threaten wholesale destruction and a lot of human misery. long-range missiles, its weapons systems, and that may be enough work to get what it wants and meet its own self interest. it's important to actually make clear to moscow that that is not something that they can get away with, that they will not be able to suffer significant consequences. if they do go down that path. >> mr. friedman, you were jotting down some notes during that? >> i don't agree with the caller about the word colonialism. i would use a different word, but i agree with the collars overall direction. you know, i think there is a dominant idea in the united states, particularly here in washington, that the way we achieve security -- >> we will leave this washington journal discussion here and take you live back to capitol hill now, to continue our coverage of fbi director christopher wray's testimony on lettuces asian of his history. its -- members of this house judiciary committee. many members slowly filtering back into the room. director wray has arrived.

still waiting for chair jim jordan and ranking member gerry mueller to return. what be live coverage here on c-span 3.

>> the gentlelady from missouri is recognized. >> thank you, mister chairman. thank you for being here, director wray. before i get into the primary topic of my remarks, i want to -- separate issue. on june 16th, my esteemed colleague, ranking member raskin of the oversight committee, sent you a letter asking the fbi to publicly reiterate certain non-classified information that it provided in the briefing about four fd 10:23 subpoenaed by oversight chairman comer. it has now been almost a month since mr. raskin sent his letter. when can he expect a response? >> i will have to check with my staff because we've gotten so many letters from so many members and each one of them is important to me, but -- we will get back to you on that. more importantly, we will get

back. >> thank you and we will follow up. especially because i did ask directly of your staff. so, we will follow up. and now, st. louis and i are here today in continuing solidarity with the protesters the, advocates, and movements that are actually targeted by surveillance and other lot enforcement abuses in your country. director wray, i know that you are aware of the fbi's long and sordid history of targeting black protesters and activists. at a hearing before this committee, in december of 2017, you characterized the abuses related to cointelpro as, quote, one of the darkest moments in the fbi's history. it is something we are not proud of, but it is also something we have learned from, and quote. but director wray, isn't it true that an fbi agent improperly ran a batch query of an minimize visa information using the identifiers of 133 individuals arrested in

connection with the protests after the murder of george floyd in 2020? just a yes or no is fine. >> well, i'm aware of the instance you are talking about. whether or not that correctly describes it or not, i'm not 100% sure. i know it's in the most recent fiscal opinion, but what i will tell you is that that incident is noncompliance. i consider it unacceptable. and most importantly, most importantly, it predates all of these fixes and corrective measures, and performs that we've put in place, which i think would've prevented it from happening now. >> thank you. but and now on to zero fox. isn't it true a firm hired on the 14 million dollar contract by the fbi, which we've heard already today, to monitor social media threats previously labeled black lives matter activists as threat actors requiring constant surveillance? yes or no? >> i'm not sure that's a

correct description of the way we do work with zero fox. but i do not know that that's a correct description of how we do it. >> so, did the fbi hire the firm? but >> my understanding of zero fox's it has a tool which allows us to, in certain instances, engage in social media searches to prevent threats. >> so, they weren't hired? >> well, i don't know, again, the terms of our arrangement, like, whether it's a retention or what. but i've heard the term zero fox before. and my general experience is, it's usually use in connection with preventing violence at a particular critical incident. >> so, to the tune of $14 million, though, there is reporting that threat actors

was actually what they labeled black lives matter activists, two of them i know very well. and i served more than 400 days on the ground during the ferguson uprising myself, more than 400 days, many of those days with those two people that were named. and who are not violent. isn't it true that the fbi has been actively involved in the law enforcement response to people protesting the atlanta public safety training center? a response that has included state charges of domestic terrorism against protesters? yes or no? >> well, the f r atlanta division is working in support of our state local partners, when it comes to violence and threats of violence that occur amid the unrest that you are referring to. >> so, the fbi is involved. these are not isolated incidents and as i said, they are part of a long history of abuses by the fbi against black and brown communities and progressive movements. these are real, the real

oversight issues. they matter to my district, but there is real and justified skepticism of whether the sieve lights of black and brown people are adequately protected. i know this from personal experience in the ferguson uprising and from other protest movements that i have been a part of. that is why i ask you about the targeting of protesters last time that you are before us, because they also included me. but what my district is not concerned about is the republican conspiracy theories and selective targeting of law enforcement agencies who try to hold their twice impeached, twice indicted cult leader, donald trump, accountable. the insurrection caucus wants to use this hearing to score immediate political points. they want to invade oversight, they do not want to conduct it. we are talking about real issues, real reform that could actually save lives. so once again, i urge my republican colleagues who claim they care about government overreach and weaponization to do the exact same. i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. i would remind the lady what we've actually like to do is work with you to protect american's privacy, whether they've been targeted -- who are on the left. >> mister chairman, point of order, point of order,. >> gentleman may state his

point of order. >> it's not your time. >> i appreciate the point of order and i was just getting ready to yield to the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you, mister chairman. i greatly appreciated. >> i appreciate the reminder. i want >> to follow up the director wray about the foreign influence task force, there have been exchanges with mr. johnson of louisiana, mr. -- and i understand that the difference. i want to respect the differences in characterization. earlier this week in denying a state -- the federal court essentially said, this isn't complicated. follow the law as articulated by the united states supreme court area, the first amendment, and that was it. as far as it was concerned. the foreign influence task force is not a predecessors decision. you set that up, right? >> yes. >> okay and you have known about continuous interaction with social media companies. you've known about, i mean, i'm sure you know about the

testimony of agent elvis chan, correct? >> i mean, i don't know everything he's testified to, but i'm aware that he was -- >> did you read his testimony? >> every parts of it, yes. >> and there were thousands of posts that were flagged on social media companies, these meetings with social media continued across time on a periodic basis. this court has found, and understand where the point of disagreement is, i guess, at this stage is, i believe it's fairly common sense, that if you got a constant expectant suggestions from the fbi to social media companies with respect to social media posts. at some point in time, it becomes a government decision or it becomes coercive in nature. that's what the courts preliminary found. that apparently is the line you decided to walk in setting this up. today, it's striking that you come in, you sort of casually acknowledge that among other things, that we did pass through, i think you said, information from the ukrainian fsb you to social media, as if it's normal for the fbi to

serve effectively as the agent of foreign power, to help pull information out of circulation to which americans otherwise would have access. because the foreign intel service doesn't like it. now, those are my characterizations. i have tried to be a little bit more neutral in my language and you've been different with them, but here's what i'm wondering. why would you walk that fine line, with respect to american's fundamental constitutional rights, at scale? especially with knowledge of past abuses by the fbi like cointelpro? you said, earlier, that the fbi wasn't even concerned about disinformation, per se, but the foreign origins of the information. assuming so, how does that comport with lamont versus posts as -- >> well, i'm not going to try to engage on supreme court jurisprudence, but what i can tell you is that -- >> well, that's the point. director wray. let me just ask you, do you know about that case? you know that case? >> i have heard the case.

>> right in the heart of the cold war, at the behest of an american plaintive, a communist, by the way, supreme court said that americans have a first amendment right of access to information, even if it is propaganda originating abroad. and in that case, the united states postal service could not entertain it. do you know that? in essence. >> again, i'm not familiar with the holding of the case. i would have to review it to be sure of that. >> that seems to be the trouble. i keep wondering as i read all these revelations how that could be. or then let me go to this. you know that the fbi engaged with the social media companies continuously warning them of hacking leak operations in 2020, not 2018, by the way? but before the 2020 election. a lot of warnings about hacking leak, you are aware of that? >> i'm aware that we gave them lots of information about intelligence that we were receiving from -- >> at the time you are giving them those warnings, the fbi had had the hunter biden laptop for more than nine months and

of course, cointelpro itself was the mother of all hack and leak operations. active leftist activists at the time broke into the fbi's headquarter office in media, pennsylvania, stole the files, give them to the media, newspapers publish them. and you are bound to be aware of new york times company versus united states, the pentagon papers case. >> yes. >> it says even if information had been stolen or in appropriately taken, you can't get a prior restraint in almost any circumstance to prevent their being distributed. so, how is it that your foreign influence task force is out warning of hack and leak operations to innocent, not involved in the attack. that would be criminal. but news organizations or social media organizations where information may be circulating. >> first off, we are not engaging in any prior restraint. second, second, -- >> wow. >> if i could finish, please. second, there is no serious dispute that foreign

adversaries have, and continued, to attempt to interfere in our elections and that they use social media to do it. president trump himself in 2018 declared a national emergency so that very effect and the senate intelligence committee, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan way, by the way, not only found the same thing, but called for more information sharing. >> i hate to say this, director. i hear you, but it doesn't justify trampling the establish first amendment rights of americans as the supreme court has declared them. whether or not, frankly, i agree with him or you agree with them. and i just don't, that's what i don't get you coming in here and the comments are sort of blasé answers, accountability is always down the road, we never arrive. and i guess i'm joining the gang up, but what i'm concerned about, and i think americans are concerned about, is they just never see it. i don't know if an answer other than to take an appropriation from you that's very significant or to do something to take your intel powers away, put them in another agency.

i honestly want to know. >> mister chairman. >> i think americans want to know. i yield. >> you sure do. gentlemen from maryland who keeps us on time is recognized. >> until it is my turn, then i'm going to run over. >> wait till we get into this five minutes. >> gentleman's time is about ready to start. >> thank you, mister chairman. director, i appreciate you coming in today. i saw a characterization of this hearing as a gop fbi grudge match, but i must say that the only grudge that's been seen here is from the republican side. i think you've done an outstanding job with your testimony today. even when you've been, you know, admitting that there are shortcomings by your office and the mistakes have been made, i appreciate the fact that you are willing to do that because it's not easy for agency heads to do that and also, more importantly, to point out the changes that you made to try and address those concerns. i want to say this to. there are a couple points that have been made here about you

were just talking about the foreign influence task force. and i know there's a lot of talk about this as being some kind of prior restraint or first amendment violation, but i want to say that i'm on the side that thinks this is a very important tool for the fbi and the united states government to add, especially with respect to potential intervention or interference, especially by russian state actors, with respect to american elections. there are some people who think, and i'm kind of starting to agree, that one of the reasons some of my colleagues are pushing so hard against this, and other aspects of information protection within the united states, is because they want to have russian interference in the 2024 election. >> oh, please. >> i certainly don't. so, i certainly thank you for continuing your efforts on that front. there was an issue that was raised about whistleblowers earlier in the hearing, and i wanted to bring this up.

i know you cannot speak to this, mister director, but these are two checks that were written to some of these witnesses, two of the witnesses that have testified here. and they are for over $250,000. now they, came after they gave their testimony. i think by a few days. but from my perspective, this is something that the american public should know. when they evaluate the testimony of these individuals. and hopefully, i don't know if the majority knew about this, but didn't disclose it at the time or what was going on with it, but in my book, this really brings the credibility of these witnesses testimony into question. and i think we should keep this in mind when we evaluate the allegations that they have made. also want to say this as well. my republican colleagues have come a long ways from the law and order days of the republican party back when i was a kid. now we are at defund the fbi.

i think one of them is selling t-shirts to try and raise money using that slogan. another colleague is talking about abolish the atf, another one is saying defund the department of justice. but as you mentioned in your testimony earlier, the fbi is doing a lot of great work protecting the country from terrorism, foreign intelligence threats, international cartels, weapons of mass destruction that you mentioned in your testimony, and i appreciate that. also, there's been a great deal of talk about the domestic terror threats. you know, for me, the planned attempt to kidnap the governor of michigan and apparently kill her was chilling to the extreme and i appreciate the fact that you all were able to intervene on that. i want to say this quickly as well. i'm running short on time, but the misinformation and weaponization claims that have been made by my republican colleagues, i want to offer these two articles. one is called, it's by aaron

blake of the washington post. all the ways trump, not his foes sought to weaponize the government. and then another one, this is philip bump. this is on the missouri v. biden case, which was quoted extensively at the beginning of the hearing. deeply ironic reinforcement of right-wing information. the point of this article is that the missouri v. biden decision, which, and i know you can't comment on, it because it's been in litigation, but i also think is being challenged by the department of justice. and rightly so because it's riddled with factual inaccuracies and legal inaccuracies as well. one other article for the record is by lee lippman and lawrence tried. restricting the government for speaking to tech will spread disinformation and harm democracy. i would like all of those admitted. then lastly, with respect to the hunter biden issue, there is a letter from abbe lowell, who represents mr. biden. this is to representative jason

smith, but i think also to chairman jordan as well that raises the pushback on the allegations, you know? points out that the investigation began during the republican trump administration, was supervised by two republican attorney generals. was carried over by a whole load of a u.s. republican attorneys. last point i want to make, i promise i won't run over my time much, i happen to represent the district where we contain two of the sites for the fbi headquarters could be moved to. the chairman made a reference to maybe not wanting to fund the move, but i must say, i think i had an office near your building. they've got a net surrounded to key parts of the building from falling down and hurting pedestrians. if the move is important and also, it would give you a chance to consolidate hopefully will bring into prince georges county, we will save it one billion dollars for the taxpayers. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentlelady from indiana is recognized. >> thank you, mister chairman.

director wray, fbi's mission is to protect the american people and uphold the u.s. constitution, correct? >> yes. >> okay. so, we had, a couple of years ago, it was in hearing and i actually looked at all of the concerns that i've seen who are really -- abuses of section 72 of fisa. i compare your agents to kgb and spending two years in this committee, i've read a lot of reports, doing a lot of hearings. i'm really shocked that you agencies involved in not just unlawful surveillance of american citizens, intimidation of american citizens, censorship of american citizens, potential cover-ups of convenient political figures and potential setups of inconvenient political figures, and a lot of my colleagues have asked a lot of questions, but i think when we look at that, and

unfortunately, we have been doing -- which was not authorized by our committee already for over a decade, we are going to have this serious conversation and including authorization of section 72. i want to talk about -- some other issues that you mentioned about my colleagues. they were talking about and you mentioned that you focused on maligned foreign actors. so, in your report, which describes 2020, he states, and this is -- could have been compromised by the russians. fbi never gave a proper consideration to the possibility that these reports were russian disinformation. -- you have some falsified face a court application, you have some very shady, you know, confidential human sources that you campaigned for them -- some of you had counterintelligence division were accused of taking money from russian oligarchs just recently this year. so, you said all that was bad.

now we go to 2022. your agency is involved with s b e, security service of ukraine, you know? to actually provide information to big tech to censor, just use of american people. -- is happening, you know, this is information, actually, a lot of this information was pro russian against ukraine and purporting your agents just passed it along. it seems like nothing happened. it's interesting for me that when i raised these issues at the beginning of july, it was happening in ukraine, i don't have any confidential sources. just using some common sense to say that something wrong happened in ukraine. it seemed like there was a lot of concentration. i was attacked, oh my gosh, how can you question. strangely enough, after arranging this question middle of july president zelenskyy opens over 600 investigations, and is potentially infiltrated by russians.

the prosecutor was suddenly installed, but what is really interesting for me, how can you have these processes? and are you doing any investigations? as it seems to, may still have our agency is working with suv you and the fsb time has a lot of potential to have this infiltration. are you doing any investigations on these issues? >> doing investigations? >> to look at what we're doing with this information we're taking from sva which was infiltrated and given to americans to our big tech companies. are you looking into that is an agency? >> i'm not sure there's an investigation that is directly on point away are saying. certainly the suv you is an agency that -- >> so did we change the process now? since we know that your guys work with as we, u.s. view was infiltrated by russia and big

tech was censoring american citizens with vented information that was provided by russia. did you change any processes or do you still have the same processes that are happening now? >> the engagement that they had with svb was during -- >> i'm talking right now. because recently, some of your agents have come to the joint meeting and they were bragging how they were working with -- did you change processes? >> i'm not sure what processes are talking about. >> what is happening? >> again, during the period at the beginning of the invasion -- >> i am talking right now. do you that information you get from agencies like svm? i don't know if you are being stupid. i understand, are we being infiltrated by russians? i do understand why we don't have that information of such a really challenging agency. are you changing anything about that? i would like to have a briefing or something on this. if you're not looking at that, i have a huge problem with

that. >> i have to try to see if we can get a better briefing on the subject. >> this is a serious national security issue. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. the gentleman from south carolina. i'm sorry, the young lady from texas is recognized. >> thank you so, much mister chairman. thanks for sticking with us. >> let me just quickly indicate that i have a document that is a tweet that is wanting to submit to the republican witnesses, with 255,000 in checks after they testify to the committee. it seems to be quid pro quo, but the fact of the tweet that i am submitting says that the fact that mr. allen has not yet cast the track is not that he did not receive the check. i submit to the record the

tweet that indicates the two gentlemen who were seen -- >> continuing your attack on whistleblowers without objection, those are -- >> just a clarification, mister chairman, and then finally they federal bureau of investigations and homeland security's strategic intelligence on domestic terrorism, they did october 2022, appendix a. the document itself, appendix a, appendix b, and the categories of domestic -- >> it's appreciated, thank you very much. >> the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> thank, you mister chairman. a few weeks ago, special counsel durham confirmed the fbi had bias against president trump and took on president and steps to go after him during the 2016 presidential election. the durham report showed one, the fbi did not have a basis to launch the investigation to, it didn't verify or examine all the evidence. and three, the fbi was

politically-charged against then candidate trump. this was before your time, but here we go again. in august of 22, the fbi raided the personal residence of president trump. this unprecedented rate was a shocking escalation in what we talk about with the weaponization of the federal government against political opponents. our country is almost 250 years old. we've had 46 presidents, this is unprecedented. when we say it's unprecedented, we mean it. this has never been seen before in our country's history. just like we saw in the durham report, the fbi did not follow traditional protocols. and this investigation is chock-full of abnormalities. i want to go into those a little bit. director wray, as you, know the committee recently conducted a transcribed interview with -- the former assistant director with fbi experience. he expressed some strong concerns with your handling of the case, the doj's handling of the case.

the first abnormality deals with the fbi office that they conducted the raid themselves. director wray, generally, which fbi office overseas palm beach florida? >> the miami office has an office in palm beach. but to the question you're asking, it's not unusual for a field office that is investigating the case to send the case team down to be involved in conducting the search. >> and president trump's residence is in palm beach, florida. is that correct? >> yes. >> director wright did the miami field office conduct the search at mar-a-lago? >> the washington field office conducted the search although i think there was some assistance by people from miami. >> but it is primarily one out of washington. >> which was the team that had opened the investigation. on a referral from the national archives, which is in d.c.. >> but the fbi headquarters in washington instructed the washington field office to start that investigation, and

that raid of mar-a-lago's. >> the investigation was opened in the field by the washington field office. >> it was not miami, it was washington. >> and the washington field office opened the investigation based on a referral from the national archives which is also in d.c.. so that makes sense. >> who made the decision to have washington field office execute that search warrant, rather than the miami field office? >> that, i can't speak to the specific individual. as you know, this is an ongoing case. and internal deliberations -- >> are not asking about the facts of the case. i'm asking about who made the call to go to washington and use the washington field office as opposed to miami? would that have been you? >> no, the washington field office opened the investigation because they are the office where the national archives is, which is what referred the investigation kicked off the whole investigation. >> director, on may 15th 2023, the fbi and your special counsel sent a letter to counsel durham in response to

his report. despite this occurring in the territory of the office, the washington field office instructed that the rate is inconsistent with the statement from two months ago. i want to move on to a second -- >> i've got one minute left. is it normal for a u.s. attorney to be assigned to a high profile investigation? >> that's a decision that's made over at the justice department, as to how they allocate. >> that's normal protocol, is that correct? >> there are investigations that are handled by justice and attorney generals there. i only speak to the fbi's decision-making, not to justice. >> and the attorney was not initially assigned to this investigation, where they? >> i think that's correct, but i will refer you to the u.s.

attorney versus the justice. >> the third abnormality define really troubling, perhaps the most troubling, as the fbi did not first the consent to search the residents, did they? >> there is a very detailed filing in court that goes through unfairly excruciating detail the process that was followed that led up to the execution of the search. and it goes through in great detail the efforts that were made to secure documents. and because this case is now pending and moving forward in federal court i want to respect that and not engage in more discussion beyond that. but i will refer you to the filing which lays out in great detail -- >> the german fort laid a very clearly that you -- that was not done here. you didn't out of the field office, you don't have a u.s. attorney signed the case. senior officials did not listen to people on the ground, as the testimony of mr. dan talked about. you didn't ask for a consent

search, despite the president having cooperated handed over documents for a long period of time. and you refused to wait for president trump's own attorney to get to mar-a-lago to do this with you. and so what has changed since durham? you have acknowledged this in 2023, that things should be run out of the field that you've made internal process changes. but nothing has really changed since 2016. that's my big concern. i yield back. >> i could not disagree more, but we'll have to disagree on that one. >> here's what he said, these are questions from the democrat lawyer and the deposition to mr. mr. dan twang. >> can you explain to the attendees here why the case was not assigned to the miami field office? mr. d'antonio's idea was i have no idea. then they said the investigation was handled differently and he said, his answer was, it was handled differently than i would have expected it to be than any other cases handled. so i think that was done to the members point and that is the concern that we have. in spite of the letter we got from the general counsel. the chair now recognizes the

chair from texas for five minutes. >> a recent poll found that 37% of americans have a positive view of the fbi. and that's from an nbc poll. i wouldn't exactly call that right media propaganda, and i think i know why. here is what the american people know and belief about the fbi today, sir. if you are a trump, you will be prosecuted. if you are a biden, you will be protected. and the american people that i represent are sick and tired of this double standard. it seems like every single hearing that we have in this room, we talk about the two tiered justice system of biden 's doj and the fbi and, as we've talked about earlier here, we are again. president trump and jordan unprecedented rate at his home in mar-a-lago. president biden's home, however, it was respectfully browsed. president trump is facing up to 400 years and preston wrote

prison for being in possession of classified documents he obtained as the commander in chief of these united states of america. and meanwhile, president biden is facing no charges for the classified documents he had held at his time as a senator and a vice president. not the president of these united states of america. and last i checked, he had no legal authority to declassify those documents. assuming president trump was in possession of said classified documents, with those documents be more secure surrounded by secret service at mar-a-lago, or in a box in a garage behind your corvette? a question for you, sir. what can you tell us about the status of the fbi's investigation of president biden's classified documents, found next to his corvette in delaware. and those found at the biden center. do we have an update on that sir? >> what i can tell you is that

there is an ongoing special counsel investigation led by mr. robert hur, and we have fbi agents affiliated with it, working very actively and aggressively with him on that case. i obviously disagree with your description of the two standards. in my view, it was under my watch, we have one standard. and that is we are going to pursue the facts wherever they lead, no matter who likes it. and i add that part, because in light of these investigations, almost by definition, somebody's not going to like it. >> i understand that, and that is why a lot of the sentiment of the american people. i do want to finish this. so i want everybody to talk about this comment we've seen. and i get your point, serve, that's just not what we've seen as the public, as we the people. we see one case being fast-tracked, and one case being slow walked. we see one presidents home being raided, the other presidents home being kindly searched. you have one government agency, the secret service, protecting the former president and his

home. and another government agency, the fbi, writing the same home. to me, sir, that is tragically ironic. and we expect more from a functional constitutional republic in these things shouldn't be happening. it is my opinion that joe biden is the most unpopular president we have seen in a century, and that is why he knows the only way to stop president trump from beating him in november is like putting him in jail. we talked about this, mr. fry. in a 247 years of the existence of this great nation, only one president has ever been indicted by the g doj and had his home made by the fbi. some have said that president trump's indictment means that no one is above the law. okay, all right, i would love to see that. but what about hillary clinton? and what about joe biden? what about hunter biden? who is america's favorite son.

let me tell you something, i've got a four year old daughter and a two-year-old daughter at my house. hunter biden is like glitter. he is on everything, and you cannot get rid of him. and yet nothing is going to be done about it. we are sick of it. james comey had enough to prosecute hillary clinton because she committed crimes. as i recall, it was the position of the fbi do not prosecute because they didn't want to interfere with a presidential election. what do you call this? the iowa caucuses are in six months. i think the american public would expect to see this from cuba, from venezuela, and from russia and china. but not here. it is not the job of the doj or the fbi to prosecute joe biden's top political opponent

who is leading in every single primary poll. let the people decide. it is our job to uphold the constitution. i expect us all to do likewise. >> may i briefly respond? number one as to the investigations towards mrs. clinton as you noted, that happened under my predecessor and i'm not going to speak for defend that decision. >> second, as for your descriptions of the investigation related to hunter biden, as you know there is an ongoing investigation being led by the delaware u.s. attorney appointed by president trump. and we are actively working on that investigation with him. >> we look forward to seeing the results quickly and swiftly. >> and third and finally, to your point about the american people, and their views, i

worry less about nbc poles are bulls by any other news outlet. but i will tell you that the number of people in texas applying to work for us since i've been in this job has gone up 93%. and in fact -- >> i heard that response earlier. >> in fact, we have more applicants from the state of texas annually in last several years than any other state in the country. >> and that makes sense, because texas is a greater state in the country. and i think that speaks very well of the view of texans about the fbi. >> director, any agency served on the crossfire hurricane investigation or the mueller investigation. are any of those agents on mr. herb or mr. smith sent special counsel team? >> i don't believe so. but i can't from the top of my head go through that list. there's a lot of agents who do investigations. so let me check into that and see if there's any way we can

get back to you on that. i don't want to get out over my skis. >> thank you. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. >> director wray, thank you for being here today. on june 21st, the committee heard testimony from special counsel john durham. have you reviewed his findings and dispute any of those? >> i have reviewed them. it's a big multi hundred-page binder of it sitting to my right on my desk. i refer to it frequently. i can't say that i'm aware of anything specific that i would dispute in. it certainly, as you may know, not only did we fully cooperate with him in the investigation, as he noted in his report, but actually i assign much of the agents and personnel to work on it with him and help him. and i'm very proud of the fact that the reforms that we've put in place in response to the inspector general's investigation, and also into the hurricane as well as mueller changes we've made

working closely with attorney general barr, if those reforms had been in place back at the time that all of this stuff that the special counsel durham found, i don't think any of this would've happened. >> so the confirmation bias, which was brought up time and time again when durham was here, before the committee, you feel those have been addressed? i think jason jones says he put together a letter, and that includes a lot of that information. do you feel that's adequate? >> i am ambitious by nature. for us as an organization, we are constantly looking for more things we can do. but i will give you an example on this issue. because i think it's so important. one of the things that i did as fbi director, and i do this couple years ago, was in order -- frankly, it was in reaction to both the hillary clinton investigation as well as the hurricane investigation. was that i put in place training for the entire workforce that focused

specifically not just on the importance of avoiding bias but the importance of avoiding even the appearance of bias. and one of the things i did to make sure i was sending that message was that rather than what normally happens in a bureaucracy, we're all the training gets saddled on all the folks in the front lines out of the gates, i started with the top 200, 300 people in the organization. i brought them all for an entire day, we heard from the federal judiciary, the expecter general. the point was to hear the importance of not just objectivity, but making sure that we are faithful to the appearance of objectivity as well. and then we had a smaller version of that that went out to the workforce. the idea was to send the message that everybody at the top has to take the medicine first. >> so there is two other things that were in their. serious lack of analytical rigor was one of the other things that durham brought up numerous times. and there was a noticeable

departure from how the fbi approached matters involving possible attempted interference plans amid, as you just brought up, the clinton campaign. the question would be has the fbi protocol surrounding investigations -- i want to know specifically, any presidential campaign, what is the policy now? we're on the verge of another nationwide election. is there anything specific in writing you could inform the committee of? >> we put in place a whole slew of reforms that have helped to mitigate against the concerns you are raising. i know that attorney general barr and i put in place reforms that dealt with critically sensitive investigations and approvals. they would have to be required before anything like that could happen. i know that was very important to him. who worked together on that.

but we have a whole slew of additional approvals and sign-offs, triple tricks, safeguards et cetera that go into a whole lot of these issues. when you raise the issue of analytical rigor, i talk about rigor. a bit my folks would tell you that they hear the word rigor coming out of my mouth every single day. that is something we are all inspiring to get better at. >> if you had somebody within the fbi that you found out was involved in trying to manipulate for rig an election, especially the national level, how would that be handled by the fbi? how would you handle it as a director? >> obviously, it would depend on the specific facts of what exactly it was the person was doing. but accepting your premise, that is the kind of thing that would have the person referred to our disciplinary process. >> to be fired? or the process would play itself out. we have a whole offense code that goes into what different

rules we have, and different punishments. there is a whole complicated system that goes into the disciplinary process. our disciplinary process is for the most part one of the better ones in federal law enforcement. but there is a process that we have to follow. >> is anybody that was involved in that type of action in the past venn disciplined for that at the fbi? >> well, let me answer that this way. obviously former employees, the important point here is that all the senior managers in any way involved in the hurricane investigation are all gone from the fbi for a variety of reasons in a variety of ways. to the extent that if there's anybody left, you're talking about a small handful of currently low level employees, all of whom have been referred to this disciplinary process. that process, as you may have heard me say in response to an earlier exchange, as is typical working with special counsel durham, we had to put that on hold until he could finish his

case. because a criminal case that to come first. and that process is not fully underway. again, we are talking about a few relatively low level people where we erred on the side of inclusion. so anybody who touched, it who sent them to the process and we will see where that plays itself out. but the key point is that all the main players, if you, will the senior people are all gone. i put in place entirely new leadership. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. >> thank, you mister chair. thank, you, director for your patience. so you are very, very good at your job. and as is illustrated by the last four hours, i just want to say that you are way better at defending then you are at explaining what you're going to do about the problems that led to your public profile. and i wish it was better, but i have the most recent poll here

from harris. the harvard caps harris poll, 70% of respondents said they were either very or somewhat concerned about interference by the fbi and other intelligence agencies in elections. 71% agreed that changes post-2016 had not done enough to prevent further interference, and that wide ranging reforms still required -- i also am pretty interested in the durham report the promulgation of additional to be learned would likely prove to be a fruitless exercise. so you must have done something more than promulgating additional rules and regulations. to me, that doesn't do much at all when we are going to an issue that probably is cultural. and to that end, i want to

share with you something that i hear from across my 20 counties. live 20 county sheriffs who, one of my brothers used to be one for 15 years. so i called him up and i said, hey, what was your experience with the fbi? and he said, they are very qualified. but when they appear, you know you have to be aware the part of their job is to enforce section 1983. he pointed that out, just because there is a constant tension between fbi and local law enforcement. would you agree? and by the way, when you talk to sheriffs, nobody is going to say to the director of the fbi, we don't like. you why would they do such a crazy thing? they want your help. by the way, i ask for your help down in southern oregon against all the drug cartels. and to your credit, to your office out of portland, you did your best to help. you don't have very many people there, but you did your best to help. but for you to come in here and say, i've never heard from a sheriff they're doing a bad job. well, no, you haven't.

but tell me, am i wrong? am i saying that sheriffs would walk right up to you and say, you are doing a bad job? how many have said that to you? >> well, my experience with sheriffs, actually, has been that they are often very colorful and very blunt in their communications. so i feel that -- >> forgive me for interrupting, but earlier today, he didn't say anything about them being negative. and what i'm trying to get at here is you've done your job to defend your agency, and good for you. but it's not what we are here for today. i want to go to durham's fade to 88 of his report, and this is going to the heart of what the heart of your problem may be. he is very careful to protect you and then he says this. some of the fbi employees who were interviewed by investigators advised, they had significant reservations about the hurricane and try to prevent misgivings and they did

not voice their concerns. in some cases, nothing was said because of a sense there had to be more compelling information in position for those closest to it. and former employees who maintain, they did their best to do reasonable steps and acting within your procedure. here's what i'm getting at here, i don't think people in your organization are comfortable calling out negative things. i don't think they are. and i would be either. i would be worried as a look at what happens with others, this is not a safe place to be. i'm now shut. i don't think that's a good thing for the agency. we know it starts with, actually admitting that you have a problem. i don't think you very get it that either. i'm going to testimony, page 13, i'm sure you voted, we don't have to. but on page 13 last paragraph the right to be sure, that lee markedly shares members or concerns in the eye, and here are the words. compliance violations. compliance violations.

is that all they did? and so enjoying to find out. i found these ways that might have been better. is that all they did? didn't break a law? and they do something more than fail to comply? i'm asking you. if the culture is the issue. doesn't the leader have to at least call out bad actors more aggressively? >> number one, depending on what the violation is, which may or may not be the right description, some of the things that have been to the past things i've implored in the strongest possible terms. some other things that have happened in the past aren't to be described as compliance violations, there's no one description that fits everything that has gone wrong with the fbi over the last five or ten years. my language in general tends to

be fairly measured. i think that's a fair statement about me. some people refer to me as low-key, but nobody should ever mistake my demeanor for what my spine is made out of. i've made very clear to our people over and over again, and over again that i expect them to do their work in the right way with rigor and objectivity. as to fbi employees willingness to speak freely and complain, much like our exchange against sheriffs, i will tell you that your description of our employees does not fit with my experience. when i get to all 56 field officers, one of the things that i do, and especially on this last round, the second round, who is to meet with my employees without their executive management present. just be in that -- including people retirement eligible. and we have a term, and affectionate slang term that a retirement eligible called k m a. you can guess what came a stance for, it reflects their

ability because their retirement eligible to speak freely. they complained to me about all-time things. we have a very lively conversation. i'm confident that my employees feel comfortable talking to me about problems and things that we need to fix. my demeanor is part of what you are reacting to, -- >> forgive me for interrupting my time is over. i want to thank you for your candor, and i yield back. >> yeah the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> thank you, mister chairman. director wray, thank you for being here. believe it or not, i'm basically a simple country dentist. i do know my dentistry. one thing i know about an abscess, if you have an abscess, a mild or moderate one, you treated with antibiotics, it'll be better. if you have a severe one, it's going to take a scalpel to that

abscess, you've got to cut it open, you've got to let the plus in the blood air out. if you don't, that abscess will travel, travel to the patient's brain possibly, or their heart, and it can definitely kill them. that's the type of infection that i feel is within the fbi today. his cutthroat he then we have to get in there with the metaphorical scalpel before it kills our nation. we need real structural change, and this committee is that metaphorical scalpel. a clear sign of the rod is a memo where your agents, and i know you say you feel bad about this too but nevertheless, and i don't think you like to talk about it, but your ages, the field office attempted to spy on catholic churches and their congregations and framed them as extremists. this is unbelievable. how did we get there? who exactly are the catholics they are going after you, or

who they are going to go after? charitable men of the nicest they'd -- help their communities, that helped come -- or maybe we met the folks fighting for the sanctity of life. are you talking about those who hold true there the beliefs and traditional values and cheating's of the catholic faith? as a roman catholic myself, and i believe you are as well, i was deeply disturbed by this memo. it was shameful that it was only rescinded after you get leaked to the public. that should scare everyone, misguided -- priorities of our intelligence community, intelligence community, when everyone made -- it is wrong. it's an american. it undermines two of our very most important tenets. freedom of speech and religion. is what our nation is built upon. director, you work for the

american people. they pay your salary, pay are all of our salaries. they don't work for us, you work for them. you're supposed to protect them from the head, and now many feel that they need protection from the fbi. i've got a few questions here. despite multiple requests, why hasn't the fbi produced unredacted copy of this memo that really outlines this? is public security, is not national security, it isn't public safety. this is an internal thing the wall did that was wrong, and we as a committee, this committee, have the right to look at. it when are we going to get it? why haven't we gotten it already? unredacted. >> we redacted information for a variety of reasons the cover various rules that apply to us. >> i want to know why this one is. i don't know about the, rules i told you, i'm not a lawyer.

you know what i want to know? i want to know why we don't know what happened here, where people in their churches have to worry, and it is something that is going to affect national security. whatever it is the you have, -- when something like this happens and it's not a matter of national security, we should know. i would like to know when we're going to get it. i'd like a date certain. >> what i can tell you is that we are almost done with the internal review. as i said to the chairman, we will provide briefing to the committee and went -- >> when? >> it should be later this summer. >> why do we need an internal review? it's good the you -- why don't we get the information when we ask for it when we subpoena for it, we clearly are not creating any risk to our nation or national security. you can give us that tomorrow. why don't we get that part tomorrow and then you can give us the briefing on the internal review? >> as i said, we will give you the briefing on the internal review, and we can discuss

additional information. >> you're trying to shape it differently and make it look like it's okay. >> on that, no, i'll tell you that i will let defend or excuse that memo and product. >> a simple yes or no. he's are really easy questions. has the fbi maintained or created a list of roman -- >> any list of churches? certainly not targeting any roman catholic churches. >> they were, the female -- as a yes or no, you have a list? if you don't have a list it's easy to say no. >> we have 38,000 employees. we engage with churches of all kinds. -- >> not for possible investigation. >> how about russian orthodox church is? >> same answer. >> evangelical churches? tell me yes or no.

>> -- it is a yes or no. if you have a list of churches that you're targeting or looking at, the answer is yes. if you don't, the answer is no. >> if your question is that we have a list of charges that we are targeting then the answer is no. we do not maintain a list of religious institutions that we are targeting, because we are not targeting religious institutions. >> it is a story state of affairs that these questions are questions that i have to ask, and it's a damp shame that i have to see this, this one -- we need structural change, mister chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the five individuals that signed off on that memo have lost their security clearance during the internal investigation? >> i do not believe that anybody has lost a security clearance, but again, we have an internal review pending, and

i will let that finish and come to its conclusion. >> how did you become aware of the catholic memo that the gentleman just reference? >> how did i become aware of it? >> point of order, mister chairman. >> who's time is the chairman consuming with -- >> the chair recognizes the men from texas for five minutes. >> thank you. i'll say this, mr. ray. i want to be very blunt with you. i've had an opportunity to look at your testimony, lots of stuff, and hear about numerous task forces, crimes being committed against children including even infants and toddlers. ms-13 gang members coming across the open southern border, the poisoning in killing of the american people with fentanyl, the sex trafficking, the human trafficking, it's quite clear that you guys are dealing with some of the sickest pastors in

our society. i have an article here from cnn, calling the january 6th investigation the biggest investigation in fbi history. what shocked me about this point, honestly, you don't mention january 6th. again, the biggest investigation, not one time in your 14-page testimony. you don't mention it one time. what the heck are you hiding? you mentioned 38,000 agents and support personnel in your agency. how many fbi agents in support personnel have you assigned to the january 6th investigation. >> i don't know that i know the number. i know we have a lot of people working on it. >> fair enough, lots. knowing that you're dealing with some of the six people in our society with investigations related to child sex trafficking, have you reassigned any of these agents or personnel to investigate

january 6th? yes or no? >> i don't believe that we have reassigned people away from child exploitation -- >> let me say this, i find that it's disturbing. last month, steve, he testified before the weaponization committee, mr. friend was a domestic terrorist investigator for you, and he was told by one of his superiors that january 6th was, i quote, a higher priority than pursuing child pornography cases, and quote. for those of you watching in america, understand that today's fbi is more concerned about searching for and arresting grandma and grandpa for entering the capitol building that day, then pursuing the sikh individuals in our society who pray and our children, that's where the priorities are. let's rehash what we know so far. it's the largest investigation in fbi history, and you don't mention it in your testimony.

agents have been reassigned from child exploitation cases and so on. let's get into the money, mr. wray, how much taxpayer money has been spent on january 6th? >> i don't have the figure in my head. >> i've got an article here, december 22, 2022, two years after the events of january 6th, and insisted the justice department has requested another $34 million from congress. number, one you should not get another dime. the fbi should not get another dime for this political witch hunt against the greatest president in my lifetime, delegates rob. this fellow, mr. bray, we've all heard of him. we've heard of -- he was number 16 on the fbi most wanted list. he was encouraging people the night prior and they have to go into the capitol, and he could be seen in the first breach of capital grads at approximately 12:50 pm.

play the clip please. we >> need to go into the capital. we are going to the capital. it's not direction. spread the word. >> can we go up there? >> when we go in, leave this here. there he is, breaching the capitol grounds, the restricted area. so you, have arrested hundreds of people, in the rhythm people arrested for breaching capitol

grounds. colby griffin is an example. and then we go to mr. brandon seurat care. brandon was arrested for disorderly and destructive conduct, which included yelling, i quote, go, go, go, as rioters tried to enter the capital. these three never went into the capitol, they never assaulted anybody. let's be honest with each other. there's very little difference between the actions of reyes, and brandon strict of that day, and yet he was arrested, -- he also testified to the january 6th committee. he was back in his hotel when video evidence showed that he wasn't. he lied. he was on the capitol grounds, just as brandon was. he even texted his nephew -- i quote, i was in the front with a few others. i also orchestrated it. look into the camera when you answer my next question. are you going to arrest him,

yes or no? >> i'm not going to get engaged here in discussion about individual people that are or not -- >> can i get a commitment? you just watched the video. i'm an old law dog, i understand a bit about probable cause. he did very little, there is the very little difference, you can see him, he's encouraging -- i think is inciting the riot. he's encouraging people the night prior to go into the capital of the day of, go into the capitol and he was at the first breach. he breached the restricted area. everybody, a lot of people get arrested for not going into the capital, but during the restricted area, yes, many people feel -- my point is this. you were arrested or a lot of folks, and we just -- if you don't arrest him, there's a reason behind. it i believe you know what it is. it appears to be the year protecting this guy. i strongly recommend that you get your health back in order

with that yield back. >> the gentleman may respond. >> it has never been appropriate for an fbi director in congressional testimony to be weighing in on who is or is not going to be arrested, and who is or is not going to get charged, which is a prosecutor's decision. if you are suggesting that the violence at the capitol on january six was part of some operation orchestrated by fbi sources or fbi agents, the answer is no. it was not. to suggest otherwise is a disservice to our hardworking, dedicated law enforcement professionals. can >> i respond to then? the point is, he was number 16 on your list. he was 16 on the list and you never arrested him. hundreds of americans were arrested. shame on you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> by seeking intimate consent for all members to have five legislative days to a submit

any additional materials, including a record -- i would hope that those questions for the record that we would submit would receive -- would further seek unanimous consent that the whatsapp message from hunter biden that i used earlier in the hearing the -- >> with that objection, the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> thank, you mister chairman, i have unanimous consent request -- did the article from -- the january 6th protester reveals that he's forced to live in an rv in hiding after death threats over fbi informant conspiracies, the feds confirmed that he's never worked for them as he slams right-wing theorists using him as a scapegoat. i'd like to offer this into the record. >> without objection. the chair recognize the gentleman from texas. >> thank you mister chairman. director wray, thank you for

your time today. you said earlier in response to the representatives questions that the job in the fbi's 21, undertake criminal investigations, and to, -- would you agree with me that in doing those investigations, the fbi has to do a lot of, that in what are effectively confidential conditions? is that correct? >> yes. >> and when you're undertaking those activities and confidential conditions, you are going to require tools that have been appropriated by congress in the past, tools that say to you that we are going to trust you to use those correctly, and in return, the fbi is than expected to not abuse the trust of those tools that are provided to the fbi to undertake those activities. is that a correct statement? >> yes, i would agree with that. >> trust is a very important thing. both the giving of trust when you get those tools, and then making sure that you do not abuse those -- words the tools have been given to you. were you aware that according to a recent --

70% of respondents in the united states said they were either very or somewhat concerned about interference by the fbi in other intelligence agencies in the elections. were you aware of that? >> i'm not aware of the particular survey or poll, or study, whatever it is. >> in that same poll, 71% of americans, which is certainly a bipartisan group, agreed that internal fbi change post-2016 had not done enough to prevent further interference in elections in that, quote, wide-ranging reform was still required. again, you're not aware of those numbers? >> no. >> does any of that shock you? >> i don't spend a lot of time as an fbi director worrying about polls. what i do look at is whether people want to work with us, whether people want to work for us, and then both of those metrics, we are actually going up quite significantly. in fact, in your home state of texas, we have got a 93% increase in the number of texans applying to work for the fbi.

since i've been in this job. in fact, it is the highest axis as more people working for the fbi than other states in the union. >> even if you don't watch polls, certainly you appreciate the fact that you want the trust of the american people. would you agree with that? >> absolutely. >> all right, does it bother you that so many americans don't trust the fbi presently? >> again, i don't spend a lot of time worrying about polls. i care about what i'm hearing from the american people. it bothers me any time that any american has lost trust, of course that concerns me. >> earlier, you're talking to a representative, and you said where we can take action, where it's possible to remove them from the general command. and then you did -- you get cut off because we have to get to the votes. you are going to say something further on that. do you have any plans to remove anybody from the chain of command or go through a process to determine who should be removed from the chain of command? >> i have already removed a number of people from different

stages of my tenure from the chain of command. i have also referred people to the disciplinary arm, which has resulted in some cases in termination. >> you have any plans to do any more of that? >> if somebody has violated a rule, absolutely. >> when we talk about good faith basis for trust, both americans, republicans and democrats, does bother you that these illegal queries have continued even with efforts of the fbi to try to reduce that? we now have somewhere between a couple hundred thousand and at least 1 million illegal inquiries? >> there are two things going on there. one, i think your numbers of what are actually illegal are off. second, and more importantly to me, all of the changes that we've put in place to address compliance failures from what i consider an acceptable and pointed to the effectiveness of the reforms that we put in

place. we -- >> which ones did you put on the table as those the you know of? >> here's what i can tell you. the most recent opinion found a 98% compliance rate. the most recent doj audit found that 99 or 98% compliance rate. >> is that acceptable to you? is that -- is that acceptable? >> we strive for 100%. all of those things, whether it's the the pfizer court, whether it's the officer of director -- weathers the doj, whether it's our own office of internal audit, which i created. all of those things that show the reforms that we put in place have had traumatic positive impact. am i satisfied with that? no. >> has anybody been fired or removed as a result of their inappropriate use? >> last time somebody has had truly abusive behavior with respect to pfizer goes back a

ways, but those people have been gone from the organization. >> are you making a distinction between truly abusive and abuse? what's the distinction there? >> the distinction i would draw is between intentional or reckless conduct versus somebody who makes a good faith mistake. to me a, good faith mistake is still a compliance violation, somebody needs to be counseled and trained, and coached, and tied to do it right, but that is different from somebody who intentionally or recklessly breaks the rules. >> director, i will go back to where i started in that, it's with trust. we trust you when we give the fbi tools, we trust those tools will not be abused. i think that in the last six years, we have seen a number of abuses of the tools given, and i think that as a result of that, you're going to see a curtailment of some of the tools provided to the fbi. that is not a choice that we're in a position where we want to make it, but we have to make it in terms of the abuses of trust of the american people. thank you for your time today. >> the gentleman yields back.

director, i have some questions, i will have a few questions, and we appreciate you being here for this length of time. we will be able to adjourn the hearing. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> director wray, you have acquitted yourself admirably today under severe and constant fire. your day is about to come to a close with your head still -- your heads still held high, and your soul, i'm sure further empowered to do the right thing on the behalf of the american people through your service as director of the fbi. i thank you for that. you were asked multiple times about the missouri versus biden

injunction. this is a preliminary injunction issued on a holiday. july 4th, independence day. it makes various allegations that thus far have been totally unproven, but relied upon as true here by members of this committee. what is your response to the allegations that the fbi has been engaged in censoring social media platforms or anybody else? >> while they respect the courts decision, i think there are a number of factual findings that we do not agree with. and certainly, the fbi is not engaged, in my view, of censorship or content suppression. >> my republican colleagues also seem to think that the fbi is being weaponized against the

american people. what's your response to that allegation, and that will be my final question for today to you. >> the fbi i see every day, and again, when i see the fbi, nobody gets to see the way i do. i've been to all 56 of our field offices at least twice. i've spoken with partners, law enforcement partners in all 50 states multiple times with the federal judges all over the country, business leaders, community leaders, prosecutors, victims more importantly and their families. the fbi did i see every day is working their tails of to protect the american people from a very staggering array of threats. they're an inspiring, incredibly dedicated group of people. the fbi did icy's best captured by the chicago agent who has -- and chasing a fugitive, and retrained himself to shoot

left-handed and then re-qualified for swat left-handed. by the atlanta agent who unexpectedly came across a fugitive, a gang fugitive, chased the guy into a car, got caught in the car door, the guy drove off with the atlanta agent stuck in the door the. guy headed out onto the freeway, the agent broke his pelvis, and learners how many other things. and yet he still managed to apprehend the subject. the fbi i see is captured by the portland agent who, for a run comes across a mentally ill woman down at the train tracks, and climbs down into the change acts to try and wrestle her out of the way of the oncoming train while she is trying to bite him and everything else, and gets her to safety. or the bomb tech who comes across a booby trap, blows up on him, and in the next business day, he's back at work. that's the fbi that icy.

i could get into countless examples of that, that is the real fbi. >> i thank you again for your service, and i appreciate effect that you have allowed your somewhat loquacious-ness to emerge during this hearing with that final response. thank you. >> director, we appreciate, the whole country does. in fact, i said in a tv interview this morning, to those agents that served four years in the fbi the did great work, now on the republican staff. we appreciate the work they did then, the work they do. now they share the same concerns raised by members of the committee. that is why they came to work for us. i just want a couple more questions. any of the -- improper queries of the two databases, did any of those individuals lose their clients? it >> depends on how far back you want to go in time. we've had individuals when you

say 2018, i think there is the lesser remember where somebody engaged in intentional. conduct of the person, for example he's gone. i think there were security clearances remote for people back in that time period. i don't know that we've had somebody who is engaged in intentional or reckless conduct more recently than that. we have, as you may know mister chairman, this didn't come up today, but it is important for people to know. we've recently put into place a whole new set of accountability policies specifically focused on 702 which go through cascading consequences. that is important. >> it's reported the donors of the congressional member of congress were illegally searched. has that individual lost their clients? >> i'm not sure that i'm familiar with the specific example. >> it's been widely reported that the donor base for a

member of congress has been searched. i wonder if the person responsible for that has had any consequences, like the loss of a security clearance. >> i don't know the answer. >> has the fbi assistant, the secret in the investigations to how cocaine wound up with the white house? >> yes. i want to be careful about what i can say here because the secret service is leading the investigation. as a standard in the investigation where white powder is found, the fbi's lab personnel, they have an evaluation to determine whether or not there is a biological -- that's the only thing we've done so far. we have offered the full range of our assistance to the secret service if they want to use this for that purpose. i would have to refer you to the secret service. >> has that offer been denied? >> i didn't say that. we have offered that but beyond

that i would refer to them. >> in 2020 when the facebook asked the fbi, is the biden laptop story russian disinformation? the fbi's answer was no comment. who gave that answer? >> before you answer, sir, if i might interject the fact that we agreed that i would have two questions, and that you would have two questions. you have asked a couple with several sub parts. >> would you like another question? i would like us to conclude this hearing. i respect your prerogative. >> we have two minutes in ten seconds. we appreciate that. we obviously appreciate the director being here. in october of 2020 when facebook asked the fbi, is the biden laptops story russian disinformation, the fbi's response response was no comment. do you know who gave their response? >> i do not. >> the court knew, in the court said it was laura -- geno who laura down low is. >> i do. >> what does she do? >> laura is an agent in our

counterintelligence division, and she currently works with the foreign influence task force. >> then she had the foreign influence task force? >> i think she leaves it, yes. >> she leads it. did you tell her to give that comment? >> did i white now? >> did you instruct anyone. when facebook asked, did you instruct them to give no comment? >> i do not remember giving any instruction along those lines. i should say that i am not sure whether she was in that role at the timeframe that you described. again -- >> the court of louisiana said she was. when facebook asked her specifically, she said no comment. this is the foreign influence task force leader, which you created as a director of the fbi. correct? all that is correct. you created the foreign influence task force. you put that together she, hasn't. how did you become aware of the catholic -- the one enrichment that we have talked about a couple times today? >> as i recall, in one of my

regular morning meetings, i learned that there was this product, and it was the same day that i had ordered that it be removed. >> was that before or after it was already in the press? >> that i cannot tell you. my guess is that it was probably around the same, time but i don't know. >> did the people who were added up to you learn about it from the press, or was this an internal communication? >> it can't speak to how they looked at it. i just know that i was told about it by them, and then we had a conversation about it immediately taking sections. >> we appreciate that. director, we appreciate your time. i know it's been a long day. the -- we already had a unanimous consent for mr. gates, and so the committee is adjourned.

>> if you ever missed any of

c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates, and other events featuring markers that guide you through the interesting and news where the highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand high-end side of your screen. this timeline makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided that washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's point of interest. the meeting with comprehensive coverage. it's all start live from atlantic city on thursday, beginning at ten pm eastern on c-span 3. governors will address issues around youth mental health, maternal and infant health, along with disaster response. jill biden will also speak. on friday, watch c-span's washington journal live at eight pm eastern as the new jersey governor phil murphy,

utah governor spencer cox makes a joint appearance. ten pm eastern, our live coverage continues on c-span two featuring the c's -- in the discussion on civil public discourse. watch comprehensive coverage of the national governors association summer meeting, live on thursday at c-span three, and friday on washington journal, and she spent two, she's been now, the free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. >> she spends campaign 2024 coverage -- watch the coverage of the candidates on the campaign trail with announcements, meet and greets, speeches, and events. campaign 2024 on the c-span networks. c-span now, or free modal video app. or anytime online.

-- >> >> supporting c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers. you've been a front row seat to democracy. >> next, or mike by fcc chair jessica rhoden -- she talks about space and business policy. innovations and communications, satellite policy, and global collaboration. hosted by the washington's base business roundtable. it's about 35 minutes.