort of sentiments
4585and statements, would elect him to the Presidency. That was my
4586personal belief.
4587
4588Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Well, that helps, Agent Strzok. By "we" you
4589meant the United States. Is that what you meant by that?
4590
4591Mr. Strzok. Honestly, I don't know that I had any specific --
4592
4593Mr. Gowdy. Well, who wrote it?
4594
4595Mr. Strzok. My sense was we --
4596
4597Mr. Gowdy. Who wrote it?
4598
4599Mr. Strzok. -- the United States and American people, would not
4600elect him.
4601
4602Mr. Gowdy. Who wrote it? Who wrote the "we'll"?
4603
4604Mr. Strzok. I wrote it, Congressman.
4605
4606Mr. Gowdy. Okay. And it is really not that complicated of a
4607question.
4608
4609Mr. Strzok. It's not.
4610
4611Mr. Gowdy. You can go back through the Democrat convention again
4612if you want to, you can go through all the speakers that spoke, but
4613my question is going to still be the same at the end. Who did you mean
4614Yan ead
4615
4616Mr. Strzok. And, sir, what I am telling you is my best sense,
4617
4618looking at this text that I didn't recall until I read it very recently,
4619
4620was that "we" is my belief that the American people, there is no way
4621
4622that they're going to elect him.
4623
4624 
4625
4626And, sir, I would add what it does not mean, what it is not is
4627 
4628any statement that I would ever consider, let alone take any official
4629action, to impact the Presidency of the United States.
4630
4631Mr. Gowdy. Allright. That's great. I'm glad you got that out.
4632That actually wasn't my question, but we may get to that.
4633
4634What did you mean by "it"?
4635
4636Mr. Strzok. My plain reading of that text leads that me that "it"
4637is that the American people would elect then-candidate Trump to be the
4638ao Rela
4639
4640Mr. Gowdy. So the "we" is you speaking on behalf of what, the
4641
4642all 100 million that you thought would vote for Secretary Clinton?
4643
4644Mr. Strzok. "We" is my -- as I sit here now my best
4645recollection -- that "we" is my sense that the American people would
4646not elect candidate Trump.
4647
4648Mr. Gowdy. In March of 2016 was the Midyear Exam still going on,
4649was that investigation still going on, the one where you didn't want
4650to -- you wanted to make sure you didn't fuck things up?
4651
4652Mr. Strzok. March of 2016 the case was still ongoing.
4653
4654Mr. Gowdy. Right. And that's the same month you texted the vote
4655would be 100 million to zero.
4656
4657Mr. Strzok. I would have to check the dates, but I'll take your
4658representation that's the date.
4659
4660Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Well, did you send the text? Are you the one
4661that wrote 10@ million to zero?
4662
4663Mr. Strzok. Yes, I did.
4664
4665 
4666
4667Mr. Gowdy. You can't think of a single solitary American that
4668 
4669
4670COMMITTER SENSITIVE
4671would vote for the Republican nominee?
4672
4673Mr. Strzok. I think I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole and
4674personal interaction and conversation with a close friend.
4675
4676Mr. Gowdy. You can't think of a single solitary
4677American -- well, who was the Republican nominee at that point?
4678Because I don't think there was one.
4679
4680Mr. Strzok. I think that's right.
4681
4682Mr. Gowdy. So you were just convinced that the person you were
4683
4684investigating, that you had yet to even interview, wasn't going to be
4685
4686indicted, wasn't going to plead to an information, was going to be
4687
4688available to win 10@ million to nothing.
4689
4690Mr. Strzok. Congressman, as I said, that statement I firmly
4691believe was hyperbole.
4692
4693Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Well, let's -- I'll tell you what -- how
4694about we --
4695
4696Mr. Strzok. I can envision a large number of people who would --
4697
4698Mr. Gowdy. How about we do this then?
4699
4700Mr. Strzok. -- vote for the Republican nominee, whoever that
4701ended up being.
4702
4703Mr. Gowdy. How about we just drop it down to 10 million to zero?
4704If it was hyperbole we'll just cut it, we'll cut it by a tenth, 10 million
4705to zero. You thought the person you had under investigation, you
4706hadn't even finished the investigation, you hadn't even interviewed
4707
4708the target of your investigation, but you already had her winning the
4709
4710 
4711
4712Presidency?
4713 
4714Mr. Strzok. I don't read that text that way. I read that text
4715Ea Naat
4716
4717Mr. Gowdy. Well, how can you win if you don't run, Agent Strzok?
4718
4719Mr. Strzok. Sir, I read that text as my personal belief that,
4720based on whatever was occurring at that moment in time, led me
4721personally to believe that the --
4722
4723Mr. Gowdy. Well, I'll tell you what was occurring at that time,
4724Agent Strzok. You were supposed to be investigating the very person
4725that you had winning the Presidency, that's what was going on at that
4726time, Agent. Is there something else going on at that time that would
4727have been more important to you?
4728
4729Mr. Strzok. Well, there are a number of things that were going
4730
4731on that were very important. The Midyear investigation was certainly
4732
4733important.
4734
4735Mr. Gowdy. Had you interviewed the target --
4736
4737Mr. Strzok. There were a host of other investigations that were
4738going on.
4739
4740Mr. Gowdy. Had you interviewed the target of the investigation
4741ied
4742
4743Mr. Strzok. I would not use the word "target." We had not
4744interviewed Secretary Clinton at the time.
4745
4746Mr. Gowdy. Damn, you wouldn't use the word "target"?
4747
4748Mr. Strzok. Congressman, as you know as a former prosecutor, the
4749
4750word "target" is a word very specifically used by the Department of
4751
4752 
4753
4754Justice --
4755 
4756Mr. Gowdy. What word would you use, witness, potential witness,
4757suspect?
4758
4759Mr. Strzok. I would say a critical player in the investigation.
4760
4761Mr. Gowdy. Critical player.
4762
4763. Strzok. Right. My recollection is that the case did not
4764
4765. Gowdy. Whose server was it, Agent Strzok?
4766
4767Mr. Strzok. It was -- well, there are a variety of people who
4768
4769used that server --
4770
4771Mr. Gowdy. Whose server was it? That's a really simple
4772question. Whose server was it, Agent Strzok?
4773
4774Mr. Strzok. The server was run by a variety of entities and used
4775by people including the Clinton Foundation, Secretary Clinton, former
4776President Clinton. My understanding legally it was established and
4777run at one point in time --
4778
4779Mr. Gowdy. Who sent and received --
4780
4781Mr. Strzok. Sir, can --
4782
4783Mr. Gowdy. Who sent and received information marked as
4784classified on that server?
4785
4786Mr. Strzok. Secretary Clinton, amongst others who were --
4787
4788Mr. Gowdy. So your position is that she was just an interesting
4789ed alas
4790
4791Mr. Strzok. No, sir, she was one of the -- she was one of the
4792
4793individuals that we were looking at in the investigation.
4794
4795 
4796
4797When I answered you --
4798 
4799
4800COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
4801Mr. Gowdy. Looking at, looking at, but not target.
4802Mr. Strzok. Sir, when I answered you, it was in the context of
4803he formal use of the term "target" and the formal use of the term
4804
4805"subject," both as DOJ uses that term and as the way the FBI uses that
4806tla
4807
4808Mr. Gowdy. Agent Strzok, we're both --
4809
4810Mr. Strzok. It is clear, Congressman, that Secretary
4811Clinton -- we were -- the goals of the investigation were to, one,
4812understand why and how and if classified information came to be placed
4813on that server; two, who did that and the circumstances by which they
4814did it; and, three, whether or not a foreign power gained access to
4815sare
4816
4817So it was not -- Secretary Clinton was in that group of people
4818we were interested in, but she was not by any means the only person
4819that we had an investigative interest in.
4820
4821Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Well, let's go back to March of 2016 when you
4822
4823wrote 10@ million to zero would be the election result, and you said
4824
4825that was hyperbolic. So we're going to scale that down to just 10
4826
4827million to zero.
4828How many witnesses had yet to be interviewed at that point?
4829Mr. Strzok. I couldn't tell you, sir.
4830Mr. Gowdy. How many witness interviews did you do after March?
4831Mr. Strzok. I would have to check the record.
4832
4833Mr. Gowdy. A dozen?
4834
4835 
4836
4837Mr. Strzok. I don't know. I would need to check. That is a
4838 
4839noble answer. I donot know that answer sitting here -- sitting before
4840you here today.
4841
4842Mr. Gowdy. Give me your best estimate.
4843
4844Mr. Strzok. I don't want to speculate on the numbers based on
4845
4846Without a review of the case that would be irresponsible.
4847
4848Mr. Gowdy. Ten?
4849
4850Mr. Strzok. Sir -- more than five, but --
4851
4852Mr. Gowdy. More than five, including what you consider to be an
4853interesting witness in this fact pattern. I use the word "target,"
4854but you're on the record as saying you don't agree with the word
4855"target," so that's fine.
4856
4857Mr. Strzok. I'm on the record, sir, saying she was not
4858considered a target by the Department of Justice.
4859
4860Mr. Gowdy. That's fine. That's fine. Just like I said, you're
4861on the record as saying she's not a target. That's my word, not yours.
4862But you had yet to interview her regardless of what you call her.
4863
4864Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
4865
4866Mr. Gowdy. But yet you had her winning the Presidency, Agent
4867Strzok. Can you see how that might possibly lead a cynic to think that
4868maybe you'd already made up your mind?
4869
4870Mr. Strzok. Sir, I am telling you my sense and my belief of
4871
4872whatever the Presidential election and the candidates and where that
4873
4874was going had absolutely no bearing on any act I took as an FBI agent.
4875
4876Mr. Gowdy. I hear you, Agent Strzok. That's about the eighth
4877
4878 
4879
4880time you've said that. But let me -- let me help you with this a little
4881 
4882bit. It is really difficult to run and win when you've been charged
4883with and/or convicted of a felony. It's a real challenge.
4884
4885So the fact that you had her running and winning before you had
4886concluded the investigation, you can sit there and read whatever answer
4887your lawyer gave you to read about how it didn't impact your
4888decisionmaking all you want, but you had her running and winning before
4889you even bothered to interview her. That's what we're left with.
4890
4891Mr. Strzok. Sir, I disagree that that is what you're left with.
4892
4893What you are left with are my belief that I am telling you that my
4894
4895personal opinion was that she was a compelling candidate and was likely
4896to win.
4897
4898I am telling you what you can take away is the fact that my personal
4899belief, like the personal belief of every single FBI agent, did not
4900impact my official acts in any way.
4901
4902Mr. Gowdy. All right. Now we're up to nine. You've made that
4903point really clear. You've done a good job of reciting that.
4904
4905Now I want to go back to what you meant by "it" -- "We'll stop
4906
4907Mr. Strzok. Sir, I think I've answered that.
4908
4909Mr. Gowdy. What was the answer?
4910
4911Mr. Strzok. The answer as I recall that I gave you was the "it"
4912that the American people would not elect candidate Trump.
4913
4914Mr. Gowdy. No, no, that was the "we." That was the "we," Agent
4915
4916Strzok. We spent a long time on the "we." What was the "it"?
4917
4918 
4919
4920Mr. Strzok. The "it" was the -- that President Trump would b
4921 
4922elected President -- or then-candidate Trump.
4923
4924Mr. Gowdy. All right. So we are less than 10 days into an
4925investigation that you were at a minimum a major participant in and
4926perhaps running yourself, and you are talking about stopping the
4927Presidency of the person that you were supposed to be dispassionately
4928and objectively investigating?
4929
4930Mr. Strzok. I can -- well, what's the question, sir?
4931
4932Mr. Gowdy. Is that true?
4933
4934Mr. Strzok. Is what true? I'm asking you to rephrase.
4935
4936Mr. Gowdy. The whole predicate. We are less than -- we are
49378 days into an investigation that you either ran or were a major
4938participant in, and you're supposed to be dispassionately and
4939objectively looking at the facts, and you have already declared that
4940you are going to stop the Presidency of the Republican nominee.
4941
4942Mr. Strzok. No, sir. That is not what I've said. What I have
4943Said is my personal belief that the American people I did not believe
4944would elect the President. That is fundamentally different from what
4945you just said and suggested.
4946
4947Mr. Gowdy. We'll let the reader decide how fundamentally
4948different it is, Agent Strzok.
4949
4950A whopping week later, a whole week later, 15 days into your
4951
4952dispassionate, objective investigation into what RusSia did and with
4953
4954whom, if anyone, did they do it: I want to believe the path you thre
4955
4956out for consideration in Andy's office.
4957
4958 
4959
4960What path?
4961 
4962Mr. Strzok. My recollection of that text was, in light of the
4963predicating information that we had received from an extraordinarily
4964sensitive source, that there was a debate, as there frequently is with
4965sensitive sources and methods, about the protection of that source and
4966method weighed against the aggressiveness and pursuing the
4967investigation at a risk to that source.
4968
4969And there were some, and my reading of this is that Ms. Page was
4970included in that some, who argued that it was unlikely that candidate
4971Trump would get elected and that, therefore, we did not need to risk
4972that source and method, that we could just kind of go in a traditional
4973CI manner and go slowly. I remember --
4974
4975Mr. Gowdy. When you say risk a source and method, you mean in
4976a trial, Agent Strzok?
4977
4978Mr. Strzok. No, I'm meaning about the exposure and the
4979compromise of that source and method. So if I could finish --
4980
4981Mr. Gowdy. Inwhat, like a FISA -- hang ona second. Let me ask
4982my question. Let me ask my question.
4983
4984Mr. Strzok. You asked a question about the path. Can I finish
4985that question or do you want to -- I would like to finish the answer.
4986
4987Mr. Gowdy. If you can do it today, yeah, if you can do it today.
4988
4989Mr. Strzok. Absolutely, Congressman. So the path was on the
4990one hand that argument that we need to protect this source. Polling
4991
4992and all the pundits said it was a prohibitive favorite that Secretary
4993
4994Clinton would be the President. One option, as I said, was we protect
4995
4996 
4997
4998that source and method, we don't put it at risk. We can afford to do
4999 
5000a slower counterintelligence investigation.
5001
5002The counter argument, which I was making and which ultimately was
5003decided by a variety of people in the Bureau, is we have to approach
5004this investigation and do what the Bureau does. We need to investigate
5005these allegations for a couple of reasons.
5006
5007One, if then-candidate Trump wins the Presidency, the people that
5008were allegedly or might be involved in that activity might be placed
5009in significant national security positions, and we need to protect
5010America by finding out whether or not these allegations are accurate
5011or not and make sure that the government, President Trump in that case,
5012was making special -- or making appropriate decisions.
5013
5014Second, sir --
5015
5016Mr. Gowdy. Agent Strzok, your 2 weeks --
5017
5018Mr. Strzok. I'm almost done. I'm almost done, sir.
5019
5020Second, that candidate Trump and the American people would expect
5021us to do that. If there's an allegation, he, of all people, but
5022
5023everybody would want to know: If this is going on in my campaign I
5024
5025want you to tell me about it.
5026
5027And the third option, these allegations might be proven false.
5028All those things were there, but my view that we need -- it doesn't
5029matter what the polls say.
5030
5031You're probably not going to die before you're 40. The fact of
5032the matter is, you do things that are responsible even when they are
5033
5034unlikely. And so my advocacy in that context was for the Bureau to
5035
5036 
5037
5038do what the Bureau does, to go out and responsibly investigate.
5039 
5040
5041COMMITTEE SENSILTIVE
5042Mr. Gowdy. Yeah, I got that explanation. I guess I'm troubled
5043by the part where you put the dash, that there's no way he gets elected,
5044because it almost seems as if that was the path that was thrown out,
5045that there's no way he gets elected, but we can't take the risk.
5046
5047Because I don't see anything about sources and methods, and I
5048don't see anything about risking sources and methods. What I see is:
5049I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's
5050office, dash, that there's no way he gets elected, dash, but I'm afraid
5051we can't take that risk. I see the word "elected." I don't see
5052anything about sources and methods.
5053
5054Mr. Goelman. Is there a question there, Congressman?
5055
5056Mr. Gowdy. Yeah. What am I missing?
5057
5058Mr. Strzok. Sir, you are misinterpreting that text. I read it.
5059I know what I -- or I wrote it. I know what I meant.
5060
5061Mr. Gowdy. Who is Andy?
5062
5063Mr. Strzok. I am not going to get in on an unclassified text to
5064a dissertation about the protection of sources and methods and the ways
5065that we might do that and the weight. My statement was intended --
5066
5067Mr. Gowdy. Agent Strzok --
5068
5069Mr. Strzok. Sir, you wanted to know what you're missing, and I'm
5070telling you what you're missing.
5071
5072Mr. Gowdy. No, no, no. I do want an answer to the question.
5073
5074What I don't want you to do is sit there and regurgitate something that
5075
5076you have worked on for weeks and weeks and weeks. I want you to answer
5077
5078 
5079
5080the question.
5081 
5082Mr. Goelman. Congressman, you have repeatedly and publicly
5083talked about how you want to hear from Agent Strzok. It now appears
5084that you don't want to hear his answers, you want to hear your questions
5085and then cut off his answers so that he can't give them.
5086
5087Mr. Gowdy. No, he's had plenty of time to answer whatever you
5088prepped him to say. He's had plenty of time to do that. I just let
5089him go into three different scenarios, none of which involved him
5090possibly wanting to impact the Presidency or the election.
5091
5092Mr. Goelman. Congressman, you and I are both former prosecutors
5093and we know that you would never get away with this in court, cutting
5094the witness off like this. If you want to hear him --
5095
5096Mr. Gowdy. And good thing for us is we're not in court. That's
5097the good thing for us.
5098
5099Mr. Goelman. If you want to hear what he has to say, you're going
5100to need to allow him to speak.
5101
5102Mr. Gowdy. How are sources and methods going to be compromised?
5103Were you anticipating a criminal trial?
5104
5105Mr. Strzok. Sir, my recollection of that text is, sources and
5106methods, there is always a tension. It doesn't matter if it's a
5107national security case, if you've got a snitch on a drug case, there's
5108always a tension between a source. It could be a mope on the street,
5109
5110it could be a recruitment in the middle of Beijing somewhere.
5111
5112There is always a concern that anything you do investigatively
5113
5114is going to somehow allow the person who gave you that information to
5115
5116 
5117
5118be identified. And so in this case my concern was the investigation
5119 
5120might cause that source and method to be known and compromised.
5121
5122Mr. Gowdy. Well, why don't we go 11 days forward and see if we
5123can put a little clarity on this, whether or not you're talking about
5124Trump or sources and methods.
5125
5126Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could smell the Trump
5127support.
5128
5129What did it smell like?
5130
5131Mr. Strzok. Sir, that text is meant to convey my sense of how
5132radically different, even within the State of Virginia where I live,
5133that going from northern Virginia down to southern Virginia, how
5134different the population was in their support for the Presidential
5135candidates and congressional candidates.
5136
5137Mr. Gowdy. Yeah, I get that, Agent Strzok. Unfortunately, that
5138
5139doesn't come anywhere near what you actually typed. I get that.
5140
5141My question, to refresh your recollection, was, what did it smell
5142like? You're the one who wrote that you could smell the Trump support.
5143You didn't write anything about how northern Virginia is different from
5144southern Virginia and how the politics may be different in the bluer
5145parts of the State. That would have been great if you had actually
5146written that. That's not what you wrote. You wrote: I can smell the
5147Trump support.
5148
5149And my question to you is, what did it smell like?
5150
5151Mr. Strzok. Congressman, that phrase was used as an analogy to
5152
5153describe what I saw is the vast demographic difference between the
5154
5155 
5156
5157electorate in southern Virginia and northern Virginia.
5158 
5159Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Well --
5160
5161Mr. Strzok. These are conversational private texts. These are
5162not statements for the record. These are not any sort of process by
5163which I was conveying my intent and meaning. This is a conversation
5164done electronically.
5165
5166Mr. Gowdy. So is it your --
5167
5168Mr. Ratcliffe. Hold on, hold on, hold on.
5169
5170Let me just clarify this for a second, based on what you just said
5171there, Agent Strzok. Let's talk about these texts generally as they
5172apply to Ms. Page.
5173
5174You have described them as personal exchanges with a close
5175confidante a number of times today, correct?
5176
5177Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
5178
5179Mr. Ratcliffe. I don't mean to embarrass you, but is Lisa Page
5180someone that you do or at some point in time did love?
5181
5182Mr. Strzok. Sir, I was engaged at one point in time in an
5183extramarital affair. As long as, you know, we're going there and you
5184want to discuss that, I would -- I would tell you that and the use and
5185exposure of that has been --
5186
5187Mr. Ratcliffe. Look --
5188
5189Mr. Strzok. Sir, you brought up, so you know what, if you want
5190to discuss it then I would ask you give me the dignity of kind of telling
5191you how I think about it.
5192
5193I deeply regret the pain that all of these things have caused my
5194
5195 
5196
5197family. I will always regret that. I regret those texts in the way
5198 
5199that they have done that harm and I would ask -- you know, I am happy
5200
5201to answer any work questions you have of me, but I would rather not
5202continue to cause any pain to my family by, you know, going down this
5203line of questioning.
5204
5205Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Does that give you a chance to answer that
5206completely?
5207
5208Mr. Strzok. Sir, yes, thank you.
5209
5210Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So what I'm trying to establish through
5211all of that is, was Lisa Page someone that you cared about deeply at
5212the time you were sending these messages?
5213
5214Mr. Strzok. Lisa Page at that time was somebody I was engaged
5215in an extramarital affair with.
5216
5217Mr. Ratcliffe. Allright. Well, she was aclose confidante. I
5218know that because you've said it three times.
5219
5220Mr. Strzok. Yes, that's right.
5221
5222Mr. Ratcliffe. And you also know that these text messages, fair
5223to say that you thought you would never be sitting in a congressional
5224hearing and these text messages would see the light of day?
5225
5226Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
5227
5228Mr. Ratcliffe. All right. These were always intended to be
5229olan 1a
5230
5231Mr. Strzok. Yes.
5232
5233Mr. Ratcliffe. To a confidante, someone that you were having an
5234
5235affair with and that you cared about.
5236
5237 
5238
5239Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
5240 
5241Mr. Ratcliffe. So explain to me, how given that context, we
5242shouldn't look at these text messages as your most honest and true
5243expression of what you were thinking at the time that you wrote them.
5244
5245Mr. Strzok. Sir, what I would tell you is they are a reflection
5246of what I was thinking, and I would note they absolutely are also in
5247the realm of personal belief, of personal opinion of the political
5248process, and that I would tell you that and why that's important is
5249because I continually guarded to ensure that none of my personal
5250political beliefs ever influenced any act I took as an FBI agent.
5251
5252Mr. Ratcliffe. Again --
5253
5254Mr. Strzok. And, again, I feel like I have been asked this many
5255times and I'm giving the same answer in response many times. But I
5256can't, in light of the continued asking, drive home enough to you that
5257that isn't who I am and that is not who the FBI is. I would not tolerate
5258that in another agent any more than they would tolerate it inme. That
5259Bere toe
5260
5261And so the use and the suggestion that that is there deeply
5262
5263undermines the institution of the FBI and what we do day in and day
5264
5265out.
5266
5267Mr. Ratcliffe. But with all due respect, Agent Strzok, you're
5268the one that's suggesting that. You just told us that these private
5269text messages that you thought no one was ever going to see, that would
5270never see the light of day, that you intended to only be seen by the
5271
5272person you were having an affair with were the truest and most honest
5273
5274 
5275
5276expression of your thoughts, but you --
5277 
5278Mr. Goelman. Congressman, that's what you said. That is not
5279what the witness said.
5280
5281Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, all right --
5282
5283Mr. Gowdy. Well, let's ask him. Let's ask him.
5284
5285Are you more or less -- are you more likely or less likely to be
5286candid and honest if you don't think anybody else is going to read it?
5287Mr. Strzok. I would -- I don't want to hypothesize. In
5288general, private conversations, I think there's an expectation of an
5289
5290ability to speak candidly.
5291
5292Mr. Gowdy. See, that's not tough. You're more likely to be
5293candid if you don't think anybody else is going to read it, if you think
5294it is private.
5295
5296Mr. Strzok. Yes.
5297
5298Mr. Gowdy. Right. That was John's point.
5299
5300So what did you mean by smell the Trump support?
5301
5302Mr. Strzok. What I meant by that was my sense and being struck
5303by the difference of the electorate between an area as small as northern
5304and southern Virginia, that I was struck by the -- just the number and
5305amount of Trump support.
5306
5307Mr. Gowdy. And had you used the word "struck" that'd be an
5308
5309interesting answer. Had you gone into a conversation about political
5310
5311demographics, regional politics, that'd been an interesting answer.
5312
5313But that's not what you said. You said you could smell the Trump
5314
5315Support.
5316
5317 
5318
5319Could you also smell Clinton support?
5320 
5321Mr. Strzok. I haven t ever tried.
5322
5323I can envision 10@ scenarios of ways in which a conversation might have
5324
5325unfolded.
5326I am telling you, in this case, in this instance, my use of that
5327
5328phrase was in the context of an analogy of how different the local
5329
5330 
5331
5332population was.
5333[1:21 p.m. ]
5334
5335Mr. Gowdy. Well, then, why not say, "I could see the Trump
5336support"?
5337
5338Mr. Strzok. That would have been an even more appropriate word.
5339I'm not going to go back and defend the conversational selection of
5340a particular word at any given point.
5341
5342Mr. Gowdy. Well, you put "SMELL" in all caps. That took you a
5343little time, didn't ite
5344
5345Mr. Strzok. Not appreciably different than all lower case.
5346
5347Mr. Gowdy. Certain intentionality when you put something in all
5348Caps, isn't ite
5349
5350Mr. Strzok. I think it's to emphasize -- again, Congressman, I
5351feel like we're repeating the same question --
5352
5353Mr. Gowdy. I'm just waiting on the first answer. I agree we've
5354gone over the question a couple of times. I'm waiting on the answer,
5355what did it smell like?
5356
5357Mr. Strzok. And I am telling you it did not smell like anything.
5358My use of the word "smell" is in the context of an analogy to make the
5359
5360point that I was struck by the difference in the level of support between
5361
5362the northern Virginia and southern Virginia voters over a very small
5363
5364geographic region.
5365Mr. Gowdy. Do you think there are any Clinton or Stein or Johnso
5366supporters that shop at Walmart?
5367
5368Mr. Strzok. Absolutely.
5369
5370 
5371
5372Mr. Gowdy. Was there something about being at Walmart that
5373COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5374
5375 
5376enabled you to smell the Trump support more than some other place?
5377
5378Mr. Strzok. No. It was just the big, local store that I
5379happened to be in.
5380
5381Mr. Gowdy. All right. October 2016, were you part of any
5382affidavits in support of FISA warrants?
5383
5384Mr. Strzok. I don't believe I can answer that question without
5385getting into both classified information and ongoing investigations.
5386
5387Mr. Gowdy. I think the existence of it has been declassified.
5388
5389Mr. Strzok. That is true, but that's not what I just said.
5390
5391Ms. Besse. Congressman, you asked him a question about FISA
5392warrants. Are you asking about a specific one?
5393
5394Mr. Gowdy. Yeah, the one in October of 2016, the one that's been
5395declassified, about the only one we can talk about in public.
5396
5397Ms. Besse. May I confer with the client?
5398
5399[Discussion off the record. ]
5400
5401Ms. Besse. Congressman, portions of the warrant have been
5402declassified, but the process itself for the FISA warrant have not been
5403declassified. So --
5404
5405Mr. Gowdy. I think the process is public. There's an affidavit
5406
5407in support of it. It's submitted to a court. I don't think any of
5408
5409that's classified. And I'm asking him whether or not he was part of
5410
5411the process.
5412
5413Ms. Besse. In general terms it is not. The way you just phrased
5414
5415 
5416 
5417Ms. Besse. -- it's not classified.
5418
5419Mr. Gowdy. Right.
5420
5421Ms. Besse. But to the extent that he can answer in an
5422unclassified manner, he can answer. If he cannot, then I will instruct
5423him not to answer in an unclassified setting.
5424
5425Mr. Gowdy. I don't think it can be all that classified because
5426
5427there were emails and texts back and forth about providing extra
5428
5429information in support of the affidavit. I'm sure no Bureau lawyers
5430
5431or agents would be texting or emailing about FISA applications, given
5432saat nen
5433
5434Were you part of the preparation of an affidavit in support of
5435a FISA application?
5436
5437Ms. Besse. May we confer?
5438
5439Mr. Gowdy. I don't think I’ve got a choice.
5440
5441[Discussion off the record. ]
5442
5443Ms. Besse. Congressman, the witness will answer to the best of
5444his ability.
5445
5446Mr. Gowdy. Okay.
5447
5448Mr. Strzok. All right, sir. So following discussion with
5449counsel, I can tell you that I was aware of the FISA application, but
5450I did not participate in its -- what was your phrase? -- the
5451preparation.
5452
5453Mr. Gowdy. Did you consult with anyone who did help prepare it?
5454
5455Mr. Strzok. I was aware of it and had --
5456
5457 
5458
5459Mr. Gowdy. See, I'm not sure what the word "aware" means.
5460 
5461
5462COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5463Mr. Strzok. Again, I'm answering what I can, and I'm happy to
5464answer in a classified setting in greater detail.
5465
5466Mr. Gowdy. I don't think we need to go to a classified setting.
5467Did you provide any information? Were you talking to folks who
5468actually drafted the affidavit or were going to submit the application
5469package?
5470
5471Mr. Strzok. I did not provide information. I did speak with
5472people who were preparing it.
5473
5474Mr. Gowdy. And when was this preparation going on?
5475
5476Mr. Strzok. That I can't get into in an unclassified setting.
5477
5478Mr. Gowdy. Well, when was the application signed? What's the
5479date of it?
5480
5481Mr. Strzok. I don't know that, sir.
5482
5483Mr. Gowdy. Is it fair to say it's late October 2016?
5484
5485Mr. Strzok. Again, sir, I'd need to check the record for that.
5486
5487Mr. Gowdy. Would you disagree if I represented it was late
5488October 2016?
5489
5490Mr. Strzok. I would not.
5491
5492Mr. Gowdy. Well, on October the 19th you said, "I'm riled up.
5493Trump is a fucking idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer." This
5494would be about the same time there was preparation going on for a FISA
5495
5496application.
5497
5498What did you mean by "Trump is a fucking idiot"?
5499
5500Mr. Strzok. As I recall, without looking at the calendar of what
5501
5502 
5503
5504coing on, I believe that was in the context of a debate, but I'm
5505 
5506
5507COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5508not certain about that.
5509
5510Mr. Gowdy. What part of the debate made you think he was a fucking
5511idiot?
5512
5513Mr. Strzok. I couldn't tell you without going back in time.
5514There was something that I was, from the plain reading of the text,
5515didn't think his answer was an effective one.
5516
5517Mr. Gowdy. Well, that's a little different to say somebody gave
5518an ineffective answer.
5519
5520Ms. Sachsman Grooms. Would it help if perhaps we put the text
5521in the record? We've been doing this all day asking about text but
5522he's not able to see the text.
5523
5524Mr. Gowdy. Well, that's up to his lawyer.
5525
5526Ms. Sachsman Grooms. I don't think it‘s up to his lawyer.
5527
5528Mr. Gowdy. And you can show him what you want when it's your turn.
5529
5530When it's your turn you can show him what you want, but you're not going
5531
5532to do it on my time. He's got alawyer. He's actually got a good one.
5533Ms. Sachsman Grooms. So you would like to ask him questions about
5534a document that you refuse to show him?
5535Mr. Gowdy. That's up to his lawyer. He's the one that wrote it.
5536Look, as much as you want to represent this witness, he actually
5537has a lawyer. Let his lawyer do the job. If he wants time to look
5538at a text, he's welcome to ask for it.
5539Ms. Sachsman Grooms. Sir, it is common practice of our
5540
5541committees, our committees that we have participated on together for
5542
5543 
5544
5545many years, to show a witness a document that we are asking that witness
5546 
5547about and mark it as an exhibit for the record.
5548
5549That is not my interest or willingness or any participation in
5550the representation of the witness. That is just a common practice of
5551our committee.
5552
5553Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Are you through?
5554
5555"Trump is a fucking idiot, is unable to provide a coherent
5556answer." And your response was that he must have said something
5557ineffective during adebate. And my question was, do you agree there's
5558a difference between an ineffective answer and a someone being a fucking
5559idiot?
5560
5561Mr. Strzok. What's the date of the text, sir?
5562
5563Mr. Goelman. For the record, I'm showing the witness a printout
5564of the text, I think, that we got from -- Senator Johnson posted it
5565on the internet -- and directed the witness’ attention to text dated
5566October 20, 2016.
5567
5568Mr. Strzok. Yeah. So, sir, my read of this and from the
5569surrounding text, it is apparent that I'm watching the debates and there
5570was some answer that I was responding to.
5571
5572BY MR. BAKER:
5573
5574Q I just have a very general question about the text.
5575
5576A Yes.
5577Q You've stated a few times -- more than a few times -- that
5578these were conversations believed to be in private between you and
5579
5580Ms. Page.
5581
5582 
5583
5584Was there a belief at the FBI or a belief between you and Ms. Page
5585 
5586that these texts were -- texts in general -- were somehow not stored
5587or recorded or retrievable by the FBI?
5588
5589A My understanding was that they are both stored and
5590retrievable, that nevertheless, because there is de minimus use allowed
5591by the text, that there is an expectation certainly of being monitored,
5592but also that they were -- they had a level of privacy attached to them.
5593
5594Q But not a belief that technology-wise they were physically
5595not able to be retrieved?
5596
5597A Correct.
5598
5599Q Okay. Thank you.
5600
5601BY MR. PARMITER:
5602Afternoon, sir.
5603Afternoon.
5604
5605Can I just clarify one thing? A little while ago you spoke
5606
5607with Chairman Gowdy about the text about the path you threw out in Andy's
5608
5609office. For purposes of that text, you were speaking about Andy --
5610
5611A McCabe.
5612
5613Q Okay. And at the time he was in what position?
5614
5615A Deputy director.
5616
5617Q = Okay.
5618
5619Going back to something you were asked earlier today pertaining
5620to the Russia investigation, do you know who conducted an interview
5621of Michael Flynn?
5622
5623A I do.
5624
5625 
5626
5627Q = And who conducted the interview?
5628 
5629
5630 
5631A Can I confer with counsel?
5632
5633Q 10 aoe
5634
5635[Discussion off the record. ]
5636
5637Mr. Strzok Okay. SolIcandothis. And, Cecilia, if you want
5638to hop in.
5639
5640I am aware of who conducted that interview. Because it's an
5641ongoing investigation, agency counsel has instructed me not to get into
5642the details of that.
5643
5644Ms. Besse. One, we are not -- it's the -- it is an aspect of a
5645special counsel investigation. And also if it involves any employees
5646who are not at the SES level, we are not going to allow the witness
5647to give the names of those employees.
5648
5649Mr. Baker. So it's fair to say the individual is not at the SES
5650level?
5651
5652Ms. Besse. It is possible the individual is not at the SES level.
5653
5654Mr. Parmiter. So it's been widely reported that during the
5655
5656interview -- and you may or may not be able to answer this -- that the
5657
5658interviewing agents believed that Mr. Flynn had testified truthfully.
5659
5660Did you share that view at the time?
5661
5662Mr. Strzok I don't know that I can answer a question about an
5663ongoing investigation.
5664
5665Ms. Besse. Again, because you're asking about his sort of
5666interpretation based on being an agent involved in that investigation,
5667
5668he will not be able to respond to that question because it is under
5669
5670 
5671
5672the special counsel's purview.
5673 
5674eM
5675
5676Q Okay. Well, in the short time we have remaining, let me just
5677
5678ask you a couple other questions.
5679
5680Are you aware whether the current President has ever been caught
5681on surveillance or the target of surveillance? I mean, I guess, as
5682the former deputy assistant director for counterintelligence, would
5683that be something you would be aware of?
5684
5685py I would be aware of some aspects of sensitive sources and
5686methods and collection and who may or may not be on there. But I
5687Similarly would not be aware of all by any -- not even close.
5688
5689Q So in response to the question about the current President?
5690
5691A I can't answer that question in this setting.
5692
5693Q Okay. Did you ever, as deputy assistant director for
5694counterintelligence, sort of put out a call or request that different
5695FBI units ensure you were looped in whenever such a thing might have
5696occurred, whether it's the President or senior White House officials?
5697
5698A Again, I don't think I can answer that question in this
56991-0 va oa
5700
5701Q So let me go back to something you talked about with Chairman
5702Gowdy about the text referring to this matters, when "MATTERS" was in
5703all capitals. Understanding that your response to that was that this
5704is classified, we talked -- you talked a little bit about the
5705mishandling of classified information versus Russian interference and
5706
5707the two investigations looking at them side by side.
5708
5709 
5710
5711Would you say that your response to that question indicated the
5712 
5713
5714COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5715ishandling part was somehow less important than the Russian
5716interference part?
5717
5718A Ithink the analogy that I tried to do is take any individual
5719or country out of it, so setting aside just, say, a hostile foreign
5720nation compared to the mishandling of classified information.
5721
5722All FBI investigations are important. They all matter. If we
5723open them, we have a duty to pursue the facts where they lay and bring
5724them to a conclusion.
5725
5726My statement, as I recall it, and certainly what I'm thinking now,
5727is that when you -- is certainly me, from my perspective and expertise,
5728that I think an objective observer -- look at the impact to national
5729security of a mishandling case compared to the impact on national
5730security of a hostile foreign nation potentially allegedly colluding
5731
5732with members of the candidacy for the Presidency of the United States,
5733
5734those are objectively demonstrably different impacts on -- potentially
5735
5736different impacts on the national security of the United States.
5737
5738Q Would the number of classified emails be relevant in that
5739consideration?
5740
5741A s-1
5742
5743Q How many classified emails did the Bureau find on the Clinton
5744Tad] arg
5745
5746A I'd have to refresh my recollection. At this time, I -- you
5747know, we count themin threads. I would have to refresh my recollection
5748
5749with the documents in the case file.
5750
5751 
5752
5753Q Okay. Would you disagree if I said it was 2,000 emails at
5754 
5755
5756COMMITTEB SENSITIVE
5757varying levels of classification?
5758
5759A My recollection is that -- the difficulty in counting
5760
5761individual emails is that we tended to go by threads, because you would
5762
5763see various appearance of threads that, you know, there were two, then
5764three, then four emails.
5765
5766And so if that thread was repeated in each of those forms, you
5767could individually count those and come up with a very large number
5768when, in fact, there had been one email at the beginning that was
5769classified or in the middle that then got forwarded back and forth
5770between a bunch of people.
5771
5772So I don't know the answer to the individual emails, and I think
5773trying to count individually is a little bit misleading because it
5774overcounts potentially that.
5775
5776But I would, you know, if you're telling me that is absolutely
5777your representation, then I'll accept that.
5778
5779Mr. Parmiter. I think our time is up. Thank you.
5780
5781Mr. Breitenbach. I think we'll take a break for lunch now.
5782
5783 
5784
5785ae
5786 
5787BY MS. KIM:
5788Q We are back on the record. The time is 2:46.
5789Mr. Strzok, this round is for the Democrats to question you.
5790
5791I would like to ask you some general questions about the FBI's
5792
5793investigative techniques. Have you ever been involved in any
5794
5795investigations where the FBI did not follow with established protocols
5796on the use of human informants?
5797
5798A No.
5799
5800Q Soa human informant wouldn't be sent into a certain network
5801by the FBI and then told to report back to the FBI?
5802
5803A Explain that question more.
5804
5805Q Would the FBI ever just dispatch a human informant into a
5806certain pre-established network with the goal of entrapping people from
5807within that network?
5808
5809A No, not for the purpose of entrapment.
5810
5811Q And does FBI ever conduct investigations to frame U.S.
5812citizens for crimes they did not commit?
5813
5814No.
5815
5816Does the FBI conduct investigations to entrap U.S. citizens?
5817
5818No.
5819
5820Are you aware of any instance where the FBI and DOJ used
5821politically biased unverified sources in order to obtain a FISA
5822
5823warrant?
5824
5825 
5826COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
5827
5828 
5829Q Have you ever made a decision on the Trump investigation on
5830your own?
5831
5832EN Non
5833
5834Q Are you aware of any --
5835
5836A Let me back up. I don't -- I would not characterize it as
5837either confirming or not confirming whether or not there is an
5838
5839investigation towards President Trump. It’s safe to say I have not
5840
5841made investigative decisions on my own that I can recall in any case.
5842
5843Q Sure. And let me restate it. Thank you for the precision.
5844I am discussing the investigation into collusion with Russia that
5845Director Comey publicly acknowledged in March 2017. So, consistent
5846with your general experience, you did not make any investigative
5847decisions in that case by yourself without --
5848
5849A Correct.
5850
5851Q  -- going through the proper investigative channels.
5852
5853Okay. Are you aware of any instances where the FBI and DOJ
5854manufactured evidence in order to obtain a FISA warrant?
5855
5856A To
5857
5858Q Are you aware of the FISA court ever approving a FBI or DOJ
5859warrant that was not based on credible and sufficient evidence?
5860
5861A No.
5862
5863Q Are you aware of any instances at the FBI or DOJ opening an
5864investigation failing to follow all proper protocols to obtain a FISA
5865
5866warrant?
5867
5868 
5869
5870A Iam generally aware that there are inspection processes.
5871 
5872There may have been cases in the past where people -- again, you know,
5873whether it was a Woods file that lacked sufficient documentation, but
5874those are more administrative findings, and I don't have any specific
5875recollection.
5876
5877Q Have you been a part of any investigation where the FBI and
5878DOJ did not follow the proper procedures to obtain a FISA warrant?
5879
5880A No.
5881
5882Q Have you been a part of any attempts by the FBI and DOJ to
5883intentionally mislead FISA court judges in an application for a FISA
5884re laner- lan eaeg
5885
5886Ay No.
5887
5888Q And that includes by omitting evidence or manufacturing
5889evidence?
5890
5891A Correct.
5892
5893Q Can you explain briefly what the Five Eyes alliance is?
5894
5895A  Sosure. The Five Eyes refers to the countries of the U.S.,
5896
5897Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. It is an
5898
5899intelligence-sharing arrangement that is much more open and robust by
5900
5901the nature of kind of common shared Western democratic values and
5902strategic interests.
5903
5904Q And despite the shared nature of that five-country forum,
5905we do, in fact, maintain bilateral information-sharing relationships
5906outside of the formal Five Eyes relationship, right?
5907
5908A Correct.
5909
5910 
5911
5912Q And those would all be proper channels through which to
5913 
5914receive intelligence from a foreign country?
5915
5916A Yes.
5917
5918Q Thank you. If you could -- if we could jump quickly to the
5919initiation of the Midyear Exam.
5920
5921I understand that the IC IG referred this matter to the FBI. Is
5922that correct?
5923
5924AN Yes, that's correct.
5925
5926Q = And do you recall what the IC IG gave the FBI in terms of
5927evidence and information?
5928
5929A I don't recall. That was -- I joined the investigation after
5930it was underway.
5931
5932Q At the inspector general's hearing before our committees on
5933June 19th, 2018, Mr. Meadows said about the IC IG, quote: They were
5934so concerned that there might have been foreign infiltration into
5935Secretary Clinton's server that they went immediately to the FBI to
5936let them know about that.
5937
5938He also says that the IC IG himself indicated that he went
5939
5940literally that day to the FBI because he was really -- quote, really
5941
5942concerned that there were some anomalies in the metadata that would
5943suggest that a foreign actor was getting copies of potential emails.
5944
5945Mr. Meadows then asked the DOJ's inspector general whether it was,
5946quote, curious that FBI investigators did not talk to the IC IG about
5947the allegation on anomalies of metadata before closing out the Clinton
5948
5949investigation.
5950
5951 
5952
5953Did the IC IG say anything to you about anomalies of metadata?
5954 
5955A Idon't recall any discussion about anomalies in metadata.
5956
5957Q And does the FBI typically investigate matters referred from
5958an IG office jointly with that IG's office, or does the FBI conduct
5959its own independent investigation?
5960
5961A My experience is that it varies depending on the nature of
5962allegation, the nature of the IG involved.
5963
5964Q And in this case, did you investigate in tandem with the IC
5965IG, or did you conduct an independent investigation?
5966
5967A  Wedid. We conducted an independent investigation. We had
5968recurring coordination with the IC IG. They were great partners, but
5969it was an independent FBI investigation.
5970
5971Q Great. Thank you. Does the FBI place spies in U.S.
5972political campaigns?
5973
5974A We do not.
5975
5976Q Are you aware of any information that would substantiate the
5977claim that the DOJ is, quote, out to frame Donald Trump?
5978
5979py I am not aware of any information to that effect.
5980
5981Q And has the FBI or DOJ ever investigated the Trump campaign
5982or the Trump Presidency for political purposes?
5983
5984A Certainly not for political purposes, and I am not, by that
5985
5986answer, implying that there is or is not any other lawful predicated
5987
5988investigation.
5989Q In your career at the FBI, have you ever witnessed any
5990
5991investigative personnel letting their personal political views
5992
5993 
5994
5995influence in any way their official actions?
5996 
5997A No.
5998
5999Q Are you aware of any instances where Lisa Page made a
6000professional judgment or took an official action due to her personal
6001political views?
6002
6003A No.
6004
6005Q Are you aware of any instances where Lisa Page made a
6006professional judgment or took an official action in the Clinton
6007investigation due to her personal political views?
6008
6009A No.
6010
6011Q Would you say that you are-the authoritative source on the
6012interpretation of what your intent was behind a text message?
6013
6014A I would.
6015
6016Q And given that you are the authoritative source on your
6017
6018intent behind a text message, do people continue to interpret your texts
6019
6020in a way different from your stated intent in sending that text?
6021
6022A I believe they do.
6023
6024Q They do. Yes. When you were texting with Lisa Page, were
6025those texts supposed to be official communications, that is, between
6026the lead agent on the Clinton case and the special counsel to Andrew
6027McCabe?
6028
6029No.
6030So they were intended to be personal communications?
6031Yes. Yes, personally, in the conversational type of way,
6032
6033they were not, you know, kind of any official sort of communication
6034
6035 
6036
6037back and forth.
6038 
6039
6040COMMITTER SENSITIVE
6041Q Do you acknowledge that it was a mistake to engage in personal
6042communications on your work device?
6043
6044A I deeply regret those texts and the way that they have come
6045out and certainly the harm to my family and in the personal way that
6046they have been used. AndI -- I say that, and I would draw a distinction
6047between there is an allowance for personal use in the text messages
6048by the FBI, so I think that that is how I think of that.
6049
6050Q Okay. Thank you.
6051
6052I think we can now turn to discussing some of the specific text
6053messages that have been the subject of some discussion today.
6054
6055Ms. Kim. I would like to introduce the following document as
6056exhibit 1. We will mark it as exhibit 1.
6057
6058[Strzok Exhibit No. 1
6059Was marked for identification. ]
6060
6061BY MS. KIM:
6062
6063Q It's the March 3rd, 2016, text Pye ellie Here is the
6064
6065numbered copy.
6066
6067So, Mr. Strzok, this exchange shows you and Ms. Page discussing
6068Donald Trump over the course of 2 hours on the evening of Thursday,
6069March 3rd, 2016. On this evening, FOX News hosted a Presidential
6070primary debate with the four remaining candidates. Was the
6071Trump/Russian investigation open at this time?
6072
6073A The investigation announced by Director Comey into
6074
6075allegations of Russian collusion with members of the Trump campaign
6076
6077 
6078
6079was not open.
6080 
6081Q Did you watch the Presidential primary debate?
6082A TI believe I watched the debate. If this was a primary
6083debate, I watched it that night.
6084Q And do you know if Lisa Page was watching this debate?
6085A I don't know. I mean, I don't know if that's inferred from
6086some of the texts in here. I haven't gone through it.
6087Q Sure.
6088A It appears that she was watching it.
60890 aT] 412019
6090Ms. Kim. I'mgoing to introduce another document. It's -- we'll
6091mark it exhibit 2.
6092[Strzok Exhibit No. 2
6093Was marked for identification. ]
6094BY MS. KIM:
6095Q It's a March 4th, 2016, CNN article entitled "Republican
6096Debate Turns Dirty.”
6097So Iwill read aloud fromit. I'd like to direct you to the second
6098
6099paragraph of the article. It reads, quote: Donald Trump opened the
6100
6101GOP debate here by boasting about the size of his genitals. He
6102
6103responded to recent comments from Marco Rubio in which the Florida
6104Senator joked about the size of Trump's hands and said, "You know what
6105they say about men with small hands." On the debate stage, Trump
6106
6107stretched his hands out for the audience to see, then insisted the
6108
6109suggestion that, quote, “something else must be small," unquote, was
6110
6111 
6112
6113false. Quote, "I guarantee you there's no problem," unquote, Trump
6114 
6115said to howls from the audience at the FOX debate.
6116
6117Do you remember this moment from the debate?
6118
6119A Ido.
6120
6121Q And do you remember what your reaction was to Trump's
6122statement about the size of his genitals?
6123
6124A Iwas appalled that that sort of conversation was going on
6125amongst candidates for the nomination for President of the United
6126States.
6127
6128Q Did you believe the subject was appropriate for a
6129Presidential debate?
6130
6131A I did not.
6132
6133Q So, with that context in mind, let's return to exhibit 1,
6134your text messages this day. The fourth message down, it's from Ms.
6135Page. It reads, quote: God, Trump is a loathsome human.
6136
6137The time stamp is in GMT, but if we translate that into Eastern
6138time, that is 9:10 p.m. Eastern. Do you recall, again, whether Ms.
6139Page was watching this debate?
6140
6141A Idon't recall. I'm inferring from her later comments that
6142aoa Se
6143
6144Q And do you understand her comment that Trump is, quote,
6145loathsome to be a response to this debate performance?
6146
6147A Ido.
6148
6149Q Infact, Donald Trump also stated during that debate, quote:
6150
6151Department of environmental protection, we are going to get rid of it
6152
6153 
6154
6155in almost every form. We are going have little tidbits left, but we
6156 
6157are going to take a tremendous amount out.
6158
6159If we return to the text messages, there is a text from you -- I
6160want to say just around the halfway point, 02:20:04, on Friday. It
6161reads: OMG, he's an idiot.
6162
6163And 2 minutes after that text, if you go down about four texts,
6164it says: Department of environmental protection, question mark,
6165exclamation point, question mark, exclamation point.
6166
6167And then the next text says: God, Hillary should win 100 million
6168to zero.
6169
6170Do you remember if this was a response to Trump's statement in
6171the Republican Presidential debate about the department of
6172environmental protection?
6173
6174A My sense of that text, looking now, is that it was meant to
6175convey my disappointment in the quality of the debate and some of the
6176candidates that were before the Republican ticket and that my
6177assessment of their statements of the crude, crass nature that I was -- I
6178was surprised and disappointed.
6179
6180Q To the best of your knowledge, does the Federal Government
6181have a department of environmental protection?
6182
6183A Not that I'm aware of.
6184
6185Q So, when you were calling him an idiot and then typed
6186
6187"department of environmental protection,” question mark, exclamation
6188
6189point, 2 minutes later, were you making the point that Donald Trump
6190
6191was promising in a nationally televised Presidential primary debate
6192
6193 
6194
6195to cut a Federal department that does not exist?
6196 
6197A That is a reasonable inference of what I was thinking at the
6198a
6199
6200Q So, again, your next text 2 minutes after the one about the
6201
6202department of environmental protection states, quote: God, Hillary
6203
6204should win 10@ million to zero.
6205
6206In this text, were you stating a literal opinion that no one in
6207the country should vote for Donald Trump?
6208
6209A No.
6210
6211Q Were you stating your intention to help Hillary Clinton win
6212the general election through your professional deeds?
6213
6214rN No.
6215
6216Q What did you mean by this text?
6217
6218A _It was my personal opinion, based on my viewing of the debate,
6219that it did not seem like a compelling candidate was coming out of the
6220Republican primary.
6221
6222Q Earlier on this day, on March 3rd, 2016, two Republican
6223Presidential nominees, the ones from 2008 and 2012, also publicly
6224denounced Donald Trump.
6225
6226I will represent to you that Mitt Romney called Donald Trump,
6227quote, a fraud, and, quote, a phony who would drive the country to the
6228point of collapse.
6229
6230He also said, quote: He is playing the American public for
6231suckers. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be
6232
6233President.
6234
6235 
6236
6237As soon as he was done with that speech, Senator John McCain
6238 
6239endorsed Mr. Romney's statements and said that Mr. Trump had made,
6240quote, dangerous pronouncements on national security.
6241
6242It seems clear to me that both Governor Romney and Senator McCain
6243
6244had some anti-Trump things to say on March 3rd, 2016. Do you have any
6245
6246reason to believe that Mitt Romney has a deep anti-Republican bias?
6247
6248A No.
6249
6250Q Do you have any reason to believe that John McCain has an
6251anti-Republican bias?
6252
6253A No.
6254
6255Q Thank you.
6256
6257Ms. Kim. I would like to introduce my next exhibit. It will be
6258marked exhibit 3. It is a May 3rd, 2016 -- no, sorry. Strike that,
6259please. The document I will introduce as exhibit 3 is a July 2016 text
6260exchange. July 21st, 2016.
6261
6262[Strzok Exhibit No. 3
6263Was marked for identification. ]
6264BY MS. KIM:
6265
6266Q Mr. Strzok, I will direct you to a text from Ms. Page. It's
6267about eight texts down from the top. It’s where she is emailing you
6268an article link with a title "Donald Trump Sets Conditions for Defending
6269NATO Allies Against Attack" with her personal comment, quote: This
6270is really shocking.
6271
6272Do you remember this text?
6273
6274A Reading it in retrospect, I do, but not before refreshing
6275
6276 
6277
6278recollection.
6279 
6280Q And do you remember reading the article that Ms. Page sent
6281to you?
6282
6283A Vaguely. I believe I read it. I could not tell you right
6284now what it said. I recall generally the context that it was
6285questioning the NATO alliance and those terms under which we
6286would -- we, the United States, might respond to an attack.
6287
6288Q Now, you're a national security expert. How important is
6289the NATO alliance?
6290
6291A Idon't know if I'd -- well, I don't know that I'd call myself
6292a national security expert, but certainly, I think, based on my training
6293and experience both in school and the military and the FBI, the NATO
6294alliance is extraordinarily important for a number of reasons, both
6295from a defense perspective, politically for Western democracies.
6296
6297Q In your view, would it be a major diplomatic shift for the
6298United States to set conditions for defending NATO allies against
6299attack?
6300
6301A Ithink it would be very significant to certainly change any
6302understanding that existed and form the basis of a set of deterrents
6303and conditions amongst the NATO allies in Europe.
6304
6305Q Around 10 minutes after Ms. Page sent you this article, Ms.
6306Page texts you another link to an article. I will direct you to that
6307one. It is the text that starts: This campaign is like watching a
6308
6309train wreck happen over and over and over again.
6310
6311The article is entitled "How Donald Trump Picked His Running
6312
6313 
6314 
6315
6316COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
6317Ms. Kim. I'll introduce that as exhibit 4.
6318[Strzok Exhibit No. 4
6319Was marked for identification. |
6320BY MS. KIM:
6321
6322Q I'll direct you to the end of the first paragraph. It's
6323describing a call that Donald Trump, Jr., made to a senior adviser to
6324Governor John Kasich of Ohio.
6325
6326A If I can interrupt you. I think I've gotten the exhibit
6327talking about the NATO Defense article in your attempts --
6328
6329Q I see. My apologies. Well, let me read aloud from this
6330article to you.
6331
6332A Okay.
6333
6334Q And I'll strike exhibit 4. Exhibit 4 has not been
6335introduced.
6336
6337Quote: Donald, Jr., wanted to make the senior adviser of Mr.
6338Kasich's an offer nonetheless. Did Mr. Kasich have any interest in
6339being the most powerful Vice President in history? When Mr. Kasich's
6340
6341adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald, Jr., explained that
6342
6343his father's Vice President would be in charge of domestic and foreign
6344
6345policy. Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?
6346
6347Quote, making America great again, unquote, was the casual reply.
6348Do you think you read this article when Ms. Page sent it to you?
6349A I'm sure I read the NATO article. I believe I read the
6350
6351running mate article.
6352
6353 
6354
6355Q Are you generally familiar with the way that Presidents and
6356 
6357Vice Presidents, again, very generally, divide their job duties?
6358A Generally, yes.
6359
6360Q Did it concern you that Donald Trump, Jr., was offering Vice
6361
6362Presidential candidates the portfolio of, quote, domestic and foreign
6363
6364policy so the President can focus on, quote, making America get again?
6365
6366A It did.
6367
6368Q Why did that concern you?
6369
6370A How the -- my view and -- of the Presidency is he is the chief
6371executive of the United States. He is responsible for the national
6372security of the United States, and there is nothing more important to
6373the chief executive's role than the security of our Nation. And so
6374the notion that anybody would abrogate that most important of roles
6375to his number two struck me as inappropriate, unusual, and
6376irresponsible.
6377
6378Q Great. Thank you. So, with that context in mind, let's
6379turn back to exhibit 3, which is your text with Ms. Page from that day.
6380So, after she emailed you these two -- after she texted you these two
6381articles, you texted back, quote: Trumpis adisaster. Ihave no idea
6382how destabilizing his Presidency would be.
6383
6384What did you mean by this text?
6385
6386A Looking at it now -- and my recollection is very much in the
6387context of the NATO comments and not -- although I do remember the
6388article about the Presidency and Vice Presidential roles. My concern,
6389
6390certainly from my military experience, from my education experience,
6391
6392 
6393
6394is that the vitality, the critical nature of the NATO alliance and the
6395 
6396
6397COMMITTBE SENSITIVE
6398way that that plays not only with regard to the stability of the European
6399Union but the back and forth between the various countries and powers
6400in Europe potentially vis-a-vis Russia is of extraordinary importance
6401and something historically we have had for decades and decades and
6402decades, and that anybody that would come in and so quickly throw
6403fundamentally radical and untested and unchartered ideas out
6404potentially presented a significant destabilizing force on the kind
6405of geopolitical realities of the United States.
6406
6407But, again, this is my personal opinion, this is my personal
6408belief about how I saw the political environment at the time. It is
6409not at all related to anything which bears on my official duties.
6410
6411Q Got it. So, from your personal perspective, when you were
6412commenting that his Presidency could be, quote, destabilizing, can you
6413explain for me one more time what you meant would be destabilized?
6414
6415A Sure. Looking at in the context of these articles, I believe
6416my statement meant at the time that it was destabilizing from the
6417potential impact on our NATO allies and the leadership role that the
6418United States has historically held in the free world.
6419
6420Q = Thank you.
6421
6422Ms. Kim. I would like to move on to the text message about yo
6423
6424protecting our country, quote, at many levels. I will introduce that
6425as exhibit 4.
6426[Strzok Exhibit No. 5
6427
6428Was marked for identification. ]
6429
6430 
6431 
6432Q This is a two-sided exhibit. I just want to let you know.
6433
6434So, Mr. Strzok, this is a series of texts from August 6th, 2016,
6435where you appear to be discussing whether you will be getting a
6436promotion. I'd like to instruct you to start reading on the first page
6437around halfway down, starting with the text, quote: And that's
6438weighing on me much more than I want to admit to you.
6439
6440It's about a little more than halfway down.
6441
6442A bE
6443
6444Q And then the next text says, quote: Getting, slash, not
6445getting the job, comma, not advising Bill.
6446
6447So were you up for promotion in this time period?
6448
6449A se Tee
6450And what promotion were you up for?
6451To Deputy Assistant Director.
6452
6453And what was the process like for that promotion?
6454
6455Q
6456A
6457Q
6458A
6459
6460It was, like most processes, there were a lot of very
6461competent folks who would be qualified for the job. I had started as
6462section chief not long before that in the early, early in the year,
6463so I was somewhat junior, tenurewise, and I was -- Iwas torn. I mean,
6464there are a variety of factors that go into deciding whether or not
6465to apply for a job, and this is a reflection of that kind of internal
6466deliberation that I was engaged in.
6467Q Got it. I think you elaborated a little bit about the
6468
6469process. Three texts from the bottom of this page, you say: I know.
6470
6471 
6472
6473And as it stands, I'm going to have (and already do) a pretty tough
6474 
6475ime with it. Five months, Lisa. Out of 19 years, 5 months because
6476
6477Giacalone was too busy interviewing to be there to SES board it earlier.
6478There was literally no difference in what I was doing day to day.
6479
6480What did that text mean
6481
6482A As TI recall, this text involved some -- there was some
6483discussion or consideration, appropriately, about tenure and the
6484amount of time you had spent in any given job. My recollection of this
6485is that when I was initially selected to be the section chief of the
6486espionage section, that that occurred, that board, that official
6487personnel action, occurred later because people who they're scheduling
6488and whether or not they were present or not present caused that to be
6489delayed.
6490
6491And so my point was: Iwas doing this job. I had been doing that
6492
6493job, but the official naming of the position, which I eventually got,
6494
6495was several months delayed based on personnel availability. For this
6496reading, it was -- you know, Mr. Giacalone was not available, but my
6497concern that, while I had been doing the same job throughout this entire
6498period of time, the de facto date of my promotion was later than it
6499otherwise might have been.
6500
6501Q I see. So, if you turn to the other side of the exhibit,
6502Ms. Page texts back: And maybe you're meant to stay where you are
6503because you're meant to protect the country from that menace.
6504
6505A Yes.
6506
6507She then sent you a link to a New York Times op-ed.
6508
6509 
6510
6511at
6512 
6513Q Was the menace, in your understanding, Donald Trump?
6514A No. I think, as I mentioned or answered earlier, the menace
6515that I saw was primarily the interference of the Government of Russia
6516
6517in the Presidential elections for the Presidency -- or that's
6518
6519redundant, for the Presidency of the United States. It was certainly
6520
6521true that that -- the allegations at that time were that they were
6522colluding or may be colluding with members of Trump campaign. So I
6523see menace broadly primarily in the context of Russia, but certainly
6524in the context that they were allegedly colluding with members of the
6525Trump campaign. That was the -- that was how I saw it. But it was
6526primarily, as it has been my whole career, protecting America from
6527foreign threats.
6528
6529Q Did you understand Ms. Page to be advocating for you to
6530secretly scheme to prevent Donald Trump from becoming President?
6531
6532A No.
6533
6534Q. And did you in fact scheme to prevent Donald Trump from
6535becoming President?
6536
6537A No.
6538
6539Q The next text you wrote, quote: Thanks. It's absolutely
6540true that we're both very fortunate. And of course I'll try and
6541approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can
6542protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps.
6543
6544So, given that you were talking about the promotion that you were
6545
6546hoping to be getting, what did you mean by "many levels"?
6547
6548 
6549
6550A TImeant that whatever level I held in my job, that, you know,
6551 
6552clearly I had put in for the position; I wanted to get it; I was not
6553
6554certain that I would; and this is, in away, me -- you know, her saying,
6555
6556"Hey, look, you have a great job whatever level you are at," and my
6557
6558trying to, you know, say to myself, yes, that's true: Whether I'ma
6559section chief, whether I'm a Deputy Assistant Director, I am blessed
6560to be in the FBI protecting America, and so that whether I am doing
6561that as a section chief specific to espionage investigations, whether
6562I am doing that as a Deputy Assistant Director, that those many levels,
6563those different levels, I can still make a significant contribution
6564to national security.
6565
6566Q In fact, the next text from Ms. Page reads, quote: I know
6567it will too. But it's just a job. It's not a reflection of your worth
6568or quality or smarts.
6569
6570Do you think that is also contextual support for the fact that
6571you were talking about the promotion that you could get or the job that
6572you currently held?
6573
6574A Yes, that's entirely it.
6575
6576Q Great. During this exchange, Ms. Page also texted you an
6577article from The New York Times about Captain Khan's family.
6578
6579Did you read that article?
6580
6581A I did. I may have already read it.
6582
6583Q So, later on this page, Ms. Page wrote, quote: Trump should
6584go F himself.
6585
6586A I don't see that.
6587
6588 
6589
6590No, it's not in there. I'm sorry. I can represent to you
6591 
6592that that is the next text in the series.
6593
6594A All right.
6595
6596Q When you -- when Ms. Page texts you the article about Captain
6597Khan's family and then wrote, quote, "Trump should go F himself," did
6598you understand her to be expressing her anger at Mr. Trump's treatment
6599of Mr. Khan's family?
6600
6601A I did.
6602
6603Q And when you wrote, "God, that's a great article. Thanks
6604
6605for sharing. And F Trump,” was that also your reaction -- were you
6606
6607expressing your personal view?
6608A Iwas. That was my personal view about the statements he
6609had made about the Khan family.
6610(0 at -1 0) an 700 1
6611Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Strzok, let me thank you for your patience.
6612I understand that there was ongoing questioning and quite a bit of
6613intensity. So let me just again thank you for your service.
6614I want to focus on -- I want to focus on an exhibit, exhibit 6,
6615dated August 15, 2016, text message regarding insurance policy.
6616[Strzok Exhibit No. 6
6617Was marked for identification. ]
6618Ms. Jackson Lee. In this August 15, 2016, text message to Ms.
6619Page, you wrote, quote: I want to believe the path you threw out for
6620consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets
6621
6622elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an
6623
6624 
6625
6626insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 46.
6627 
6628
6629COMMITTEE SENSILTIVE
6630Do you recall the meeting you referenced in Andy's office who was
6631present?
6632
6633Mr. Strzok. I don't recall.
6634
6635Ms. Jackson Lee. Is that -- is it because there were a lot of
6636people or why?
6637
6638Mr. Strzok. It depended. You know, it was -- when I attended
6639meetings on the 7th floor, the Director is kind of down to one end in
6640his office suite. The Deputy's office is in the middle. It would
6641sometimes happen -- and Andy has a large conference room -- it would
6642sometimes happen that we would meet with the Deputy Director.
6643
6644I think, in this instance, if I recall correctly from
6645calendar-type things, we may have briefed the Director and that
6646sometimes, following those meetings, we would kind of retire to the
6647Deputy's office to get out of the Director's hair and office space and
6648continue a more granular discussion there.
6649
6650Ms. Jackson Lee. And so, in that meeting, where you moved from
6651
6652place to place or office to office, were there a lot of people, or are
6653
6654there any names that you can recall?
6655
6656Mr. Strzok. No. Somy -- I am assuming this, and I could be very
6657wrong with all of them, but people who were typically involved in the
6658discussions of both -- well, in Midyear earlier, but in some of the
6659Russia collusion investigations, if this was coming out of a briefing
6660to the Director, typically those would include the Director, the
6661
6662general counsel, the Director's chief of staff, the Deputy Director,
6663
6664 
6665
6666the Deputy Director's counsel, Ms. Page, the executive assistant
6667 
6668director, the assistant director, who's Bill Priestap, me, typically
6669John Moffa, a colleague who we were partners throughout all of this.
6670
6671So, following briefings to the Director, frequently, obviously,
6672the Director would not continue, but his chief of staff, the general
6673counsel might or might not then go to a follow-on discussion.
6674
6675Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. What was discussed at the meeting
6676and how to handle a variety of allegations -- let me just say, what
6677was discussed at the meeting?
6678
6679Mr. Strzok. So, Congresswoman, I don't recall all of the things
6680that were discussed at that meeting without looking at some FBI
6681material, and I don't know that it would shed light on this, but from
6682the text, it is apparent to me that we had a discussion, given the
6683information that we had received from an extremely sensitive source,
6684which predicated the Russia collusion investigations, that there was
6685a debate about how: aggressively we wanted to investigate those
6686allegations because the trouble is that frequently the more sensitive
6687the source, the more likely the FBI doing something investigatively
6688
6689is likely to expose that source, and that could lead from anything to
6690
6691the source getting killed to fired to public embarrassment, and any
6692
6693number of bad things.
6694
6695And so the debate, as I recall it, was, on the one hand, and my
6696belief of what this text refers to, that there was one school of thought,
6697of which Lisa was a member, saying the polls, everybody in America is
6698
6699saying Secretary Clinton is the prohibitive favorite to be the next
6700
6701 
6702
6703President, and therefore, based on that, these allegations about the
6704 
6705Trump campaign, we don't need to risk that source. We can just take
6706
6707our time. We can run a traditional year's long counterintelligence
6708
6709operation, and we don't really need to worry because he's not going
6710
6711to be elected.
6712
6713As I recall it, my response was I don't think that can be part
6714of our decisionmaking. The FBI's job and responsibility to the
6715American people is to investigate and that, if there are members of
6716the Trump campaign who are actively illegally colluding with the
6717Government of Russia, that's something the American people need to
6718know, that's something candidate Trump potentially needs to know. And
6719equally, if they aren't guilty of anything, that's also important.
6720
6721So my statement there is: Wecan't consider -- we can't take into
6722consideration the likelihood or unlikelihood of anybody's electoral
6723process. We need to go, based on the gravity of this allegation, go
6724investigate it and get to the bottom of it.
6725
6726Ms. Jackson Lee. What status was the investigation at that
6727point? The beginning? The middle?
6728
6729Mr. Strzok. It was the beginning.
6730
6731Ms. Jackson Lee. So you were discussing how aggressive to be in
6732the investigation?
6733
6734Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am.
6735
6736Ms. Jackson Lee. That meeting might have been --
6737
6738Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am. And so -- and the point -- and the
6739
6740point, the analogy I am drawing is, you know, you're unlikely to die
6741
6742 
6743
6744before you're 40, but nevertheless, many people buy life insurance.
6745 
6746The similarity is that, regardless of what the polls are saying,
6747that Secretary Clinton is the favorite to win, however likely or not
6748it is who's going to win, just like life insurance, you have to take
6749into account any potential possibility. And it was simply -- it was
6750simply: You need to do your job based on something, regardless of
6751whether it's highly likely or not likely?
6752
6753Ms. Jackson Lee. In the Congress, we say things like regular
6754order. You needed to do what the FBI does when issues like this come
6755before it. Is that what you're trying to say?
6756
6757Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am, that, but also in the context of
6758how -- how much risk and how aggressively you wanted to --
6759
6760Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just say -- you just said "how
6761aggressive." What would be the most aggressive course of action?
6762
6763Mr. Strzok. I think the most aggressive course of action would
6764be to go out and, you know, simply do very overt things, start talking
6765to people and interviewing people. The trouble with that is -- there
6766are many problems with that.
6767
6768One, people don't frequently tell you the truth when you talk to
6769them. A lot of things that you might find by doing some background
6770information will allow you to conduct a far more effective interview,
6771and certainly going out and doing that, people are immediately going
6772
6773to be aware that somebody told the FBI the nature of this predicating
6774
6775information, which would be a considerable harm and cost potentially
6776
6777to that source.
6778
6779 
6780
6781Ms. Jackson Lee. I think you have answered this, but why would
6782COMMITTEE
6783
6784 
6785that be considered aggressive?
6786
6787Mr. Strzok. I -- the reason -- if what you're asking is why I
6788thought we should be aggressive.
6789
6790Ms. JacksonLee. Or why would some of those actions be considered
6791aggressive?
6792
6793Mr. Strzok. Because they are -- they are things that are
6794very -- they are risky, and they're precipitative. They cause things
6795
6796to -- you're kind of jumping to a final point without necessarily a
6797
6798lot of insurance of being successful and without having potentially
6799
6800a lot of the tools that you would be able to use.
6801
6802You know, if I'm going to talk to you about your background, I
6803can do it, but if I talk to all the staff members in here about your
6804background, I'm going to know a lot more and do a better interview.
6805So aggressive is go straight and interview you. Prudent would be to
6806get other information, and there's a balance, obviously, in there.
6807
6808Ms. Jackson Lee. Was there another option on the table besides
6809that approach?
6810
6811Mr. Strzok. There was. Yes. And so that was what I think some
6812were advocating for that, you know, traditionally, because of how
6813sensitive counterintelligence sources can be, the work in intelligence
6814work can frequently be very fastidious, very cautious, very slow, and
6815taking very deliberate steps to ensure that anything we might do can't
6816be traced back to the reason we're doing it.
6817
6818So that was an option. The problem with that is that frequently
6819
6820 
6821
6822takes a long time, and so, because of that, you know, it might take
6823 
6824years. And so the question was, and the point of this is, hey, one
6825side saying: Well, since Clinton is likely to be elected, we've got
6826years. We can take years to figure it out.
6827
6828And my point was: Maybe we do, but if Candidate Trump is elected,
6829we have months, and we may find ourselves in a position where we have
6830these allegations potentially about people who are being nominated for
6831senior national security roles, and then we're in a really bad spot
6832because we don't know whether these allegations are true or false; we
6833don't know the extent of these allegations and the truth and how
6834extensive or not.
6835
6836So my advocacy was we need to pursue these cases in a way that
6837
6838will allow us to be responsible and protecting the national security
6839
6840of the United States.
6841
6842Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just quickly say the energy that you put
6843behind this, if you were sworn, would you be able to say your analysis
6844that you just made, the analysis that what if this individual became
6845President and we had not been aggressive, could you, under oath, say
6846that you are not motivated by bias?
6847
6848Mr. Strzok. Yes.
6849
6850Ms. Jackson Lee. Under oath?
6851
6852Mr. Strzok. Yes.
6853
6854Ms. Jackson Lee. You can say that?
6855
6856. Strzok. Yes.
6857
6858. Jackson Lee. Let me ask this. So the option was a slower
6859
6860 
6861 
6862Mr. Strzok. Yes.
6863Ms. Jackson Lee. Let's return to your text then. You stated
6864
6865that it should be -- that: I'm afraid you can't take that risk. It's
6866
6867like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're
6868
6869a
6870
6871Can you explain what you meant by that text?
6872
6873Mr. Strzok. Yeah, absolutely. And so, in the context of what
6874I just said about the path, my point there -- and there has been a
6875tremendous amount read into this that is absolutely inaccurate. The
6876point I was making there is, it is unlikely that you will die before
6877you're 48, but you still act in a way that addresses that possibility.
6878
6879That is an analogy to somebody saying, "Hey, look, every pollster
6880and talking head thinks that Secretary Clinton is going to be elected,
6881and my responding, "Well, that may be true, but nevertheless, we need
6882to responsibly investigate this in the unlikely event, based on the
6883polls and the pundits and the experts, that candidate Trump is elected."
6884
6885Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me quickly -- why did you advocate for
6886continuing the investigation? Excuse me. Let me move to another
6887question.
6888
6889Did you mean that you had an insurance policy to prevent Trump
6890from becoming President?
6891
6892Mr. Strzok. No.
6893
6894Ms. Jackson Lee. And would you -- you just said "no." Would you
6895
6896be willing to say that under oath?
6897
6898 
6899
6900Mr. Strzok. I would be.
6901 
6902Ms. Jackson Lee. In fact, you did have a potent way to affect
6903
6904his electoral chances going public with the investigation, right?
6905
6906Mr. Strzok. Yes.
6907
6908Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you go public with the investigation?
6909
6910Mr. Strzo No.
6911
6912Ms. Jackson Lee. But you didn't in fact leak the fact of this
6913investigation?
6914
6915Mr. Strzok. We did not. I did not.
6916
6917Ms. Jackson Lee. Under oath, you would be able to say that you
6918did not?
6919
6920Mr. Strzok. Yes.
6921
6922Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me again retract from putting the words in
6923your mouth. Under oath, would you be able to say that you did not leak
6924the investigation?
6925
6926Mr. Strzok. Yes.
6927
6928Ms. JacksonLee. Okay. Let me just get a few points that I think
6929are important as we sort of wrap in to the Clinton analysis here.
6930
6931Is it fair to say that the -- and I'm not sure if I went over this,
6932but I want tohear it again. Is it fair to say the Russian investigation
6933is one with exceptional national security importance?
6934
6935Mr. Strzok. Yes.
6936
6937Ms. Jackson Lee. How did the Russia investigation's national
6938security importance compare to the importance of potentially reviewing
6939
6940more emails in the Hillary Clinton investigation?
6941
6942 
6943
6944Mr. Strzok. Congresswoman, I think the best way -- the best way
6945 
6946
6947COMMITTBRE SENSITIVE
6948or me to explain to you is to take it out of the context of any
6949particular individual or country because I think putting it in that
6950erms leads to -- leads to a bunch of inferences that aren't helpful.
6951I would say objectively, on the one hand, if you have an allegation
6952that any person has mishandled classified information, you need to look
6953at what that information is and where it might have led to, but those
6954are -- well, not frequent, those are the sorts of investigations in
6955the Counterintelligence Division that are almost, not commonplace, but
6956they are frequent.
6957And when you look at the damage those might cause national
6958
6959security -- and clearly they might cause damage -- they are nothing
6960
6961of the sort if you look at, not just any foreign nation, but a large
6962
6963super power hostile foreign nation who is involving itself in the
6964election -- again, any election in the U.S. would be bad -- but in this
6965context, the election for the President of the United States, those
6966are extraordinarily different. They are both important. It is both
6967important that the FBI follow through on all these investigations, but
6968the damage to national security, the threat to national security is
6969absolutely exponentially different.
6970
6971Ms. Jackson Lee. And so -- and thank you. How frequently does
6972the FBI investigate possible mishandling of classified information?
6973
6974Mr. Strzok. Every day.
6975
6976Ms. Jackson Lee. And how frequently does the FBI investigate
6977
6978possible collusion between a major party Presidential candidate and
6979
6980 
6981
6982a hostile foreign policy?
6983 
6984Mr. Strzok. This is the first time I'm aware of in history.
6985
6986Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me finish as I yield to my good friends.
6987
6988Given the number of people who knew, if you had wanted to bury the
6989
6990laptop, would that have been possible?
6991
6992Mr. Strzok. I don't know that it would have been possible.
6993
6994Ms. Jackson Lee. So can you put the delay in the context for us.
6995Would a month be -- between the discovery of the laptop and seeking
6996legal process be a significant delay in other cases?
6997
6998Mr. Strzok. No. My experience is, in the context of a
6999mishandling case, that a delay of weeks or even months, particularly
7000when it comes to something like computer forensics, is not unusual.
7001I have had computers and laptops get processed in 2 days, and I've had
7002it take 3, 4 months, so a few weeks is not unusual at all.
7003
7004Ms. Jackson Lee. Just in closing, you realize that the idea that
7005no leak was made of the Trump issue and investigation, which is of great
7006national security impact, and, however it was decided, pronouncement
7007was made regarding the Clinton emails, would you view that as disparate
7008treatment or would you understand the impact it would have in the midst
7009of a Presidential election?
7010
7011Mr. Strzok. Ido. I believe -- understand the impact it had on
7012the election, certainly to the extent anyone can understand that.
7013
7014I would draw some issue with -- I think that disparate treatment
7015waS appropriate, given the nature of the investigations. One was a
7016
7017closed criminal matter. The other was a pending counterintelligence
7018
7019 
7020
7021matter, so I see those as very different.
7022 
7023
7024 
7025Director Comey, you know, admittedly, we even -- with closed
7026criminal matters, we don't discuss that typically, but I think Director
7027Comey has testified extensively as to his reasoning why the FBI did
7028that, and I would defer to that record as to the reasoning, but Ido --I
7029do see them as --
7030
7031Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you then view the Clinton emails as a closed
7032thoroughly investigated matter?
7033
7034Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma'am.
7035
7036Ms. Jackson Lee. And the resolution, you were comfortable with?
7037
7038Mr. Strzok. Yes, ma‘am.
7039
7040Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
7041
7042BY MS. KIM:
7043Q Mr. Strzok, there have been some questions asked about how
7044
7045much thought you put into your text messages, how accurately the text
7046
7047messages reflect your state of mind, so I would like to talk with you
7048
7049about how you draft text messages?
7050
7051A Okay.
7052
7053Q Would you say that you put a lot of thought into crafting
7054and crystalizing your thoughts before you send a text message?
7055
7056A No.
7057
7058Q Do you do like a repeated drafting process to make sure yo
7059are being absolutely clear about what you mean?
7060
7061A Ido not. They are a written form of communication,
7062
7063conversation.
7064
7065 
7066
7067Q Would you consider text messages to be a form of perfect
7068 
7069verbal expression?
7070
7071A No.
7072
7073Q Or you know, the attitude that I generally take towards my
7074
7075text messages is flippancy. They're easy to send.
7076
7077They're quick.
7078
7079Would you also that say that your text messages are flippantly composed?
7080
7081A Sometimes, yes.
7082And that's a separate question from your honesty, is that
7083
7084Q
7085
7086A Absolutely.
7087So you can both be totally honest and genuine in sending a
7088
7089Q
7090
7091text message and still craft it badly or not have it completely reflect
7092
7093your intent when you sent it. Is that right?
7094
7095pod
7096
7097Q Thank you. And then I'd like to dive back into going over
7098
7099your text messages again. So I think the next one we'll go to is the
7100
7101text message -- the one about whether Donald Trump would become
7102President and whether we would stop it.
7103
7104A Okay.
7105So I'm giving you a page from the inspector general's report.
7106
7107Q
7108
7109We don't have these text messages in the production copy.
7110
7111A Yes. Okay.
7112So, on August 8th, 2016, Ms. Page reportedly texted to you,
7113
71140}
7115Cette
7116
7117quote:
7118
7119He's not ever going to become President, right?
7120
7121And you responded, quote: No, no, he's not. We'll stop it.
7122
7123 
7124
7125Do you remember this text?
7126 
7127A Idon't. I do, thinking about it now. I am not saying I
7128
7129didn't write it, but at the time, I did not recall writing this.
7130
7131Q And reading it today, do you understand Ms. Page to be asking
7132you about your work on the investigation that Director Comey disclosed
7133in March 2017?
7134
7135A Not at all.
7136
7137Q Do you take her comment as expressing her personal political
7138fears that Donald Trump will become President?
7139
7140A I do.
7141
7142Q You wrote, quote: No, no, he's not. We'll stop it.
7143
7144Did you mean that you intended to affect the outcome of the
7145Presidential election through any official action?
7146
7147A os
7148
7149Q Who is the "we" in that text message?
7150
7151A Again, my sense is that writing that, this is reassuring
7152something that, no, the American people will never elect him to be the
7153
7154President, and so the "we," whether that's the American people and
7155whether that's the democratic process, it's simply not going to happen
7156and don't worry about it. It's a personal sense of reassurance, not
7157anything else.
7158
7159Q And again, did you have the ability to affect the outcome
7160of the Presidential election through a personal or professional action?
7161
7162A Probably.
7163
7164Q For example, you could have disclosed the existence of this
7165
7166 
7167
7168probe, right?
7169 
7170Ai
7171But you didn't. Is that correct?
7172Correct.
7173
7174. Kim. You know, so much ink has been spilled on the secret
7175society that I think I would like to touch on that, so I will introduce
7176that text as exhibit 8.
7177
7178[Strzok Exhibit No. 8
7179Was marked for identification. ]
7180BY MS. KIM:
7181Q It's the November 3rd -- actually, exhibit 8 is a little bit
7182before the secret society text. It's the November 3rd, 2016, text
7183
7184message.
7185
7186So I would like to direct your attention to the 3rd text from the
7187
7188bottom of this page. On November 3, 2016, you wrote toMs. Page: Shh,
7189don't tell anyone.
7190
7191A Okay. I have a different set. I have starting on
7192November 8.
7193
7194Q Starting on November 8. Let me show you my November 3rd
7195copy.
7196
7197A Okay.
7198
7199Q On November 3rd, 2016 you wrote: Shh, don't tell anyone.
7200Meeting invite. Thank you. Good job. Calendar handout.
7201
7202Can you explain that text?
7203
7204A Yes. I had -- and I had not recalled that text at all. I
7205
7206 
7207
7208had purchased a set of -- every year, somebody in Russia puts out a
7209 
7210Vladimir Putin calendar. Every month, there is a variety of photos
7211of Vladimir Putin riding a horse or a bear or holding a child or a kitten
7212or engaged in some military display of Russian patriotism, and as a
7213kind of a morale building and thank you to the senior members of the
7214Russian investigation, I got a series of these calendars to give out
7215as sort of a thank you for doing a good job, for working extraordinarily
7216hard because people had been working around the clock throughout the
7217summer and fall.
7218(0 O24 goa
7219Ms. Kim. I think I have a picture of that calendar. I'm going
7220to introduce it as exhibit 8.
7221Mr. Strzok. 9, because we have 8?
7222Ms. Kim. Exhibit 9, pardon.
7223[Strzok Exhibit No. 9
7224Was marked for identification. ]
7225BY MS. KIM:
7226Is this the calendar that you intended to hand out?
7227
7228I believe this is one of the months from the calendar, yes.
7229
7230Q. And you said that it was intended as a morale boosting?
7231A
7232
7233Yeah, kind of a snarky joke gift of, you know, related to
7234
7235some of the absurdities of Russian patriotism and propaganda.
7236Q Gotit. With that context, let's return to exhibit 8, which
7237I believe I've already marked. It's the November 8th text. I think
7238
7239if you go to the sixth text from the bottom, Ms. Page wrote: Are you
7240
7241 
7242
7243even going to give out your calendars? Seems kind of depressing.
7244 
7245should just be the first meeting of the secret society.
7246. Strzok, is there a secret society at the FBI?
7247Absolutely not.
7248
7249Has there ever been a secret society that you've been aware
7250
7251A Not to my knowledge.
7252
7253Q Did you understand Ms. Page's text to be suggesting that you
7254start a secret society?
7255
7256A en
7257
7258Q Do you think Ms. Page was just making a joke about whether
7259you intended to hand out your Putin calendars?
7260
7261A so
7262
7263Q  tIthink we have about 4 minutes left. I'm sorry for jumping
7264
7265around.
7266
7267A That's all right.
7268
7269Q My slimmest set of questions deal with the opening of the
7270Clinton investigation actually.
7271
7272A Okay.
7273
7274Q Was it the FBI's decision or the DOJ's decision to designate
7275that case with an unknown subject or unsub?
7276
7277A I don't know. That occurred before I began.
7278
7279Q To your knowledge, did the unsub designation change the FBI's
7280investigative decisions or strategies at all?
7281
7282A No.
7283
7284 
7285
7286Q You discussed briefly what a headquarters special is. Did
7287 
7288that staffing decision or that designation change the FBI's
7289investigative decisions or strategies at all?
7290
7291A No.
7292
7293Q What's a sensitive investigative matter?
7294
7295A A sensitive investigative matter, a SIM, I'd have to defer
7296
7297to the guidebook for the exact definition, but essentially it's anytime
7298
7299there's a particularly sensitive matter that's involved that might be
7300a politician, a member of the media, a clergyman, or some kind
7301
7302of -- there are other categories, including a catchall, something that
7303requires, by our regulations, a higher level of oversight and approval.
7304
7305Q And does that designation change the FBI's substantive
7306investigative decisions?
7307
7308A No, except for the context with, you know, if you were going
7309after a lawyer, a clergyman, a member of the media, there might be
7310individual restrictions or regulations on obtaining records or doing
7311certain investigative techniques, but broadly, investigative
7312strategywise, no, it doesn't change it.
7313
7314Q Who is George Toscas?
7315
7316A George Toscas, I believe, was at the time, and maybe still,
7317the Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the National Security Division
7318of DOJ.
7319
7320@) Is he a career prosecutor?
7321
7322A He is.
7323
7324Q  Inyour experience, is Mr. Toscas an unbiased and independent
7325
7326 
7327
7328prosecutor?
7329 
7330A Yes.
7331
7332Q Have you ever witnessed Mr. Toscas acting based on improper
7333motives, such as political bias?
7334
7335A No.
7336
7337Q And where he disagreed with the FBI, were those disagreements
7338based on legitimate legal differences?
7339
7340A In my experience, yes.
7341
7342Q Were they ever based on political differences?
7343
7344A No.
7345
7346Q Did any political appointee at the DOJ ever intervene or
7347attempt to intervene in the Midyear investigation?
7348
7349A Not to my knowledge.
7350
7351Q Did any political appointee at DOJ issue orders on how to
7352conduct the Midyear investigation?
7353
7354A Not to my knowledge.
7355
7356Ms. Kim. I think I'm fine ending the chapter -- this chapter
7357
7358here. I will see you again soon. Thank you. The time is 3:4@.
7359
7360 
7361
7362ieee
7363eye
7364
7365Mr. Baker. We'll go back on the record. And let the record
7366
7367reflect it is 3:52 p.m.
7368BY MR. BAKER:
7369
7370Q  tIwant to go back just a minute to a topic we've talked about
7371earlier, certainly a topic that has also been in the media, the
7372relationship you had with Ms. Page.
7373
7374Prior to the texts becoming public, was the relationship, the
7375improper part of the relationship, was that known in the
7376Counterintelligence Division prior to the texts?
7377
7378A TI am not aware if it was or was not. I don't believe so.
7379
7380Q So were you ever called in by any of your superiors and
7381counseled or talked to about the matter, any concerns they had about
7382it or that they'd heard about it or --
7383
7384A Yeah, I don't want to get into a discussion about the
7385relationship I had with Ms. Page or that discussion with others,
7386because I think what I can tell you, maybe, if what you're asking is
7387was, you know, anything inappropriate of that nature a decision point
7388or anything like that, not to my recollection. But I'd rather stay
7389away from discussion on --
7390
7391Q Not even -- I'm asking not even whether it was a decision
7392
7393point in anything. As part of their official supervisory duties, your
7394
7395superior -- I believe you testified earlier, you answer -- as a DAD,
7396
7397you answer to an assistant director. Do you have a recollection of
7398
7399 
7400
7401an assistant director, totally unrelated to any casework, calling you
7402 
7403
7404COMMITTER SENSILTIVE
7405in as a subordinate during any kind of official review or performance
7406appraisal and mentioning that the relationship had been brought to
7407their attention and just either admonishing you or letting you know
7408about it or making any mention to you of it at all?
7409
7410A Again, I think my preference would be not to get into a
7411discussion about those sort of personnel-type matters. I'm happy to
7412answer questions you have about my work and my work performance and
7413what I did and didn't do, but I don't want to go down the path of talking
7414about things that were unrelated to work decisions or work activities
7415with regard to the extramarital affair.
7416
7417Q Well, wouldn't it be a work activity if a superior is calling
7418you in to ask you about some sort of conduct in the workplace?
7419
7420A TI see that as a separate and distinct issue. You've got a
7421personnel issue or potentially anything that has to do with that, as
7422opposed to what we're here today to discuss, which my understanding
7423is my actions with regard to the Clinton investigation, the Russia
7424investigations, and other work-type activity.
7425
7426Q There's been talk about texts, texting. And there's been
7427
7428some emails that the committees have reviewed. What type or how many
7429
7430different platforms of communication did you engage with withMs. Page?
7431
7432A Well, I mean, it varied. So there were certainly -- there
7433are the texts on the Bureau Samsungs. There were texts on personal
7434iPhones that we had. We exchanged -- and this is -- you know, we
7435
7436exchanged Link messages, which are kind of an instant messaging
7437
7438 
7439
7440application on our Secret side computers at work. We certainly talked
7441 
7442on the phone, talked in person, emailed, both on -- and, again, this
7443as work-type email -- the O side, Secret side, TS side.
7444Q You, as a DAD in the Counterintelligence Division, do you
7445work in a SCIF? Is your office in a SCIF?
7446A Yes.
7447So, when you're doing texts, you were not in a SCIF.
7448Correct.
7449Okay. Because you wouldn't be allowed to have a --
7450Right.
7451Q  -- personal communication device in one.
7452Did you use as a platform, with any frequency at all, any
7453personally owned communication devices, any personal email accounts?
7454A We -- yes, both personal emails and, as I think I mentioned,
7455personal iPhones.
7456Q Would you be willing to make the texts or contents of any
7457of those personal communications available to the committee?
7458A Iwas asked by the IGtodoit. LIagreedtodoit. Ireviewed
7459it, and there were not any still resident on my personal devices.
7460Mr. Goelman. Just to clarify, we were asked to provide any
7461
7462work-related communications on Special Agent Strzok's personal
7463
7464devices. And he reviewed and found that there weren't any, and we told
7465
7466the IG that.
7467We have not agreed, nor do we agree now, to open up all of Special
7468
7469Agent Strzok's personal communications on his personal devices to the
7470
7471 
7472
7473committee or anybody.
7474 
7475
7476COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7477BY MR. BAKER:
7478
7479Q What about the official communications on the personal
7480
7481devices that you made available or reviewed for the IG, would they be
7482
7483made available to the committee?
7484
7485A My recollection is there were no official communications on
7486any personal devices or personal emails that I had in my possession.
7487
7488Mr. Breitenbach. Did you make that determination, whether they
7489were personal or work-related?
7490
7491Mr. Strzok. Yes. And there were -- you know, as a fact of the
7492matter, following the -- at some point, I -- you know, it was related
7493to personal reasons -- deleted all those. But they were the personal
7494communications, not work ones.
7495
7496Mr. Breitenbach. And, at any point, did the FBI, the IG, or any
7497other investigator attempt to obtain legal process to obtain those
7498personal communications?
7499
7500Mr. Strzok. I am unaware of any.
7501
7502Mr. Breitenbach. Thank you.
7503
7504Mr. Baker. During any of the Midyear investigation meetings that
7505you would have, when -- I assume at some point, and maybe I'm wrong,
7506that there would be some discussion about possible charges. Often,
7507in an investigation, you look at possible charges early on to figure
7508what elements of a crime you might have to prove and adjust
7509investigative strategy accordingly.
7510
7511Was there discussions at any point about what possible charges
7512
7513 
7514
7515could be levied based on the facts when the case was opened and then
7516 
7517as the case went on?
7518
7519Mr. Strzok. Yes. I don't know -- again, I came in after the
7520case opening, but, certainly, in this case, as is my experience in most
7521cases, there was a discussion with the prosecutors about what charges
7522might be there and the elements of the crime, the strength and weakness
7523of the evidence, and applying the facts against the law.
7524
7525BY MR. SOMERS:
7526
7527Q At what point did those discussions, let's say, begin?
7528
7529A  Trecall -- what typically -- and there are different sorts
7530of discussions. So I recall probably fairly early on. And I could
7531not tell you what or when those dates were.
7532
7533But, you know, typically, you look at the set of facts that you
7534have before you, the set of allegations, and you say, okay, what laws
7535do we have that might apply to this and what are the elements of those
7536laws. And so that's kind of the initial way, as you're trying to scope
7537an investigation and understand what the various investigative avenues
7538Ela
7539
7540That evolves over time. You become aware of new facts, which may
7541give rise to looking at different laws or different statutes. You
7542begin to understand where the evidence is, where the facts are, and
7543where it's not.
7544
7545And then, from that, you can begin -- and certainly this is
7546largely a prosecutor-driven exercise -- begin to understand what
7547
7548charges are possible, likely, still unknown, or less likely.
7549
7550 
7551
7552So that -- it's a fluid process. It isn’t a kind of --
7553 
7554Q Is the fluid process, are those discussions, I mean, are
7555there pure discussions of -- well, let's just back up for a second.
7556Which statutes were discussed that you recall?
7557
7558A I could not give you an entire list. Broadly, I remember
7559discussions across the course of the investigation about statutes
7560regarding mishandling of classified information, statutes involving
7561obstruction, statutes involving false statements, statutes involving
7562Federal Records Act and that act.
7563
7564I am sure there are others, but, again, I would have to go back
7565to, kind of, the case file and consult with the team and particularly
7566the attorneys about what they were thinking of.
7567
7568Q Are those discussions, are those, here's what evidence we're
7569
7570finding, how does that fit with the law? Or are they pure legal
7571
7572discussions of the Espionage Act requires X to be proved?
7573
7574A I think those are the same. I look at those as very similar
7575and connected, so I would say both.
7576
7577I think the goal -- I mean, you're investigating -- ina criminal
7578case, you're investigating to determine whether or not there's a
7579violation of law. You're not just investigating to get info. So
7580investigations are driven towards establishing whether or not a
7581violation of law occurred.
7582
7583In intel cases, it's different, obviously, but with this -- and
7584then, certainly, from the standpoint of, you know, any computer
7585
7586intrusion-type statutes, whether we could show that or demonstrate
7587
7588 
7589
7590aston
7591OMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7592
7593 
7594But, to your question, both of those things are going on.
7595
7596Q To the Clinton investigation, specifically servers --
7597
7598A Yes.
7599
7600Q  -- because you differentiated between a
7601counterintelligence, I believe, investigation and a criminal
7602investigation in that last response.
7603
7604A Yeah. And so the Clinton investigation, I think I laid out
7605earlier, you know, kind of, the three primary goals of the
7606investigation, of: Was there classified information, and how did it
7607come to be there; who put it there, and what was their state of mind,
7608and what was the reason it came to be placed there; and did a foreign
7609adversary gain access to it.
7610
7611That last one is very intelligence in nature. Imean, yeah, maybe
7612
7613you could prove a criminal violation of some sort of computer intrusion,
7614
7615but the goal from that is much more of an intelligence community damage
7616
7617assessment sort of perspective of, you know, did foreign power X get
7618this; if so, what does that mean, what's the impact in terms of
7619mitigating whatever -- if there was classified information, what we
7620would have to do to mitigate and protect things.
7621
7622Q These discussions of the legal standards, were these FBI?
7623Were they all FBI-DOJ, or did you have FBI-FBI conversations about the
7624legal standards?
7625
7626A I'm sure we had both. These are predominantly
7627
7628attorney-driven conversations and predominantly DOJ attorney-driven
7629
7630 
7631
7632conversations.
7633COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7634
7635 
7636So, you know, again, prosecutors make a decision about what
7637statutes to charge or not charge. And they are the ones whose job
7638primarily is to focus on the elements of crime, the sufficiency of the
7639evidence, the paucity of evidence, and all the considerations that go
7640into admissibility and credibility and everything like that.
7641
7642So, you know, it is frequently my experience that those are
7643largely attorney- and DOJ-driven discussions.
7644
7645Q So did DOJ tell you what was legally required to prove gross
7646negligence under the Espionage Act?
7647
7648A I remember a lot of discussion about the gross negligence
7649
7650point, and it was -- I'm not an attorney. I remember the attorneys
7651
7652talking at length about that, because it's obviously relevant to one
7653aspect of 793. It also was relevant based on its, you know, appearance
7654or not in the speech that Director Comey gave. But the attorneys did
7655discuss that at some length.
7656
7657Mr. Baker. When you say attorneys, that would include Department
7658of Justice attorneys and FBI attorneys?
7659
7660Mr. Strzok. Yes.
7661
7662BY MR. SOMERS:
7663
7664Q Do you recall attorneys telling you that intent was a
7665required element of gross negligence?
7666
7667A Well, it -- I don't recall with regard to the discussion of
7668gross negligence. Ido remember there's a problem -- and, again, I'm
7669
7670getting out and ahead of my nonlegal skis. One of the elements of 793
7671
7672 
7673
7674does not include an intent provision, and there was some legal question
7675 
7676about that and the strength of that statute.
7677
7678Q Were you ever told that any of the provisions in 793, that
7679the Department would not charge under --
7680
7681A Iwas never told the Department wouldn't charge something.
7682I think the discussion was always in the context of what the historical
7683record of using those statutes had been.
7684
7685Q I'm going to ask you sort of a related question. Based on
7686your investigation, what is your understanding of why Secretary Clinton
7687used a private email server?
7688
7689A What she told us -- and I believe this, I think -- is that
7690she used it for personal convenience, that she was not a technical
7691
7692person, that she wanted one device where she could do work and personal
7693
7694things, and, if I recall correctly, that she had set up -- or somebody
7695
7696in the Clinton arena had set up that server during her Senate time or
7697that she began using it in that time and she simply wanted that same
7698convenience.
7699So there was a mix of emails on the server?
7700Sure. That's correct, yes. What do you mean by mix?
7701Of all those categories you just described of --
7702There were a variety of things in that server, including
7703those categories of things that I described.
7704Q So the Clinton Foundation was on the server?
7705A I believe on one of the servers, if not others.
7706
7707Q Were you given access to those emails as part of the
7708
7709 
7710
7711investigation?
7712 
7713A We were not. We did not have access. My recollection is
7714that the access to those emails were based on consent that was
7715negotiated between the Department of Justice attorneys and counsel for
7716Clinton.
7717
7718Q Didn't the FBI have possession of the server?
7719
7720A Initially, no, and then we obtained possession of servers
7721over time.
7722
7723Q So, when you had possession of the servers, there was an
7724agreement that you weren't able to look for Clinton Foundation emails
7725on the server?
7726
7727A The possession of those servers were based upon the
7728negotiation of Department of Justice attorneys for consent. My
7729understanding is, frequently -- you know, we wanted -- as an
7730
7731investigator, I want as much information as I can get. I don't want
7732
7733limitations. I don't want you to tell me a date range is off limits,
7734
7735a domain is off limits, anything is.
7736
7737But the reality is, as you well know, we are constrained by the
7738law. And I think there was a sense that, again, according to the
7739attorneys, we lacked probable cause to get a search warrant for those
7740servers and projected that either it would take a very long time and/or
7741it would be impossible to get to the point where we could obtain probable
7742cause to get a warrant, so they negotiated consent.
7743
7744I think it's true, and somebody mentioned earlier that, you know,
7745
7746we were -- I was, but that the FBI team was certainly, I think,
7747
7748 
7749
7750comparatively aggressive, which is my experience. Agents tend to be
7751 
7752much more aggressive in trying to get information. Prosecutors look
7753
7754at it from a different set of perspectives.
7755
7756But the answer is we had it voluntarily. We had it voluntarily
7757
7758in the context -- in the case of the servers, voluntarily in the context
7759of a consent that was worked out between DOJ attorneys and counsel for
7760Secretary Clinton.
7761
7762Q So what does that mean in terms of a search of the servers,
7763that it was a -- so you have access to the entire universe.
7764
7765A Yes.
7766
7767Q Does that mean, are we talking search terms? I mean, what
7768re
7769
7770A TI would have to go back and check the file. It would include
7771things like search terms. We had a significant filter team that was
7772put in place to work through the various terms of the various consent
7773agreements. And those could be -- and this is not an exclusive
7774list -- limits of domains, of date ranges, of people. But that's not
7775an exclusive list.
7776
7777Q Did you --
7778
7779BY MR. PARMITER:
7780
7781Q Can I jump in just for a minute here and sort of drill down
7782a little bit more on the specific statutes?
7783
7784A Uh-huh.
7785
7786Q Let me show you, first of all -- we're going to mark it as
7787
7788exhibit A for majority.
7789
7790 
7791
7792So this is 18 USC 793. One of my colleagues, or perhaps it was
7793 
7794
7795COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7796you, mentioned gross negligence before. I believe if you turn to page
77972, you'll find that in 793(f).
7798
7799A Yes.
7800
7801Q So you had mentioned a little earlier that you thought there
7802was a -- not an intent requirement in one of the statutes. Do you see
7803an intent requirement in (f)1?
7804
7805A Again, what I hesitate to do -- I am not an attorney, so when
7806
7807Q Sir, I don't want your legal opinion. I'm just, like,
7808wondering whether a plain reading of the statute indicates anything.
7809A My plain reading, understanding, and my historical
7810recollection through application of this statute is that (f) does not
7811contain a kind of scienter requirement.
7812
7813Okay. At least not in (f)1.
7814Correct.
7815
7816(f)2 may, but --
7817
7818ACT
7819
7820-- (f)1 does not.
7821
78220)
7823fy Granted.
78240)
7825
7826All right. Great.
7827So, in your experience, what's the definition of Secret material?
7828A Secret material, if I recall correctly, is material that,
7829if disclosed without authorization, could reasonably be expected to
7830
7831cause serious damage to national security.
7832
7833 
7834
7835Q Great. What about Top Secret material?
7836 
7837
7838COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7839A Same definition but, I believe, exceptionally grave damage
7840to national security.
7841
7842Q All right.
7843
7844So, as Secretary of State -- would it be reasonable to conclude
7845that whoever the Secretary of State is has lawful possession of
7846classified material?
7847
7848A It depends on what the classified material is. I don't want
7849
7850to go down a technical rabbit hole, but, as you may know, it's not only
7851
7852clearance-level but need-to-know. I can envision scenarios where the
7853Secretary of State might not have a need to know the details of some
7854covert action program that didn't involve State.
7855
7856But that's a long answer for a -- I don't agree exactly with how
7857you worded the question, but --
7858
7859Q Okay. But it would not be the case the Secretary of State
7860is an office that never is in contact with classified material.
7861
7862A Correct. Correct.
7863
7864Q Okay. So would it be reasonable to assume that the
7865classified material recovered by the FBI from Secretary Clinton's
7866private server related to the national defense, given the definition
7867of Secret material?
7868
7869rN The classified information, yes.
7870
7871Q Okay. Would it be also reasonable to conclude that, by being
7872on a private, unsecure server, that the information had been removed
7873
7874from its proper place?
7875
7876 
7877 
7878
7879COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
7880Q = Okay.
7881What role did you play in drafting the Director's press statement?
7882Ay I was one of several individuals who reviewed it, edited it.
7883
7884There was kind of a couple -- several kind of parallel tracks. One
7885
7886was kind of the case facts -- what we did, what we could say, assert,
7887
7888what we couldn't assert. There was a tremendous amount of legal
7889back-and-forth about what was accurate, what was, you Know,
7890appropriate. And then just kind of a broader, how to effectively
7891communicate what he was trying to say. But I was one of many people
7892making edits to it.
7893Q At any point did the words "gross negligence" appear in the
7894Director's statement?
7895Yes, my recollection is that it did.
7896And when were those -- were those changed at some point?
7897Ata) aoe
7898And what were they changed to?
7899I believe “extremely careless" is the phrase that was used
7900instead.
7901Q Do you recall the discussion surrounding that change or why
7902it was deemed necessary and who was involved?
7903A  Iremember generally a discussion about that topic, amongst
7904many other topics. My recollection is attorneys brought it up, and
7905these, of course, were DOJ attorneys. And the discussion, as I recall
7906
7907it, was kind of getting into the nitty-gritty of how "gross negligence"
7908
7909 
7910
7911is defined as a term of art in statute and whether or not that should
7912 
7913
7914COMMITTBE SENSITIVE
7915be used. But it was the OGC, it was the legal folks, the Director,
7916people who had, kind of, that legal experience turning that around.
7917Q Okay. Did you make that change, or did someone else do it?
7918A TI believe it was done from my computer because I had the
7919
7920biggest office. And so my recollection is several of us sat down and
7921
7922made the first cut of taking 8, 9, 10 people's comments and putting
7923
7924it all into the first revision -- or arevision. And then, as I'm sure
7925you've seen from production, there are about 8@ billion subsequent
7926revisions by a similar number of people.
7927BY MR. BREITENBACH:
7928
7929Q Yeah. Just to continue down this line, who is making the
7930call to the Director to recommend charges or not to charge Mrs. Clinton?
7931
7932A I think that is ultimately the Director's call based on his
7933receipt of the facts from us.
7934
7935So I think the investigative team -- me, Jon, you know,
7936Bill -- would sit there and say, kind of, here are all the things we're
7937saying. The attorneys would sit and say -- you know, and attorneys
7938from, kind of, line -- the line OGC attorneys up through Deputy General
7939Counsel and General Counsel saying, "Here's how we think about these
7940
7941facts as they apply to the law," as well as, "In our discussions with
7942DOJ, this is their historical way that they have applied the law against
7943facts like these," and that, ultimately, the Director took into
7944
7945consideration all those things and kind of came to his conclusions.
7946
7947Q But it sounds like you sort of left the statutory
7948
7949 
7950
7951interpretation to the lawyers.
7952 
7953
7954COMMITTEE SENSITIV
7955A Well, I leave the interpretation and legal understanding of
7956
7957that to the attorneys. My experience, certainly, is that it is very,
7958
7959you know, confoundingly difficult sometimes to get DOJ excited and
7960interested in prosecuting baseline mishandling of classified
7961information cases. So the historical record of that -- and I'll defer
7962to the FBI for whether or not we've got statutory gaps in mishandling
7963of classified information or not. But those decisions, prosecution
7964decisions, decisions of whether or not facts represent a violation of
7965the law, are almost always done ultimately by the prosecutors.
7966
7967Agents participate in those discussions. Agents are critical in
7968the gathering of those facts, and frequently there's a partnership
7969there. But that choice, that decision, that moving forward is a
7970prosecutorial one.
7971
7972Q But, in this case, it wasn't.
7973
7974A Right.
7975
7976Q It was Director Comey making the prosecutorial or
7977nonprosecutorial decision.
7978
7979A That's correct. And I believe, if I recall correctly, the
7980Attorney General indicated that she would accept the FBI's
7981recommendation of --
7982
7983Q So is there a gap, do you think, as an agent, if your lawyers
7984are telling you that a particular statute requires an element if there
7985is another statute whose element is met by the evidence?
7986
7987A TI wouldn't call it a gap. My recollection and what I'm
7988
7989 
7990
7991assuming, if what you're asking is whether or not the elements of 793(f)
7992 
7993were met, that was --
7994
7995Q No. No, actually, if your lawyers are only telling you one
7996
7997part of a statute, and you -- I think you indicated that you're relying
7998
7999on your lawyers to interpret the law as it exists for you as the agent --
8000
8001[ee Ola tzel ela
8002
8003Q  -- and your lawyers are failing to advise you that a
8004particular part of the statute would meet the elements of the offense
8005based on the evidence that you as the agent have collected, is that
8006problematic, in your mind, that you're -- is that a gap, in your
8007understanding? Or is that something that --
8008
8009A Idon't think that happens. So that hypothetical is not my
8010experience, certainly in this case. I think you have different groups
8011of attorneys. For instance, you have the DOJ attorneys who have their
8012perspective. But we also have extraordinarily competent FBI attorneys
8013who frequently will play the role of advocate for the agents. And
8014agents have their experience in working cases that, hey, I remember
8015we did it this time, why can't we do it now.
8016
8017So, if that hypothetical were true, I might agree with you, but
8018I don't think that's an accurate hypothetical.
8019
8020Q ° Did you ask whether there was an element of the offense with
8021regard to the mishandling statute that could have been met that did
8022not include willfulness or knowledge that you're sending classified
8023information?
8024
8025A My recollection is we looked at the entirety of the -- you
8026
8027 
8028
8029know, 794 was not even considered. But we looked at the entire bod
8030 
8031of statutes which applied to the mishandling of classified information
8032and had extensive discussions about it between prosecutors and the
8033investigative team and then certainly among the senior management team
8034of the FBI.
8035
8036Q So, I guess, to drill down, did you understand that there
8037was the possibility, if you had found evidence of mishandling of
8038classified information, that there was an offense that did not include,
8039as you mentioned, a scienter or an intent or willfulness statute?
8040
8041A Yes. And, as was pointed out by multiple attorneys, the use
8042
8043of that statute has been extraordinarily rare in U.S. history. There
8044
8045has been occasionally use, as I recall, in UCM) action. But it is both
8046rare and, I believe, if I recall correctly, there have been some
8047indications that it might be constitutionally defective because of lack
8048of intent. And, as a result of that and other reasons, DOJ has used
8049it exceedingly sparingly.
8050
8051Q Well, it's never been held constitutionally defective, and
8052it's still good law in the books, as you are aware?
8053
8054A It is good law in the books. And what I'm telling you is,
8055in the context of an analysis of that statute and applying it to the
8056facts of this case, the attorneys were fairly unanimous that we did
8057not bring a fact pattern like this -- we have not brought fact patterns
8058like this to charges of that statute.
8059
8060Q Okay.
8061
8062Changing back to -- I know you're not interested in discussing
8063
8064 
8065
8066any details of your relationship with Ms. Page, but I think it's
8067COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8068
8069 
8070important for us to know the level of knowledge that the Department
8071or the Bureau itself, Bureau management, had with regard to any
8072indiscretions that may have occurred. Did they?
8073
8074A Idon't know what they did or didn't. I would tell you -- and
8075
8076I think why it's relevant that -- why I'm saying this isn't necessarily
8077
8078relevant is that my understanding of Bureau regulation is that,
8079whatever morally you may think of an extramarital affair, it is not
8080prohibited by Bureau regulation or policy.
8081
8082Certainly, if somebody is in your chain of command, if there's
8083any sort of impropriety, of favoritism, or things like that, it is.
8084But simply an extramarital relationship is not.
8085
8086So, to the extent it's not, it does not strike me as relevant to
8087my work and --
8088
8089Q Were you ever counseled on the affair?
8090
8091A Again, I don't want to get into personnel counseling matters.
8092I am happy to discuss my performance on work-related matters, but,
8093again, as I said, this was not something that was at variance with FBI
8094regulation, and I --
8095
8096Q You know, I understand, and we're not going into any details.
8097But I think it's important for us to understand, was there an awareness
8098of your relationship when either or both were transferred from the
8099Bureau, working on the MYE, to the special counsel investigation?
8100
8101A And I'm telling you, I don't know the answer to how widely
8102
8103that was or was not known within the FBI. And I just don't -- having
8104
8105 
8106
8107answered that a couple of times now, truly, I can't tell you -- I mean,
8108 
8109outside of the setting and everything going on, this has been -- and
8110
8111the use and publicity of all this, extraordinarily painful and harmful
8112
8113and hurtful to my family. And I just don't want to continue engaging
8114
8115in that process. I think --
8116
8117Q  Iunderstand. But was it known to anyone prior to you being
8118transferred to the special counsel investigation?
8119
8120A Again, I don't think that is relevant to my work performance,
8121and I don't want to discuss that.
8122
8123Q I understand you don't think it's relevant, but was
8124it -- it's relevant to us, because we need to understand the level of
8125culpability with respect to the potential of someone being
8126transferred -- his, I believe, already went down this line of
8127questioning.
8128
8129When an affair has the potential of being exploited by a foreign
8130adversary, we do need to understand whether there was, in fact, a
8131decision made by FBI management to transfer you to a special counsel
8132investigation.
8133
8134A Yeah, and what I would tell you is I don't know the extent
8135to which it was or was not known. And I would defer to the various
8136people, of their, you know, recollections --
8137
8138Q Does that mean -- I'm sorry to interrupt you, but --
8139
8140A -- about what they knew about it or didn't.
8141
8142Q You don't know whether it was known. So would that sugges
8143
8144that you were not counseled?
8145
8146 
8147
8148A No. Iam saying I don't know the extent to which it's known,
8149 
8150and I don't want to get into a discussion of any personnel-type
8151
8152discussions that I had with anybody in the FBI.
8153
8154Q Okay. Through your career, have you ever, as a
8155counterintelligence agent, made use of knowledge of an affair to
8156recruit a source?
8157
8158To
8159
8160Are you aware of that ever being done?
8161
8162b (-Te
8163
8164Have you ever supervised an investigation where usage of an
8165affair was made use of to exploit and recruit a source?
8166
8167A Not to my recollection.
8168
8169Q But you're fully aware that it is one of maybe a few avenues,
8170I would say, possibly, and you might agree -- finances is another area
8171of recruitment -- that the FBI might use to recruit a source.
8172
8173A I think the important way, the right way to think of that
8174is you want to find those things which a person would be susceptible
8175for either enticement or blackmail or coercion. I've always found that
8176blackmail and coercion are typically crappy ways to try and recruit
8177somebody; it's much better to do it the other way.
8178
8179But, at the end of the day, it isn't the individual of action;
8180it's how that action plays in the mind of the person you're trying to
8181recruit or whether or not it makes them vulnerable. And what I'm --
8182
8183Q Okay. Well --
8184
8185A -- telling you and what I think I answered in this question
8186
8187 
8188
8189this morning is that the existence of my extramarital affair is not
8190COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8191
8192 
8193anything that ever could've been used to coerce me. It is not anything
8194
8195that could've been used to, you know, blackmail me or otherwise, you
8196
8197know, exploit a vulnerability.
8198
8199Q So you don't believe, personally, that the existence of the
8200affair becoming public to an adversary -- not public, but to an
8201adversary -- would have made you susceptible to potential
8202exploitation.
8203
8204A Ido not.
8205
8206Q = Thank you.
8207
8208Mr. Gowdy. Agent Strzok, when we left, we were in October
8209of 2016, and you were responding to a text where you wrote: I'mriled
8210up. Trump is a fucking idiot, is unable to provide a coherent answer.
8211
8212And if I remember correctly, that was in response to your watching
8213the debate. In October of 2016, were you still working on the Russia
8214probe?
8215
8216Mr. Strzok. I was?
8217
8218Mr. Gowdy. How about in November of 2016, were you still working
8219on the Russia probe then?
8220
8221Mr. Strzok. Yes.
8222
8223Mr. Gowdy. All right.
8224
8225This is a text from Lisa Page to you: The New York Times
8226probability numbers are dropping every day. I'm scared for our
8227organization.
8228
8229Understanding you're not the author of that text but the recipient
8230
8231 
8232
8233of it, do you know what organization she could be referencing?
8234 
8235
8236COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8237Mr. Strzok. What date, sir?
8238
8239Mr. Gowdy. November the 3rd, 2016, is the date I have.
8240
8241Mr. Strzok. Do you have a copy I could look at?
8242
8243Yeah, Congressman, I believe she -- again, you would have to ask
8244
8245er, but my inference is she's talking about the FBI.
8246
8247Mr. Gowdy. Were you and she both members of any other
8248organizations other than the FBI?
8249
8250Mr. Strzok. The Department of Justice, the executive branch of
8251the United States, the Government of the United States. But my read
8252of this is the FBI?
8253
8254Mr. Gowdy. Some of those may overlap a little bit.
8255
8256Mr. Strzok. Absolutely.
8257
8258Mr. Gowdy. Did you ever ask her or did you ever discuss why the
8259New York Times probability numbers dropping would have any impact on
8260your organization, whether it's the executive branch, the Department
8261of Justice, the FBI, or the Department of Justice?
8262
8263Mr. Strzok. My sense, Congressman, looking back at the time was
8264then-candidate Trump was saying extraordinary amounts about the
8265
8266incompetence of the FBI, particularly with regard to the investigation
8267
8268of Secretary Clinton, was making very destructive and denigrating
8269
8270comments about the professionalism of the FBI. And I was concerned
8271that those comments, particularly in comparison to most of the
8272Republican candidates, were undermining the ability of the FBI to
8273
8274effectively do its job in the United States.
8275
8276 
8277
8278Mr. Gowdy. Oh, so despite the fact you're not the author of that
8279 
8280
8281COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8282text, you share those exact same concerns.
8283
8284Mr. Strzok. No, I didn't say that.
8285
8286Mr. Gowdy. Well, you just said that. You just referenced the
8287reasons that you would be concerned with a Trump Presidency, but it
8288was actually her text.
8289
8290Mr. Strzok. What I think I answered was my inference from
8291reading the text of what she meant.
8292
8293Mr. Gowdy. Did you share those concerns?
8294
8295Mr. Strzok. I certainly shared concerns about how
8296then-candidate Trump was referring to the actions of the FBI?
8297
8298Mr. Gowdy. Did you share her concern that you were scared for
8299
8300the organization of the FBI if the New York Times probability numbers
8301
8302continued to drop?
8303
8304Mr. Strzok. I wouldn't say I was scared. I think I thought
8305there might be a severe test of the rule of law in the FBI.
8306
8307Mr. Gowdy. Well, on November the 3rd, you did text: Jill Stein
8308and Gary Johnson are F'ing everything up too.
8309
8310What did "F'ing" stand for?
8311
8312Mr. Strzok. Fucking.
8313
8314Mr. Gowdy. So Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are fucking everything
8315up too. What did you mean by that?
8316
8317Mr. Strzok. My sense was, again, from a personal perspective,
8318looking at the race, the Presidential race, that a variety of actors
8319
8320were causing debates and shifts and movement in a way that was causing
8321
8322 
8323
8324core messaging or just general sentiment to be moved and shifted.
8325 
8326Mr. Gowdy. Well, whose chances did you think Stein and Johnson
8327were hurting, Clinton's or Trump's?
8328
8329Mr. Strzok. No, I believe Clinton's.
8330
8331Mr. Gowdy. Well, I could almost take from reading this text that
8332you wanted her to win.
8333
8334Mr. Strzok. Congressman, I had -- like many agents, I have, you
8335know, certainly strongly held political opinions that are personal.
8336And I have -- there have been Presidents that I've liked that have been
8337elected; there have been Presidents that I didn't particularly care
8338for that were elected. I can --
8339
8340Mr. Gowdy. So it's fair to say you were a Clinton supporter?
8341
8342Mr. Strzok. Congressman, I think that's clear from the reading
8343
8344of the text, certainly, that I wasn't a Trump fan.
8345
8346Mr. Gowdy. Well, just to be on the safe side, we'll get you to
8347
8348say it anyway, even if it is clear from the reading of the text. You
8349were a Clinton supporter?
8350
8351Mr. Strzok. Sir, my personal perspective was that I supported
8352Secretary Clinton ahead of then-candidate Trump?
8353
8354Mr. Gowdy. And when did you decide to start supporting her? Did
8355you support her in the primary?
8356
8357Mr. Strzok. No. I -- you know, again, this makes me
8358uncomfortable, that the legislative branch is inquiring about the
8359personal views of an executive --
8360
8361Mr. Gowdy. Well, your texts make us pretty damn uncomfortable
8362
8363 
8364
8365too, Agent Strzok.
8366 
8367Mr. Strzok. If I can finish your question. In the primaries,
8368I was considering -- Governor Kasich had a strong appeal, and I was
8369undecided at some point. Traditionally, I've been very conservative
8370in outlook from a law enforcement, military, national security
8371perspective?
8372
8373Mr. Gowdy. So I don't know whether that's a "yes" or "no." Were
8374you a supporter of hers in the primary?
8375
8376Mr. Strzok. Whose primary?
8377
8378Mr. Gowdy. Hers, the Democrat primary.
8379
8380Mr. Strzok. For --
8381
8382Mr. Gowdy. While you were working on her case, if that helps any.
8383The time you were working on her case, were you a supporter?
8384
8385Mr. Strzok. I don't know when -- there is no point in time where
8386I can tell you I clearly became a, you know, my vote is going here or
8387my vote is going there.
8388
8389Mr. Gowdy. Well, 4 days later -- we're getting close to the
8390election, I think -- referencing an article entitled "Victory by
8391
8392Mr. Trump Remains Possible," you said: OMG, this is fucking
8393
8394seal a aoa
8395
8396What does "OMG" stand for?
8397
8398Mr. Strzok. Oh, my God.
8399
8400Mr. Gowdy. Oh, my God, this is fucking terrifying. What was
8401terrifying about a victory by Trump?
8402
8403Mr. Goelman. Congressman, can you just tell us the date and time
8404
8405 
8406
8407so we can follow along?
8408 
8409Mr. Gowdy. November the 7th, 2016.
8410
8411Mr. Goelman. The time?
8412
8413Mr. Strzok. Yes, your question?
8414
8415Mr. Gowdy.: I think it was your lawyer's question whether or not
8416I could point you to the text, and I gave you the date.
8417
8418Mr. Strzok. Right, but -- I see it.
8419
8420Mr. Gowdy. What did you mean by "fucking terrifying"?
8421
8422Mr. Strzok. I'm sorry?
8423
8424. Gowdy. What did you mean by "fucking terrifying"?
8425
8426Mr. Strzok. The prospect that candidate Trump might be elected
8427darks ea
8428
8429Mr. Gowdy. And just soI'mright in my mind, this is why you were
8430also dispassionately, objectively investigating whether or not he
8431colluded/coordinated with a foreign actor to interfere with the
8432election?
8433
8434Mr. Strzok. No. Those are independent things, Congressman. I
8435have --
8436
8437Mr. Gowdy. No, no, no. Is it the same time, not whether or not
8438you conflated the two. That's a separate question. Were those going
8439on at the same time?
8440
8441Mr. Strzok. Yes.
8442
8443Mr. Gowdy. So, in November, when you said it would be fucking
8444
8445terrifying for him to become the President, you were investigating
8446
8447whether or not he had colluded/coordinated/otherwise conspired with
8448
8449 
8450
8451a foreign actor to interfere with the election.
8452 
8453Mr. Strzok. No, I don't think that's accurate. The allegations
8454that have been made public are that -- allegations that members of his
8455campaign may have been doing that.
8456
8457Mr. Gowdy. Well, then why in the world would you be talking about
8458impeachment if you didn't think he'd done anything wrong?
8459
8460Mr. Strzok. Because, without getting into details here that are
8461
8462either classified or in the context of an ongoing investigation, my
8463
8464concern, based on the credible allegations that members of his
8465Campaign, numbers and coordination unknown, were actively colluding
8466with the Government of Russia struck me as an extraordinary threat to
8467America and represented --
8468
8469Mr. Gowdy. Well, had you already --
8470
8471Mr. Strzok. -- the most unbelievably severe and reprehensible
8472sort of behavior that any American could engage in.
8473
8474Mr. Gowdy. Had you already concluded that he knew about it or
8475was part of ite
8476
8477Mr. Strzok. I don't think I wanted -- I don't think I want to
8478go into speculation about an ongoing investigation and what I --
8479
8480Mr. Gowdy. No, I think it's entirely appropriate whether or not
8481you had already concluded that he had colluded/conspired/confederated
8482with a foreign actor while you're investigating it.
8483
8484Mr. Goelman. Are you talking, Congressman, about November 2016,
8485or are you talking about the impeachment text the following spring?
8486
8487Mr. Gowdy. I think they're --
8488
8489 
8490
8491Mr. Goelman. What's the timeframe of your question?
8492 
8493
8494COMMITTBER SENSITIVE
8495Mr. Gowdy. That's agood question. I think that there are texts
8496that reference impeachment both the day after the election and in the
8497spring of 2017.
8498
8499Mr. Strzok. So which are you referring to? I think --
8500
8501Mr. Gowdy. How about both?
8502
8503Mr. Strzok. Well, I believe my statements in use of that was much
8504later into 2017.
8505
8506My answer to your question is I had not made any judgment about
8507the culpability or lack of culpability of any of the matters that I
8508was aware of investigatively. We were absolutely still very much in
8509the process of gathering information. There were some areas which were
8510much stronger than others, as is true in most cases.
8511
8512Mr. Gowdy. So the thing you found fucking terrifying, to use your
8513
8514words, was that some members of his campaign may have wittingly or
8515
8516unwittingly colluded/conspired/confederated with Russia, but you had
8517no evidence that he knew anything about it.
8518
8519Mr. Strzok. No. I think my recollection of that text is the
8520prospect of his winning the Presidency. It is a personal opinion
8521independent of the investigations of any members of his campaign.
8522
8523Mr. Gowdy. OnMarch the 14th, Lisa Page texted you: Finally two
8524pages away from finishing "All the President's Men." Did you know the
8525President resigns in the end?
8526
8527And you replied: What? God, that we should be so lucky.
8528
8529In March of 2017, were you still working on the Russia
8530
8531 
8532
8533investigation?
8534 
8535
8536COMMITTBE SENSITIVE
8537Mr. Strzok. Yes.
8538
8539Mr. Gowdy. What did you think the President should
8540resign -- what was the cause -- what would the cause of his resignation
8541olaa
8542
8543Mr. Strzok. I think this is a figurative, snarky,
8544
8545tongue-in-cheek remark. It is not some legal analysis of a violation
8546
8547of viability of any active impeachment or crime. This is merely a
8548
8549personal, snarky expression of my personal belief and nothing else.
8550
8551Mr. Gowdy. You just referenced four different ways of referring
8552to the executive branch. Let's just go with the head of the executive
8553branch. You think the head of the executive branch resigning is just
8554a snarky thing to say?
8555
8556Mr. Strzok. I think my personal opinion was that I had a -- not
8557a -- no love lost for President Trump.
8558
8559Mr. Gowdy. Were you investigating what Russia did and with whom,
8560if anyone, they did it in March of 2017?
8561
8562Mr. Strzok. Yes.
8563
8564Mr. Gowdy. And you still thought it'd be a good idea for him to
8565asked
8566
8567Mr. Strzok. I --
8568
8569Mr. Gowdy. But yet you're somehow able to separate your
8570professional views from your private views.
8571
8572Mr. Strzok. Absolutely. What every agent working every case
8573
8574does every day.
8575
8576 
8577
8578Mr. Gowdy. Well, let's get to that.
8579COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8580
8581 
8582On May 18, 2017, for your attorney's reference, you texted: For
8583me and this case.
8584
8585What case would you be referring to?
8586
8587Mr. Strzok. What's the date on that?
8588
8589Mr. Gowdy. May the 18th. Anything important happen around May
8590the 17th or 18th that you can recall?
8591
8592Mr. Strzok. Yeah. So, at that time, it was right around the
8593time that Special Counsel Mueller was appointed, I believe.
8594
8595Mr. Gowdy. Now, when you say "right around the time," how about
8596the day after.
8597
8598Mr. Strzok. Okay.
8599
8600Mr. Gowdy. So, the day after Special Counsel Mueller was
8601
8602appointed, you're still working on the Russia investigation at this
8603
8604point?
8605Mr. Strzok. I am.
8606Mr. Gowdy. Have you moved over to the special counsel team yet?
8607Mr. Strzok. No, I have not.
8608
8609Mr. Gowdy. "Forme and this case." What case were you referring
8610
8611Mr. Strzok. At that time, the Russia collusion investigations.
8612Mr. Gowdy. "I personally have a sense of unfinished business.
8613
8614I unleashed it with Midyear Exam. Now I need to fix it and finish it."
8615What is the "it"?
8616
8617Mr. Strzok. Congressman, I don't -- we did this earlier, and I
8618
8619 
8620
8621don't want to get into parsing individual words.
8622 
8623Mr. Gowdy. Well, actually, I do, Agent Strzok. That's why I
8624asked you what does "it" mean. You wrote it. What does it mean?
8625Mr. Strzok. The text, I'm telling you, Congressman, is my sense
8626
8627that -- we had done Midyear Exam. We saw, and now it’s been
8628
8629declassified, and this is me, but the intelligence community watching
8630
8631the Government of Russia take the results and the existence of that
8632examination and use it to influence the election. They did it through
8633social media; they did it through other means.
8634
8635And my involvement in that case, watching that case go from start
8636to finish, watching a hostile nation -- who, by the way, has credible
8637allegations is colluding with members of a different
8638campaign -- watching that information be weaponized by the Government
8639of Russia and used in the context of our election, my feeling was: I've
8640been in this fromthe beginning. I worked through, with Jon and others,
8641Midyear. We came to aconclusion. The Government of Russia has taken
8642this and created this entire mess. And I want to sit there and see
8643this through and stop the Government of Russia from interfering in the
8644elections of the United States of America.
8645
8646Mr. Gowdy. What I find so fascinating about that answer, Special
8647Agent Strzok, is what you also texted on May the 18th, which is: You
8648and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd
8649be there, no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and
8650concern there's no big "there" there.
8651
8652What's not there?
8653
8654 
8655
8656Mr. Strzok. The context of that quote is, as I looked at the time
8657 
8658at the allegations, I was not certain at the time, one, if there was
8659any sort of illegal activity going on, the nature of that. We had yet
8660to determine, you know, was it going on, was it coordinated, was this
8661a bunch of individual opportunists acting out of their own personal
8662motives, and where that range of activity may lie, and not knowing that.
8663
8664And, obviously, from the perspective of national security, if any
8665
8666campaign has a couple of outliers who may be doing things improperly,
8667
8668that's bad, but it is not nearly as bad as the prospect of a campaign
8669
8670who has a coordinated effort colluding with a foreign nation. There's
8671a big range in there.
8672
8673And that's -- it's independent of any party or any candidate.
8674And I can't stress that enough. My concern, my desire to work on this
8675wouldn't matter if it was candidate Trump or candidate Clinton or
8676candidate Sanders or candidate whoever. My drive, my interest in doing
8677this is, as a national security professional, was from the perspective
8678of protecting the United States.
8679
8680Mr. Gowdy. And I find that interesting, because on exactly the
8681same day you texted those other things, you said: Who gives a fuck.
8682One more AD versus an investigation leading to impeachment.
8683
8684It sounds to me like you'd already made up your mind. Impeachment
8685of whom?
8686
8687That's not true.
8688Impeachment of whom?
8689
8690That would've been impeachment of Trump, but the
8691
8692 
8693
8694text clearly --
8695 
8696Mr. Gowdy. For what?
8697
8698Mr. Strzok. But the text clearly does not say "will." My sense
8699was it might. That's undefined in the text, and I had not prejudged
8700or concluded that at all.
8701
8702Mr. Gowdy. Who gives a fuck. One more AD versus an
8703investigation leading to impeachment.
8704
8705Mr. Strzok. Right. My sense from that text is there is --
8706
8707Mr. Gowdy. We just went from you didn't know whether he was
8708involved or not to impeachment, and we're still on the same day, May
8709the 18th.
8710
8711Mr. Strzok. Right. If you recall what I just said, in my mind
8712was a range of potential activities. One was nothing or some
8713uncoordinated individuals doing something they shouldn't. On the
8714other extreme --
8715
8716Mr. Gowdy. Wait a minute. Hang on a second.
8717
8718Mr. Strzok. If I can finish, sir. On the other extreme, a
8719
8720coordinated conspiracy to collude with the Government of Russia. That
8721
8722is a big range. And I had not decided and had not prejudged --
8723
8724Mr. Gowdy. Well, you're looking at a range I'm not even looking
8725at, Mr. Strzok.
8726
8727Mr. Strzok. In the event of the most grave circumstance, that
8728there was a coordinated effort by the Government of Russia to elect
8729somebody here in the United States, that's an extraordinary allegation.
8730
8731And I think there's no national security professional out there worth
8732
8733 
8734
8735his salt who would not want to be fighting to protect America against
8736 
8737oar Lae
8738
8739Mr. Gowdy. Well, then why did you say "I hesitate in part"? Why
8740were you hesitating? If it was just your desire to figure out what
8741Russia did to this country, then why did you say you're hesitating?
8742
8743Mr. Strzok. Because, Congressman, for the very reason I just
8744answered. I was not, at that time, sufficiently aware of the facts
8745to be able to make a judgment of whether or not it was nothing illegal
8746or a set of self-motivated individual actors on the one extreme, all
8747the way to the other extreme of something that would be the most
8748extraordinarily grave action in the Nation.
8749
8750So my hesitation is simply I didn't know at that time where those
8751facts were, because we were pursuing the facts, objectively, wherever
8752sel a=) Aad
8753
8754Mr. Gowdy. Well, then why would you continue pursuing them?
8755
8756Mr. Strzok. Because --
8757
8758Mr. Gowdy. You're an investigator. Why wouldn't you be
8759interested no matter how it ends?
8760
8761Mr. Strzok. Because every investigator is going to pursue it.
8762The question is with me, where I wanted to be in the context of, on
8763the one hand, I go and I focus on this set of allegations in this
8764
8765investigation; on the other hand, I stay in the FBI, I have a wide range
8766
8767of responsibilities of counterintelligence threats, of espionage
8768
8769investigations, and where I would get the most fulfilment, where I best
8770
8771could serve the Nation.
8772
8773 
8774
8775Of course, every investigator follows every fact to the end.
8776 
8777
8778COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8779And, sir, you know. I don't need to tell you that. You know that.
8780
8781Mr. Gowdy. Well, before I turn it over to Johnny, 4 days later,
8782this is you to Lisa Page: I'mtorn, I think. No, I'mmore replaceable
8783than you are in this. I'm the best for it, but there are others who
8784
8785can. Okay. You're different and more unique. This is yours. Plus
8786
8787leaving a special counsel, having been a special counsel, resulting
8788
8789in an impeachment, as an attorney, is very different than leaving as
8790an investigator.
8791
8792There you are, 4 days into Special Counsel Mueller's probe,
8793talking impeachment again, Special Agent Strzok.
8794
8795Mr. Goelman. Congressman, is this the 21st then?
8796
8797Mr. Gowdy. That'd be better. Ihave the 22nd. I hope it is the
879821st.
8799
8800Mr. Goelman. Idon't know. I'm just trying to find the text that
8801you're referring to.
8802
8803Mr. Gowdy. I got it 4 days later, but maybe you found it 3 days
8804later.
8805
8806Mr. Goelman. I didn't find it. Hang on. I'm looking for it.
8807
8808Mr. Gowdy. The 22nd is what I have.
8809
8810It's an email. Show him the email.
8811
8812Mr. Strzok. So could you repeat the question?
8813
8814Mr. Gowdy. Yeah. This is 4 days after Special Counsel
8815Mueller's probe has been announced. The day it was announced, you
8816
8817referenced impeachment. Four days later, you referenced impeachment.
8818
8819 
8820
8821It sounds, I guess, to someone who might be a little bit cynical that
8822 
8823you had already made up your mind how you wanted it to end. Is that
8824laa g
8825
8826Mr. Strzok. I had absolutely not.
8827
8828Mr. Gowdy. Well, then why would you just bring up impeachment?
8829
8830Mr. Strzok. That was one of the possible and the most severe
8831outcome of the investigation. And when you read it in the context of
8832what was going on, President Trump firing Director Comey and on the
8833one hand saying it had to do with the Clinton investigation and then
8834telling a Russian diplomat that a great pressure had been lifted on
8835the Russia investigations of him, when in the context of that footnote
8836you'll see was news reporting that President Trump had asked
8837
8838intelligence community chiefs to take certain actions, my concern and
8839
8840thought was it was certainly possible. But in no way had I prejudged
8841
8842or decided that any investigative outcome was going to happen.
8843
8844Mr. Gowdy. We may be out of time.
8845
8846You got anything?
8847
8848Mr. Ratcliffe. Let me at least get started then.
8849
8850Agent Strzok, I know he asked some questions -- I wasn't in the
8851room -- about the Midyear Exam, so I wanted to go back and explore with
8852you when the decision was made not to charge Hillary Clinton.
8853
8854And the first expression that I see of that is a memorandum that
8855Jim Comey wrote, apparently, on May 2nd of 2016. Are you there
8856familiar with that?
8857
8858Mr. Strzok. Congressman, I believe so. Is that his first draft
8859
8860 
8861
8862of what a statement might look like?
8863 
8864Mr. Ratcliffe. It is. And, in fairness to you, you are not one
8865of the four people that it was originally addressed to. It was
8866addressed to Andy McCabe, Jim Baker, Jim Rybicki. That's it. But
8867you're familiar with it?
8868
8869Mr. Strzok. I am.
8870
8871Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So are you familiar that in this -- I'm
8872just going to call it a memo, Jim Comey expresses what he describes
8873as his thoughts? Do you have any information that someone other than
8874Jim Comey put together this initial draft?
8875
8876Mr. Strzok. I don't.
8877
8878Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So this is the draft of Jim Comey, who is
8879a, what, about a 30-year Federal prosecutor?
8880
8881Mr. Strzok. That's my understanding. I don't know his
8882biography that well.
8883
8884Mr. Ratcliffe. And so, in it, he expresses a couple things:
8885one, the possibility of an FBI-only press event, correct?
8886
8887Mr. Strzok. Yes, that's my recollection.
8888
8889Mr. Ratcliffe. I'1l represent to you it says --
8890
8891Mr. Strzok. Okay.
8892
8893Mr. Ratcliffe. -- "If I decided to do an FBI-only press event."
8894
8895The second thing is it sets forth some conclusions based upon what
8896
8897he reflects is 8 months of work. And one of the conclusions that he
8898
8899reaches in here is that, in his own words, that, after 8 months, that
8900
8901Hillary Clinton had committed the elements for an offense under the
8902
8903 
8904
8905Espiona handling classified information that she had
8906 
8907access to in a grossly negligent manner. Correct?
8908
8909Mr. Strzok. I don't believe he stated that she had violated that
8910crime, if I recall that draft correctly.
8911
8912Mr. Ratcliffe. Well --
8913
8914Mr. Strzok. Do you have a copy?
8915
8916Mr. Ratcliffe. Do we have an extra copy? This is the only copy
8917mare
8918
8919Mr. Goelman. We'll accept your representations as to what it
8920says. It's just he's not going to be able to answer from memory what
8921the document says.
8922
8923Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, you reviewed the statute, right?
8924
8925Mr. Strzok. Yes, I did.
8926
8927Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And elements of a commission of an offense
8928
8929under that would include handling classified information in a grossly
8930
8931negligent manner.
8932
8933Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
8934
8935Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay.
8936
8937In fairness, he goes on to explain why, despite the commission
8938of the elements as they're written, that no reasonable prosecutor would
8939bring the case in that first draft. Correct?
8940
8941Mr. Strzok. I'm sorry. I'm reading it because I'm very
8942familiar with the final version, but the prior ones I'm not at all
8943well-versed.
8944
8945Yes, sir.
8946
8947 
8948
8949Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So a couple things that struck me about
8950 
8951that is a very experienced former Deputy Attorney General of the United
8952States, former United States attorney, Jim Comey, in his own words,
8953
8954came to the initial conclusion that Hillary Clinton was grossly
8955
8956negligent in the handling of classified information, and through a
8957
8958series of edits and revisions that was changed from "gross negligence”
8959to "extreme carelessness." Correct?
8960
8961Mr. Strzok. Yes.
8962
8963Mr. Ratcliffe. Why was that done?
8964
8965Mr. Strzok. My recollection was there was a great deal -- and
8966we spoke about this before, when you were not in the room. There was
8967a great deal of discussion by the attorneys about the -- I'm not an
8968attorney. But the attorneys went and talked at length about the nature
8969of "gross negligence," how that is defined, how it is poorly defined
8970in some cases, what the application of that term with regard to the
8971statute historically has been, how the Department has viewed the use
8972of that statute and, in fact, for this, has not used it, concerns about
8973the constitutionality of the statute based on the lack of a scienter
8974requirement, as well as the fact that an analysis of the broad set of
8975cases for mishandling classified information that we have
8976prosecuted -- we, the Department of Justice, have prosecuted kind of
8977fall into the big buckets that he articulates, and, based on that, that
8978it was not consistent with applying that statute?
8979
8980And the attorneys, there was some, as I recall it, discussion of,
8981
8982well, if we're going to use the descriptor "gross negligence," that
8983
8984 
8985
8986is going to key to a specific legal definition of that term. Is that
8987 
8988
8989COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
8990going to confuse things? Is it actually the appropriate use of the
8991term or not? And so, again, amongst this kind of extended legal
8992discussion, the decision was made to change that characterization to
8993“extremely careless."
8994
8995Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. I appreciate that explanation. But
8996regardless of whether it was gross negligence or extreme carelessness,
8997it in some respects doesn't really matter, because the decision had
8998
8999been made that no reasonable prosecutor would bring this and the team
9000
9001had, as reflected in this, decided that she wasn't going to be charged.
9002
9003Mr. Strzok. No, that's inaccurate. I think this is, as he
9004states at the beginning, envisioning a scenario in which we didn't -- or
9005he didn't recommend prosecution, what he might do.
9006
9007My recollection is there was no final decision made until the end
9008of the case. You know, you're both veterans of U.S. attorney and
9009assistant U.S. attorney's offices. Any good investigator worth his
9010salt after an intensive many, many months of investigation will
9011
9012frequently arrive at the point where you know if there are defects in
9013
9014 
9015
9016the evidence that you have that might be insurmountable.
9017 
9018
9019COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
9020[4:52 p.m. ]
9021
9022Mr. Strzok. So, in my mind, this is not a decision that somebody
9023is or isn't going to be prosecuted. This is very much a: If we choose
9024not to, I am thinking about doing this.
9025
9026Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So if the decision was made at the end of
9027the case, when is the end of the case?
9028
9029Mr. Strzok. Shortly after her interview in the beginning of
9030mIUN AYES
9031
9032Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Her interview was July 2nd, 2016.
9033
9034Chairman Goodlatte. Mr. Ratcliffe, could you pause for just a
9035second on that?
9036
9037Just one question on that. Is there another document in which
9038Director Comey says, envisioning a circumstance in which we will
9039prosecute her, these are the things I want to consider?
9040
9041Mr. Strzok. Mr. Chairman, not to my knowledge?
9042
9043Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you.
9044
9045Mr. Ratcliffe. So, if that's the case, there's a number of text
9046
9047messages back and forth between, frankly, different members of the
9048
9049team, but including you, reflecting the fact that a decision had already
9050
9051been made before her July 2nd --
9052
9053Mr. Strzok. Again, I don't think it's a fair characterization
9054to say that a decision had been made. I think we saw the facts;
9055certainly, with the prosecutors, they understood where the gaps and
9056
9057the problems were, and, you know, some level of understanding of whether
9058
9059 
9060
9061or not we would be able to develop evidence to fill those gaps. But
9062 
9063I would not say a decision had been made?
9064
9065Mr. Ratcliffe. Again, not to -- but explain to me, then, why on
9066July 1st you and Ms. Page exchanged texts about the fact that, in
9067addition to the members of the Midyear team, the Attorney General,
9068Loretta Lynch, knew that Hillary Clinton was not going to be charged
9069and, therefore, was not a, quote/unquote, profile in courage?
9070
9071Mr. Strzok. Because, as I indicated, I think the sense,
9072particularly amongst the career prosecutors, in particular at DOJ but
9073
9074as well as those of us in the FBI, understood by that point in the
9075
9076investigation that any of the statutes that we had available to us,
9077
9078based on the way they had been applied and used in the past in
9079prosecutions, had significant gaps in our ability to successfully and
9080
9081responsibly bring charges.
9082
9083Mr. Goelman. Congressman, I think, by my watch, we are 4 minutes
9084
9085past the hour.
9086Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. We'll pick up with that our next round.
9087iret
9088Ms. Kim. We will go back on the record. The time is 5:91.
9089Mr. Cummings. Mr. Strzok, welcome.
9090Mr. Strzok. Thank you, sir?
9091Mr. Cummings. In your experience, are criminal targets
9092considered innocent until they are proven otherwise?
9093
9094Mr. Strzok. Yes?
9095
9096Mr. Cummings. And your job is to search for evidence or proof
9097
9098 
9099
9100of their guilt. Is that right?
9101 
9102
9103COMMITTBE SENSITIVE
9104Mr. Strzok. Guilt or innocence, yes?
9105
9106Mr. Cummings. Or innocence. And if you don't find evidence of
9107their guilt, ultimately, what do you do?
9108
9109Mr. Strzok. You let them go. You close the investigation?
9110
9111Mr. Cummings. So, in most investigations, even before the last
9112witness has been interviewed, do investigators and prosecutors discuss
9113
9114whether there's enough evidence to charge a case with a search for
9115
9116additional evidence and whether those searches for additional evidence
9117
9118are successful?
9119
9120Mr. Strzok. Yes?
9121
9122Mr. Cummings. In your experience, when in the lifecycle of acase
9123do those discussions start?
9124
9125Mr. Strzok. They start very early on. The initial allegation,
9126one of the first discussions with prosecutors involve, you know, what
9127violations might be at issue and what the elements of those crimes are.
9128And it continues throughout the case?
9129
9130Mr. Cummings. So, even before the last witness has been
9131interviewed, do investigators and prosecutors typically discuss the
9132chances of success for a potential case, not just an indictment but
9133a trial?
9134
9135Mr. Strzok. Yes, that's a fair statement?
9136
9137Mr. Cummings. So that's not unusual.
9138
9139Mr. Strzok. It's not unusual. That's correct?
9140
9141Mr. Cummings. And is the amount of probative evidence that has
9142
9143 
9144
9145been discovered in the investigation a relevant metric in those
9146 
9147discussions?
9148
9149Mr. Strzok. Yes?
9150
9151Mr. Cummings. Was Secretary Clinton's knowledge and intent key
9152to the FBI's recommendation not to charge her?
9153
9154Mr. Strzok. Yes?
9155
9156Mr. Cummings. Why was the lack of evidence or intent fatal to
9157the case?
9158
9159Mr. Strzok. Again, I would defer to -- as I've said, I'm not an
9160attorney, and I would defer to the expert attorneys both at the FBI
9161and the Department of Justice. But in the historic -- my understanding
9162of how statutes have been used with regard to the mishandling of
9163classified information, those have been done in the context of the
9164knowledge of the individual was always an element of those
9165prosecutions?
9166
9167And in the case of Midyear, in the case of this investigation,
9168the Department of Justice, as well as the FBI, took a very exhaustive
9169look at all the times that those statutes had been applied and charged
9170with regard to the mishandling of classified information and developed
9171a series of criteria, one of which, certainly, was the knowledge or
9172the intent of the person who did it, and that that was a critical
9173nla
9174
9175Mr. Cummings. So when did you first understand that the evidence
9176
9177of Secretary Clinton's intent would be the lynchpin to the charging
9178
9179decision?
9180
9181 
9182
9183Mr. Strzok. I don't know that I would characterize it as the
9184 
9185lynchpin. I would say that we understood -- maybe not so much the
9186lynchpin, but one of the significant hurdles we had was being able to
9187demonstrate through evidence that we knew she had an intent or a desire
9188to knowingly violate any of the statutes that we were looking at?
9189
9190Mr. Cummings. So is it safe to say you were looking for evidence
9191of intent early on and in the document reviews and in the interviews?
9192
9193Mr. Strzok. Yes, throughout?
9194
9195Mr. Cummings. Now, sir, did you ultimately find sufficient
9196evidence of Secretary Clinton's knowledge and intent to recommend
9197charging a criminal case against her?
9198
9199Mr. Strzok. Not that was consistent with past use of the
9200statutes by the Department of Justice?
9201
9202Mr. Cummings. Uh-huh. And how was that so significant?
9203
9204Mr. Strzok. Well, it's --
9205
9206Mr. Cummings. Past use.
9207
9208Mr. Strzok. It's significant because there is a process. We
9209have a way in which the laws are applied by the Department of Justice.
9210We seek to do that in a manner that is blind. It does not take into
9211account a person's position or race or sex or anything of that nature.
9212
9213And the consistency of that practice is one of the hallmarks of the
9214
9215rule of law?
9216
9217Mr. Cummings. Uh-huh. Now, did you investigate this matter as
9218aggressively as you would any other matter?
9219
9220Mr. Strzok. Yes?
9221
9222 
9223
9224Mr. Cummings. Did you investigate with the same determination
9225 
9226to make a case as in any other matter?
9227Mr. Strzok. Yes?
9228
9229Mr. Cummings. Can you point to specific instances where you
9230
9231investigated the matter aggressively and with the goal of finding
9232
9233relevant evidence to make a case?
9234
9235Mr. Strzok. Absolutely. There are any number of them. And,
9236you know, there was frequently a disagreement between the Department
9237of Justice and the Bureau. My experience is typically that agents tend
9238to be more aggressive than prosecutors because we're approaching things
9239a little differently?
9240
9241But with regard to this specific case, there are any number of
9242things. Probably one of the primary examples are: Secretary Clinton
9243gave the body, the corpus of her emails to attorneys to sort through,
9244to determine what was work-related and what wasn't. We came to know
9245that those laptops existed, and we had investigative concerns that the
9246sort process had not been rigorous, that there might have been things
9247that it missed, and that there might be --
9248
9249Mr. Cummings. How did you come to that conclusion?
9250
9251Mr. Strzok. That was what was told to me by our forensic
9252examiners, by our analysts and our agents. As they looked at the body
9253of emails that we had, we found work-related emails through a host of
9254material that we had obtained by consent or via search warrant in some
9255cases that were not amongst the material that Secretary Clinton had
9256
9257produced as work-related email?
9258
9259 
9260
9261One of the hypotheses by -- and I forget who it was, but one of
9262 
9263the great members of this extraordinary team, was that it was possible
9264that just the mechanics of the sort process used had been faulty. And
9265
9266our desire was to -- you know, A, those laptops at one time had all
9267
9268of the emails on them; B, that, by getting that, we could go through
9269
9270and ensure that we did have all of the work-related emails by Secretary
9271Clinton and not just the ones that she had provided for us.
9272
9273Certainly, whether it was a, you know, inadvertent or poorly
9274designed search or, worse, if there was some nefarious purpose and not
9275turn some things over -- I'm speaking too long.
9276
9277The takeaway is that we felt strongly that we needed to get those
9278laptops. Defense counsel disagreed vehemently. They viewed them as
9279protected by a variety of privileges, and the Department of Justice
9280initially didn't think that we should pursue that.
9281
9282But we, I, the entire team advocated aggressively that these were
9283essential to our understanding of the case and that we needed to get
9284that material before we could conclude with a sense of legitimacy and
9285completeness that we had gotten or looked at every possible place that
9286those emails might exist.
9287
9288Mr. Cummings. Well, when did your team complete the review of
9289the emails?
9290
9291Mr. Strzok. Sir, I would have to go back and check the record.
9292That's a -- I don't know without access to the file. It was prior to
9293the interview of Secretary Clinton, for sure. It was sometime in the
9294
9295spring of 2016, if memory serves correctly?
9296
9297 
9298
9299Mr. Cummings. Did those emails --
9300 
9301
9302COMMITTER SENSITIVE
9303. Goelman. ‘17?
9304. Strzok. ‘16. ‘16.
9305. Cummings. Did those emails reveal any, quote, "smoking gun,"
9306evidence of Secretary Clinton's intent?
9307Mr. Strzo iN org
9308Mr. Cummings. When did your team interview the individuals who
9309had sent Secretary Clinton classified information in her emails?
9310Mr. Strzok. That took place throughout the course of the
9311investigation. There was no set period where we went out and
9312interviewed them. We identified as best we could the authors of every
9313piece of classified information and went out and talked to them about
9314how that material came to be placed into those emails?
9315Mr. Cummings. And, in those interviews, did you come up with any
9316smoking gun?
9317Mr. Strzok. No?
9318Mr. Cummings. Did the investigation ever yield smoking-gun
9319evidence of Secretary Clinton's intent?
9320Mr. Strzok. No?
9321Mr. Cummings. Now --
9322
9323Mr. Strzok. Congressman, if I can back up to that last question.
9324
9325When you say "smoking gun," I am taking that to mean did we find any
9326
9327evidence that she acted with ill intent to do what she did, and that's
9328how I'm responding to that question?
9329
9330Mr. Cummings. Yes. Yes.
9331
9332 
9333
9334Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir?
9335 
9336
9337COMMITTER SENSITIVE
9338Mr. Cummings. The Inspector General report states -- and this
9339is kind of a long quote, so listen carefully: Our review found that
9340he Midyear team concluded beginning in early 2016 that evidence
9341supporting a prosecution of former Secretary Clinton or her senior
9342
9343aides was likely lacking. This conclusion was based on the fact that
9344
9345the Midyear team had not found evidence that former Secretary Clinton
9346
9347or her senior aides knowingly transmitted classified information on
9348unclassified systems because, one, classified information exchanged
9349in unclassified emails was not clearly or properly marked, and, two,
9350State Department staff introducing classified information into the
9351emails made an effort to, quote, "talk around it," end of quote.
9352
9353Is this conclusion consistent with your experience on this case?
9354
9355Mr. Strzok. It is. I would add there are probably even further
9356characteristics that created problems from any prospective
9357prosecution. But I agree with the statements in that paragraph you
9358just read?
9359
9360Mr. Cummings. Okay.
9361
9362To be very clear, at this point in early 2016, when the team had
9363examined much of the body of evidence but had not found evidence of
9364intent, did the team stop looking for evidence of intent?
9365
9366Mr. Strzok. No?
9367
9368Mr. Cummings. At this point in -- so, at this point in 2016, when
9369the team had examined much of the body of evidence but had not found
9370
9371evidence of intent, did the team stop examining the evidence or
9372
9373 
9374
9375interviewing pertinent witnesses?
9376COMMITTERK SENSITIVE
9377
9378 
9379Mr. Strzok. No. We kept going?
9380
9381Mr. Cummings. At this point in early 2016, when the team had
9382examined much of the body of evidence but had not found evidence of
9383intent, did the team stop conducting effective and aggressive
9384interviews to solicit evidence of intent?
9385
9386Mr. Strzok. No?
9387
9388Mr. Cummings. Now, in fact, the next sentence states, and I
9389
9390quote: The Midyear team continued its investigation, taking the
9391
9392investigative steps and looking for evidence that could change their
9393
9394assessment, end of quote.
9395
9396This is my question. At any point in the investigation, if the
9397team had found any evidence of intent, would the Midyear investigative
9398team have pursued that lead?
9399
9400Mr. Strzok. Yes?
9401
9402Mr. Cummings. And that includes in the actual interview of
9403Hillary Clinton. Is that correct?
9404
9405Mr. Strzok. Yes?
9406
9407Mr. Cummings. All right.
9408
9409Now, many of your personal actions and texts have been used as
9410evidence that the FBI, its leadership, and the Justice Department
9411overall is deeply biased and corrupt.
9412
9413I'd just like to give you the opportunity to directly respond to
9414anything you think is missing from the record or would better help the
9415
9416American people understand whether they should trust the career
9417
9418 
9419
9420professionals at the FBI and DOJ who are protecting our country every
9421 
9422
9423COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
9424Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir, and thank you for that opportunity.
9425
9426I would tell you FBI agents are people, and all of us have personal
9427
9428political opinions, and that is something that we all feel passionately
9429
9430about. But I can tell you, all of us, me, but everybody I work with,
9431those personal opinions, when you walk in the door, those get left
9432behind.
9433
9434The FBI that I know and have been a member of is made up of people
9435who pursue the facts where they lay and apply the law to those facts.
9436I did not, nor would I ever, take any act based on my personal beliefs
9437in the conduct of my official business, nor would anybody else that
9438I know working at the FBI. I would not tolerate it in myself or others,
9439and all those men and women at the FBI are exactly the same way.
9440
9441I am deeply troubled by the way that -- the insinuation that
9442somehow these personal beliefs are inappropriate or, worse, are
9443necessarily evidence of some corrupt bias are being used to undermine
9444the integrity of the FBI, the way that they are being used to destroy
9445the image and trustworthiness of the FBI in the eyes of the American
9446public for purely partisan ways. It is destructive, it is corrosive
9447to the rule of law, and it is absolutely something terrible that's been
9448occurring.
9449
9450Mr. Cummings. All right. Thank you very much.
9451
9452Mr. Strzok. Thank you, sir.
9453
9454Mr. Johnson. Mr. Strzok, I'm Hank Johnson.
9455
9456 
9457
9458In the Clinton investigation, did you generally advocate for
9459COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
9460
9461 
9462aggressively seeking and compelling evidence?
9463
9464Mr. Strzok. Sir, good afternoon. Yes, I did?
9465
9466Mr. Johnson. Did you generally advocate for or against the use
9467of compulsory process?
9468
9469Mr. Strzok. I typically advocated for the use of compulsory
9470process, yes?
9471
9472Mr. Johnson. Why?
9473
9474Mr. Strzok. Because, in my experience, there is a point which
9475negotiating with counsel hits a stage that is not productive or is
9476taking too long. And my belief is that, if you have the ability,
9477through a subpoena, certainly a search warrant, to go get that evidence,
9478it is frequently the most effective way either to get it, or usually,
9479frequently, in my experience, the threat of that will cause counsel
9480to then come forward voluntarily and produce the information you want?
9481
9482Mr. Johnson. Did Lisa Page advocate for or against the use of
9483compulsory process in the investigation?
9484
9485Mr. Strzok. She advocated for it?
9486
9487Mr. Johnson. Why do you think she did that?
9488
9489Mr. Strzok. I think -- you would have to ask her. My belief is
9490
9491that she felt a, you know, aggressive investigation is the appropriate
9492
9493way that the Bureau should be pursuing all its work?
9494Mr. Johnson. Were there disagreements in when to use or not use
9495compulsory process between the FBI team and the DOJ team?
9496
9497Mr. Strzok. There were?
9498
9499 
9500
9501Mr. Johnson. Generally, when there were disagreements, what was
9502 
9503the DOJ's position?
9504
9505Mr. Strzok. I don't want -- it wouldn't be right for me to
9506generalize. I think, having said that, that typically Bureau agents
9507and investigators and certainly me in this context tend to be much more
9508aggressive in our desire to use compulsory process and to pursue
9509information, because our motivation tends to be just to get the
9510information. We want to build as comprehensive a picture and
9511understanding of what occurred, whereas DOJ attorneys are looking at
9512it from a little bit -- prosecutors -- from a different perspective.
9513They are not only -- of course they want the facts, but they have
9514concerns about how to introduce that at trial and whether or not this
9515is something that is going to address a particular element of the crime?
9516
9517And that, in my career, has been a very natural tension point.
9518So I think it's entirely consistent in this case that we tended to be
9519more aggressive, in many instances, in pushing for a compulsory process
9520than DOJ was.
9521
9522Mr. Johnson. Is it fair to say that, in the Clinton email
9523
9524investigation, that you adhered to the general philosophy, if you will,
9525
9526of FBI lawyers that you were going to demand and be on the side of those
9527seeking aggressive investigation using compulsory process?
9528
9529Mr. Strzok. Yes, I think it's fair that me and the investigative
9530team were absolutely aggressive in trying to pursue the facts and,
9531specifically, to include compulsory process?
9532
9533Mr. Johnson. You treated this investigation the same way that
9534
9535 
9536
9537you would treat any other investigation?
9538 
9539Mr. Strzok. I did?
9540
9541Mr. Johnson. Did you ever come to believe or think that career
9542prosecutors disagreed with your more aggressive approach based on
9543legitimate legal differences of opinion?
9544
9545Mr. Strzok. Yes. If I'm hearing you correctly, I did believe
9546that the disagreements were based on legitimate disagreements based
9547on legal reasons?
9548
9549Mr. Johnson. Did you think that the DOJ career prosecutors were
9550making these decisions based on their personal political views?
9551
9552Mr. Strzok. No?
9553
9554[Strzok Exhibit No. 18
9555Was marked for identification. |
9556
9557Mr. Johnson. Sir, I'd like to turn to what's been marked as
9558exhibit 18, which is a section of the Inspector General's report. And
9559I'd like to take you to chapter 5, section 3 and 4.
9560
9561Mr. Strzok. What page is that, sir.
9562
9563Okay. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
9564
9565Mr. Johnson. And I'd like to go through that section to discuss
9566the use of compulsory process in the investigation.
9567
9568Did you -- or have you had an opportunity to read this section
9569of the IG report?
9570
9571Mr. Strzok. I have.
9572
9573Mr. Johnson = Are you familiar with the use of compulsory
9574
9575evidence in the MYE investigation?
9576
9577 
9578
9579Mr. Strzok. Compulsory instruments to get that evidence, yes,
9580 
9581Mr. Johnson. Iwill direct you to specific parts of this excerpt,
9582but if you need any additional time to review or read in depth, please
9583let me know.
9584
9585Strzok. Thank you.
9586
9587Mr. Johnson. On the page numbered 79, the first paragraph after
9588the subheader reads as follows: "Despite the public perception that
9589the Midyear investigation did not use a grand jury, and instead relied
9590exclusively on consent, we found that agents and prosecutors did use
9591grand jury subpoenas and other compulsory process to gain access to
9592documentary and digital evidence. According to documents we reviewed,
9593
9594at least 56 grand jury subpoenas were issued, five court orders were
9595
9596obtained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2703(d) (2703(d) orders), and
9597
9598three search warrants were granted."
9599
9600Were you part of the decision to issue any of the 56 grand jury
9601subpoenas?
9602
9603Mr. Strzok. Yes, I was aware of them. I was -- again, those
9604issuance were at levels below me, but I was certainly aware of all of
9605baat
9606
9607Mr. Johnson. Were you part of the decision to issue any of the
96085703(d) orders?
9609
9610Mr. Strzok. Yes. 2703(d), yes, sir.
9611
9612Mr. Johnson. Were you part of the decision to issue any of the
9613
9614three search warrants?
9615
9616 
9617
9618Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
9619 
9620Mr. Johnson. In fact, if you turn to page 85, end of the first
9621
9622line, the IG report describes an instance where you and Lisa Page appear
9623
9624to author a list of instances where you had clashed with the DOJ
9625prosecutors’ decisions to negotiate with counsel.
9626
9627The report reads, quote, "Strzok told us that at the time he wrote
9628this email, he was ‘aggravated by the limitations’ that the prosecutors
9629were placing on the FBI's ability to obtain evidence and felt that ‘if
9630you add up this delta over a bunch of decisions, all of a sudden it
9631becomes substantive. '"
9632
9633Are these sections of the Inspector General's report consistent
9634with your general experience on the Midyear review, that you were
9635aggravated by DOJ's caution?
9636
9637Mr. Strzok At times, yes, I was.
9638
9639Mr. Johnson. Is the description that you were aggravated by the
9640DOJ's hesitance to seek compulsory process accurate?
9641
9642Mr. Strzok. I was at times aggravated by it, yes, that's
9643accurate.
9644
9645Mr. Johnson. You were aggravated at times.
9646
9647Mr. Strzok. At times, yes, sir.
9648
9649Mr. Johnson. Generally, why did the FBI advocate for the use of
9650compulsory process?
9651
9652Mr. Strzok. Again, because I think, in my experience, that there
9653comes a time you can ask for something, and frequently that becomes
9654
9655very slow, or you end up ina series of negotiations which overly limit
9656
9657 
9658
9659access to the material that you'd like to have. And in those instances
9660 
9661where for those items of evidence you have enough to either issue a
9662subpoena or a search warrant or get a 2703(d) order, my experience is
9663that you just doit. It's faster. It's more aggressive. It cuts to
9664the chase. And more than that, it also sends a tone to all the parties,
9665to opposing counsel, to the team, to the prosecutors, that, you know,
9666we're being aggressive, we're driving down the process of this
9667investigation to get to a resolution.
9668
9669So I think it's important for all of those reasons.
9670
9671Mr. Johnson. And, again, generally, why did the career
9672prosecutors in this case favor obtaining evidence through consent?
9673
9674Mr. Strzok. Sir, I think you need to ask them. I think that
9675all -- I think every one of those decisions is a little bit different.
9676I think that, again, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, they are
9677looking at -- they're looking with a different lens at the material.
9678They're looking at its relevance to the elements of the crime. They
9679
9680are looking at the legality and the admissibility of some of the
9681
9682evidence. They are looking at future back-and-forth with opposing
9683
9684counsel and developing a relationship over the span of a case. Sol
9685think every particular item probably has a different set of
9686circumstances.
9687
9688Mr. Johnson. Did you think that the career prosecutors disagreed
9689with the FBI based on legitimate legal differences of opinion?
9690
9691Mr. Strzok. Generally, yes. I think sometimes I was probably
9692
9693frustrated. I wished they were a little more gung-ho. But,
9694
9695 
9696
9697generally, yeah, I think it was absolutely legitimate disagreement.
9698 
9699
9700COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
9701Mr. Johnson. Did you think that the DOJ career prosecutors were
9702making these decisions based on their personal political views?
9703Mr. Strzok. No.
9704
9705Mr. Johnson. In your experience, did any senior political
9706
9707leaders at DOJ intervene in the decision to seek or not seek compulsory
9708
9709process? And I'll give you these names.
9710
9711Loretta Lynch?
9712
9713Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge.
9714
9715Mr. Johnson. Sally Yates?
9716
9717Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge.
9718
9719Mr. Johnson. Matt Axelrod?
9720
9721Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge.
9722
9723Mr. Johnson. John Carlin.
9724
9725Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge.
9726
9727Mr. Johnson Did any of the agreements on how to obtain evidence
9728affect the thoroughness of the investigation?
9729
9730Mr. Strzok. No.
9731
9732Mr. Johnson. In your experience, is it common to have
9733disagreements between FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors working on a case?
9734
9735Mr. Strzok. Yes.
9736
9737Mr. Johnson. Is it common for the FBI to want to move more quickly
9738or aggressively and for the DOJ to ask for more evidence or to take
9739a more cautious approach?
9740
9741Mr. Strzok. Yes, that's fair.
9742
9743 
9744
9745Mr. Johnson. Based on your answers to this section, is it fai
9746COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
9747
9748 
9749to say that you were aggressive in suggesting that the Clinton email
9750investigation make use of compulsory process?
9751Mr. Strzok. Yes.
9752
9753Mr. Johnson. And is it also fair to say that you believe that
9754
9755prosecutors disagreed with your suggestions based on legitimate legal
9756
9757differences in opinion and not because of political bias?
9758
9759Mr. Strzok. Yes.
9760
9761Mr. Johnson. Okay.
9762
9763Sir, I want to turn your attention to the reopening of the Clinton
9764email investigation after the discovery of emails on Anthony Weiner's
9765laptop. Were you a part of the process of reopening -- or the decision
9766to reopen the investigation?
9767
9768Mr. Strzok. Yes.
9769
9770Mr. Johnson. Did you help draft the December 2016 letter that
9771Director Comey sent to Congress announcing the reopening of the Clinton
9772email investigation?
9773
9774Mr. Strzok. I believe it was October 2016. Yes.
9775
9776Mr. Johnson. You participated in the drafting of that letter?
9777
9778Mr. Strzok. I did.
9779
9780Mr. Johnson. Was it your understanding that that letter would
9781be to Congress and would not be made public?
9782
9783Mr. Strzok. My understanding was it was likely to immediately
9784be made public.
9785
9786Mr. Johnson. Well, let me ask you this question. Did you still
9787
9788 
9789
9790support sending the letter even if it would become public?
9791 
9792
9793COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
9794Mr. Strzok. I ultimately supported the decision to send the
9795letter by Director Comey, to send the letter to Congress.
9796
9797Mr. Johnson. Why did you support sending that letter to
9798Congress?
9799
9800Mr. Strzok. Congressman, it was an extraordinarily difficult
9801decision, and I was one of a number of people who was in the debate
9802in advising Director Comey. I think he has spoken at length and
9803
9804eloquently about his thought process before this body as well as in
9805
9806his book and in public. It was a decision that none of us took lightly
9807
9808and a decision that, I think, for all of us, was right on the margin.
9809I think for everybody it was a 51-49 sort of thought.
9810
9811I think, at the end of the day, given the fact that Director Comey
9812had made the speech that he did on July 5th and the inference that,
9813if there was a change, that he -- in subsequent statements to Congress
9814that he had made, that for a variety of reasons, but certainly one of
9815those reasons, that were we to reopen active investigation, that he
9816and the FBI had an obligation to notify Congress.
9817
9818So I don't want to speak to all of the reasons. That's not a
9819question for him, and I think he's answered that. But that's my
9820understanding of one of the many reasons why it was done.
9821
9822Mr. Johnson. Did you agree with the decision to reopen the email
9823investigation after the discovery of the emails on Anthony Weiner's
9824laptop?
9825
9826Mr. Strzok. Yes, I did.
9827
9828 
9829
9830Mr. Johnson. And you supported the sending of the letter that
9831 
9832you helped draft to Congress?
9833
9834Mr. Strzok. With not nearly the same surety that I had that we
9835needed to reactivate the investigation, but, yes, I did support it.
9836
9837Mr. Johnson. You knew that it would be made public?
9838
9839Mr. Strzok. I did. Well, I -- yes, I suspected it to a level
9840of belief that it was almost certain.
9841
9842Mr. Johnson. And you knew that it would hurt the Hillary Clinton
9843campaign, did you not, if it became public?
9844
9845Mr. Strzok. I did. Yes, I did.
9846
9847Mr. Johnson. But, still, you acquiesced in sending the letter?
9848
9849Mr. Strzok. I don't think "acquiesce" is the right word. I
9850think, after debate, I agreed with the decision.
9851
9852Mr. Johnson. Okay. Thank you.
9853
9854Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
9855
9856Ms. Kim. We'll go off the record for a second. Thank you. The
9857time is 5:32.
9858
9859[Discussion off the record. ]
9860
9861Ms. Kim. We're going to go back ontherecord. The time is 5:33.
9862
9863Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Strzok, I'm David Cicilline from Rhode
9864
9865Mr. Strzok. Sir, good afternoon.
9866Mr. Cicilline. Good afternoon.
9867
9868I just want to begin with one brief question where Mr. Johnson
9869
9870left off. I think you said you agreed with the decision and maybe even
9871
9872 
9873
9874participated in the discussion about the appropriateness of notifying
9875 
9876
9877COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
9878Congress about the reopening of the Clinton investigation.
9879
9880Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
9881
9882Mr. Cicilline. And you knew at the time that that was likely to
9883be made public and likely to do harm to her candidacy.
9884
9885Mr. Strzok. Yes.
9886
9887Mr. Cicilline. And did you contribute to that decision as a
9888result of bias that you had toward Hillary Clinton?
9889
9890Mr. Strzok. No.
9891
9892Mr. Cicilline. What contributed to your rendering that decision
9893along with your colleagues?
9894
9895Mr. Strzok. It was solely driven by the objective pursuit of the
9896investigation and the right thing to do with regard to Bureau policies
9897and past actions.
9898
9899Mr. Cicilline. So, when we heard our colleagues spend a lot of
9900time today suggesting you had bias against President Trump, or
9901candidate Trump, how would that square with your decision to divulge
9902something that you knew would be harmful to her election and may, in
9903fact, have significantly contributed to her loss?
9904
9905Mr. Strzok. Sir, I think that's the absolute deep underlying
9906fallacy and irony of this entire line. The things that I
9907
9908did -- immediately sending agents to contact New York, advocating that
9909
9910we needed to open the Case as soon as I found out that there was
9911
9912potentially relevant information, drafting the letter to Congress,
9913
9914while at the same time saying nothing, keeping extraordinarily
9915
9916 
9917
9918compartmented the work we were doing with regard to the Russian
9919 
9920influence investigations -- all of those actions universally -- and
9921none of these were driven by these considerations, but all of those
9922actions were to the detriment of the candidacy of Secretary Clinton
9923and to the benefit of candidate Trump.
9924
9925So it's extraordinarily -- "ironic" is probably a very kind word,
9926that that's the perception being attempted to be portrayed.
9927
9928Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
9929
9930I now want to turn your attention to the July 5th, 2016, statement
9931that Director Comey drafted on the Clinton investigation recommending
9932not to prosecute Secretary Clinton, and I'd like to walk you through
9933what happened in a little more detail.
9934
9935Can you describe the general process that Director Comey used in
9936drafting the July 5th statement on the Clinton investigation, and,
9937particularly, what was your role in drafting or editing the statement?
9938
9939Mr. Strzok. So I don't know how he drafted it. When I was
9940
9941forwarded -- my recollection is that I was forwarded an email by Deputy
9942
9943Director McCabe of something Director Comey had written a draft. I
9944don't know the process or how he did it, but, in any event, it was
9945forwarded to me. A small number of folks on the team and kind of asked
9946for, you know, thoughts, what do you think about this.
9947
9948And then, following that point in time, there were enumerable
9949discussions amongst the investigative team about that statement and
9950things ranging -- again, I mentioned earlier, factual accuracies,
9951
9952things that we could state, the most appropriate and accurate way to
9953
9954 
9955
9956state things, interpretations of law, past practice of law,
9957 
9958characterization of law, and putting that all together in a way that
9959would be understandable by somebody who wasn't a lawyer.
9960
9961Mr. Cicilline. And the first time that you saw that was receiving
9962a draft that you understood was prepared by Director Comey himself,
9963correct?
9964
9965Mr. Strzok. That's my understanding.
9966
9967Mr. Cicilline. And that would've been in an email that you
9968received from Mr. McCabe on May 6 of 2016.
9969
9970Mr. Strzok. I don't know that. If you do, I'll take your
9971representation.
9972
9973Mr. Cicilline. Okay.
9974
9975Who held the authority to approve the final language of the
9976July 5th, 2016, statement?
9977
9978Mr. Strzok. Director Comey.
9979
9980Mr. Cicilline. So you didn't have the authority to approve the
9981
9982final language or the statement recommending not to prosecute Secretary
9983
9984Clinton. Is that right?
9985
9986Mr. Strzok. That's right.
9987
9988Mr. Cicilline. And did you ever make edits or suggestions,
9989modifications to that statement with the purpose of helping Secretary
9990Clinton or damaging the Trump campaign?
9991
9992Mr. Strzok. No.
9993
9994Mr. Cicilline. Did anyone else, to your knowledge?
9995
9996Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge, no.
9997
9998 
9999
10000Mr. Cicilline. Did you ever push back on the group consensus on
10001 
10002the legal conclusions that were made during the drafting process? Some
10003of them you have discussed already in this testimony.
10004
10005Mr. Strzok. "Push back" I think -- I don't know that I would use
10006
10007that word. There was a lot of robust discussion about the various legal
10008
10009aspects. But all of the conclusions, I think, were supported by the
10010facts and law and precedent.
10011
10012Mr. Cicilline. And were the members of the Midyear Exam FBI team
10013free to express their concerns throughout the drafting process?
10014
10015Mr. Strzok. Yes.
10016
10017Mr. Cicilline. And do you recall any member of the team
10018expressing significant disagreements about the statement's final
10019wording?
10020
10021Mr. Strzok. I do not.
10022
10023Mr. Cicilline. Did anyone significantly disagree with the final
10024language in Director Comey's July 5th, 2016, press statement?
10025
10026Mr. Strzok. No.
10027
10028Mr. Cicilline. Now, there has been a lot of excitement by my
10029colleagues on the other side of aisle about the initial statement being
10030drafted before the FBI officially closed the Clinton investigation in
10031July 2016. And some have even suggested something suspicious about
10032sare
10033
10034Would you explain -- do you believe that Director Comey acted
10035improperly or prematurely by drafting an initial statement before
10036
10037Secretary Clinton and other interviews occurred? Can you explain why
10038
10039 
10040
10041or why not? And is that an unusual practice in the normal course of
10042 
10043an investigation?
10044
10045Mr. Strzok. So I don't think it is unusual to think about the
10046violations or exposure any particular individual may or may not have.
10047This was unusual in that that statement was made with regard to an
10048individual that we were not going to recommend charges. But setting
10049that aside, I don't think the fact that prior to the conclusion of a
10050
10051case, particularly one that's particularly intensive and has had a lot
10052
10053of work done, that prosecutors and agents arrived at an understanding
10054
10055before the case is complete that there are significant flaws in some
10056or all potential charges or absolutely strong, sustainable charges.
10057So it is not -- my observation is that, in a big case, it can
10058frequently occur that people have an idea well before the end of the
10059case whether or not you're going to be able to overcome hurdles to
10060prosecution.
10061Mr. Cicilline. Thank you.
10062I'm going to now ask you to turn your attention to an exhibit tha
10063I'd ask be marked as exhibit 11 and ask, do you recognize this email?
10064[Strzok Exhibit No. 11
10065Was marked for identification. ]
10066Mr. Strzok. I do.
10067Mr. Cicilline. And was it written by you alone, or was it a
10068reflection of a collaborative discussion?
10069Mr. Strzok. It was a collaborative discussion.
10070
10071Mr. Cicilline. And the email has a redacted name. Do you
10072
10073 
10074
10075remember who besides you and Jon Moffa collaborated on this email?
10076 
10077Mr. Strzok. I don't. It's one of two people, Ms. Page or
10078another OGC attorney.
10079
10080Mr. Cicilline. And if you turn to the second page, under the
10081
10082subheader, "Topic for Further Discussion,” you wrote: "6) Whether
10083
10084her conduct rises to the legal definition of gross negligence." Do
10085you see that?
10086
10087Mr. Strzok. I do.
10088
10089Mr. Cicilline. Why did the team need to have further discussion
10090about whether Secretary Clinton's conduct rose to the legal definition
10091of gross negligence?
10092
10093Mr. Strzok. Because this -- my recollection, sir, is this came
10094up in the context of going through the draft statement. Some of the
10095attorneys, if I recall correctly -- it was not me, but I think it was
10096one of the attorneys raised the question, okay, well, he's saying here
10097gross negligence. Is that what he means, that is, I'mnot an attorney,
10098but that is -- that carries a legal definition with it. Clearly it's
10099part of the statutes, but it also goes to, you know, an application
10100across a variety of statutes.
10101
10102And so, as I recall the issue being raised by the attorneys, it
10103was: Hey, we need to talk about this because I'm not sure that it is
10104exactly right here. And that presence there on that list, this topic
10105number 6, is simply flagging that for future discussion.
10106
10107Mr. Cicilline. And, in that discussion, do you recall whether
10108
10109or not a member of the team was concerned specifically about using
10110
10111 
10112
10113language that is also a legal standard and that that might result in
10114 
10115some confusion?
10116
10117Mr. Strzok. That is my recollection of part of what the concern
10118
10119Mr. Cicilline. And were you the first to raise this concern, or
10120was it a view of others in the group?
10121
10122Mr. Strzok. Ididn't raise it. It was the view of others in the
10123group. And my recollection is, certainly, on the team with the DOJ
10124attorneys, this issue of demonstrating intent and the scienter elements
10125was something we had discussed in the past. I don't know if, in the
10126context of the Director, this point had been raised or not. It may
10127have been, but I just don't remember.
10128
10129Mr. Cicilline. Do you recall whether you had a view on this
10130question?
10131
10132Mr. Strzok. My view was that it was complicated, and I didn't
10133understand the issue in the way the really bright attorneys did.
10134
10135Mr. Cicilline. Did the team ultimately reach a consensus on
10136whether Secretary Clinton had acted in a grossly negligent manner?
10137
10138Mr. Strzok. I think the closest I would say -- and I would defer
10139to the attorneys. I think, as I recall it, there was some concern as
10140
10141to whether or not we could demonstrate that because of how that was
10142
10143defined in various ways in various courts. But, again, that is my
10144
10145nonattorney, nonlegal understanding of the issue.
10146[Strzok Exhibit No. 12
10147
10148Was marked for identification. ]
10149
10150 
10151
10152Mr. Cicilline. Now I'm going to ask you, Mr. Strzok, to look at
10153 
10154a document that has been marked as exhibit 12. This is an exhibit of
10155a resolution introduced by Republican Members of Congress on May 22nd,
101562018, requesting that the Attorney General appoint a second special
10157counsel to investigate the Department of Justice and the FBI.
10158
10159On page 4, the first clause begins, and I quote, “Whereas Director
10160Comey, in the final draft of his statement, allowed FBI Agent Peter
10161Strzok to replace ‘grossly negligent,’ which is legally punishable
10162
10163under Federal law, with ‘extremely careless,’ which is not legally
10164punishable under Federal law."
10165
10166Do you see that paragraph?
10167
10168Mr. Strzok. I do.
10169
10170Mr. Cicilline. And, Mr. Strzok, do you agree with the
10171
10172characterization that Director Comey, and I quote, allowed you to
10173
10174replace "grossly negligent" with "extremely careless"?
10175
10176Mr. Strzok. No.
10177
10178Mr. Cicilline. At the time "grossly negligent" was used in the
10179initial draft, did Director Comey's statement conclude that the FBI
10180recommended prosecution of Secretary Clinton?
10181
10182Mr. Strzok. It did not recommend that.
10183
10184Mr. Cicilline. Did the edit of replacing "grossly negligent"
10185with "extremely careless" change the FBI's substantive conclusion in
10186ela ae Th ars
10187
10188Mr. trzok. No.
10189
10190Mr. Cicilline. Do you recall specifically whether that edit was
10191
10192 
10193
10194made by you or someone else?
10195 
10196Mr. Strzok. It was not made by me. A bunch of us were sitting
10197in my office. It is possible I was typing that in, but it was -- that
10198change was not submitted by me.
10199
10200Mr. Cicilline. And was that change a reflection of the opinion
10201of the group?
10202
10203Mr. Strzok. It was certainly the opinion of the attorneys, who
10204I think explained to the group in a way that we said, yes, we agree
10205or that makes sense, to the extent we understand it.
10206
10207Mr. Cicilline. And why, ultimately, was the edit made?
10208
10209Mr. Strzok. Ithink because, one, the director decided he wanted
10210
10211it made; two, I think it was the consensus that it was, from a legal
10212
10213and common reading perspective, the most appropriate -- or a better
10214way to say what Director Comey was trying to convey.
10215
10216Mr. Cicilline. So the assertion that's made in this official
10217document by Republican Members of Congress about you is false as it
10218relates to you changing the word.
10219
10220Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
10221
10222Mr. Cicilline. Now I'm going to ask you, Mr. Strzok, if you would
10223turn to page 3, where the fourth clause states, and I quote, “Wherea
10224according to transcripts obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee,
10225former Director Comey was prepared to exonerate Hillary Clinton as
10226early as April or May of 2016 when he began to draft a statement
10227announcing the end of his investigation, before up to 17 key witnesses,
10228
10229including former Secretary Clinton and several of her closest aides
10230
10231 
10232
10233were interviewed."
10234 
10235
10236COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
10237Mr. Strzok, is it accurate to say former Director Comey was
10238
10239prepared to exonerate Hillary Clinton as early as April or May of 2016?
10240
10241Mr. Strzok. I don't believe that's accurate.
10242
10243Mr. Cicilline. If the FBI's interviews of Secretary Clinton and
10244others produced new evidence that supported prosecuting Secretary
10245Clinton, would the FBI have ignored that evidence and stuck with the
10246existing draft statement?
10247
10248Mr. Strzok. No.
10249
10250Mr. Cicilline. In other words, did the initial draft statements
10251in the spring of 2016 lock in the FBI's recommendations not to prosecute
10252regardless of any new evidence?
10253
10254Mr. Strzok. No.
10255
10256Mr. Cicilline. But the FBI did not actually receive new evidence
10257in these interviews that supported prosecuting Secretary Clinton.
10258Isn't that correct?
10259
10260Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
10261
10262Mr. Cicilline. And now I would ask you to turn --
10263
10264Mr. Strzok. Congressman, let me -- I would expand on that a
10265little bit. The information that we developed subsequent to the
10266drafting of that statement did not get us to the point where I think
10267Director Comey could reasonably conclude that charges were
10268appropriate.
10269
10270Mr. Cicilline. And I just want to say that the IG report, at page
10271
10272238, and I quote, found: We found no evidence that Comey's public
10273
10274 
10275
10276statement announcing the FBI's decision to close the investigation was
10277 
10278the result of bias or an effort to influence the election. Instead,
10279the documentary and testamentary evidence reviewed by the OIG reflected
10280that Comey's decision was a result of his consideration of the evidence
10281that the FBI had collected during the course of the investigation and
10282his understanding of the proof required to pursue a prosecution under
10283the relevant statutes, end quote.
10284
10285Mr. Strzok, is that conclusion consistent with your experience?
10286
10287Mr. Strzok. Yes.
10288
10289Mr. Cicilline. So bias or an effort to influence the election
10290was not part of the FBI's decisionmaking in any way.
10291
10292Mr. Strzok. Correct.
10293
10294Mr. Cicilline. Do you have any reason to believe that Director
10295Comey's recommendations against prosecuting Hillary Clinton was
10296influenced by any improper conversations, including political bias?
10297
10298Mr. Strzok. No.
10299
10300Mr. Cicilline. Was your opinion influenced by political bias?
10301
10302Mr. Strzo No
10303
10304Mr. Cicilline. Or was your opinion based on facts and evidence,
10305as you've already stated?
10306
10307Mr. Strzok. Yes.
10308
10309Mr. Cicilline. So I want to just turn just for a moment now,
10310
10311Mr. Strzok, to this whole notion of political bias. I know the
10312
10313suggestion has been made that the vast majority of the FBI and the agents
10314
10315that serve the FBI are Democrats and they are biased in favor of
10316
10317 
10318
10319Democrats. Do you think that's a true statement?
10320 
10321Mr. Strzok. No.
10322
10323Mr. Cicilline. Are FBI agents and professionals such as yourself
10324allowed to have personal political affiliations and opinions?
10325
10326Mr. Strzok. Yes.
10327
10328Mr. Cicilline. When the FBI staffs a politically sensitive
10329investigation -- for example, a public corruption case -- does the FBI
10330requester the personal political persuasion of its agents in making
10331those staffing decisions?
10332
10333Mr. Strzok. No.
10334
10335Mr. Cicilline. Why not?
10336
10337Mr. Strzok. Because I don't know that it would be legal. That
10338is not a consideration that is taken into account, in my experience,
10339in staffing investigations.
10340
10341Mr. Cicilline. And is it also not the expectation that an FBI
10342
10343professional, whether they have a political persuasion or opinion, will
10344
10345understand their obligation to separate that from their duties at the
10346FBI?
10347
10348Mr. Strzok. They will understand that, yes.
10349
10350Mr. Cicilline. In fact, when the FBI puts together a team of
10351investigators, is the consideration ever, I need a couple of
10352Republicans or a couple of Democrats?
10353
10354Mr. Strzok. Never.
10355
10356Mr. Cicilline. Does the FBI ask about the political affiliations
10357
10358of its own agents?
10359
10360 
10361
10362Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge.
10363COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
10364
10365 
10366
10367COMMITTER SENSITIVE
10368Mr. Cicilline. And, in fact, is it explicitly forbidden for the
10369FBI to ask about political affiliations for staffing investigations?
10370
10371Mr. Strzok. That's my understanding, yes.
10372
10373Mr. Cicilline. And how do FBI agents know not to let political
10374bias interfere with their political work?
10375
10376Mr. Strzok. Because it is engrained in everything we do. It is
10377part of our training. It is part of the law. It is part of the code
10378and culture of who we are.
10379
10380Mr. Cicilline. And, in your experience, in your time at the FBI
10381
10382and with the Justice Department, have you seen evidence of anybody
10383
10384applying political bias in their investigation of any subject matter?
10385
10386Mr. Strzok. Not to my knowledge, no.
10387
10388Mr. Cicilline. Is there any reason to believe that Jim Comey's
10389political affiliation affected the way he investigated Secretary
10390Clinton's email server?
10391
10392Mr. Strzok. No.
10393
10394Mr. Cicilline. Now, the final area -- do I have time?
10395
10396Ms. Kim. Yes.
10397
10398Mr. Cicilline. You indicated in response to some earlier
10399questioning that you -- in responding to some of your -- describing
10400some of your tweets, that you were contemplating some possibilities
10401about the potential involvement of the Trump campaign or officials
10402within the Trump campaign to have actively coordinated with Russian
10403
10404adversaries during the course of the Presidential election.
10405
10406 
10407
10408rzok. Yes.
10409 
10410
10411COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
10412Mr. Cicilline. And I take it that any good investigator, as
10413you're learning facts and conducting interviews and gathering
10414evidence, part of your responsibility is to sort of contemplate
10415possibilities.
10416
10417Mr. Strzok. Yes.
10418
10419Mr. Cicilline. It helps you decide where to go and what
10420additional evidence to look for.
10421
10422Mr. Strzok. Yes.
10423
10424Mr. Cicilline. So you came at some moment in this investigation
10425
10426where the -- I think you described it as the gravest possibility -- you
10427
10428began to contemplate what you call the gravest possibility.
10429Mr. Strzok. Yes.
10430
10431Mr. Cicilline. And what was the gravest possibility, as you saw
10432
10433Mr. Strzok. The gravest possibility I saw, based on the
10434allegation that Russia was colluding with members of the Trump
10435campaign, the gravest possibility was that candidate Trump himself was
10436engaged in collusion with the Government of Russia to gain the
10437Presidency.
10438
10439Mr. Cicilline. And I'd take it, as a national security
10440professional, that if you saw evidence that proved that to be true,
10441you would consider that to be worthy of removal from office.
10442
10443Mr. Strzok. If that were true, I would, yes.
10444
10445Mr. Cicilline. And without telling us the nature of the evidence
10446
10447 
10448
10449in this setting, did there come a time during the course of this
10450OMMITTEE SENSITIVE
10451
10452 
10453
10454COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
10455investigation that the reality that that grave description we just
10456gave -- did you see evidence to support that claime
10457
10458Ms. Besse. I'm sorry, Congressman. If I may interrupt --
10459
10460Mr. Cicilline. Do I have a choice?
10461
10462Ms. Besse. ForMr. Strzok to answer that, it goes into, sort of,
10463what he looked at during the investigation that's now under the purview
10464of the special counsel. So I will instruct him not to answer that
10465question.
10466
10467Mr. Cicillin Okay. Evenif I -- I certainly respect that, and
10468
10469I'm not asking you in any way to comment on what you saw or the quality.
10470
10471I'm asking you to describe your state of mind after having done that.
10472
10473Ms. Besse. His state of mind is going to be based on evidence
10474that he was privy to and information that he knew --
10475
10476Mr. Cicilline. Okay. I'11 try something else.
10477
10478As you spent time during the course of this investigation doing
10479your work of interviewing witnesses, looking at evidence, did that
10480grave example that you used, as you would consider the gravest, most
10481dangerous thing, did you develop more or less concern that that was
10482a possibility?
10483
10484Ms. Besse. Congressman, I think that would also --
10485
10486Mr. Cicilline. I'm going to ask a much more skilled staffer to
10487ata mone
10488
10489Mr. Goelman. I don't know that it's amatter of skill. It's the
10490
10491question.
10492
10493 
10494 
10495Q Mr. Strzok, I'd like to touch quickly on a letter coming out
10496of the Senate today. So Senator Lindsey Graham sent a letter to the
10497Deputy Attorney General. I am PY egy Mim a=W? [OC -Sa Re) tT ORO OL
10498posed to the DOJ today.
10499
10500A Uh-huh.
10501
10502Q Soheasked: Did you, Mr. Strzok, have any role in retaining
10503or supervising the confidential informant who Lindsey Graham
10504characterizes as targeting the Trump campaign and Trump associates at
10505the beginning of the Russia probe?
10506
10507ry I can answer that, but my concern goes to a point that was
10508made earlier, that, by answering that,
10509
10510And I don't know that that's a path
10511
10512that we can go down.
10513
10514Ms. Besse. I'msorry. Is that a letter that was drafted to go
10515
10516out -- or went out today?
10517
10518Ms. Kim. It has gone out today, yes.
10519
10520Ms. Besse. So the FBI would have to look at that and make a
10521decision as to how and if it can respond to that. Sol don't think
10522that Mr. Strzok can respond to that.
10523
10524Ms. Kim. Iunderstand. Let metry to elec NOR ao 418
10525Ea
10526
10527Mr. Strzok, have you had any role in instructing a confidential
10528Tila eae a ee ade lee meee <a Cl Presidential campaign?
10529
10530Ms. Besse. Again, if it's based on his involvement in a specific
10531
10532 
10533
10534investigation, he will not be able to answer that question.
10535COMMITTEE SENSIT
10536
10537 
10538
10539COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
10540Ms. Kim. I understand the FBI's equities. The concern that I
10541
10542have is that, by not being able to clarify that he has never participated
10543
10544in the infiltration of the campaign, his good name is unnecessarily
10545
10546being dragged through the mud.
10547
10548Mr. Cicilline. Can I just say one thing? If, for sake of
10549argument, the answer to that were "no," then it's clearly not revealing
10550anything about an investigation because it's a fact that didn't happen.
10551So I think if the answer is "no," you can answer "no" without having
10552to comment on an ongoing investigation.
10553
10554Ms. Kim. And one more thing I'll raise is I am rephrasing almost
10555exactly a question I asked earlier to which Mr. Strzok was allowed to
10556respond.
10557
10558Mr. Goelman. Was allowed to respond?
10559
10560Ms. Kim. He was indeed.
10561
10562Mr. Goelman. Can we just have one moment?
10563
10564Ms. Kim. Yes.
10565
10566[Discussion off the record. ]
10567
10568Ms. Kim. I think we'll go back on the record. It's 6:00 p.m
10569
10570BY MS. KIM:
10571
10572Q Mr. Strzok, have you ever been a part of the FBI's efforts
10573to infiltrate a U.S. political campaign?
10574
10575A No.
10576
10577Q Have you ever been a part of an effort to put a spy in aU.S.
10578
10579political campaign?
10580
10581 
10582
10583A No.
10584COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
10585
10586 
10587Q I think if that's the best we can do, you've given those
10588answers, and I have no reason to doubt that you are --
10589
10590Mr. Cicilline. Can I add one thing?
10591
10592To your knowledge, at the time that you were at the Bureau, have
10593ou ever heard of that happening?
10594
10595Mr. Strzok. No. No, I do not have personal knowledge of that
10596
10597happening?
10598
10599Ms. Kim. Did you have any role in reviewing, approving, or
10600
10601supplying information for the FISA warrant obtained to surveil Carter
10602neey holes
10603
10604Mr. Strzok. I think we've asked and been unable to answer that
10605in the past?
10606
10607Ms. Besse. Yes. I think how it was phrased earlier was about
10608whether you signed --
10609
10610Ms. Kim. An affidavit.
10611
10612Ms. Besse. Right. So may we confer?
10613
10614Ms. Kim. Sure. Certainly.
10615
10616[Discussion off the record. ]
10617
10618Ms. Kim. We will go back on the record. It is 6:01.
10619
10620Mr. Goelman. The witness has been instructed by counsel for the
10621agency not to answer that question, and we'll abide by that direction.
10622
10623Ms. Kim. Thank you very much.
10624
10625I'll turn it over to Mr. Raskin.
10626
10627Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much.
10628
10629 
10630
10631Mr. Strzok, the criticism of you seems to come down to the
10632COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
10633
10634 
10635suggestion that the few texts that were identified somehow reflected
10636a general conspiracy that was going on to fix the Presidential contest.
10637Was there any political conspiracy at the FBI to alter the outcome of
10638the election?
10639
10640Mr. Strzok. Not that I'm aware of.
10641
10642Mr. Raskin. Okay. And do your texts reflect a conspiracy or an
10643agreement between you and your close friend to alter the outcome of the
10644election?
10645
10646Mr. Strzok. No.
10647
10648Mr. Raskin. Okay. Is all of this much ado about nothing?
10649
10650Mr. Strzok. I believe so, yes.
10651
10652Mr. Raskin. Do you view it as a massive distraction and red
10653herring?
10654
10655Mr. Strzok. I don't know that I'm ready to, kind of, go through
10656what I think it is. I do believe, yes, it is absolutely a distraction
10657and is not accurate in any way.
10658
10659Mr. Raskin. Okay.
10660
10661When we first got some portion of the texts that were disclosed
10662
10663to us by the Department of Justice, I noticed that there were these
10664
10665offhand political slams, I suppose I would call them, directed not just
10666
10667at President Trump but at Eric Holder, I think Hillary Clinton. I think
10668my friend Martin O'Malley came in for some hits. Bernie Sanders I think
10669was described at one point as an idiot, which was a word that was also
10670
10671used for President Trump.
10672
10673 
10674
10675Even at the informal level of personal banter, which your texts
10676 
10677about the President appeared to me, would you agree that you were making
10678
10679the same kinds of offhanded casual comments about other political
10680figures that people do in friendships all the time?
10681
10682Mr. Strzok. Yes.
10683
10684Mr. Raskin. And even within the paranoid view of these texts as
10685relating to, you know, some kind of ongoing belief system, if we accepted
10686that, we would have to accept that basically the dialogue reflects a
10687general irreverence or a general skepticism about politicians. Isn't
10688Lat Landes
10689
10690Mr. Strzok. That's fair.
10691
10692Mr. Raskin. Okay.
10693
10694And as I read the dialogue, it could have appeared in the texting
10695history of probably tens of millions of American. I mean, even the most
10696damning nuggets that your critics have seized upon, things like "he's
10697an idiot," could probably be found in tens of millions of texts.
10698
10699I mean, I suppose you're no expert on that, but would you agree
10700that the things that were said were said in the course of general
10701political vernacular that people speak to with their friends?
10702
10703Mr. Strzok. I do agree.
10704
10705Mr. Raskin. Okay.
10706
10707Okay. That's all I've got. Thanks.
10708
10709Ms. Kim. We will be going off the record now. It is 6:06.
10710
10711 
10712
10713ieee
10714COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
10715
10716 
10717
10718COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
10719[6:12 p.m. ]
10720
10721Chairman Goodlatte. We'll go back on the record at 6:12 p.m.
10722
10723Agent Strzok, you were asked earlier who made -- if you made the
10724decision on how to classify the Midyear Exam investigation, and you said
10725that you did not. Is that correct?
10726
10727Mr. Strzok. Mr. Chairman, that's correct.
10728
10729Chairman Goodlatte. Who did make that decision?
10730
10731Mr. Strzok I don't know. That was done before I joined the
10732case, and it would have been somebody at headquarters. But I don't know
10733who did that.
10734
10735Chairman Goodlatte. Who was in charge of the case at
10736headquarters?
10737
10738Mr. Strzok. My understanding was that it was run out of the
10739
10740Counterintelligence Division initially. Section Chief Sandy Kable had
10741
10742that effort and he had folks in his section working on it. At the time,
10743he reported to Randy Coleman, who was Bill Priestap's predecessor, and
10744then the chain, the deputy at the time was Mark Giuliano. The EAD, 1
10745don't know who that was at the time.
10746
10747Chairman Goodla Who ordinarily would make that
10748classification?
10749
10750Mr. Strzok. Ordinarily, if -- well, because it was at
10751headquarters, that is hard to answer. In the field, ordinarily that
10752would be the case agent and the supervisory special agent on the squad
10753
10754that was opening the case.
10755
10756 
10757
10758At headquarters, that would typically -- I don't think there's a
10759COMMITTER SENSITIVE
10760
10761 
10762
10763COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
10764ypically when it's at headquarters.
10765Chairman Goodlatte. Now, on the Trump-Russia investigation, who
10766was the subordinate supervisor to you that you referenced earlier?
10767Mr. Strzok. There were a couple of them. There was a supervisory
10768special agent. There was a supervisory intelligence analyst. Jon
10769Moffa and I, as we did in Midyear, kind of had parallel roles, but we
10770
10771were, for the Russia influence investigations, kind of at a higher level.
10772
10773But there was both the supervisory special agent and the supervisory
10774
10775intelligence analyst.
10776
10777Chairman Goodlatte. Now, I want to talk to you about your
10778communications with Lisa Page.
10779
10780Earlier you were asked whether you didn't think that some of the
10781expressions you made involving various obscene comments about Donald
10782Trump were hateful. I think you said you wouldn't call them that. You
10783would call them a reflection of personal belief in a private
10784conversation.
10785
10786Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
10787
10788Chairman Goodlatte. So do you not believe that you can make a
10789statement of personal belief in a private conversation that is of a
10790hateful nature?
10791
10792Mr. Strzok. Well, I do believe you can make a statement in a
10793private conversation that is of a hateful nature.
10794
10795Chairman Goodlatte. So would you characterize the statements
10796
10797that you made about Donald Trump in the private conversation as being
10798
10799 
10800
10801ateful?
10802COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
10803
10804 
10805
10806COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
10807Mr. Strzok. I would not.
10808
10809Chairman Goodlatte. Why would you not?
10810
10811Mr. Strzok. Because my -- when I think -- when you ask me what
10812it means for me to hate somebody, I do not hate President Trump.
10813That's -- in my mind, that is reserved for something entirely different
10814from that.
10815
10816I would characterize these, again, as I did before, private
10817expressions of personally held belief, certainly emotive, certainly
10818charged, but not hateful.
10819
10820Chairman Goodlatte. Now, you were asked about a text in which you
10821referenced being in a place where there were Trump supporters, and how
10822did you characterize them?
10823
10824Mr. Strzok. Sir, what I think I characterized them as earlier is
10825that I was struck by the difference in the way political support existed
10826in a constituency in southern Virginia so radically different from the
10827same State just 100 miles away that was of vastly different character.
10828
10829Chairman Goodlatte. You said you could smell.
10830
10831Mr. Strzok. Oh, yes, sir, I did say that.
10832
10833Chairman Goodlatte. And what does that mean?
10834
10835Mr. Strzo Sir, I -- and, again, I appreciate Congressman Gowdy
10836trying to dissect what that meant
10837
10838For me, that was a quick analogy. I'mtyping atext. It was just
10839
10840as likely if I could have used "see" or "hear." It was not anything
10841
10842other than just it is strikingly apparent to me the level of Trump support
10843
10844 
10845
10846here and how different that is from northern Virginia.
10847 
10848
10849COMMITTBRE SENSITIVE
10850Chairman Goodlatte. Now, you talked about risking the source
10851ersus pursuing the investigation as an explanation for your text
10852involving a reference to an insurance policy. Can you explain to me
10853why you would be saying this to Ms. Page in the first place?
10854
10855Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir, because she was -- my recollection from the
10856text -- was part of a discussion that we had in the context of having
10857received information from an extremely sensitive source, and that the
10858debate -- one of the debates on how to pursue this information was how
10859much risk to put that sensitive source in because, in my experience,
10860the more aggressive an investigation, the greater chance of burning or
10861compromising that source.
10862
10863And the reason, I believe, I mentioned it to Ms. Page, and
10864certainly from the context of the text in saying she threw it out, there
10865was a kind of thought process or a set of -- a proposal by some that,
10866look, the polls, the pundits, everybody, Republicans, Democrats, think
10867it's very unlikely that candidate Trump would win the Presidency.
10868
10869And because of that, some people were arguing these allegations
10870
10871of collusion, whatever they may or may not be in terms of accurate, it
10872
10873doesn't really matter as much because he's not going to get elected.
10874
10875So we can take, as many counterintelligence investigations do, 3,
108764 years, because we have that time.
10877
10878My argument back to those people advocating that was, look, we
10879can't assume anybody, one or the other, is going to get elected, even
10880
10881if it's unlikely, even if it's unlikely that you're going to die before
10882
10883 
10884
10885you're 40, even if it's unlikely that he, President -- then-candidate
10886 
10887
10888COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
10889Trump would be elected President. We need to do our job because the
10890mission of the FBI, what the American people, what Congress, what
10891candidate Trump expect is that we would go out and aggressively look
10892at those allegations because, if he were elected, some of those people
10893which might be wrapped up in those allegations might be placed in
10894positions of significant authority and responsibility in the national
10895security staffing of the White House.
10896
10897Chairman Goodlatte. So you call that an insurance policy?
10898
10899Mr. Strzok. Sir, that's an analogy that I use to try and say, when
10900there is something unlikely that probably isn't going to happen,
10901nevertheless you --
10902
10903Chairman Goodlatte. Can you understand why somebody reading that
10904
10905would believe that the insurance policy was a way to stop Donald Trump
10906
10907from becoming President or preventing him from continuing on as
10908President based upon improperly using the aggressive investigation that
10909you refer to here?
10910
10911Mr. Strzok. Mr. Chairman, I would tell you, one, it wasn't. And
10912two, I think the most commonsense reading of that, particularly given
10913my explanation, makes -- it is the most persuasive, simplest
10914understanding of that, because it's true, and that it was not.
10915
10916I know many people have said, you know, there's this inference,
10917and many people can have many interpretations of it, but I'm -- I wrote
10918it and I'm telling you what I meant.
10919
10920Chairman Goodlatte. Did you ever have any conversations with
10921
10922 
10923
10924Director Comey regarding these texts?
10925 
10926Mr. Strzok. No.
10927
10928Chairman Goodlatte. At any time?
10929
10930Mr. Strzok. No.
10931
10932Chairman Goodlatte. Never.
10933
10934Did you ever have any conversations with Lisa Page that are printed
10935other than the ones that we have been -- have been made available to
10936vig
10937
10938Mr. Strzok. I don't understand your question, sir.
10939
10940Chairman Goodlatte. The question is, are there existing texts
10941other than the ones that you and I both have been provided for in
10942preparation for this?
10943
10944Mr. Strzok. I believe there are texts that the inspector general
10945
10946is in the process of recovering. I don't have those and haven't seen
10947
10948them. But there is a -- my understanding, the FBI data systems had some
10949
10950sort of faulty software that did not preserve all the texts and that
10951the IG is recovering some of those.
10952Mr. Goelman. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, can I have 1 minute?
10953[Discussion off the record. }
10954Mr. Strzok. Right. So, sir, would you re-ask the question?
10955Chairman Goodlatte. Yes. So the question is, are there other
10956communications, written communications with Lisa Page, other than the
10957ones that we are asking you about based upon documents produced to us
10958and to you in preparation for today?
10959
10960Mr. Strzok. Yes. My understanding is that the inspector general
10961
10962 
10963
10964recovered texts that are purely of a personal nature that were not
10965 
10966
10967COMMITTEE SENSITIV
10968produced to me, to FBI, and I don't believe they've been produced to
10969a
10970
10971Chairman Goodlatte. And who made the determination that they were
10972of a personal nature?
10973
10974Mr. Strzok. I don't know.
10975
10976Chairman Goodlatt You don't know. And was the inspector
10977
10978general involved in his office, or was it somebody at the FBI or somebody
10979
10980in the Department of Justice?
10981
10982Mr. Strzok. No. My belief is that the entirety of the texts were
10983produced to the inspector general and the inspector general did the
10984separation, but you'd have to ask him.
10985
10986I also know that there has been a -- in the production kind of
10987review to say, okay, you know, if there are things that are personal
10988to redact it. But my understanding, but you'd have to ask the IG, is
10989that the IG and his staff did that separation.
10990
10991Chairman Goodlatte. Have you ever had conversations of the nature
10992regarding, I call them reflecting animus, if not hatefulness, with
10993regard to these communications with Ms. Page with any other person?
10994
10995Mr. Strzok. I have had conversations with some close friends
10996about my personal beliefs.
10997
10998Chairman Goodlatte. Are they -- are these communications
10999written?
11000
11001Mr. Strzok. No. The ones --
11002
11003Chairman Goodlatte. No texts with anybody other than Lisa Page?
11004
11005 
11006
11007Mr. Strzok. I have had communications, including texts with
11008 
11009friends, about personal topics, including my personal political
11010ola 5
11011Now, to, sir, to your question as of this nature, content, no.
11012Chairman Goodlatte. Reflecting what I would call -- you've
11013
11014decided to characterize it simply as a personal opinion, but personal
11015
11016opinions can be characterized by yourself and by others as reflecting
11017
11018an attitude, including a hateful attitude or an attitude of animus
11019towards somebody. Have you done that?
11020
11021Mr. Strzok. Not of the same nature, volume, no.
11022
11023Chairman Goodlatte. All right.
11024
11025Have you had conversations with other officials at the FBI
11026regarding these texts?
11027
11028Mr. Strzok. Yes.
11029
11030Chairman Goodlatte. With whom?
11031
11032Mr. Strzok. Then-Deputy Director McCabe, Associate Deputy
11033Director Bowdich.
11034
11035Chairman Goodlatte. Were these conversations before these texts
11036became known to the public or after?
11037
11038Mr. Strzok. These were before the texts became known to the
11039public.
11040
11041Chairman Goodlatte. Who else?
11042
11043Mr. Strzok. Sir, I'd have to think about it. What I'm ~-- what
11044I'm -- the reason I'm pausing is there may be in the context of friends,
11045
11046whether or not discussing the fact that we had had these exchanged and,
11047
11048 
11049
11050you know, reasons for returning to the FBI.
11051 
11052
11053COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
11054I remember speaking to both deputy director -- then-Deputy
11055Director McCabe and associate -- then-Associate Deputy Director Bowdich
11056in the context of the -- when I returned to the FBI and my placement
11057in the Human Resources Division. But I can't give you a specific answer
11058to whom else I might have discussed the texts with.
11059
11060Chairman Goodlatte. How about after they were made public?
11061
11062Mr. Strzok. Yes, the same answer. There were -- I could not give
11063you a list of people. There were folks obviously who were aware of it.
11064A large number of folks, you know, expressing support.
11065
11066Chairman Goodlatte. Surely you must remember some of them.
11067
11068Mr. Strzok. Sure, yes, Ido. I mean, I remember a lot of people
11069
11070being very supportive and reaching out and saying, "Hey, hang in there,"
11071
11072and things of that nature. So, yes, it was obviously very well
11073publicized and known.
11074
11075Chairman Goodlatte. So are there texts on personal devices that
11076haven't been produced to the inspector general or to the Congress?
11077
11078Mr. Strzok. Not that I am aware of, but I don't know where the --
11079
11080Chairman Goodlatte. Whether they were personal or not?
11081
11082Mr. Strzok. Not that I'm aware of, and I don't know the status
11083of the IG's work.
11084
11085Mr. Goelman. One second.
11086
11087[Discussion off the record. ]
11088
11089Chairman Goodlatte. Are there texts or emails or other written
11090
11091communications with anyone else inside or outside the Department of
11092
11093 
11094
11095Justice or the Federal Bureau of Investigation with whom you have had
11096COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
11097
11098 
11099a personal relationship of a nature similar to the relationship you have
11100had with Lisa Page?
11101
11102Mr. Strzok. No.
11103
11104Chairman Goodlatte. None whatsoever?
11105
11106Mr. Strzok. If you're implying an extramarital or romantic
11107relationship?
11108
11109Chairman Goodlatte. Correct.
11110
11111Mr. Strzok. No
11112
11113Chairman Goodlatte. You were asked, I think by the minority,
11114regarding FBI morale --
11115
11116Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
11117
11118Chairman Goodlatte. -- related to this. After the Comey
11119announcement of the decision not to indict former Secretary of State
11120Hillary Clinton, were there expressions of low morale that you received
11121from anybody in the Department related to that announcement and
11122decisione
11123
11124Mr. Strzok. Sir, I wouldn't characterize it as low morale. I
11125think it is absolutely fair to say that there were a significant number
11126of agents who either disagreed or didn't understand the reasoning behind
11127the decision not to charge her or with the decision to make a statement
11128about it. But I would not characterize those concerns or questions,
11129I would not at all equate those with low morale.
11130
11131Chairman Goodlatte. And how about after the decision made by
11132
11133Director Comey to reopen the investigation and the announcement through
11134
11135 
11136
11137a letter to me and others to reopen the investigation just days before
11138 
11139he Presidential election? What kind of expressions were made to you
11140
11141by others regarding their attitude toward that at that time?
11142
11143Mr. Strzok. I don't recall any specific statements. My
11144general -- my recollection of the general sense was this case just keeps
11145continuing, and it was neither a morale thing at all. I wouldn't even
11146say it's positive or negative other than, oh, you know, wow, we're still
11147here, still with this case. But that's a general sense, Mr. Chairman,
11148not a specific text or any conversation.
11149
11150Chairman Goodlatte. You indicated that you were surprised and
11151stunned by the firing of Director Comey.
11152
11153Mr. Strzok. Yes.
11154
11155Chairman Goodlatte. Did you ever speak to the deputy attorney
11156general or anyone in his office regarding your reaction to the deputy
11157attorney general's comments reinforcing the decision to terminate
11158Director Comey?
11159
11160Mr. Strzok. Not to my recollection.
11161
11162Chairman Goodlatte. Did you review those comments by the deputy
11163attorney general?
11164
11165Mr. Strzok. Yes, I read them, if you're talking about his -- the
11166material that he provided to the White House that was used and released
11167in the context of the reasoning for the firing for Director Comey.
11168
11169Chairman Goodlatte. Correct.
11170
11171Mr. Strzok Yes, I read them.
11172
11173Chairman Goodlatte. And what was your reaction to that?
11174
11175 
11176
11177Mr. Strzok. My reaction -- I had two reactions, Mr. Chairman.
11178 
11179
11180COMMITTBE SENSITIVE
11181The first was the kind of independent assessment of the deputy attorney
11182general about the precedential nature of what Director Comey had done
11183and his assessment of that and whether or not I thought that was a valid
11184assessment.
11185
11186And then my second reaction was, particularly in the face of the
11187statements by President Trump to Lester Holt, to Russian diplomats, that
11188the reason he had fired Mr. Comey had nothing to do with the rationale
11189in the deputy attorney general's letter and everything to do with the
11190Russia investigations gave me great pause about what the reasoning truly
11191was behind Director Comey's firing.
11192
11193Chairman Goodlatte. Getting back to this issue regarding Trump,
11194
11195you can smell the Trump supporters, what are the different demographics
11196
11197between northern Virginia and southern Virginia that would allow you
11198
11199to smell that difference?
11200
11201Mer. Strzok. Sir, again, smell, smell is the analogy that I
11202pulled. It could easily have been see, heard.
11203
11204What I observed from my very quick text, which was not at all a
11205scientific description, was that my observation was the area that I was
11206in, in central-southern Virginia, was almost exclusively and very
11207demonstrably pro-Trump, from the number of signs in front of homes and
11208bumper stickers, and was very much different from my experience here
11209in northern Virginia where it was a much more evenly split population.
11210
11211And my observation was simply, we're the same State, we're 100 or
11212
11213however many miles apart, and it is radically different, and just that
11214
11215 
11216
11217was striking to me.
11218 
11219Chairman Goodlatte. Now, you also testified earlier that the
11220existence of these texts could never have been used to blackmail you.
11221Why do you say that?
11222
11223Mr. Strzok. Because, sir, I am not -- my sense of duty, my
11224devotion to this Nation, if you or anybody else came to me and said,
11225"Pete, I'm aware of your extramarital affair and I have all these texts
11226and I am going to do whatever it is unless you do this," I would not
11227
11228do that; that my love of country and my sense of who I am could not be
11229
11230bought, let alone bought by something like this that, again, I absolutely
11231
11232regret, that caused extraordinary pain to my family. But the notion
11233that something like that could be used to turn me against my country
11234is absurd.
11235
11236Chairman Goodlatte. Isn't that a very common consideration by not
11237just the Department of Justice and the FBI when they do background checks
11238on all kinds of applicants for all kinds of positions all across our
11239oc Maan es
11240
11241Mr. Strzok. It is a consideration, but I would say a couple of
11242sh gro
11243
11244One, in my experience, successful recruitments, whether by the
11245United States or whether by a foreign adversary, has rarely been in my
11246experience through blackmail about an affair. It occurs but it's not
11247frequent.
11248
11249The other thing, I'm maybe being a little cynical, but if you look
11250
11251at the number of people in the government who have or are having affairs,
11252
11253 
11254
11255I would think that would cast some problems with your proposition.
11256COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
11257
11258 
11259
11260COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
11261Chairman Goodlatte. Well, not with the impact of it, because,
11262obviously, that's why these questions are asked.
11263
11264If you were asked that question for review for a new position with
11265the government, a promotion or a transfer to another agency or department
11266or appointment to a position that required confirmation by the United
11267States Senate, how would you have answered that question? It's on every
11268form.
11269
11270Mr. Strzok. Sir, what I would answer is, truthfully, and I would
11271to the extent that it -- and I don't know. I would have to reviewer
11272the SF-86 form to see how that's worded -- but certainly with regard
11273to, you know, your hypothetical of a confirmation hearing to say what
11274
11275I said here: I deeply regret the relationship, the affair, and the pain
11276
11277that it's caused my family, andI always will. And I take responsibility
11278
11279for that. And I am seeking to make amends and make things right where
11280I've caused pain in my personal life.
11281
11282Chairman Goodlatte. Would you acknowledge that that would be
11283grounds for suspending a security clearance?
11284
11285Mr. Strzok. I don't think it would be grounds for suspending a
11286security clearance. I think it is one of a mosaic--
11287
11288Chairman Goodlatte. Really?
11289
11290Mr. Strzok. I think it is one of a mosaic of factors that would
11291be taken into account.
11292
11293Sir, I am personally familiar with a number of individuals who have
11294
11295had extramarital affairs who retain -- after knowledge of that has
11296
11297 
11298
11299become known -- who've retained their clearances. So it is a factor,
11300 
11301
11302COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
11303but it is not the sole determinant factor.
11304
11305Chairman Goodlatte. So what would you say are those other
11306factors?
11307
11308Mr. Strzok. Ithink there are ahost. And again, I'mnota -- the
11309people who do security clearances have a -- are very professional and
11310they have a set of guidelines.
11311
11312But I think a wide variety of things from -- I don't even want to
11313
11314speculate down the list. But financial exposure, alcoholism, gambling
11315
11316problems, there are a host of things that go into the consideration about
11317the determination to grant a clearance.
11318
11319Chairman Goodlatte. So are you a registered voter in the
11320Commonwealth of Virginia?
11321
11322Mr. Strzok. I'm an independent, sir.
11323
11324Chairman Goodlatte. But you're registered to vote?
11325
11326Mr. Strzok. This question came up earlier. I am registered to
11327vote. And what I couldn't recall in Virginia is whether or not you have
11328to register as an independent to not --
11329
11330Chairman Goodlatte. There's no party registration in Virginia.
11331I know that very well.
11332
11333Mr. Strzok. I believe -- I will --
11334
11335Chairman Goodlatte. So no party registration, but you are
11336registered to vote in Virginia?
11337
11338Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
11339
11340Chairman Goodlatte. Okay. So do you generally vote in
11341
11342 
11343
11344elections?
11345 
11346Mr. Strzok. Yes, I do.
11347
11348Chairman Goodlatte. Consistently?
11349
11350Mr. Strzok. Yes.
11351
11352Chairman Goodlatte. General elections and primaries?
11353
11354Mr. Strzok. General elections certainly; primaries, it varies.
11355
11356Chairman Goodlatte. Important primaries, like Presidential
11357lana lan mses
11358
11359Mr. Strzok. Yes.
11360
11361Chairman Goodlatte. Did you vote in the Presidential primary in
11362vue
11363
11364Mr. Strzok. I did.
11365
11366Chairman Goodlatte. And which party did you cast a vote in?
11367
11368Mr. Strzok. Sir, I see a bedrock of our democracy being the
11369privacy of an individual's vote, and I don't think it's appropriate at
11370Bi
11371
11372Chairman Goodlatte. I didn't ask who you voted for; I asked you
11373which primary you voted in.
11374
11375Mr. Strzok. I actually -- because, again, you would know better
11376than I. I don't know if Virginia -- I think you may be allowed to vote
11377in both, but I don't recall.
11378
11379Chairman Goodlatte. No, you're not allowed to vote in both. You
11380have to pick.
11381
11382Mr. Strzok. Yes. And I don't recall. If I voted, I believe I
11383
11384voted in the Democratic primary because I did not vote in the Republican
11385
11386 
11387
11388primary. But I'm not certain I voted in the Democratic primary.
11389 
11390Chairman Goodlatte. Yet earlier you said you were considering
11391voting for John Kasich.
11392
11393Mr. Strzok. I was.
11394
11395Chairman Goodlatte. Allright. But if you decided to vote in the
11396Democratic primary, John Kasich would not have been on the ballot in
11397that primary.
11398
11399Mr. Strzok. That's right.
11400
11401Mr. Goelman. Was he still in the race?
11402
11403Mr. Strzok. Yeah. I don't know if he was -- yeah, sir, that's
11404a good question. I don't know if Governor Kasich was in the race at
11405the time of the primary or not.
11406
11407Chairman Goodlatte. All right. In a Supreme Court case handed
11408down just last year, the court reviewed whether statements made by a
11409juror that indicated racial bias required the piercing of jury
11410
11411deliberations.
11412
11413Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the court holding that racial
11414
11415bias exhibited by a juror provided an exception to the rule that jury
11416
11417deliberations must remain confidential because it is necessary to ensure
11418that our legal system remains capable of coming ever closer to the
11419promise of equal treatment under the law that is so central to a
11420functioning democracy.
11421
11422On several occasions you have referenced that the texts, in you
11423questions, were simply personal opinions exchanged with a close
11424
11425confidant and in no way reflected your intent to act on your opinions.
11426
11427 
11428
11429Is that correct?
11430 
11431Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
11432
11433Chairman Goodlatte. Yet, if you made these statements while on
11434
11435a jury, it is hard to imagine that you would not be kicked off immediately
11436
11437because of the risk that your bias would undermine a functioning
11438democracy, to quote Justice Kennedy.
11439
11440Do you still hold that personal opinions, even in the face of this
11441Supreme Court precedent, should not have tainted your involvement in
11442any investigation relating to Secretary Clinton or President Trump?
11443
11444Mr. Strzok. Sir, I don't think that Supreme Court decision
11445applies at all. I think you're talking about apples and oranges. I
11446think the Supreme Court decision is talking about opinions about
11447protected classes, race, religion, sexual orientation, things that by
11448law you must not take into account.
11449
11450I see that as entirely different from political belief, which is
11451not only specifically enumerated in the First Amendment, saying you're
11452entitled to it, but that this very body held in passing the Hatch Act
11453that there are things which in the interest of a functioning government
11454you're not allowed to do, and anything else not only is allowed, but
11455it's encouraged.
11456
11457So when it comes to political opinion, that is something that our
11458Nation, through the Constitution, has said we, unless specifically
11459prohibited, want to encourage everybody, government employee or not,
11460to engage in, which is very, very different from a protected class of
11461
11462race, sexual orientation, gender, or anything else.
11463
11464 
11465
11466And one more thing, sir. I disagree with you. You've said just
11467COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
11468
11469 
11470now and before that you make this equivalence that political opinion
11471equals bias, and I couldn't disagree more. I have political opinions.
11472I do not have bias, because bias implies act, and I have never acted
11473on the basis of any of my political opinion.
11474
11475Chairman Goodlatte. So you're sitting in a jury box and there's
11476a lawsuit involving President Trump and you have before you -- or
11477candidate Trump before, because most of this occurred before he was
11478elected President, right, most of the comments you made he was not
11479President of the United States -- you have an attorney before you who
11480reads to the judge the comments that you've made repeatedly over many
11481
11482months’ period of time reflecting what some of us would characterize
11483
11484as hatefulness or an animus, and you do not think that that judge would
11485
11486order you struck from that jury?
11487
11488Mr. Strzok. Sir, I don't want to -- I can't put myself in the
11489hypothetical of what would happen in that event. In the context of if
11490that same attorney had followed each of the jurors home and listened
11491to their conversations over a backyard barbecue where they discussed --
11492
11493Chairman Goodlatte. No, that didn't happen here.
11494
11495Mr. Strzok. But this is the analogy, sir.
11496
11497Chairman Goodlatte. No.
11498
11499Mr. Strzok. If they were to get those personal opinions and read
11500the thinking -- everybody has a personal opinion, sir, whether
11501you're -- in your mind or writing it --
11502
11503Chairman Goodlatte. Everybody has a personal opinion.
11504
11505 
11506
11507Everybody has a personal opinion. But the personal opinion is weighed
11508 
11509by the court to determine whether or not they can give a fair and
11510impartial decision in a case that's before them.
11511
11512Do you believe that a judge, acting in those circumstances, would
11513view the comments that you made -- and knowing that you made them in
11514private, not thinking they would ever be made public -- that judge would
11515leave you on that jury?
11516
11517Mr. Strzok. Sir, I can't answer that question.
11518
11519Chairman Goodlatte. Okay. Thank you. Those are all the
11520questions I have.
11521
11522Mr. Ratcliffe. Agent Strzok, I was asking you about when the
11523decision was made not to charge Hillary Clinton. And we were talking
11524
11525about a text exchange between you and Lisa Page on July the 1st where
11526
11527she related that the Attorney General was hardly a profile in courage
11528
11529since she knows she -- meaning Hillary Clinton -- is not going to be
11530charged. Do you recall that?
11531Mr. Strzok. I do.
11532Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. As it turns out, the very next day,
11533is the day that Hillary Clinton was interviewed, correct?
11534
11535. Strzok. I believe the 2nd or 3rd, but the 2nd sounds right,
11536
11537. Ratcliffe. Saturday, July the 2nd?
11538. Strzok. Yes.
11539. Ratcliffe. And you were part of that interview team?
11540
11541. Strzok. I was.
11542
11543 
11544
11545. Ratcliffe. How many folks from the FBI and DOJ attended
11546 
11547
11548COMMITTEB SENSITIVE
11549Secretary Clinton's interview?
11550
11551Mr. Strzok. There were three from the FBI and there were five from
11552
11553Mr. Ratcliffe. Who were the three from the FBI?
11554
11555Mr. Strzok. Me and two case agents.
11556
11557Mr. Ratcliffe. Who were the five from the Department of Justice?
11558
11559Mr. Strzok. Dave Laufman, who's a section chief, and then four
11560non-SES, two AUSAs from EDVA and two NSD attorneys.
11561
11562Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So eight folks from the Department of
11563Justice and the FBI?
11564
11565Mr. Strzok. A total of eight, yes.
11566
11567Mr. Ratcliffe. A total of eight, okay.
11568
11569Do you recall what prompted that text exchange earlier that week
11570between you and Ms. Page?
11571
11572Mr. Strzok. I think it was the -- it was the announcement by the
11573
11574then attorney general following -- I believe it was following the
11575
11576meeting she had had with President Clinton on the tarmac that she was
11577going to accept the recommendations of the FBI as to the charging
11578decision.
11579
11580Mr. Ratcliffe. Right. And probably the most famous tarmac
11581meeting that -- in American history.
11582
11583Mr. Strzok. I'm not an expert on tarmac meetings, but it
11584certainly was notable.
11585
11586Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you recall -- let's put it in context -- do you
11587
11588 
11589
11590recall that Director Comey called that tarmac meeting a game changer,
11591 
11592
11593COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
11594the reason that he held a press conference without the Department of
11595Justice?
11596
11597Mr. Strzok. Idon't recall him using -- I remember him saying the
11598word "game changer." I don't recall -- he may well have said it in
11599regard to that. I do know that it was a certainly very significant
11600consideration in his --
11601
11602Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you recall the attorney general testifying
11603before Congress and admitting that that meeting cast a shadow over the
11604Department of Justice?
11605
11606Mr. Strzok. I don't recall that, but I'll take your
11607representation of it.
11608
11609Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Well, do you recall a text exchange with
11610Ms. Page that week where you described it as stupid, stupid, stupid on
11611ait Tal meal as
11612
11613Mr. Strzok. I think that's right, but I just want to read the
11614(ofe]ah a> Gun
11615
11616Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, regardless of what the text says, it's
11617aval -mn ae
11618
11619Mr. Strzok. I think that's Lisa Page saying that, sir.
11620
11621Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Regard -- and my point about it being the
11622
11623most famous tarmac meeting, much of the country was speculating about
11624
11625what happened and what was said in that meeting.
11626Mr. Strzok. Yes, I was, too.
11627
11628Mr. Ratcliffe. Got a lot of media attention?
11629
11630 
11631 
11632Mr. Ratcliffe. All right. And do you know what was said in that
116331Csonen May ag
11634
11635Mr. Strzok. I don't.
11636
11637Mr. Ratcliffe. So5 days after that meeting, that I'll represent
11638to you Jim Comey called a game changer and that the Attorney General
11639said cast a shadow, you went in with eight folks from the Department
11640of Justice to interview Mrs. Clinton?
11641
11642Mr. Strzok. I went in with seven, but there were eight of us, yes.
11643
11644Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And that wasn't a recorded interview?
11645
11646Mr. Strzok. That's correct.
11647
11648Mr. Ratcliffe. All right. But we do have a 302?
11649
11650Mr. Strzok. Yes, sir.
11651
11652Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Have you had a chance to review the 302?
11653
11654Mr. Strzok. Not recently, no, sir.
11655
11656Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. But at any point in time?
11657
11658Mr. Strzok. Oh, yes, sir.
11659
11660Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. This is my only copy, so I'd like to get
11661
11662it back. But tell me where in that 302 there's a discussion with Hillary
11663
11664Clinton about the tarmac meeting.
11665Mr. Strzok. Sir, so this is the LHM summary of the investigation,
11666not the 302. But I'll stipulate to you having a copy of the 392.
11667My recollection is that I would need to review that 302 to see if
11668we asked about that or not. I don't recall whether we did or not.
11669
11670Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, you told me earlier, I asked you the question
11671
11672 
11673
11674do you know what was said in that meeting, and you said no.
11675 
11676Mr. Strzok. I do not know what was said in that meeting.
11677
11678Mr. Ratcliffe. I'll represent to you the 3@2 doesn't reference
11679the word "tarmac" anywhere.
11680
11681So my question to you is, if eight of the Department of Justice
11682and FBI's truth seekers were in a room with Hillary Clinton about a
11683meeting that everyone in the country was talking about that had happened
116845 days earlier, why didn't she get asked a single question about the
11685meeting between her husband and their boss at the Department of Justice?
11686
11687Mr. Strzok Sir, I'm not certain that she wasn't. I would need
11688to -- it may be the case, but I don't recall at this point. And I would
11689
11690need to look at the 302 and talk with the folks in the room to see whether
11691
11692or not we did and what she said and the reasoning behind it. I just
11693
11694don't remember that fact and whether or not it was asked about or not.
11695
11696Mr. Ratcliffe. Again, you already told me that you don't know what
11697was said in that meeting.
11698
11699Mr. Strzok. I do not know what was said in the meeting on the
11700tarmac, that's correct.
11701
11702Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So if Attorney General Lynch talked to the
11703subject's husband, Bill Clinton, about serving as the attorney general
11704in the -- in a Clinton administration, how would we know that?
11705
11706Mr. Strzok. I do not know how we'd know that, sir.
11707
11708Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, they could have talked about that?
11709
11710Mr. Strzok. I don't want to speculate. It's possible they could
11711
11712have talked about anything, but I have no idea what they did or didn't
11713
11714 
11715
11716talk about.
11717 
11718Mr. Ratcliffe. But if they talked about anything, wouldn't it be
11719eflected in the 302?
11720
11721Mr. Strzok. Secretary Clinton was not part of that conversation.
11722President Clinton was.
11723
11724Naren on Yeah. If a question was asked -- what does the
11725
11726302 do, for the benefit of the folks reading this transcript?
11727
11728Mr. Strzok 302 records the statements of the interview of the
11729person being interviewed.
11730
11731Mr. Ratcliffe. And would it record all of the topics covered?
11732
11733Mr. Strzok. Yes.
11734
11735Mr. Ratcliffe. And if atopic included a discussion about a tarmac
11736conversation between the subject's husband and the boss of five of the
11737people that walked in that room, would that be in the 302?
11738
11739Mr. Strzok. It would be.
11740
11741Mr. Ratcliffe. And if it's not, would that reflect that no
11742question was asked about that topic?
11743
11744Mr. Strzok. That is a possible explanation for it. That's a
11745hypothetical and that is --
11746
11747Mr. Ratcliffe. What other explanation would there be?
11748
11749Mr. Strzok. That's hard to answer. I would want to review that
117503@2 and talk to the agents, because honestly, Congressman, I don't
11751remember whether or not that was asked or not, sitting here now.
11752
11753Mr. Ratcliffe. And if it wasn't?
11754
11755Mr. Strzok. Congressman, I would note to you the purpose of our
11756
11757 
11758
11759investigation was to understand how classified information came to be
11760 
11761placed on her server. It was not to talk about the staffing of her
11762administration. It was not to talk about the Clinton Foundation. It
11763was not to talk about the price of tea in Chappaqua. It was to understand
11764the circumstances by which she set up a private server and how classified
11765information came to be placed on that server.
11766
11767So our interview and the scope of that interview were -- was to
11768address those concerns. And what we don't do if we're -- this is
11769not -- this is very much a standard procedure. We're going to go into
11770that interview to ask the matter about which we are investigating. If
11771we have allegations of another crime, of course, we might ask about that.
11772
11773But at this point, the optics of a what I believe to be a very
11774
11775ill-advised meeting on the tarmac were not indicia of illegal activity.
11776
11777So for us to get into a discussion, as I think about it, we may have
11778asked. You're saying we didn't. My sense is, if we did not ask, it's
11779because it had nothing to do with the matter and facts we were
11780investigating.
11781
11782Mr. Ratcliffe. But you're telling us under oath that eight folks
11783from the Department of Justice and FBI wouldn't think it was important
11784to ask a question of the subject's husband having a meeting with their
11785boss?
11786
11787Mr. Goelman. Just for the record, he's not under oath,
11788Congressman.
11789
11790Mr. Strzok. I'm saying to you that the -- it is not at all true
11791
11792that we did not see it as important or relevant.
11793
11794 
11795
11796Mr. Ratcliffe. You just answered a question about it.
11797COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
11798
11799 
11800Mr. Strzok. Without, sir, without talking to the team about what
11801the reasoning about asking that or not, I can't give you a definitive
11802answer. My sense, and I'm doing the very dangerous thing of
11803speculating, my sense is that we were focused on that interview on the
11804facts at hand in the investigation.
11805
11806But I would defer to talking to the team, because, again, it's been
11807a couple of years and --
11808
11809Mr. Jordan. Well, just a quick follow-up. I didn't plan on
11810asking this. Was it more important than the price of tea in Chappaqua?
11811
11812Mr. Strzok. Congressman, good afternoon.
11813
11814Yes, absolutely, it was more important. I don't know that, again,
11815
11816with regard to the relevance to the question as to why Secretary Clinton
11817
11818set up a private server and whether or not classified information came
11819to be placed there, whether or not she knew that and her involvement.
11820
11821Mr. Jordan. Did you ask about the price of tea in Chappaqua at
11822the interview with Secretary Clinton?
11823
11824Mr. Strzok. No, we did not.
11825
11826Mr. Jordan. No, you didn't. But you can't tell us whether you
11827asked about the fact that her husband just met with the Attorney General
11828just 2 days before your interview?
11829
11830Mr. Strzok. Congressman, what I'm saying to you is I don't recall
11831asking about that and I don't know whether we did or didn't. If we did
11832not, it was my assumption because we were focused on the gravamen of
11833
11834the case and the investigation.
11835
11836 
11837
11838Mr. Jordan. When did you first get a chance to look at the dossier?
11839COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
11840
11841 
11842Mr. Strzok. I think that's a -- I defer to FBI counsel as to
11843whether or not I can answer that question.
11844
11845Mr. Jordan. It's been -- the dossier -- the whole darn thing has
11846been printed in the press. I just want to know when you first saw it.
11847Mr. Strzok. That's true, and that's a different question.
11848
11849Ms. Besse. Congressman, what's printed in the press may not be
11850accurate and may not be what he was privy to. So I would not allow him
11851
11852to answer that question.
11853
11854Mr. Jordan. Have you read the dossier?
11855
11856Mr. Strzok. I have.
11857
11858Mr. Jordan. You have?
11859
11860Mr. Strzok. I have, yes.
11861
11862Mr. Jordan. When did you first read it?
11863
11864Mr. Strzok. Again, that gets into a level of investigative detail
11865about an ongoing investigation that I don't think the FBI or the special
11866counsel want me to answer. I am happy to answer it, but I defer to what
11867I think the appropriate FBI equities are in this regard.
11868
11869Ms. Besse. Congressman, I would not allow him to answer that
11870question because it gets into the special counsel's investigation.
11871
11872Mr. Jordan. I'm not asking about the special counsel -- we've
11873been through this -- I'm not asking about the special counsel
11874investigation. I'm asking about what you all did in the Russia
11875investigation that was launched in late July. I want to know when you
11876
11877first had access to the dossier and when you first looked at it.
11878
11879 
11880
11881Ms. Besse. The FBI investigation was subsumed into the special
11882 
11883
11884COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
11885counsel's investigation. So anything that Mr. Strzok did on the
11886investigation while it was under the FBI's purview would still be a part
11887of the special counsel investigation.
11888
11889Mr. Jordan. Did you read it all at once, Mr. Strzok, or did you
11890read it in parts?
11891
11892Mr. Strzok. Again, sir, same answer. I don't think I can tell
11893you about the timing and manner I read it without getting into details
11894about the investigation.
11895
11896I am happy -- there is a very straightforward answer that I'm happy
11897to Meee but the FBI practice, which I believe and understand and
11898support, is that we do not talk about ongoing investigations.
11899
11900Mr. Jordan. Do you ever communicate with Christopher Steele?
11901
11902Ms. Besse. Congressman, that's another question I would instruct
11903
11904the witness not to answer.
11905
11906Mr. Jordan. All I'm asking is if he ever talked to him.
11907
11908Ms. Besse. It goes into his responsibility as an agent on the
11909investigation itself, so it would still --
11910
11911Mr. Jordan. Did you ever talk to Glenn Simpson?
11912
11913Chairman Goodlatte. Let me interrupt you, because I think this
11914is very important.
11915
11916We have an investigation going on here into the disparate handling
11917of the Hillary Clinton investigation and the so-called Trump-Russia
11918collusion investigation. And we're entitled to know answers, not about
11919
11920anything substantive found in that investigation, but we're entitled
11921
11922 
11923
11924to have answers about how Mr. Strzok, who was a central player in that
11925 
11926investigation, handled his own responsibilities and what he did or
11927
11928didn't do, not related to the substance, but related to the process and
11929
11930form. And I think that this question is entirely appropriate.
11931
11932Ms. Besse. Mr. Chairman, my position would still remain the same.
11933Because while it is a part of your investigation, it does impact what
11934the special counsel is doing. And we would have to confer with the
11935special counsel in order to be able to appropriately respond to your
11936question.
11937
11938Chairman Goodlatte. What he -- whether or not he talked to
11939somebody before the special counsel was even appointed?
11940
11941Ms. Besse. He talked -- if he --
11942
11943Chairman Goodlatte. We're not even asking what he talked to him
11944about. We're just asking whether he talked to him.
11945
11946Ms. Besse. Mr. Chairman, the fact that he would have talked to
11947him would have been as a result of him being an investigator in that
11948specific --
11949
11950Chairman Goodlatte. Maybe, maybe not. Mr. Steele has been
11951involved in other matters for the FBI, has he not?
11952
11953Ms. Besse. And it would still go to whether -- again, if it is
11954an ongoing or if the FBI has other investigations, I don't know that
11955we can sort of confirm or deny any such thing. So I would still instruct
11956him not to answer that question unless -- until we confer with the
11957special counsel.
11958
11959Chairman Goodlatte. Well, you can be sure we will. I would
11960
11961 
11962
11963prefer not to involve the special counsel since we have --
11964 
11965
11966COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
11967Mr. Jordan. Agent Strzok --
11968
11969Chairman Goodlatte. -- clearly attempted to stay away from that.
11970
11971Mr. Jordan. Agent Strzok, who paid for the dossier?
11972
11973Mr. Strzok. Sir, under guidance from agency counsel, I am not
11974able to answer that question.
11975
11976Mr. Jordan. The whole world knows who paid for it. I'm asking
11977you, do you know who paid for it?
11978
11979Mr. Strzok. Again, under direction from agency counsel, I can't
11980answer that question.
11981
11982Ms. Besse. If Mr. Strzok learned that information as part of his
11983duties investigating or being -- participating in the investigation,
11984I would instruct him not to answer.
11985
11986Chairman Goodlatte. So is it the position of the Department of
11987Justice under Federal investigation that you're going to stonewall
11988answers to questions that do not go to the substance of Mr. Mueller's
11989ela es
11990
11991Because we have, for months now, investigated what the events were
11992leading up to that without ever asking questions about the investigation
11993has found with regard to Trump-Russia collusion.
11994
11995Ms. Besse. Mr. Chairman, I'm not in a position to really tell you
11996
11997what will or will not impact Mr. Mueller's investigation since I'm not
11998
11999part of that. So I cannot have the witness answer questions that may
12000
12001impact the investigation without knowing for sure from the special
12002
12003counsel that it will not impact -
12004
12005 
12006
12007Chairman Goodlatte. So if Mr. Jordan asks the witness, "Have you
12008 
12009ever met Robert Mueller?" are you going to allow him to answer that
12010question?
12011
12012Ms. Besse. Yes, because Mr. Mueller was also once the FBI
12013Director.
12014
12015Chairman Goodlatte. Right. So the question that we just asked
12016was related to an individual who has worked for the FBI for many years.
12017Why can't he answer that question?
12018
12019Ms. Besse. I don't believe that individual was an employee.
12020Mr. Mueller and Mr. Steele are in two different levels, so I would not
12021compare the two.
12022
12023Mr. Jordan. Agent Strzok, ever communicate with Glenn Simpson?
12024
12025Mr. Strzok. Sir, I think it's the same answer.
12026
12027Mr. Jordan. It's not even close. It is not even close.
12028Christopher Steele was -- hang on, if you could, Mr. Chairman,
12029please -- it's not even close.
12030
12031Glenn Simpson is not former MI6. Glenn Simpson is a journalist.
12032Did you ever talk to Glenn Simpson?
12033
12034Mr. Strzok. May I answer that question?
12035
12036Ms. Besse. May we confer?
12037
12038Chairman Goodlatte. Yes. I just want to say, and I'm going to
12039leave because I've got to go somewhere else, but all of these questions
12040
12041will be raised with the Director and with the deputy attorney genera
12042
12043of the United States tomorrow morning if we're not getting answers today.
12044
12045Ms. Besse. Sure, Mr. Chairman.
12046
12047 
12048
12049[Discussion off the record. ]
12050COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
12051
12052 
12053Ms. Besse. Congressman, any questions that relate to
12054Mr. Strzok's involvement in the investigation in the Russian collusion
12055that's under the purview of the special counsel I will instruct him not
12056to answer.
12057
12058Of course, if the Director or the deputy attorney general make a
12059different decision or the special counsel makes a different decision
12060then we can answer those questions. But for right now, I will instruct
12061the witness not to answer as it relates to that ongoing investigation.
12062
12063Mr. Jordan. Did you ever talk to Bruce Ohr?
12064
12065Chairman Goodlatte. Let me say one more thing. So we're going
12066
12067to have this discussion publicly or privately with those individuals,
12068
12069and we will subpoena Mr. Strzok to return and answer the questions at
12070
12071a time that's appropriate because we feel very strongly we are entitled
12072to his answers.
12073
12074Mr. Jordan. Agent Strzok, did you ever talk to Bruce Ohr?
12075
12076Mr. Strzok. On advice of agency counsel, I've been told not to
12077answer that question.
12078
12079Mr. Jordan. Holy cow. He works in the Justice Department.
12080
12081Mr. Strzok. He does.
12082
12083Mr. Jordan. Never talked to him?
12084
12085Mr. Strzok. May I answer that question?
12086
12087Ms. Besse. You can answer that question.
12088
12089Mr. Strzok. I have.
12090
12091Mr. Jordan. When?
12092
12093 
12094
12095Mr. Strzok. Without looking at my calendar, it would be difficult
12096 
12097or me to tell you. My recollection is I met him either two or three
12098imes in 2016 into 2017. I know I have not seen him in -- I have not
12099seen him this year, but those three meetings I'd have to refer to my
12100calendar.
12101
12102Mr. Jordan. What'd you talk about?
12103
12104Mr. Strzok. May I answer that question?
12105
12106Ms. Besse. If the conversations did not involve anything relating
12107
12108to an ongoing or possible investigation.
12109
12110Mr. Jordan. You talked to him in 2016 and 2017? What'd you talk
12111
12112about? You said three times.
12113
12114Mr. Strzok. So, Congressman, let me refresh my recollection on
12115that as I think about it and make sure I'm absolutely accurate about
12116satan
12117
12118Sir, so I talked to him in 2016 and 2017, as I indicated. And based
12119on the direction of agency counsel, I cannot discuss the content of our
12120discussions.
12121
12122Mr. Jordan. Ever talk with Nellie Ohr?
12123
12124Mr. Strzok. No. Agency counsel may get angry with me, but no.
12125
12126Mr. Jordan. So you can answer that. She worked for Glenn
12127Simpson, Fusion. You can tell me you didn't talk to her, but you can't
12128tell me -- you won't answer whether you talked with Glenn Simpson.
12129
12130Mr. Strzok. Sir, I was answering that question in the context of
12131her being Bruce Ohr's wife.
12132
12133Mr. Jordan. Well, I know she was Bruce Ohr's wife, but she also
12134
12135 
12136
12137worked for Glenn Simpson and Fusion. You're saying you never talked
12138 
12139to her.
12140Mr. Strzok. I did say that, and that's accurate.
12141
12142Mr. Jordan. All right.
12143
12144I'll yield because we've only got 10 minutes. I'm going to yield
12145
12146to the gentleman from North Carolina, but I may want to jump back in.
12147
12148Mr. Meadows. So let me go fairly quickly.
12149
12150Towards the end of July 2016 there's a text message between you
12151and Lisa Page talking about: Do you want me to reach out to Gurvais
12152Grigg? Well, it says Gurvais. I assume it's Gurvais Grigg.
12153
12154Mr. Strzok. My understanding, it's pronounced Gurvais.
12155
12156Mr. Meadows. Huh?
12157
12158Mr. Strzok. Gurvais.
12159
12160Mr. Meadows. Okay. Yeah. SoGurvais Grigg, do you know who that
12161
12162Mr. Strzok. I do.
12163
12164Mr. Meadows. And so what is Mr. Grigg in charge of?
12165
12166Mr. Strzok. Atthe time, I believe he was involved in the Bureau's
12167interface with the election and the transition offices of folks --
12168
12169Mr. Meadows. Electronic surveillance and so forth?
12170
12171Mr. Strzok. No. No. Atthetime -- he does something currently
12172with regard to that I think in the lab, but at the time he was -- the
12173Bureau had an office set up to deal with initially both the nominees,
12174and that whoever won the election, that then the FBI's interface for
12175
12176providing them briefings and things of that sort, he ran that effort,
12177
12178 
12179
12180is my recollection.
12181COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
12182
12183 
12184Mr. Meadows. Yeah. So there was another text message and you
12185said: Well, why should you reach out to him. And I think Lisa Page
12186just says: We want to see if he has the five names already.
12187
12188What would that be in reference to? Do you recall?
12189
12190Mr. Strzok. Sir, what's the date of those texts? I don't recall
12191offhand.
12192
12193Mr. Meadows. June -- July 29th, 2016. It's aredacted form, but
12194in the redaction it would say: Or just ask if the names -- if he has
12195the names already, was under the redaction on it.
12196
12197Mr. Goelman. What time, Congressman?
12198
12199Mr. Meadows. It would have been at 23:17:11, so 11:17 at night.
12200
12201Mr. Strzok. So do you have a copy of the unredacted version?
12202Sir, so my recollection was that --
12203
12204Mr. Meadows. Why would you be reaching out to him in regards to
12205
12206your investigation of either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Why would
12207
12208you be reaching out to --
12209
12210Mr. Strzok. It was not in regard to either of those
12211investigations. My recollection in dealing with him was that we were
12212providing and coordinating counterintelligence briefings to both of the
12213candidates and their staffs, and part of that was determining who it
12214was from the campaign that was going to receive those briefings. And
12215because he had that role on kind of the transition team staff, he was
12216the person that would know it.
12217
12218My assumption -- and, again, this is only an assumption -- is it
12219
12220 
12221
12222was redacted because it's irrelevant to either the Clinton investigation
12223 
12224or the Russian influence investigations.
12225
12226Mr. Meadows. Yeah, and perhaps so. That -- since we don't have
12227a privileged log, we wouldn't know that. But let me go ona little bit
12228sav ote al-1 ae
12229
12230You mentioned that you didn't show any bias because you didn't act
12231on that, earlier. Is that correct?
12232
12233Mr. Strzok. Sir, no. I don't think that's what I said. I
12234said --
12235
12236Mr. Meadows. So would you -
12237
12238Mr. Strzok. I said I do not have bias, that political belief and
12239
12240opinion is something that is different and distinct from bias. And I
12241
12242don't agree with the analogy that if you have opinion, therefore you're
12243
12244biased that way.
12245
12246And what I said about bias was in response to, well, what makes
12247bias, and my belief that bias is when somebody is acting on those beliefs.
12248
12249We all have political beliefs. Every one of us in this room.
12250
12251Mr. Meadows. Sure.
12252
12253Mr. Strzok. And that doesn't make us biased.
12254
12255Mr. Meadows. So would you agree with the inspector general's
12256report that you prioritized the Russia investigation over the Hillary
12257Clinton investigation, would you agree or disagree with that?
12258
12259Mr. Strzok. I disagree with that conclusion.
12260
12261Mr. Meadows. So you didn't prioritize it?
12262
12263Mr. Strzok. I did not prioritize in that it was not a binary
12264
12265 
12266
12267decision. There was not a "I'm moving resources from this Clinton case
12268 
12269to this Trump case" or vice versa.
12270
12271If I may, sir --
12272
12273Mr. Meadows. So the 3@-day window where you didn't look at the
12274Anthony Weiner laptop was just because it wasn't -- it didn't float back
12275up to the top?
12276
12277Mr. Strzok. Sir, I'm glad you asked that. What I would like to
12278draw you to are the facts of what happened.
12279
12280Mr. Meadows. No, I know the facts.
12281
12282Mr. Strzok. Within hours of finding out about that --
12283
12284Mr. Meadows. Hold on just a second, andI'll let youanswer. I'll
12285let you answer before your counsel takes back your mike. So if you can
12286keep your answers succinct because we've got limited time.
12287
12288Mr. Strzok. Yeah, absolutely, sir. I think -- I disagree with
12289both the inspector general's broad suggestion and yours just now that
12290I waited. If you look at what the record reflects --
12291
12292Mr. Meadows. Mine was a question.
12293
12294Mr. Strzok. -- it was an immediate action on my part to assign
12295supervisors and their subordinate agents and analysts to follow up.
12296
12297I did that within hours, and they followed up within hours. And
12298
12299they were left with at the time the understanding that New York
12300
12301would -- that the material was crashing, hadn't finished processing,
12302
12303and that New York was going to let them know when it happened.
12304My experience is that processing computer evidence is like black
12305
12306It cantake 2 days. It cantake 2 months. And soTI donot find
12307
12308 
12309COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
12310
12311 
12312Mr. Meadows. Allright. SoMr. Pientka, Agent Pientka works for
12313you. Is that how you say his name?
12314
12315Mr. Strzok. Sir, I don't want to get into non-SES personnel.
12316
12317Mr. Meadows Does he work for you? I mean, I'm giving you the
12318name, and it showed up in some of your text messages. So does
12319Mr. Pientka work for you? This is a confidential briefing of which that
12320answer is critical. Does he work for you?
12321
12322Ms. Besse. Congressman, the Director has not authorized us to
12323acknowledge the names or to divulge names of agents or employees who
12324are not at the SES level. So that specific question --
12325
12326Mr. Meadows. But where in statute does it say that you have that
12327
12328ability to do that and keep that from Congress? Is there anywhere in
12329
12330statute that gives you the right to do that, counselor?
12331
12332Ms. Besse. Congressman, it may not be in a statute, but I believe
12333it's based on --
12334
12335Mr. Meadows. Fine. Allright. Let me goona little bit further
12336since we're out of time.
12337
12338Mr. Pientka worked for you. I will make that assumption based on
12339org charts and what we have. Are you aware of any time that 302s were
12340modified, changed, or adapted?
12341
12342Mr. Strzok. Sir, I am --
12343
12344Mr. Meadows. With regards to either investigation?
12345
12346Mr. Strzok. Sir, without making any representation about the
12347
12348names you were throwing out there, my experience is that every 302 in
12349
12350 
12351
12352the course of being drafted is a collaborative effort between the people
12353 
12354who conducted that interview. AndI -- it is the rare, unusual example
12355
12356of a 302 that is not edited and revised in the course of the drafting
12357
12358of that.
12359
12360Mr. Meadows There are allegations that you instructed
12361Mr. Pientka to change 302 that would materially have altered either a
12362prosecutorial or the lack thereof decision in that. Would you deny
12363those claims?
12364
12365Mr. Strzok. Sir, what I would say -- and I think I can answer your
12366question without any specifics -- is I did not, have not, in the course
12367of drafting any 302 make any change or do anything other than ensure
12368that 302 was an accurate representation of the statements of the person
12369being interviewed.
12370
12371Mr. Meadows. Okay. The IC that started this, the intelligence
12372community, the IC, under earlier questioning, you said you don't recall
12373ever being told that there were anomalies in the metadata when they came
12374in to alert you of the case or their concern about potential foreign
12375invasion into the Hillary Clinton server. Is that correct?
12376
12377Mr. Strzok. Sir, what I think I said is I do not recall being aware
12378personally of that. I would not be the logical person on the team. We
12379had a variety of forensic experts whose job it was --
12380
12381Mr. Meadows. Right. But we have people --
12382
12383Mr. Strzok. -- to look at things like that and that then they
12384would bring that to my -- to the team, toMr. Moffa have and my attention
12385
12386if there were anomalies or anything unusual or of note in the course
12387
12388 
12389
12390of the investigation.
12391 
12392
12393COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
12394Mr. Meadows. But my understanding was you were in the initial
12395meeting when they brought this to the attention of you and others, that
12396
12397you were in the initial meeting. And then the last contact they had
12398
12399with you was 10 minutes after the exoneration speech by Director Comey,
12400
12401that you called and called them back to say close out the case and give
12402the proper paperwork for closing out the referral.
12403
12404Is that not accurate?
12405
12406Mr. Strzok. Sir, I am -- I do not recall a meeting where the IC
12407IG made any reference to changes in the metadata
12408
12409Mr. Meadows. Mr. McCullough.
12410
12411Mr. Strzok. What I can tell you, Congressman, is that our
12412technical experts, any allegation of intrusion, any review of metadata
12413that might be indicative of an act, was pursued by our technical folks,
12414and I am very confident that they did that thoroughly and well. I am
12415certainly unaware of anything that we did not pursue or had not pursued.
12416
12417Mr. Meadows. Did you ever use devices, either your personal or
12418your official devices, in a capacity to try to keep information from
12419being detected from others?
12420
12421Mr. Strzok Yes, from my spouse.
12422
12423Mr. Meadows. Okay. How about from others that might be willing
12424to investigate at a later date?
12425
12426Mr. Strzok. No.
12427
12428Mr. Meadows. There are text messages which suggest that devices
12429
12430were used in such a way as to not allow them to be recoverable. And
12431
12432 
12433
12434that that's not accurate?
12435 
12436
12437COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
12438Mr. Strzok. Idonot recall ever using it to prevent it from being
12439recovered, any official work-type communication, to prevent it from
12440being recovered, no.
12441
12442Mr. Jordan. One quick question, Agent Strzok. When a FISA
12443application is put together, what is the typical timeframe it takes to
12444compile that application so that it's then ready to go to the FISA court?
12445
12446Mr. Strzok. Again, my experience is that varies wildly. I've
12447
12448seen FISA applications go through within a day, and I've seen some
12449
12450 
12451
12452literally take years.
12453Mr. Jordan. And any -- any timeframe reference you can give us
12454on the FISA application that was taken to the court to get the warrant
12455for Carter Page; how long did that one take to put together? Was it
12456a day, or was it a year?
12457
12458Mr. Strzok. So, first off, I think any discussion of any specific
12459FISA becomes classified, and then I'd defer to agency counsel if that's
12460something that I'm --
12461
12462Mr. Jordan. I'm not asking about specifics. Again, I'm asking
12463how long did it take to put together?
12464
12465Mr. Strzok. Sir, I wouldn't -- I think it's threading close to
12466
12467classified information to talk about the timeframe for a specific FISA,
12468
12469but, one -- and I'd defer to agency counsel. I understand we're looking
12470
12471at a --
12472
12473Mr. Jordan. Did you ever talk to George Papadopoulos?
12474
12475Mr. Strzok. Sir, that's squarely in the realm of the area that
12476agency counsel has directed me not to speak about.
12477
12478Mr. Jordan. Thank you.
12479
12480Mr. Meadows. So, Agent, let me go back. Are you aware of any
12481surveillance, any confidential informants, confidential human sources,
12482which obviously are two different things, that shared information with
12483the FBI during the month of July?
12484
12485Mr. Strzok. Yes. I'm aware of -- the Bureau term now, we had a
12486
12487variety over the years, but current term is "confidential human
12488
12489 
12490
12491sources." I think you're talking about human sources. Yes, I'm aware
12492 
12493of CHSes who provided information to the Bureau in the month of the July.
12494
12495I assume you mean ‘16, but every July.
12496
12497Mr. Meadows. 2016, yes. Thanks.
12498
12499Mr. Strzok. Yes.
12500
12501Mr. Meadows. So, at that point, was there an ongoing
12502investigation that we now know as "crossfire hurricane"? Was that
12503ongoing at that pointe
12504
12505Mr. Strzok. It in late -- well, two things, sir. I am not going
12506to comment on the name of what that investigation may or may not have
12507been because, again, that's classified.
12508
12509Mr. Meadows. I think the FBI leaked it to the New York Times, but
12510we'll leave it at that. So whatever it may be.
12511
12512So, at this point, you are saying that there were confidential
12513human sources, plural, that you had information from during the month
12514of July?
12515
12516Mr. Strzok. Sir, I want to say this, and I know nobody in this
12517Chamber would ever take anything out of context and repeat it in the
12518media, but to be very clear, of the thousands of cases that I had
12519oversight responsibility of, I was aware in those thousands of cases --
12520
12521Mr. Meadows. I'm talking specifically --
12522
12523Mr. Strzok. -- there were CHSes providing information. I amnot
12524making any representation whatsoever whether or not there were CHSes
12525providing information about the Russian influence investigation.
12526
12527Mr. Meadows Well, obviously, that's where you were the lead
12528
12529 
12530
12531investigator --
12532 
12533
12534COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
12535Mr. Strzok. I know it clearly is not --
12536
12537Mr. Meadows. -- and it seemed like it was going, so let me go ahead
12538and make that distinction. In the month of July, was there any
12539information from confidential human sources given to you as it relates
12540to the Russia investigation?
12541
12542Mr. Strzok. Following advice of counsel, I can't answer that
12543question. It's answerable, but I, under advice of agency counsel, I
12544can't answer that.
12545
12546Mr. Meadows. Did you get any of that in June?
12547
12548Mr. Strzok. Again, same answer.
12549
12550Mr. Meadows. All right. Did you ever give information to
12551Christopher Steele?
12552
12553Mr. Strzok. Same answer.
12554
12555Mr. Meadows. What do you mean “same answer"?
12556
12557Mr. Strzok. Same answer. Under direction by agency counsel, I
12558can't answer that question.
12559
12560Mr. Meadows. And what reason is that? Counsel?
12561
12562Ms. Besse. Congressman, anything that relates to an ongoing
12563investigation that's --
12564
12565Mr. Meadows. Well, I would like to point out to the counsel that
12566
12567the investigation I'm asking about concluded because there's a new
12568
12569investigation. The special counsel actually started a new independent
12570
12571investigation -- investigation, mind you. And so the investigation I'm
12572
12573talking about was the one that actually concluded, so are you maintaining
12574
12575 
12576
12577naa -Y- lor Lard anaes
12578 
12579Ms. Besse. Which investigation are you saying concluded,
12580Congressman?
12581Mr. Meadows. Well, obviously, the investigation that Mr. Strzok
12582
12583was the lead investigator on. He's no longer the lead investigator of
12584
12585an investigation. We have a new independent counsel that is doing a
12586
12587separate investigation, counterintelligence investigation. So, at
12588this point, are you suggesting that everything is off limits if Mr.
12589Mueller happens to be looking at anything that Peter Strzok has done?
12590
12591Ms. Besse. My understanding is that it was not concluded. It was
12592subsumed into the special counsel investigation. So itis -- it's not
12593that it ended and another one began. That same information became a
12594part of the special counsel investigation. So I would instruct the
12595witness not to answer.
12596
12597Mr. Breitenbach. Time is done.
12598
12599[Whereupon, at 7:22 p.m., the interview continued in classified
12600
12601 
12602
12603session. ]
12604 
12605
12606COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
12607Certificate of Deponent/Interviewee
12608
12609I have read the foregoing pages, which contain the correct
12610
12611 
12612
12613transcript of the answers made by me to the questions therein recorded.
12614 
12615