[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE FBI AND DOJ ACTIONS
IN ADVANCE OF THE 2016 ELECTION
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 19, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-100
(Committee on Oversight and Government Reform)
__________
Serial No. 115-34
(Committee on the Judiciary)
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
http://oversight.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
31-522 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
Darrell E. Issa, California Ranking Minority Member
Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Justin Amash, Michigan Columbia
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Mark Meadows, North Carolina Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Ron DeSantis, Florida Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Mark Walker, North Carolina Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Rod Blum, Iowa Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Jody B. Hice, Georgia Jimmy Gomez, Maryland
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Peter Welch, Vermont
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Will Hurd, Texas Mark DeSaulnier, California
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
James Comer, Kentucky John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Paul Mitchell, Michigan
Greg Gianforte, Montana
Vacancy
Sheria Clarke, Staff Director
William McKenna, General Counsel
Sean Brebbia, Senior Counsel for Investigations
Stephen Castor, Chief Investigative Counsel
Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Committee on the Judiciary
Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman
Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin Jerrold Nadler, New York
Lamar Smith, Texas Zoe Lofgren, California
Steve Chabot, Ohio Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
Darrell Issa, California Steve Cohen, Tennessee
Steve King, Iowa Hank Johnson, Georgia
Louie Gohmert, Texas Ted Deutch, Florida
Jim Jordan, Ohio Luis Gutierrez, Illinois
Ted Poe, Texas Karen Bass, California
Tom Marino, Pennsylvania Cedric Richmond, Louisiana
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Hakeem Jeffries, New York
Raul Labrador, Idaho David Cicilline, Rhode Island
Doug Collins, Georgia Eric Swalwell, California
Ron Desantis, Florida Ted Lieu, California
Ken Buck, Colorado Jamie Raskin, Maryland
John Ratcliffe, Texas Pramila Jayapal, Washington
Martha Roby, Alabama Brad Schneider, Illinois
Matt Gaetz, Florida Val Demings, Florida
Mike Johnson, Louisiana
Andy Biggs, Arizona
John Rutherford, Florida
Karen Handel, Georgia
Keith Rothfus, Pennsylvania
Shelley Husband, Staff Director
Branden Ritchie, Deputy Staff Director
Bobby Parmiter, Chief Counsel for Crime and Terrorism
Zach Somers, General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 19, 2018.................................... 1
WITNESSES
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Justice
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 14
OVERSIGHT OF THE FBI AND DOJ ACTIONS IN ADVANCE OF THE 2016 ELECTION
----------
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, joint with
the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The committees met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Trey Gowdy [chairman
of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform] presiding.
Present from the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform: Representatives Gowdy, Issa, Jordan, Amash, Gosar,
DesJarlais, Foxx, Massie, Meadows, DeSantis, Walker, Hice,
Russell, Grothman, Palmer, Comer, Mitchell, Gianforte,
Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Clay, Connolly, Lawrence, Watson
Coleman, Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Plaskett, and Sarbanes.
Present from the Committee on the Judiciary: Goodlatte,
Chabot, King, Gohmert, Poe, Ratcliffe, Roby, Gaetz, Johnson of
Louisiana, Biggs, Rutherford, Handel, Rothfus, Nadler, Jackson
Lee, Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Jeffries,
Cicilline, Swalwell, and Schneider.
Chairman Gowdy. Good morning. The Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform and the Committee on Judiciary will come
to order. Without objection, the presiding member is authorized
to declare a recess at any time.
I am pleased, as I know my colleagues are, to see so much
interest in today's hearing. As a reminder to our guests, the
Rules of the House of Representatives prohibit any disruption
or manifestation of approval or disapproval of the proceedings,
such as shouting. Disrupting the proceedings is a violation of
D.C. law and the House Rules, and it will not be tolerated, and
this will be your only warning.
Welcome, Inspector General Horowitz.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gowdy. Yes.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, before we hear from the Inspector
General, I feel compelled to say something about a topic that
is a more immediate priority.
We have all seen the pictures of immigrant children ripped
apart from their parents at the border. These children are not
animals. They are not bargaining chips. They are not leverage
to help President Trump build his wall. They are children who
have been forcibly removed from their parents in our name.
Every day that they are separated from their parents is a day
we do irreparable harm to their health and well-being.
The United States should be better than this. We should not
put children in cages. The minute this hearing adjourns, sooner
if we can----
Chairman Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, regular order.
Mr. Nadler. --I hope our committees can work together to
end this cruel practice without delay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Virginia has requested
regular order. The gentleman from New York has been given more
time than would have been afforded the other side had we pulled
something like that.
So with that, we will welcome you, Mr. Horowitz, for what I
think is a hearing on your inspector general report and to
decisions made and not made in 2016.
We will be in recess until the Capitol Police restore
order.
[Recess.]
Chairman Gowdy. The committee will come to order.
Inspector General Horowitz, just for your knowledge, the
chairs and ranking members will give opening statements, then
you will be introduced and recognized for your opening
statement.
What we're doing today does not happen everywhere. We are
taking institutions with long and distinguished histories,
institutions we need, institutions we rely upon, and we're
applying scrutiny, review, and inspection. We're testing, we're
probing, we're challenging, we're even criticizing.
And we're doing this because we need these institutions to
be above reproach. We need them to be respected and trusted. We
need them to be above bias, taint, and prejudice. We need these
institutions to be fair, just, evenhanded, proportional, and
wholly immune from the vagaries of politics.
That's what we expect and demand and need from the
Department of Justice and the FBI, and those expectations
should be consistently exacting, because the power we give
prosecutors and law enforcement is an awesome power.
The power to prosecute, the power to charge, the power to
indict is the power to impact reputations. It is the power to
deprive people of their liberty. It is the power in some
instances to even try to take the very life of a citizen. And
we give police and prosecutors tremendous powers, and with
those powers comes a corresponding expectation of fairness and
just dealing.
This inspector general's report should conjure anger,
disappointment, and sadness in everyone who reads it. This IG
report lays bare the bias, the animus, the prejudging of facts
by senior FBI agents and senior attorneys. And attempts to
minimize and mitigate this bias are so antithetical to what we
want and deserve in our law enforcement officers, and it is
dangerous to the broader community.
I have seen media efforts, and I have seen efforts from
some, not all, but some of my Democrat colleagues to shift the
burden of bias unto those impacted by that bias, that it is
somehow the responsibility of those affected by bias to show
how that bias negatively impacted them.
What a dangerous shifting of the burden. It is not the
public's job to prove the bias shown by the FBI did not
influence decisionmaking. It is the FBI's job to prove to the
public that this manifest bias was not outcome determinative.
And bias and fairness cannot coexist. That is why no lawyer
seated up here today would ever allow a biased juror to sit on
his or her jury and no citizen would ever allow a biased police
officer or judge to work on any matter of any significance.
There is a presumption that bias is bad, and that is a
presumption we should accept in nearly every single facet of
life.
As we read this report, we're reminded of Jim Comey's
decision to hold the July 5 press conference and appropriate
the charging decision away from the prosecutors. We see Jim
Comey drafting an exoneration memo before important witnesses,
like the target, were even interviewed.
Ironically, this inspector general has been accused of
softening or watering down his report when the reality is it
was Jim Comey who softened and watered down his press release
announcing no charges against Secretary Clinton.
We see Jim Comey and Jim Comey alone deciding which DOJ
policies to follow and which to ignore. We see Jim Comey and
Jim Comey alone deciding whether there is sufficient evidence
to support each and every element of an offense. We see Jim
Comey and Jim Comey alone deciding whether to send a letter to
Congress in the throes of a looming election.
Now, his justification for this is that he did not have
confidence in the objectivity of Attorney General Loretta
Lynch. Whether it was her asking him to refer to this case as a
``matter'' rather than an ``investigation,'' or her meeting
with Bill Clinton while Hillary Clinton was under
investigation, or the matter he has alluded to but claims he
cannot discuss publicly, clearly Jim Comey had lost confidence
in the DOJ to handle a case in a way worthy of public trust.
But that leads us to the one thing we did not see Jim Comey
do, which was take any steps to spur the appointment of special
counsel in the Hillary Clinton investigation.
When he lost confidence in the Trump Justice Department he
memorialized private conversations, he leaked them, and he
admitted he did so to spur the appointment of special counsel
because he didn't trust the career prosecutors at the
Department of Justice.
When he lost confidence in the Obama Justice Department he
didn't make special memos. He didn't share them with his law
professor friends. He didn't leak the information. He didn't
lift a finger to get a special prosecutor. Instead, he
appointed himself FBI Director, Attorney General, special
counsel, lead investigator, and the general arbiter of what is
good and right in the world according to him.
And one of the last times I spoke with Director Comey was
in a committee hearing. We had a pointed exchange on what I
thought was the FBI making decisions based in part on politics.
And he, in his typically sanctimonious way, told me he
disagreed. He said, the men and women of the FBI do not, quote,
``give a hoot about politics.''
Unfortunately, and I use that word intentionally,
unfortunately, he was dead wrong. There were agents and
attorneys at the FBI who gave a lot more than a hoot about
politics.
There's Andy McCabe, the former deputy director and acting
director of the FBI, an agency which investigates and charges
others for making false statements, himself accused of making
false statements and showing a lack of candor.
I think I recall, perhaps someone can correct me, but I
think I recall some of my Democrat colleagues falling over
themselves to offer a job to Andy McCabe when he was let go for
making false statements and for a lack of candor, but those
same colleagues apparently weren't hiring, they didn't have any
openings when others in a related investigation, called Russia,
were charged with the same offense.
There were FBI agents and attorneys who decided to prejudge
the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case before the
investigation ended. I want you to let that sink in for a
second. They prejudged the outcome of the Hillary Clinton
investigation before the investigation ended, and these exact
same FBI agents and attorneys prejudged the outcome of the
Russia investigation before it even began.
If prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it
ends and prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it
begins is not evidence of outcome-determinative bias, for the
life of me I don't know what would be. That is textbook bias.
It is quite literally the definition of bias, allowing
something other than the facts to determine your decision.
These agents were calling her President before she was even
interviewed. They were calling for the end of the Trump
campaign before the investigation even began. They were calling
for impeachment simply because he happened to be elected. That
is bias.
And with all due respect, it is the FBI's job, not mine, to
prove that bias can ever be harmless, because I don't agree, I
think bias is always harmful.
So we'll spend today on the small in number but significant
in leadership group of DOJ and FBI officials, officials who had
leadership and supervisory roles in the Clinton and Russia
investigations and who failed to meet the basic expectations of
fundamental fairness.
But there are tens of thousands of FBI agents and DOJ
employees who do meet our exacting expectations, and we will
not be calling their names today, unfortunately, because we
don't do IG investigations on agents and prosecutors who do
their jobs with character and professionalism.
To those agents and prosecutors who do the right thing the
right way and for the right reasons, we'll get through this. It
will be tough and it will be difficult, but we will emerge on
the other side with a stronger FBI and a stronger Department of
Justice because we have to. We cannot have a justice system
that bases decisions on anything other than facts.
To our fellow citizens watching at home, be unrelenting in
your expectations of our justice system. Never lower those
expectations. Respect for the rule of law is the thread that
holds the tapestry of this country together, and it depends
upon you having confidence in those you empower to enforce the
law.
And importantly, do not ever accept the notion that those
victimized or impacted or negatively treated because of bias or
prejudgment have any burden of proving harm. Bias is
intrinsically harmful. It is the making up of your mind based
on anything other than the facts.
We use a blindfolded woman holding a set of scales to
symbolize what we want in a justice system. And there is
nothing more antithetical to justice than lowering that
blindfold and making up your mind based on who is standing in
front of you. That is not who we are. That is not what we
should ever become.
There's a saying in the courtroom: May justice be done
though the heavens fall. You won't hear that saying in
politics. You're more likely to hear: Let's win at all costs,
the heavens be damned.
We can survive with politicians we don't trust. We can't
survive with a justice system we don't trust.
With that, I would recognize the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
When we look back to the Presidential campaign in 2016
there's one extremely troubling image we all remember very
well. That is the image of Donald Trump and other Republicans
chanting: Lock her up, lock her up, lock her up. They were
talking about Hillary Clinton using personal emails, and they
demanded over and over again that she be jailed.
But the Justice Department had already investigated. They
had interviewed witnesses, reviewed documents, analyzed the
law, and examined past charging decisions. At the conclusion of
its investigation, the Department disagreed with the
Republicans. They did not charge Hillary Clinton with any crime
at all. And the entire DOJ and FBI team on the investigation
agreed with that conclusion.
Of course, the Republicans refused to accept that
conclusion. They wanted Hillary Clinton to be guilty. So they
attacked the investigation. They said there must have been
collusion with Hillary Clinton. They called emergency hearings
over and over and over again. They insisted on reviewing
documents and reinterviewing witnesses. And they demanded that
the inspector general conduct his own independent investigation
of the FBI.
Last week the inspector general issued his report, but it
finds the same thing. It says, and I quote: ``We found no
evidence that the conclusions by Department prosecutors were
affected by bias or other improper considerations.'' The report
goes on, and I quote: ``Rather, we determined that they were
based on the prosecutor's assessments of the facts, the law,
and past Department practice,'' end of quote.
So the Republicans were wrong again. All their howling
about ``lock her up'' was bogus. It was baseless. It was
unsubstantiated. And now we have another report saying so. But
again and again the Republicans refuse to accept this
conclusion. They still want Hillary Clinton to be guilty even
today.
Now they're going after the investigation of the
investigation. They're going after the inspector general's
report issued last week. They want to rereview documents the
inspector general already reviewed and reinterview witnesses
the inspector general already interviewed.
Some Republicans even want to investigate whether anyone
tampered with the inspector general's report or watered it
down. They simply refuse to accept the inspector general's
findings. The Republicans point to some individual expressions
of bias, and these are facts the inspector general already
reviewed.
Instead, the Republicans are now tripling down, threatening
to impeach Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray for somehow
obstructing their efforts to get to the bottom of all of this.
They had a big meeting on Friday, by the way, Friday night,
with Speaker Paul Ryan. No Democrats were invited, of course.
But this weekend Chairman Gowdy described some of it during a
press conference, press appearance.
Apparently, after reading the inspector general's
conclusions, House Republicans all decided that, and I quote:
``The House of Representatives is going to use its full arsenal
of constitutional weapons to gain compliance,'' end of quote,
with their never-ending demands regarding Hillary Clinton.
At this point I think it is crystal clear that the only
answer Republicans will accept is that Hillary Clinton must be
guilty. They will keep going on and going until they get that
answer, even if the facts will never support it, and even if
multiple independent reviews come to exactly the opposite
conclusion.
Republicans in Congress are only willing to use their full
arsenal of constitutional weapons to attack Hillary Clinton or
protect Donald Trump. Neither the Oversight Committee nor the
Judiciary Committee has issued a single subpoena to investigate
President Donald Trump on any other topic related to his
administration, including the key moral and ethical issue of
the day, which is the President's new policy to separate
children from their families.
And so I ask the question, and it is a simple question: Are
we really going to sit here, 70 Members of the Congress of the
United States of America, in 2018 and have a hearing that just
repeats the hearings the Senate had yesterday on Hillary
Clinton's emails?
We sent letter after letter, letter after letter asking
these committees to investigate the Trump administration's
policy, which is now resulting in child internment camps--
that's what I said, child internment camps--but we have gotten
no response.
Look, even if you believe people entered our country
illegally, even if you believe they have no valid asylum claims
in their own country, even if you believe immigration should be
halted entirely, we all should be able to agree that in the
United States of America we will not intentionally separate
children from their parents. We will not do that. We are better
than that. We are so much better. We should be able to agree
that we will not keep kids in child internment camps
indefinitely and hidden away from public view. What country is
that?
This is the United States of America. We now have reports
that parents are being deported, but the Trump administration
is keeping their children here, 2018 in America.
We do not need legislation. This is a policy--and
understand this--this was a policy invented, implemented, and
executed by President Donald Trump.
And so in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we need you. Those
children need you. And I'm talking directly to my Republican
colleagues. We need you to stand up to President Trump. We need
you to join us in telling him that we reject this mean policy.
We need you to tell him to abandon this policy. We need you to
remind him that this is the United States of America and it is
a great country. And we need you to stand up for those
children.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Maryland yields back.
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
Chairman Goodlatte. We are here to shed light on decisions
that have terribly tarnished the reputation of our chief law
enforcement institutions and undermine Americans' confidence in
their justice system. Today we will examine irregularities and
improprieties in the FBI and DOJ's handling of two of the most
sensitive investigations in the history of our country, and it
all began with Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified
emails.
The IG's report has spawned more questions and more
theories about the FBI and DOJ's handling of the Clinton
investigation. It confirms that Mrs. Clinton did, in fact,
receive special treatment from the Obama Justice Department and
FBI during their investigation.
The American people often get tired of political infighting
in Washington, D.C., so I want to ask a simple question: Why
should Americans care about what we are talking about here
today?
I propose this answer: Because our constitution guarantees
equality under the law. Americans expect that those with power
and influence will not receive special treatment.
But as the IG report describes, DOJ and FBI did not treat
Mrs. Clinton like any other criminal suspect and did not follow
standard investigative procedures in exonerating her.
The IG found many issues with this particular
investigation, as well as serious institutional issues, and
while only telling half the story. We are still awaiting
conclusions with respect to the allegations of surveillance
abuse inside the FBI. The IG identified various corrective
actions, including recommending five additional FBI employees
for further review and possible disciplinary consideration.
In a nutshell, the IG report details unusual actions taken
by law enforcement officials who were sworn to uphold the
Constitution impartially and fairly. They failed in that duty.
Again, why should Americans care? The Department of Justice
and the FBI are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Who is
mentioned in the Constitution? The President and Congress. Yet
a handful of individuals in these law enforcement institutions
placed the constitutional institution of the Presidency under
attack during a heated election and mocked Congress' legitimate
constitutionally mandated oversight.
Equality under the law is a core American value. Our laws
are to be administered and enforced with impartiality. The IG
report confirms that this was not the case in the Clinton
investigation.
To quote from the report concerning certain individuals
assigned to the investigation: ``We found that the conduct of
these five FBI employees brought discredit to themselves, sowed
doubt about the FBI's handling of the Midyear investigation,
and impacted the reputation of the FBI...Moreover, the damage
caused by their actions extends far beyond the scope of the
Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI's
reputation for neutral factfinding and political
independence,'' end quote.
I am only repeating what the IG found: Improprieties by the
FBI and DOJ caused such far-reaching damage going to the heart
of what is expected from agencies whose responsibility was to
remain fair administrators of justice.
This hearing and the IG's report underscore the importance
of the ongoing joint investigation by the House Judiciary
Committee and the House Oversight Committee into decisions made
by the DOJ and FBI in 2016. To date, the committees have
interviewed several key witnesses and reviewed tens of
thousands of documents.
While we appreciate the IG and his staff for a very
detailed investigation, it is critical for the public to also
hear what was not included in the report due to the IG's
refusal to question, quote, ``whether a particular decision by
the FBI and DOJ was the most effective choice,'' end quote.
Here is what has been observed by these committees:
Questionable interpretation by DOJ and FBI of the law
surrounding mishandling of classified information;
Foreign actors obtained access to some of Mrs. Clinton's
emails, including at least one email classified secret;
Director Comey appeared to have predetermined the
exoneration of Mrs. Clinton at least 2 months before the
investigation concluded;
The Department of Justice determined any charge of gross
negligence was off the table, reading an intent standard into
the law that does not exist;
Grotesque statements against then-candidate Donald Trump
were made by top FBI officials, and they went so far as to say:
We'll stop Trump from becoming President;
Indiscretions involving Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page were not
handled appropriately at the time the FBI management learned of
them, resulting in their continued assignment as key players on
the Clinton investigation and the Mueller Russia investigation;
Mr. McCabe appears to have not been forthright with
Congress during an interview conducted by the committees
concerning his knowledge of meetings and actions taken by Mr.
McCabe and his team;
The FBI's top counterintelligence official was unaware of
possible evidence indicating Mrs. Clinton's private email
server had been penetrated by a foreign adversary and unaware
of relevant legal process obtained during the investigation;
Documents show significant criticism of Mr. Comey expressed
by multiple current and former FBI agents;
The FBI intentionally obscured the fact President Obama had
communicated with Mrs. Clinton's private email address by
editing Mr. Comey's final press statement, replacing ``the
President'' with the euphemism ``senior government official'';
Finally, top FBI officials, including Mr. McCabe and Mr.
Priestap, through their wives had close ties to Democrat and
Clinton-affiliated entities and should have seemingly been
recused from the Clinton investigation.
Public confidence in the impartiality of our law
enforcement system is critical to ensure all are treated
equally under the law. Fallout from the Clinton investigation,
however, gives the impression those with money and influence
are given lighter treatment than the so-called common person.
Short-term damage to the FBI and DOJ's reputations is
apparent. However, the IG and Congress' investigations will
help to understand why certain deficiencies occurred during one
of the most high-profile investigations in this Nation's
history.
This hearing is a crucial step toward repairing law
enforcement's reputation as an impartial fact-finder and seeker
of truth, and I look forward to the inspector general's
testimony today.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Virginia yields back.
The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Inspector General Horowitz, for being here
today.
In the days since you released your report, Mr. Inspector
General, I have been struck by the total disconnect between the
Republican party line and your actual findings. The report does
not find, as President Trump continues to complain, that the
FBI, quote, plotted against his election.
The report also does not totally exonerate the President on
the Russian matter no matter how you read it. It does not give
any reason to conclude, as the President's increasingly
untethered attorney Rudy Giuliani argues, that, quote, Mueller
should be suspended and honest people should be brought in,
unquote, or that the Attorney General should violate his
recusal and end the special counsel's investigation altogether.
Nor does it suggest, as Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman
Gowdy insist, that Hillary Clinton received special treatment
from the FBI.
The key findings in the report are quite simple. The
inspector general, quote, ``found no evidence that the
conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other
improper considerations; rather, we determined that they were
based on the prosecutor's assessment of the facts, the law, and
past Department practice,'' close quote. That sums up
everything we're talking about.
The report criticizes the FBI and its former leadership,
but virtually every action criticized ultimately harmed the
candidacy of Secretary Clinton and inured to the benefit of the
candidacy of Donald Trump.
And the report has nothing whatsoever to say about the
ongoing work of the special counsel. President Trump, Rudy
Giuliani, and some of my Republican colleagues are desperate to
make that leap. Who wouldn't be in their position, with 23
indictments and the President's campaign manager in jail? But
their argument is based on innuendo and not on the facts and
certainly not on this report.
Now, I am not shy about my criticism of the former FBI
Director. When James Comey testified before the Judiciary
Committee last year I told him that he was wrong to have
applied a double standard to the Presidential campaigns,
speaking publicly and at length about the Clinton investigation
but refusing even to acknowledge the existence of the
investigation into the Trump campaign.
I also told Mr. Comey that he was wrong to have criticized
Secretary Clinton after announcing that he would not charge her
with a crime, not because of the content of the criticism, but
because issuing that statement was simply not his job, as the
report finds.
It is also wrong, as well as against Department of Justice
guidelines, for the investigative agency to criticize the
subject of an investigation for uncharged conduct. It was
totally unnecessary and wrong.
The inspector general's report describes both of these
failings in detail. The report's analysis of Mr. Comey's July 5
statement reads in pertinent part, quote: ``In our criminal
justice system the investigative and prosecutive functions are
intentionally kept separate as a check on the government's
power to bring criminal charges.'' The report concludes that
Mr. Comey's statement assumed an authority that did not belong
to the office of the Director of the FBI.
I am grateful for this important analysis, Mr. Horowitz.
Unfortunately, sir, your key finding that the decision not to
charge Secretary Clinton was based on an assessment of the
facts, the law, and past Department practice and not on bias or
improper consideration is now subject to the treatment that
President Trump and some of my Republican colleagues will give
it. ``I mean, there was total bias,'' the President argued on
the White House lawn just last week.
What are we to make of this disconnect between what the
report says and what the President and his allies say it says?
Why is it that no matter how many times we litigate this
question House Republicans can think of nothing better to do
than to endlessly investigate Hillary Clinton for the same
conduct?
Why is it that after half a dozen investigations found no
wrongdoing at Benghazi the majority spent millions of dollars
on their own Benghazi Select Committee? And when that body
found no wrongdoing either, why is it that the majority moved
on to legitimize conspiracy theories about the Clinton
Foundation and Uranium One?
Why is it that after the Department of Justice and the FBI
concluded it should not charge Secretary Clinton with a crime,
rather than accepting the conclusion, as we would in most
criminal cases, the Judiciary and Oversight majorities launched
an investigation into the Department of Justice and the FBI?
Why is it that after you released this report, Mr.
Horowitz, some of my colleagues seriously suggested that we
open an investigation into your investigation of the
investigation?
Why is it that here and now, in June of 2018, we are still
talking about Hillary Clinton's emails at all?
I suspect it has something to do with the way Republicans
have squandered their opportunity to govern and the
consequences of abdicating that responsibility.
House Republicans have done little or nothing to secure our
next election from foreign attack; or to push back against the
Attorney General's unprecedented refusal to defend in court the
key protections of the Affordable Care Act; or to address an
immigration crisis with anything other than a cruel and
reactionary policy proposal that will never become law and with
persecuting children at the border.
They don't even make credible arguments about Hillary
Clinton's emails. I suspect that if the majority were actually
motivated by the sensitivity of classified information in the
Clinton case they would have also said something by now about
the highly sensitive Israeli operation revealed to Russian
officials by President Trump; or about the way the President
handles classified documents at Mar-a-Lago; or about the
confidential human source whose identity was exposed recently
while our colleagues tried to force the deputy attorney general
to reveal his identity; or about the totally inappropriate, if
not outright unlawful, dangling of pardons by the President and
his attorney to those accused of participating in a conspiracy
against the United States.
No, too many of my Republican colleagues instead seem stuck
in a perpetual Trump campaign rally, shouting ``lock her up''
with the rest of the crowd, hoping that the public won't notice
how little they have accomplished with their time in the
majority.
I look forward to your testimony today, Mr. Inspector
General. I hope our conversation can be the beginning of the
end of this long preoccupation with Secretary Clinton. We have
so many more important things to do.
I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from New York yields back.
We are pleased to introduce our witness today, the
Honorable Michael Horowitz, inspector general for the
Department of Justice.
Welcome to you, Mr. Horowitz.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
before they testify, so I would ask you to do what you just
did. Stand up, raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about
to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
May the record reflect the witness answered in the
affirmative.
Mr. Horowitz, you are recognized for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HOROWITZ, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Chairmen Gowdy and Goodlatte, and
thank you, Ranking Members Cummings and Nadler, and members of
the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today
regarding the report we released last week.
Our 500-page-plus report provides a thorough,
comprehensive, and objective recitation of the facts related to
the Department's and the FBI's handling of the Clinton email
investigation. It was the product of 17 months of investigative
work by a dedicated OIG team that reviewed well over 1.2
million documents and interviewed more than 100 witnesses, many
on multiple occasions.
The review team followed the evidence wherever it led, and
through their efforts we identified the inappropriate texts and
instant messages discussed in the report.
Additionally, the OIG's painstaking forensic examinations
recovered thousands of text messages that otherwise would have
been lost or been undisclosed.
As detailed in our report, we found that the inappropriate
political messages that we uncovered cast a cloud over the
Midyear investigation, sowed doubt about the credibility of the
FBI's handling of it, and impacted the reputation of the FBI.
We found the implication that senior FBI employees would be
willing to take official action to impact a Presidential
candidate's electoral prospects to be deeply troubling and
antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Justice
Department.
With regard to the decision to close the investigation
without prosecution, we found no evidence that the conclusions
by the prosecutors were the result of improper considerations,
including political bias, but rather were exercises of those
prosecutors' prosecutorial discretion--an exercise of their
prosecutorial discretion--based on their assessment of the
facts, the law, and past Department practice.
Our review also included a fact-based, detailed assessment
of certain specific investigative and prosecutorial decisions
that were the subject of controversy. It was necessary to
select particular investigative decisions because it would not
have been possible to recreate and analyze every decision made
in a year-long investigation.
In examining these decisions, the question we considered
was not whether a particular decision was the most effective
choice, but rather whether the documentary and testimonial
evidence indicated the decision was based on improper
considerations, including political bias.
This approach is consistent with the OIG's handling of such
questions in past reviews when assessing discretionary judgment
calls and recognizes and respects the institutional oversight
role of the OIG.
Our report provides a comprehensive assessment of these
decisions and of the Midyear investigation and details the
factual evidence so that the public, Congress, and other
stakeholders can conduct their own assessment of them.
Within this framework as to the specific investigative and
prosecutive decisions we reviewed, we did not find documentary
or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including
political bias, directly affected those specific investigative
decisions in part because the decisions were made by the
Midyear team--by the larger Midyear team or by the prosecutors.
This determination by the OIG does not mean that we
necessarily endorse those decisions; or concluded they were the
most effective among the options considered; or that our
findings should or can be extrapolated to cover other decisions
made during the course of the investigation by the FBI
employees who sent those inappropriate text messages.
Conversely, we found the FBI's explanations for its
failures to take immediate action after discovering the Weiner
laptop in September 2016 to be unpersuasive, and we did not
have confidence that the decision of Deputy Assistant Director
Strzok to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up
on the Weiner laptop was free from bias in light of his text
messages.
We also found that in key moments then-FBI Director Comey
clearly departed from FBI and Department norms and his
decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the
Department as fair administrators of justice.
Director Comey concealed from the Attorney General and the
deputy attorney general his intention to make a unilateral
announcement in July 2016 about the reasons for his
recommendation not to prosecute former Secretary Clinton. His
July 5 statement included inappropriate commentary about
uncharged conduct, announced his views on what a, quote/
unquote, reasonable prosecutor would do, and served to confuse
rather than clarify public understanding of his recommendation
or what the prosecutors had assessed in terms of the evidence.
In late October he again acted without adequately
consulting Department leadership and contrary to important
Department norms when he sent a letter to Congress announcing
renewed investigative activities--activity--days before the
election.
There are many lessons to be learned from the Department's
and the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, but
among the most important is the need to respect the
institution's hierarchy and structure and to follow established
policies, procedures, and norms, even in the highest profile
and most challenging investigations. No rule, policy, or
practice is perfect, of course, but at the same time neither is
any individual's ability to make judgments under pressure or in
what may seem like unique circumstances.
When leaders and officials adhere to bedrock principles and
values the public has greater confidence in the fairness and
rightness of their decisions and those institutions' leaders
better protect the interests of Federal law enforcement and the
dedicated professionals who serve us all.
By contrast, the public's trust is negatively impacted when
law enforcement officials make statements reflecting bias, when
leaders abandon institutional norms and the organizational
hierarchy in favor of their own ad hoc judgments, and when the
leadership of the Department of Justice and the FBI are unable
to speak directly with one another for the good of the
institutions.
Our report makes nine recommendations, most of which can be
tied together to a common theme: that the FBI and the Justice
Department remain true to their foundational principles and
values in all of their work.
That concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions the committee may have.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Mr. Horowitz follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Inspector General.
There's a text exchange between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and
FBI agent Peter Strzok from August the 8th of 2016. In that
text exchange Lisa Page wrote: Trump's not ever going to become
President, right, with a question mark, and then right, with a
question mark and an exclamation point in case anybody reading
it may have missed the point of her emphasis. Peter Strzok
responded: ``No. No he's not. We'll stop it.''
Do I have that text exchange right?
Mr. Horowitz. You do.
Chairman Gowdy. Now, Lisa Page was an FBI lawyer who worked
on the Clinton email investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Chairman Gowdy. Did she also work on the Russia
investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. She did.
Chairman Gowdy. How about the Mueller special counsel team?
Mr. Horowitz. She did for a period of time.
Chairman Gowdy. All right. So we're three for three on her
working on the two most important Bureau investigations in 2016
and beyond.
Now, is this the same Lisa Page that Andy McCabe used to
leak information to a news outlet?
Mr. Horowitz. She was his special counsel, and as we
indicated in our earlier report, she was the individual through
whom he provided that information.
Chairman Gowdy. Wasn't there also a text about an insurance
policy in case Trump won and a meeting in Andy's office? She
was part of that text string, too, wasn't she?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct. That was on August 15.
Chairman Gowdy. All right. So this August 8 text was not
the only time FBI lawyer Lisa Page was able to use the text
feature on her phone. This is the same Lisa Page who admonished
the agent interviewing Hillary Clinton not to go into that
interview loaded for bear because Clinton might be the next
President. And it is the same Lisa Page who said Trump was
loathsome, awful, the man cannot become President, Clinton just
has to win, and that Trump should go F himself.
Now, most of those comments were before the Clinton
investigation was over, and we are somehow supposed to believe
that she did not prejudge the outcome of that investigation
before it was over? She already had Hillary Clinton winning. I
don't know how you can win if you're going to wind up getting
indicted and/or plead guilty or be convicted of a felony.
So I think we understand the first half of that text pretty
well. She didn't want Trump to win, and she wanted Clinton to
win.
Now, for the response. Senior FBI agent Peter Strzok wrote:
``No. No he's not. We'll stop it.''
Now, I think this is the same Peter Strzok who worked on
the Clinton email investigation. Do I have that right?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Chairman Gowdy. Same Peter Strzok who not only worked on
the Russia investigation when it began, but was one of the lead
investigators at the inception of the Russia probe. Do I have
the right Peter Strzok?
Mr. Horowitz. That's my understanding.
Chairman Gowdy. Now, is it the same Peter Strzok who was
put on the Mueller special counsel team?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Chairman Gowdy. All right. Same Peter Strzok. And this is
not the only time he managed to find the text feature on his
phone either. This is the same Peter Strzok who said: Trump is
an idiot. Hillary should win 100 million to zero.
Now, Mr. Inspector General, that one is interesting to me
because he's supposed to be investigating her for violations of
the Espionage Act at the time he wrote that in March of 2016.
He's supposed to be investigating her for violations of the
Espionage Act, and he can't think of a single, solitary
American that wouldn't vote for her for President.
I mean, can you see our skepticism? This senior FBI agent
not only had her running, he had her winning 100 million to
nothing.
So what if they'd found evidence sufficient to indict her?
What if they had indicted her? Is this the same Peter Strzok?
He wasn't part of the interview of Secretary Clinton, was he?
Mr. Horowitz. He was present for the interview.
Chairman Gowdy. Huh. So 4 months before that interview
where he was present he's got her running and winning 100
million to zero. And it is the same Peter Strzok who wrote: The
bigoted nonsense of Trump. Trump's a disaster. I have no idea
how destabilizing his Presidency would be. He wrote: F Trump.
Trump is an f'ing idiot. On the prospects of Trump winning he
wrote: This is an f'ing terrifying.
In addition to seeming to like the F word, I think we have
the same FBI agent, Lisa Page, and the same FBI agent, Peter
Strzok, working on the Clinton email investigation, the Russia
probe, and on Mueller's team.
So we have the right texts and we've got the right people.
I want to make sure we have the chronology right.
July 5, 2016, Comey announces no charges for Secretary
Clinton, right?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Chairman Gowdy. July 28, 2016, the FBI initiates a
counterintelligence investigation into Russia and the Trump
campaign, and Strzok is not only on that Russia investigatory
team, he's actually leading it. So that's 3 weeks after Clinton
is exonerated by Comey, Strzok is leading an investigation into
Russia and possible connections with the Trump campaign. That's
on the 28th of July.
Now, on the 31st of July, 3 days after the Russia
investigation began, Strzok wrote: Damn this feels momentous.
The other one did, too, but this was to ensure we didn't F
things up. This one matters because it matters.
And if you happen to not know how important it is, he went
ahead and put ``MATTERS'' in all caps, in case you happened to
not focus on the importance of why this matters.
Now, her investigation was just to make sure they didn't F
things up. This one we're 3 days into it, Inspector General
Horowitz, 3 days into an investigation, but this one really
matters.
I wonder what he meant by saying the purpose of the Clinton
investigation was to make sure they didn't F things up, but the
Russia investigation, nah, that one was different, that one
really mattered. You know, it almost sounds, Inspector General
Horowitz, like they were going through the motions with the
Clinton investigation. But, boy, they sure were excited about
the Russia one.
Then we get to August 6. This is less than 10 days after
the Russia investigation begins, and Page says: You are meant
to protect the country from that menace.
And then we get to August 8, 2016, less than 2 weeks after
the Russia investigation even began. The lead FBI agent says he
will stop Trump from becoming President. This is 2 weeks into
an investigation and he's already prejudged the outcome. And
we're somehow supposed to believe that that bias was not
outcome determinative.
I can't think of anything more outcome determinative than
my bias against this person I'm investigating with only 2
weeks' worth of investigating. I have already concluded he
should not be the President of the United States.
And then we get to August 15, just over 2 weeks into the
Russia investigation. Strzok says: I want to believe the path
you threw out, that there's no way he gets elected, but I'm
afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy.
Mr. Inspector General, that is 2 weeks into an
investigation and he is talking about taking out an insurance
policy because he can't fathom the target of his investigation
possibly becoming the President.
So I want to go back to the: No, no, he's not going to be
President, we'll stop it. What do you think the ``it'' is in
that phrase, ``We'll stop it''?
Mr. Horowitz. Oh, I think it's clear from the context it's
we're going to stop him from becoming President.
Chairman Gowdy. That's what I thought, too.
Now, I wonder who the ``we'' is in the ``we'll stop it.''
Who do you think the ``we'' is.
Mr. Horowitz. Well, I think that's probably subject to
multiple interpretations.
Chairman Gowdy. We'll see if we can go through a couple of
them.
Mr. Horowitz. The ``we'' is the two of them or the
broader--or a broader group beyond that.
Chairman Gowdy. I mean, it's hard to fathom a definition of
``we'' that doesn't include him. So we know he's part of
``we.'' You could assume that the person he's talking with is
FBI attorney who also happens to be working on the Russia
investigation, she may be part of the ``we.''
But I wonder, Inspector General, did you find any other FBI
agents or FBI attorneys who manifest any animus or bias against
Trump?
Mr. Horowitz. We did.
Chairman Gowdy. How many?
Mr. Horowitz. We found three additional FBI agents, as we
detail in the report.
Chairman Gowdy. And were any of them working on the Russia
investigation----
Mr. Horowitz. Let me just correct, two agents and one
attorney.
Chairman Gowdy. Two other agents, one other attorney. Were
they working on either the Russia investigation or the Mueller
probe?
Mr. Horowitz. I believe two of the three were, but I'd have
to just double check on that.
Chairman Gowdy. Okay.
Now, Bob Mueller was named special counsel on May the 17th,
2017. One day later, Mr. Horowitz, 1 day later Peter Strzok is
back on his phone texting some more: For me, and this case, I
personally have a sense of unfinished business. I unleashed it
with the Clinton email investigation. Now I need to fix it and
finish it.
Fix what?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, there is outlined in the report what
Mr. Strzok's explanation for this was. Our view----
Chairman Gowdy. Oh, I know what he says. I'm asking--I'm
asking the guy who had a distinguished career in the Southern
District of New York and had a distinguished career at the
Department of Justice. Would you rather cross-examine Peter
Strzok on that explanation or would you rather direct the
examination on that explanation?
Mr. Horowitz. Probably cross-examine.
Chairman Gowdy. That's what I thought.
How about ``finish it,'' when he said, I unleashed it, now
I need to fix it and finish it? What do you think he meant by
``finish it''?
Mr. Horowitz. I think in the context of the emails that
occurred in August, the prior August, that you outlined, I
think a reasonable explanation of it or reasonable inference of
that is that he believed he would use or potentially use his
official authority to take action.
Chairman Gowdy. But this is 24 hours into him being put on
the Mueller probe. There's no way he possibly could have
prejudged the outcome of the investigation--maybe he did. Maybe
that's the outcome-determinative bias that my Democrat friends
have such a hard time finding.
Inspector General Horowitz, if one of your investigators
talked about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok the way they talked
about Donald Trump, would you have left them on the IG
investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. No.
Chairman Gowdy. Did you ever have an agent when you were a
prosecutor with this level of bias?
Mr. Horowitz. You know, as I have laid out here, I thought
this was completely antithetical to the core values of the
Department and extremely serious.
Mr. Nadler. Can you speak up, please?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm sorry.
Chairman Gowdy. I heard you, but you can say it where Mr.
Nadler can hear you, too.
Mr. Horowitz. You know, my view of this was that this was
extremely serious, completely antithetical to the core values.
My personal view, having been a prosecutor and worked with FBI
agents, I can't imagine FBI agents suggesting even that they
might use their powers to investigate, frankly, any candidate
for any office.
Chairman Gowdy. I can't either.
Let me ask you this in conclusion. I think you've already--
you laid out in your opening that Peter Strzok's obsession with
Donald Trump and the Russia investigation may have led him to
take his eyes off of the Weiner laptop and, in a notably ironic
way, caused James Comey to be a little bit later in sending
those letters to Congress. So that is one example of outcome-
determinative bias.
But I've got to ask you, you used to be in a courtroom. You
were on the side of the United States and you worked for the
Department of Justice. If someone is prejudging the outcome of
an investigation before it ends and someone is prejudging the
outcome of an investigation before it even begins, what is more
textbook bias than prejudging this investigation before it's
over and this one before it begins? I am struggling to find a
better example of outcome-determinative bias than that. So what
am I missing?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, I think certainly with regard to the
Russia investigation you mentioned, as you know, we are looking
at that in an ongoing way.
With regard to the Clinton email investigation, I think as
we lay out here and go through it, we looked at text messages,
emails, documents to try and assess whether the specific
decisions that we were asked to look at and then the ultimate
prosecutorial decision were impacted by Strzok, Page, and the
others' views.
And what we ended up finding, particularly as to the
prosecutor's decision, was that that was a decision they made
exercising their discretion on their view of the policy, the
law, and the facts as it was found. We have laid that out, and
in our view we didn't find or see evidence that the prosecutors
were impacted by that bias.
But as I mentioned in my opening statement, the idea here
was to put out the facts for the public, Members of Congress to
see, and so the folks who want to take a look at those issues
obviously can assess them themselves.
Chairman Gowdy. Well, my time is up. I hope one of my other
colleagues will explore that. Because the explanation I have
heard is that the failure to prosecute was predicated upon
their belief that there was not sufficient evidence of intent
on her behalf. And I don't know where in the hell you would go
to find better evidence of intent than interviewing the person
who actually was doing the intending.
And when you make up your mind that you're not going to
charge someone, and you make up your mind that you need to not
go in loaded for bear, and then you read the 302 and there's
not a single damn question on intent, it is really hard for
those of us who used to do this for a living to not conclude
they'd made up their mind on intent before they even bothered
to talk to the single best repository of intent evidence, which
would be her.
With that, I would recognize----
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, may I make an inquiry? Mr.
Chairman, in order to prepare our questions, could I have your
guidance on how much time each member is to be allowed?
Chairman Gowdy. Five minutes. And Mr. Cummings can have the
amount of time he thinks is necessary. The other members will
have 5 minutes.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of
all, I want to thank you, Mr. Horowitz, for your work. And I
want to thank all of the IGs. We have always been, both sides
of the aisle, impressed with your efforts. And to your staff, I
thank you.
Mr. Horowitz, I want to focus on whether Secretary Clinton
received, as some of my colleagues put it, special treatment
from the FBI and the DOJ.
On the decision not to prosecute Secretary Clinton, your
report found, and I quote, ``We found no evidence that the
conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other
improper considerations. Rather, we determined that they were
based on the prosecutor's assessment of the facts, the law, and
past Department practice.
We want Justice Department officials to make their
decisions based on the facts, the law, and the past Department
practices.''
Isn't that correct? Is that accurate?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Cummings. And your report also concluded that the FBI
team interpreted and applied the law to Secretary Clinton in a
way that was, and I quote, ``consistent with the Department's
historical approach in prior cases under different leadership,
including in the 2008 decision not to prosecute former Attorney
General Alberto Gonzalez for mishandling classified documents.
Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Cummings. But Director Comey did apply a double
standard to Secretary Clinton in a way that helped Donald Trump
and severely hurt Secretary Clinton. Director Comey followed
the Department policy and kept secret from the American people
the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign in Russia, but
repeatedly ignored Department policy and released information
about Secretary Clinton.
Regarding Director Comey's July 5, 2016 public statement
about his recommendation not to charge Secretary Clinton, your
review found, and I quote, ``Comey's unilateral announcement
was inconsistent with Department policy and violated
longstanding Department practice and protocol by, among other
things, criticizing Clinton's uncharged conduct.''
Can you explain why the Department has a policy against
criticizing the uncharged conduct of an individual?
Mr. Horowitz. Certainly. The Department, and actually one
of the things that was interesting in the report is we found
that it's a norm, it's accepted, but there actually isn't a
policy that explicitly states that.
So that is one of our recommendations. And I would--as we
talk about this issue, the reason you don't speak about
uncharged conduct--there are many--but it is fairness to the
individual, if an individual isn't going to be charged with
criminal conduct or wrongdoing, you don't speak about it. You
speak in court. That's what we've been trained from day one as
prosecutors and anybody who has worked in the Justice
Department.
Doing that publicly, not only tarnishes an individual, but
raises questions of the fairness of justice and applications of
various principles, as you indicated.
Indeed, as we point out here, while there isn't an explicit
policy at the Department about not speaking on uncharged
conduct in a case where you don't charge any criminal activity,
there actually is language that prohibits Department's
prosecutors from speaking about uncharged conduct of
coconspirators.
And so, in other words, where there is, in fact, a charge
of criminal wrongdoing and a conspiracy and some individuals in
the conspiracy are charged and some individuals aren't
charged--and that can happen because there's stronger evidence
against some than others--Department policy says you can't
speak about the uncharged individuals, even though you believe
they committed a crime. And yet there is no corresponding
policy, which at the time--where there are no charges, which is
why we make that recommendation in this report.
Mr. Cummings. I see. You also found that Director Comey's
October 28, 2016 letter to Congress about Secretary Clinton,
and I quote, ``originated with Comey's elevation of maximal
transparency as a value overriding for this case only, the
principles of stay silent and take no action that the FBI has
consistently applied to other cases.''
Now, Mr. Horowitz, one of those investigations where
Director Comey decided to follow Department policy and practice
and keep silent was the Russia investigation into allegations
of collusion with the Trump campaign.
Is that accurate?
Mr. Horowitz. It is. And I'll add it also had that policy
with regard to the Clinton Foundation.
Mr. Cummings. And so, say that again. Explain that, what
you just said.
Mr. Horowitz. So there are two investigations he declined,
as we lay out, here to speak about. One was the Russia
investigation and one was a then-ongoing Clinton Foundation
investigation.
In fact, that was the basis for the report about Deputy
Director McCabe's misconduct that we released a few months ago.
Mr. Cummings. So do you believe that Secretary Clinton
received some favorable action?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm not going to sort of judge whether it was
favorable to whom or what. I'll just say that it was not
consistent with Department policy, practice, and it shouldn't
have been done.
Mr. Cummings. Now, Mr. Horowitz, President Trump and his
Republican allies are trying to use your report to discredit
Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. Let me read a few
headlines from the press about your report, and I'm sure you've
seen them. Trump allies--quote, ``Trump allies seize on DOJ
report as they seek to undercut Mueller's probe. Giuliani calls
for DOJ to end Mueller probe after IG report.'' Quote, ``Trump
claims vindication in a report on FBI that wasn't about him.''
And, quote, ``Republicans want to shut Mueller down over a
report that isn't even about him,'' end of quote.
President Trump stated last Friday, and I quote, ``If you
read the IG report, I've been totally exonerated,'' end of
quote.
Mr. Horowitz, my copy of your report must be missing a
page, or a few pages. Did your investigation examine whether
President Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to impact the
election or whether the President obstructed an FBI
investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. Our report was focused on the Clinton email
investigation. And the only place where it touches the Russia
matter is with regard to the text messages and then the October
decision about the Weiner laptop.
Mr. Cummings. The President also said, and I quote ``The
Mueller investigation has been totally discredited,'' end of
quote. I don't see that in your report anywhere. Maybe I missed
it.
Does your report reach any conclusions about the validity
or credibility of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. As we noted in the report, it relates to the
Clinton email investigation, and the Russia matter was not part
of this review, other than what, the exception I mentioned
earlier.
Mr. Cummings. Now Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal
attorney, said, and I quote, ``Tomorrow Mueller should suspend
his investigation,'' end of quote.
Does your report recommend that the special counsel suspend
his investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. We don't address issues with regard to the
special counsel.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Giuliani also said, and I quote, ``The IG
report basically tells you that both prongs of the Mueller
investigation are either corrupt or answered,'' end of quote.
Did your investigation determine that the special counsel's
investigation is corrupt?
Mr. Horowitz. As I said, our report was concerning the
Clinton email investigation.
Mr. Cummings. Well, did your investigation answer the
questions being considered in Special Counsel Mueller's probe?
Mr. Horowitz. Same answer.
Mr. Cummings. The conclusion in your report states, and I
quote--and I will finish with this, Mr. Chairman--``Through the
collective efforts of generations of FBI employees, the FBI has
developed and earned a reputation as one of the world's premier
law enforcement agencies. The FBI has gained this reputation,
in significant part, because of its professionalism,
impartiality, nonpolitical enforcement of the law, and
adherence to detailed policies, practices, and norms.''
Did you find that the FBI as an institution is corrupt,
politically biased, or untrustworthy?
Mr. Horowitz. We didn't reach the larger question of, you
know, had this broadly affected the FBI, beyond noting that, in
fact, this kind of conduct undermines that credibility, impacts
people's perceptions of the FBI in a way that should never have
happened. And is very concerning for all the reasons, I think
everybody cares about, the fair administration of justice.
Mr. Cummings. And I listened very carefully to Chairman
Gowdy's questions, which were excellent. And the cloud that you
talked about with regard to Ms. Page and Strzok and the others
that you mentioned, how do you get--the method that you used to
figure out that their opinions did not have a negative impact,
you know, or inappropriate impact on this investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. So, what we did was----
Mr. Cummings. Because that is a crucial question. I mean,
in fairness to all. I think it is important that that be
addressed. Go ahead.
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah, absolutely, Congressman. I think it is
very important, because as we've talked about, the language,
the messages, the appearance, the implication that any law
enforcement officer would be willing to use their authority to
impact any election, any individual, whatever side that person
is running on or running from is so antithetical to the core
values of justice and the FBI.
And so the question we looked at was with the comments of
the five individuals we identified here in looking at their
various messages, how did those--how did those impact the
specific decisions we looked at and then the prosecutor's
decision, ultimately. Because, obviously, the prosecutors are
the one--despite what Director Comey said publicly--were
responsible for making the ultimate decision on whether to
charge or not charge.
What we did was, we questioned witnesses closely, we looked
for all the documentary evidence we could, we looked at the
specific decisions. As to the specific decisions we outline
here in the report, they were either the result of larger team
decisions that were not exclusively within the domain of the
individuals who had very troubling messages, or were
prosecutors' decision, and not the decisions of these
individuals.
And we also noted that at least for some of these
decisions, the individuals are actually seeking more aggressive
approaches than the prosecutors were, in some regards. So we
looked at all of that evidence, and we assessed whether on that
record, we could make a finding that bias turned into action by
those other individuals. And we didn't believe there was
evidence to reach that conclusion.
And as to the prosecutors' decision, it was the
prosecutors' decision. And folks can debate and discuss, and
there's clearly been a fair amount of it on whether the
precedent and the current--and the assessment here on the
application of the gross negligence provision was an
appropriate application of that provision. But that's a
decision that the prosecutors made based on their judgment, as
you indicated, looking at the----
Mr. Cummings. Let me ask you this: In coming to that
conclusion that you just talked about, was there--because it
seems like we're having an investigation of the investigation
of the investigation. But so I ask you this: Your staff, the
people that you work with, your IG assistants and----
Mr. Horowitz. Right.
Mr. Cummings. --were you all solid behind what you just
said, or did you have people say, Nah, you know, like a jury.
Half of them----
Mr. Horowitz. You know the great thing about having a large
team like we had working on this is, much like I've done in
other reports, Fast and Furious and others, we sit in a room,
sort of hash it out, exchange ideas. But I'm comfortable saying
this is the conclusion of all of us in the IG.
I obviously am the one who has to, and is the one
responsible for ultimately issuing this, but that was our team
conclusion of it. But, you know, I hasten to add, we understand
and recognize and state explicitly on how serious the conduct
was, and how it cast a cloud over the whole investigation. I
don't think I can be lost either.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Maryland yields back.
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
Chairman Goodlatte. Mr. Horowitz, welcome. We know from the
report surrounding former Deputy Director McCabe's termination
that the Department of Justice at high levels sought to
terminate the Clinton Foundation investigation.
We also know that you found communication between Secretary
Clinton and President Obama.
During your investigation, did you seek access to
communications from the Department of Justice?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes, we did.
Chairman Goodlatte. What about former Obama White House
officials?
Mr. Horowitz. We sought Department records and Department
information. We have, in the past, when we've sought White
House records--and this is true of administrations going way
back--it's been made clear to us that the executive office of
the President does not provide records to inspectors general of
agencies.
So we would look for them if they were incoming to the
Department and those would be records that we would seek and
obtain, but we don't have authority over any other agency
outside government--outside, I'm sorry, the Justice Department.
Chairman Goodlatte. Did you seek to interview any officials
at the White House? The Obama White House?
Mr. Horowitz. I would have to go back and ask the team
whether we sought interviews.
Chairman Goodlatte. Denis McDonough?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't believe so.
Chairman Goodlatte. Valerie Jarrett?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't believe so.
Chairman Goodlatte. How about the President himself?
Mr. Horowitz. No, we did not.
Chairman Goodlatte. Neither the Department of Justice--
would you have liked to have had that information if you could
get access to it?
Mr. Horowitz. I would have to think about that and talk
with the team, frankly, about that and how they would view
that.
Chairman Goodlatte. Neither the Department of Justice nor
the FBI are mentioned in the Constitution. However, each
institution has engaged in repeated stonewalling of Congress'
constitutionally mandated oversight.
The infamous text from Peter Strzok saying ``We will stop
President Trump from taking office,'' which we received on the
day of your report's release, is a prime example.
This text was revealed to you late in your interview as
well, as I understand.
Do you believe this text shows political bias?
Mr. Horowitz. I think as we found, it clearly shows a
biased state of mind.
Chairman Goodlatte. And if so, do you believe the political
bias shown by this text had an effect on the initiation of the
Russia investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. I think, as you know, Mr. Chairman, that's a
matter we've got under review and are looking at right now.
Chairman Goodlatte. More to be determined on that?
Mr. Horowitz. More to be determined.
Chairman Goodlatte. But the time proximity, as Mr. Gowdy,
pointed out is significant.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct. In fact, there are these other text
messages that are roughly in the same time period.
Chairman Goodlatte. You were an assistant United States
attorney for eight years. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Chairman Goodlatte. In that time, did you ever charge any
Espionage Act case or a case under Section 793(f)?
Mr. Horowitz. I did not.
Chairman Goodlatte. I'm trying to understand more about the
seeming need for intent in this statute. Of course, as some
have noted, people never intend the bad things that happen due
to gross negligence, right?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Chairman Goodlatte. So some courts have stated that willful
blindness satisfies the requirement of knowledge. For example,
this happens in cases where a defendant is transporting a
package containing narcotics. Courts have never allowed the
defendant to claim he didn't know what was in the package
because he should have known and exercised criminal
recklessness by failing to determine what was in the package.
In your opinion as a former prosecutor, isn't a similar
analysis appropriate here?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm going to demur on what I would have done
as a prosecutor or my views as a former prosecutor. I will say
what was explained to us in terms of intent was actually,
really knowledge. The focus was largely on the fact that these
documents that were classified weren't clearly marked as
classified.
Chairman Goodlatte. Didn't Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of
State, having the authority not only to read all levels of
classified documents, but also to classify documents herself,
didn't she have a duty to determine whether the unclassified
server she used to transact all her official business was
moving classified information?
Mr. Horowitz. I think it's fair to say there's a
responsibility on senior officials to understand and know what
classified information may be present.
Chairman Goodlatte. Wasn't that the least amount of care we
should have expected from her with information that could cause
serious harm to our national security?
Mr. Horowitz. I think I'm going to rely on the evidence
that we had here and our review, which was to look at what the
prosecutors made as an assessment, and as we described here,
their view was, unless it was marked, unless it was clear
knowledge, they believed that it would be inconsistent with
past practice and how they would look at this provision, and,
therefore, not charge it.
Chairman Goodlatte. Following the 2016 election, many of my
Democratic colleagues called for the resignation or termination
of former FBI Director James Comey for his mishandling of the
Clinton investigation.
Curiously, these same colleagues cried foul when President
Trump, upon the recommendation of Department of Justice, Deputy
Attorney General Rosenstein did, in fact, terminate Comey.
For instance, on November 14, 2016, one of our Democratic
Judiciary Committee colleagues told CNN's Chris Cuomo that
Comey should be fired immediately, and that President Trump
ought to initiate an investigation into his actions.
Conversely, on May 9, 2017, that same Democrat made a
complete U-turn and stated that, quote, ``The firing of FBI
Director Comey by President Trump is a terrifying signal of
this administration's continued abuse of power on so many
levels,'' end quote.
Additionally, following the 2016 election, another of our
Democratic colleagues insisted that Comey should ``pack his
things and go.'' However, a year later, the same person
insisted that James Comey's firing suggests an attempt to
squelch an investigation in an effort to cover up wrongdoing.
Lastly, on October 31, 2016, a third Judiciary Committee
Democrat stated that Comey's actions make it clear he should
resign immediately for the good of the FBI and the Justice
Department.
Fast forward a year, and the same Democrat is then
advocating for Director Comey to receive--get this--the
Profiles in Courage Award following his termination.
So to clear up the apparent confusion among my colleagues,
do you believe the termination of former FBI Director James
Comey was justified following your recent findings that
describe Comey as insubordinate in his handling of Hillary
Clinton's email investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. Mr. Chairman, as inspector general, my
responsibility is to get the evidence and the facts, and it is
then up to others to decide what the appropriate penalty or
adjudication should be of that.
So I'm going to, for the reasons that we found here, that
people should stay in their roles and responsibilities and
understand those, I'm going to----
Chairman Goodlatte. You would agree, however, that
insubordination, in the matters that you outlined in your
report, is a serious matter?
Mr. Horowitz. Oh, I agree. It is a serious matter.
Chairman Goodlatte. So on page 147 of your report, there is
a text exchange that I'm curious about. About halfway down the
page, Agent 1 stated he could not recall anything specific to
add to this exchange.
In another exchange on February 4, 2016, Agent 1 and an FBI
employee who was not assigned to the Midyear investigation
discussed Agent 1's interview with a witness who assisted the
Clinton's at their Chappaqua, New York residence.
Part of this exchange follows:
``FBI employee: Boom. How did the witness go?
``Agent 1: Awesome. Lied his ass off. Went from never
inside the SCIF, Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility
at residence, to looked in to when it was being constructed, to
remove the trash twice to troubleshot the secure facts with HRC
a couple of times, to every time there was a secure fax, I did
it with HRC. Ridic.'' End quote.
``FBI employee: Would be funny if he was the only guy
charged in this deal.
``Agent 1: I know, for 1001"----
Now that's referring to 18 USC 1001, is it not?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Chairman Goodlatte. All right.
``Even if he said the truth and didn't have a clearance
when handling the secure fax, ain't no one going do S blank,
blank, blank.''
Now, we asked Agent 1 about the implication in this
message--this is your report.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Chairman Goodlatte. --that no one would be charged
irrespective of what the team found.
And Agent 1 stated, ``Yeah, I, I don't think I can say
there's a specific person that I worked with in this case that
wouldn't charge him for that, wouldn't charge him for that. I
think it's a general complaint of, you know, of FBI agents that
are kind of, kind of being emotional and complaining that no
one is going to do something about, about something, so, but
there's nothing specific that I, that I can tell you.''
Now, this individual, Agent 1, is expressing an opinion
that that, was a circumstance under which charging somebody
would be appropriate. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's certainly the--what he's suggesting
here.
Chairman Goodlatte. All right. Now, what is Title 18,
Section 1001? What is that about?
Mr. Horowitz. Making a false statement to a government
official in the course of a review or investigation.
Chairman Goodlatte. So is that not exactly the same statute
under which Mr. Papadopoulos and Mr. Flynn were charged?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't specifically, but I assume so.
Chairman Goodlatte. All right. Thank you. Those are all the
questions I have, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Virginia yields back.
The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, first, of all,
let me state before I ask questions of Mr. Horowitz, the
President told us why he fired Mr. Comey, and it wasn't for any
of the things mentioned in the report. It was because of the
Russia investigation.
He told that to us on NBC News in an interview with Lester
Holt. I believe the President, unless there's evidence he was
lying, but I haven't heard any suggestions of that.
Now, Mr. Horowitz, the special counsel's investigation has
resulted in five guilty pleas, and 23 indictments so far. Do
any of your reports, findings, call into question any of these
serious criminal indictments?
Mr. Horowitz. Our report focused on the Clinton emails.
Mr. Nadler. The answer is no, it has nothing to do with it?
Mr. Horowitz. The only place we touched on Russia is that
October time period.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. On May 2nd, 2017, President Trump
tweeted, ``FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever
happened to Hillary in that he gave her a free pass for many
bad deeds,'' unquote.
Over the course of your investigation, did you find that
the FBI gave Hillary Clinton, quote, ``a free pass from any bad
deeds,'' unquote?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm sorry. Could you restate that
Congressman?
Mr. Nadler. Did you find that the FBI gave Hillary Clinton,
quote, ``a free pass for many bad deeds,'' unquote?
Mr. Horowitz. I think we've laid out here quite clearly
what the investigative steps were and how the decision was
made, so 500 pages worth of information here to make that
assessment.
Mr. Nadler. You stand on that?
In fact, you found, did you not, that the specific
investigative decisions that you reviewed, quote, ``were based
on the prosecutor's assessments of the facts, the law, and the
Department practice,'' close quote.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Nadler. On July 22nd, 2017, the President tweeted,
quote, ``So many people are asking why isn't the AG or special
counsel looking at the many Hillary Clinton or Comey crimes,''
close quote.
Did you uncover evidence of any crimes committed by James
Comey?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm going to, again, rely on this report.
Mr. Nadler. Let me rephrase the question. Does the report
discuss any alleged crimes committed by James Comey?
Mr. Horowitz. The report does not discuss----
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Does not.
Mr. Horowitz. --crimes.
Mr. Nadler. And in fact, although you found reason to
question Mr. Comey's judgment, you found no evidence that his
actions were, quote, ``the result of bias or an effort to
influence the election.'' Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Nadler. It is correct?
Mr. Horowitz. It is correct.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. On September 1, 2017, the President
tweeted quote, ``Wow, looks like James Comey exonerated Hillary
Clinton long before the investigation was over and so much
more. A rigged system,'' close quote.
Did you uncover any evidence supporting President Trump's
assertion that Mr. Comey prejudged or, quote, ``rigged'' the
outcome of the investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. Again, I'm going to rely on what's here. I
can only speak to what----
Mr. Nadler. Okay. Then let me rephrase the question.
Mr. Horowitz. Well----
Mr. Nadler. Did the report note any evidence of that?
Mr. Horowitz. We've got the May drafting of the statement,
which some people have raised concerns about. I'm not going to
sort of extrapolate beyond the facts here, but I think there is
that information about the drafting of the statement back in
May.
Mr. Nadler. And your office reviewed evidence that showed
Director Comey resisted acknowledging the existence of the
Russia investigation in October 2016 because he wanted to avoid
taking action that might influence the election. Is that
correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct. And he wanted to be fair to
then-candidate Trump.
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know what his----
Mr. Nadler. I think it can be fairly stated that if the FBI
acknowledged an investigation into the Trump campaign, it might
not have inured to Trump's benefit, and, therefore, being fair
to Trump may not----
Mr. Horowitz. I understand.
Mr. Nadler. Okay.
Mr. Horowitz. I'm saying we--he explained in here what his
rationale was----
Mr. Nadler. On December 3, 2017, the President tweeted,
quote, ``After years of Comey, with the phony and dishonest
Clinton investigation and more, running the FBI, its reputation
is in tatters, worst in history,'' close quote.
Did your investigation uncover any evidence that the
Clinton investigation was, quote, ``phony and dishonest''?
Mr. Horowitz. Again, I'm going to rely here. We found that
the prosecutors made the judgments they made based on the
facts, the law, and the evidence they uncovered. We had
concerns about the text messages and the implications for the
investigation.
Mr. Nadler. I'll take that as a no.
On June 5, 2018, the President tweeted, quote, ``What is
taking so long with the inspector general's report on crooked
Hillary and slippery James Comey? Numerous delays. Hope report
is not being changed and made weaker,'' close quote.
Did you omit horrible things from this report or otherwise
weaken it to paint Hillary Clinton, James Comey, or any other
Department official in a better light?
Mr. Horowitz. We handled this report like we did any
others. No, we didn't.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Last week, the President said that the FBI, quote,
``plotted against his election,'' close quote, and that your
report shows ``total bias,'' in quotes, at the FBI against the
President and in favor of Secretary Clinton.
Did your investigation uncover evidence of an FBI plot
against the President's election?
Mr. Horowitz. I think those August text messages reflect
individuals suggesting that they could take action based on
their beliefs.
Mr. Nadler. But your report also said that they did not, in
fact, that the FBI's decisions were not influenced by that?
Mr. Horowitz. If we're focused on Midyear on the Clinton
investigation, that's correct, that's what we found as to the
decision to decline back in July.
Mr. Nadler. Did your investigation find that FBI is totally
biased against President Trump?
Mr. Horowitz. We lay out here what we found on bias and
what we did, and at least as to certain individuals, we had
concerns about what their texts indicated.
Mr. Nadler. So your report concludes that the outcome of
the Clinton investigation was based on the facts and the law
and not on political bias. Do you stand by that conclusion?
Mr. Horowitz. We stand by that conclusion in this report.
Mr. Nadler. Can you explain why you reached that
conclusion?
Mr. Horowitz. We looked at the decision to decline
prosecution. We interviewed the prosecutors, we looked at their
notes, their emails, the documentary evidence. And as a result
of that, we did not see evidence of bias by the prosecutors,
political bias, I'm talking about, which is what we were
looking at and looking for, and looked at past precedents they
cited as their reasons for what they did. And based on all of
that information, we concluded that there wasn't evidence of
political bias infecting that decision, and we describe here
how they reached the decision they reached.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Now, during the rollout of the
report, your office confirmed that it continues to investigate
the improper disclosure of information about the Clinton
investigation to Trump campaign surrogates like Rudy Giuliani.
Can you confirm that this work is ongoing?
Mr. Horowitz. The only thing I'll say about that is that,
as we indicate here, our investigative work continues. I'm not
going to speak as to what particular leak, matter, individuals
might be part of that ongoing review.
Mr. Nadler. So you can confirm--I will take that as a
confirmation of the existence of a specific investigation into
Mr. Giuliani's comments in the week before the election?
Mr. Horowitz. You shouldn't take that as any specific
confirmation of anything. I'm not going to do the same thing.
We lay out here, it was inappropriate----
Mr. Nadler. Fair enough.
Mr. Horowitz. --as to what occurred.
Mr. Nadler. When is the timeline for this work? When can we
expect the next report?
Mr. Horowitz. We will, much like this review, we will
follow the evidence where it leads, and when it is completed,
we will issue our report. We will----
Mr. Nadler. Now, on page--thank you. On page 387 of the
report, I'm going to read it. It said, ``He said it's clear to
me''--this is Attorney General Lynch quoting FBI Director
Comey--``He said it's clear to me that there's a cadre of
senior people in New York who have a deep and visceral hatred
of Secretary Clinton. And he said it is deep. It's--and he
said, he said it was surprising to him or stunning to him,''
close quote.
Is there evidence that, in fact, there were people in the
FBI office in New York who were very--who had a hatred of
Secretary Clinton?
Mr. Horowitz. We looked at individuals connected to the
Midyear Review. We were not out there looking at every single
FBI agent's personal devices, text messages, who had no role in
the Midyear investigation.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. Now, I want to get back to the Peter
Strzok matter. And I would like to discuss what appears to be
the most troubling--well, let me ask first.
You would agree, I take it, that there's a crucial
distinction between appearance of political bias on the part of
an FBI agent or whoever, and whether any investigative actions
are actually taken as a result of political bias?
Mr. Horowitz. They are two different issues.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. I would like to discuss--and by the way,
let me ask a different question. We keep using the word
``bias,'' is the word ``bias'' synonymous with the word
political opinion, or is it used in a different sense?
Mr. Horowitz. No, we used it, and I'm using it in the
context of political bias.
In other words, you're using your personal views to impact
your decisions in a way that's non-investigatory. In other
words, for other reasons----
Mr. Nadler. So you found that Strzok, for instance, had
this bias but that it didn't impact the investigative action?
So is that a--in what way is that bias, if it didn't impact
the investigation, different from a political opinion, or is it
the same thing?
Mr. Horowitz. Let me just--we found he exhibited bias. We
found decisions that were made by others were not infected by
that bias, we did have concerns about how his, what we thought
was a biased state of mind impacted his October decision
regarding the Weiner laptop. I think it is important to keep
them separate.
Mr. Nadler. You couldn't say it didn't or it didn't in that
one?
Mr. Horowitz. We could not say one way or the other but we
couldn't rule it out----
Mr. Nadler. Okay.
Mr. Horowitz. And that's a pretty significant----
Mr. Nadler. Now, I would like to discuss what appears to me
the most troubling text exchange, which has already been talked
about. On August 8th, 2016, Page asks, quote, ``Trump''--
actually, she didn't use the word Trump, it's clear it's
referring to him--``not ever going to become President. Right.
Right.''
Strzok responds, ``No, no, he won't. We'll stop it.''
Many have used this text as proof that Strzok actually
intended to use his position at the FBI to stop Donald Trump
from becoming President of the United States. But Peter Strzok
did not have that kind of power.
Your report found that Strzok was, quote, ``not the sole
decision-maker for any of the specific Midyear investigative
decisions. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Pre-July 5, just to be clear. Preclosing in
July. I think it is important to keep it separate from where he
could have been a decision-maker in October with regard to the
Weiner laptop.
Mr. Nadler. Peter Strzok certainly knew about the Russia
investigation before the election. And if he had publicly
disclosed that information, he might have prevented Mr. Trump
from being elected.
But your investigation did not find that Mr. Strzok
disclosed the details of the Russia investigation to the press
before the election, did it?
Mr. Horowitz. No, we don't.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. Your report goes on to point out that
despite the appearance created by his texts, you, quote,
``found no evidence, and in some instances, Strzok and Page
advocated for more--I'm sorry--you, quote, ``found evidence,''
I added the word ``no''--``you found evidence that in some
instances, Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive
investigative measures than did others on the Midyear team,
such as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search warrants to
obtain evidence. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Nadler. So, in general, I think it is fair to say that
the evidence does not show that--well, it shows that pre-July
5th, certainly, Strzok left his bias or political opinions at
home and didn't bring it to the office. And after July 5th, it
doesn't show one way or the other, is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. I wouldn't go that far in terms of what our
finding is pre-July 5. I would say that at the investigations,
we looked at his bias, we didn't find cause for those
decisions. You know, as we noted, there are lots of decisions
in investigation. I can't go through all of them.
Mr. Nadler. So you could not point a finger and say, he
made this decision or influenced this decision because of his
bias?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. And were there FBI agents, to your
knowledge, or officials, who had negative opinions of Hillary
Clinton?
Mr. Horowitz. We have the text messages we laid out here.
There are some that you could, I think, imply that. Certainly
Peter Strzok's attorneys have made that argument. Almost
everything we found was the other way, was anti-Trump.
Mr. Nadler. By Strzok and Page?
Mr. Horowitz. By Strzok and Page and the other three agents
that we----
Mr. Nadler. The other three agents, but you didn't look
at----
Mr. Horowitz. Or two agents and lawyer.
Mr. Nadler. But you didn't look at other agents, like in
the New York offices?
Mr. Horowitz. We did not look at agents beyond the Midyear
team, the Clinton email investigation team. I am not here to
tell you----
Mr. Nadler. I will simply observe, in conclusion, that an
organization as large as the FBI, in a country that was pretty
closely divided where half the American people thought Trump
was a great guy and half thought Hillary was wonderful, and
half thought the opposite in both cases, it will be pretty
amazing if there weren't lots of people in the FBI who loved
Donald Trump, and lots of people who couldn't stand him.
And that there's nothing wrong with people holding their
political opinions as long as they didn't let those opinions
impact their jobs. Would you agree with that statement?
Mr. Horowitz. People are free to have their personal views
and their job is to check them at the door when they walk into
work.
Mr. Nadler. And I'll say one other thing.
If it is true that Strzok did not impact any decision based
on his personal political opinion, then expressing his
political opinion to his girlfriend was wrong only because he
used the FBI phones?
Mr. Horowitz. I think it is very troubling because it
undercut confidence in the investigation as we laid out here,
and as I said, I can't say definitively that his actions didn't
result in action. I can only speak to the ones we looked at and
the ultimate----
Mr. Nadler. So there's no evidence it did.
Mr. Horowitz. There's no evidence as to those pre-July 5
ones they did. I'm very concerned about what occurred in
October. And I, you know, again, I go back to what I said
earlier. I think frankly anybody should be concerned about any
law enforcement officer expressing these kinds of views while
they're investigating those very individuals. I don't care
whether it's a presidential race or a local election. It just
shouldn't happen.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
Two quick housekeeping matters. Inspector Horowitz, if you
need to take a break for any reason or no reason, just let me
know.
To my colleagues, I am acutely aware that all four
chairpersons went over the time limit. And I am acutely aware
of how manifestly unfair it would be for me not to allow you to
do the same. Nevertheless, I will not be able to allow everyone
the same amount of time.
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you.
Chairman Gowdy. Because some people have July 4th plans.
So I'm going to try to do a better job. What I've done in
the past is if you ask a question after 5 minutes, I'll say
``the witness may answer but no more questions.'' And I
apologize. I appreciate your attendance, but I'm trying to get
us out of here before Friday.
With that, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, is
recognized.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Horowitz, does Peter Strzok like the
President?
Mr. Horowitz. I can only speak to what his text messages
say, and they're obviously not positive comments about the
President.
Mr. Jordan. February-March of 2016, Peter Strzok said
Trump's abysmal, Trump's an idiot. He's a bleeping idiot.
Hillary should win 100 million to 0. It sounds to me like he
hates the President.
Mr. Horowitz. His text messages would certainly leave that
as the implication.
Mr. Jordan. Your report says Strzok ran the Clinton
investigation on a daily basis. Is that accurate?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Jordan. And Peter Strzok, in your report, he was the
lead investigator on the Russian investigation. Is that true?
Mr. Horowitz. That's my understanding for the time period
he was on it.
Mr. Jordan. So the guy, he ran the Clinton investigation,
he runs the Russian investigation, he hates the President, but
your report says ``while his bias cast a cloud, it didn't
impact final decisions.'' Is that accurate?
Mr. Horowitz. It didn't impact the prosecutors' final
decision.
Mr. Jordan. Right. Let's look at a few other things Peter
Strzok had to say.
On May 4, 2016, the day after President Trump secures the
Republican nomination, Mr. Strzok says ``Now the pressure
really starts to finish the Clinton investigation.''
I'm not sure why the pressure would be more or less the day
after. It seems to me you just want to do the investigation.
On July 31st, as was mentioned earlier, the FBI opens the
Russian investigation. One week later, Peter Strzok says ``I
can protect my country on many levels.'' Two days after that,
he says, We will stop Trump.'' One week after that, he says No
way he gets elected. It's like an insurance policy.
So think about this, Mr. Horowitz, Peter Strzok opened--the
FBI opens the Russia investigation on July 31st, 2016. Peter
Strzok is the lead investigator. Within the next 15 days, he
says, ``I can protect my country on many levels.'' ``No way he
gets elected. We will stop him. We have an insurance policy.''
Now that seems like, at least, think a lot of regular folks
would interpret that as more than just casting a cloud on what
the FBI ultimately did. I mean, it is one thing to say Trump is
an idiot. It is another thing to say, We've got an insurance
policy.
It is one thing to say, Trump's awful. It's another thing
to say, We're going to stop him, especially when those
statements are made within 15 days, just days after you've
launched an investigation into that individual.
Would you agree?
Mr. Horowitz. And I think the important thing here is the
time period we're talking about. Because those messages in the
July-August period, which we found extremely concerning and
antithetical to core values of the FBI, concerned, as we noted,
the Russia investigation--and as you noted--and that's why we
had so much concern about what occurred in late September and
October.
Mr. Jordan. Exactly. Mr. Horowitz, was Peter Strzok put on
Special Counsel Mueller's team?
Mr. Horowitz. He was.
Mr. Jordan. So, again, the guy who hates the President, the
guy who ran the Clinton investigation, the guy who ran the
Russian investigation, then gets assigned to the special
counsel team.
Do you know what date, Mr. Horowitz, the special counsel
was named?
Mr. Horowitz. I believe it was around May 17th.
Mr. Jordan. May 17, 2017. May 17, 2017.
Mr. Horowitz, do you remember what Peter Strzok said on May
18, 2017?
Mr. Horowitz. I do. It's in our report on page 405.
Mr. Jordan. I unleashed it on the Midyear Exam, this one?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. And now I need to fix it and finish it. There's
unfinished business, and this could be an investigation leading
to impeachment. That's what he said the day after.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Jordan. Again, don't you think that sounds and looks a
little bit like, to regular Americans, a little bit more than
just casting a cloud on the overall investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. Again, I go back to what the report concerns,
which was the Clinton email investigation, which was concluded
about a year earlier with Director Comey's announcement. But it
is precisely why we were concerned about what occurred in late
September and October, when Mr. Strzok had the choice between
working on the Russia investigation----
Mr. Jordan. Right.
Mr. Horowitz. --or on the Weiner laptop Clinton
investigation.
Mr. Jordan. He was prioritizing the one over here.
Mr. Horowitz. Chose Russia.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah. Let me just finish with this. And this is
probably what bothers me more than all what we just went
through. More than that, probably what bothers me the bother is
Peter Strzok's attitude. I think it's what bothers Americans
the most about this whole ordeal.
I just want to go to one more text message that, one more
thing Mr. Strzok said. This is back in that August time period
again. August 26, 2016, Peter Strzok says, ``just went to a
southern Virginia Walmart, I can smell the Trump supporters.''
This is what ticks Americans off more than anything else I'm
convinced about. All this Clinton investigation, all this
Russia investigation, is this idea that there are two sets of
rules, or two standards. One set of rules for us regular folk
who shop at Walmart, but a different set if your name is
Clinton, Comey, Lynch, McCabe, or if your name is Peter Strzok.
And the arrogance and the condescension and elitist
attitude, that is what ticks people off. And as they look at
all this and see what Strzok said throughout this
investigation, that's why their confidence is shaken. And
frankly, that's why they're so mad.
And that's why we got to get some answer from Mr.
Rosenstein and Mr. Wray about this whole ordeal.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Ohio yields back. The
gentlelady from New York is recognized.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Horowitz for your service.
Chairman Gowdy and others have mentioned the very troubling
emails that were very critical of President Trump. So my
question to you, none of these emails were made public during
the election, correct? That's what I read. They were not made--
--
Mr. Horowitz. No, they were not. The text messages were
not----
Mrs. Maloney. They were not made public during the
election. And so therefore, it's fair to say that these emails
did not influence the election, correct? They weren't made
public, so they did not influence the election.
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah, I don't think these text messages at
all were out there during 2016.We uncovered them in 2017.
Mrs. Maloney. Okay. Did they did not influence the
election.
Now the FBI conducted investigations related to both
presidential candidates. But Director Comey publicly released
information only about Secretary Clinton, while he kept secret
information about the investigation related to the Trump
campaign and the Russian Government, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. He followed the rules on the Trump--the
Russia matter. He followed the rules on the Clinton Foundation
matter. He didn't follow the Department's practices on the----
Mrs. Maloney. And that was very troubling to me that he did
not follow the protocol.
Mr. Horowitz. I just worry when people say ``kept secret,''
he actually followed the rules.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Horowitz, in a Senate Judiciary hearing
the other day, one of our colleagues from the other side of the
aisle, he said that your report only confirms that Hillary
Clinton got kid-gloved treatment from the FBI.
I would say the opposite is true. And as my good friend Joe
Biden would say, that that is total malarky.
I think that your report makes clear that the reverse is
true. And that there was a fact and element within the FBI that
was biased against Secretary Clinton.
For example, according to your executive summary, one of
the reasons cited for Mr. Comey's extraordinary October 28th
letter to Congress about the discovery of additional emails on
a laptop was, quote, ``the fear that the information would leak
if the FBI failed to disclose it.'' And that, to me, is very
troubling.
And then it went on to say that there were selective leaks
throughout the investigation on Clinton, serious errors in
judgment. I quote, ``serious errors in judgment'' in the
unprecedented action by the Director of the FBI in the final
weeks right up next to the election of 2016 presidential race
in violation of protocol, as you've mentioned.
And I would say that this all worked in one direction and
to the detriment of candidate Clinton and to the benefit of
candidate Trump. And I would say that it may well have
determined the outcome of the 2016 election.
So my question to you is, what are you doing to make sure
that this doesn't happen again? That it does not become
politicized, that it can't influence another election?
Mr. Horowitz. That's a very important question,
Congresswoman. And what we've done is we've made nine
recommendations in this report. One of which is precisely to
that issue. That the Department needs to consider putting in
place some guidance and rules and policies, practices, to
memorialize what it believes prosecutors and agents should be
doing in the time period before the election.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, I think that's very, very important to
make sure that no future election is swayed and no collusion is
overlooked because of politics, pure and simple. And the main
question that remains, and that I'd like to see a report on was
why was there a different standard on the Russian
investigation, which followed protocol, but on the Clinton
area, there were press conferences, there were testimony before
Congress, there were statements about emails that he hadn't
even read. Why was there such a difference in standards? And
how can you enforce a standard?
You have a standard. It wasn't enforced. It was violated.
So how would you enforce the standard in the future?
Mr. Horowitz. So, you know, as we describe in here,
Director Comey explained what his rationale for treating the
Clinton email, the Weiner laptop issue differently than the
Russia investigation, the Clinton Foundation investigation,
even the request of the Intelligence Committee put out a
statement about it, which is described in here.
Mrs. Maloney. Well----
Mr. Horowitz. And I think what has to happen going forward,
and one of the most concerning parts, many concerning parts of
this is Director Comey, rather than speaking with the Attorney
General about it or consulting directly with them, did what he
did in terms of his guidance.
I think the bottom line here is, the leadership of the
Department needs to have rules in place, policies in place,
norms in place, practices in place to consider this. And when
an issue like this arises, they should be able to talk to one
another.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, he violated protocol with one
candidate. And followed it with the other helping President
Trump and hurting the candidacy of Secretary Clinton.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady's time is expired. The
gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to
thank the gentlelady from New York for making the case for
firing Comey. Making the case for why both Democrats and
Republicans had very valid reasons that we wanted the President
to let him go for his unprofessional and insubordinate
activity. And yet, once the President did it, somehow he was
wrong.
In your report, Mr. Horowitz, you bring out the fact that
the former Director was, in fact, at times, unprofessional,
didn't follow rules, and even insubordinate, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Issa. So we have a reason to fire somebody. The
gentlelady from New York just made the case in resounding ways
if what she believes to be true is true, that he should have
been fired and fired immediately. And probably would have been
fired by President Clinton had she become President.
But I want to go on to two other points. And one of them
is, the standard for bias. Now I'm a former--I guess I'm an
employer now, but in the years that I was manufacturer and so
on, you know, the definition for most of us for a bias if
reviewing text or emails and anything close to what Strzok and
Page were saying and others, occurred, and we were in an EEOC
or some other kind of complaint, we would be held clearly for
this to have met the requirement for any action whatsoever that
was less than favorable for an employee, a termination, and so
on. We would be held as having a bias.
As a matter of fact, every member up here on the dais had
to go through 90 minutes of training in which they gave us
examples that for a fraction of what Page and Strzok had done,
if there were any adverse action whatsoever, we would be held
as biased.
How is it you can say you found no evidence of bias? What
makes the standard different for the Department of Justice?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, let me be clear. We did not say that
their words and texts and these messages were not indicative of
bias. In fact, we were very concerned with them because that
kind of bias and those kind of----
Mr. Issa. So you found bias, but the actions----
Mr. Horowitz. That's the question.
Mr. Issa. --the famous insurance policy, the likelihood
that they were in, quote, Andy's office and were plotting,
conspiring, to figure out a way to either keep the President
from winning or hurt him, that conspiracy, that evidence of
that conspiracy is not enough to be an action?
Isn't a conspiracy an action separate from what you might
do? If you conspire to blow up the Oklahoma City Federal
Building, you don't have to succeed for there to be a crime.
Isn't that true?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes. A conspiracy, you don't have to actually
carry it out at all. And I agree with you the concern evident
in those texts in August.
Mr. Issa. So they had a bias, and they had a conspiracy to
do something, we just don't know exactly what that is. Is that
correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, I'm going to put aside what they had a
conspiracy to do. But I do think that what was reflected there
in August translated directly for us into concerns about what
occurred a month later in September.
Mr. Issa. Okay. So I see it as there's a bias, a
conspiracy, and they did do some things wrong, and that came
out clearly in your report. Very clearly there was a reason to
fire the former FBI Director Comey. And it was a bipartisan
effort. I guess I would say that maybe Republicans would have
objected if President Clinton had fired him, but that isn't the
case.
I want to ask, though, a question back to Mr. Comey. Last
Thursday when you issued your report, basically 4 hours before
that was issued his op-ed came out showing that he had clearly
read the report. How did he get to see the report before it was
public?
Mr. Horowitz. So as with all of our reviews--first of all,
he did not see the whole report--but as with all of our
reviews----
Mr. Issa. But he is a former member----
Mr. Horowitz. Right.
Mr. Issa. --a former person. Do all former employees get
this?
Mr. Horowitz. So the process is--and we did this from Fast
and Furious on forward to ones that never make headlines--if
individuals whose conduct we criticize in a report have
testified to us and voluntarily agreed to speak to us--as you
know this has been an issue that you've supported us on----
Mr. Issa. Right.
Mr. Horowitz. --getting testimonial subpoena authority, one
of the--without that authority----
Mr. Issa. We want you to have it for former employees.
Mr. Horowitz. Right. Without that authority they have to
come in voluntarily. And one of the things that we do is, if
they come in voluntarily and speak to us, we allow them----
Mr. Issa. Okay. So the quid pro quo is you let him see it.
Did he sign a----
Mr. Horowitz. Only those portions of the report that
related to him.
Mr. Issa. Did he sign a nondisclosure?
Mr. Horowitz. He did.
Mr. Issa. So when he published before it came out he
effectively breached the nondisclosure, didn't he?
Mr. Horowitz. I'd have to look at the timing----
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman's time has expired, but you
may answer the question.
Mr. Horowitz. I'd have to actually look at the exact timing
on that, on when it came out on Thursday versus when our report
came out. I, frankly, didn't focus on that question before.
Mr. Issa. Well, he certainly disclosed it to the newspaper
to get it published in that timing. He must have been
disclosing it to newspaper personnel hours or days ahead of
time. That would seem to be a violation of that nondisclosure.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from Texas is recognized.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Horowitz, thank you for your service.
Let me apologize. I'm going to be wanting yes/no answers. I
think some of these you have already, but because of the nature
of the time.
Let me just repeat, your report does not vindicate the
President or conclude that the Trump campaign did not conclude
with the Russians. Is that accurate?
Mr. Horowitz. Our report doesn't address the Russia
investigation.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And your report doesn't have anything to
do with the numbers of individuals that were--the numbers of
individuals that were connected to the Trump administration--
Trump campaign with Russia, you didn't deal with any of these,
including the picture of Papadopoulos, who was indicted in the
meeting in Trump Tower?
Mr. Horowitz. Our review focused on the Midyear
investigation.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
Donald Trump is the first sitting President in history
whose campaign chairman spent his time behind bars doing his
own Presidential campaign, but none of these issues were
investigated by your investigation. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Our review concerned the Clinton email
investigation.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And then let me quickly. Your report does
not--excuse me, I am interested to know about chapter 7, pages
260-262. You cite all the reasons for concluding that Secretary
Clinton did not break the law or have any basis to conclude
that she broke the law for her use of a private server. Is that
accurate still?
Mr. Horowitz. That are the prosecutor's reasons as given to
us and explained to us and it is our analysis----
Ms. Jackson Lee. And you didn't counter that in your
report?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you say that it was grounded in the
law, facts, and applicable DOJ precedent?
Mr. Horowitz. Based on the evidence we had reviewed, that
is what we found with regard to the prosecutor's decision.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And her campaign was not subject of a
Federal counterintelligence investigation by the Nation's law
enforcement to your knowledge or at least you didn't
investigate that?
Mr. Horowitz. There was a review on that issue, and I could
talk a little bit more about it. I'd need to tease that out
just a little, Congresswoman.
Ms. Jackson Lee. But it did not impact the original or the
basis of your report?
Mr. Horowitz. The finding was that there was no intrusion.
Ms. Jackson Lee. In light of what you saw, would you think
it was reasonable for Americans to conclude that Secretary
Clinton was a victim of a double standard in light of the
information that the FBI had about the Trump administration--
or, excuse me, campaign--and its opening of the investigation
that was not leaked?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm going to focus on what our conclusion was
as opposed to the public's. Our conclusion was the standard
that should have applied was the same one that the Director
applied to the Russia investigation and the Clinton Foundation
investigation.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And it was not the same standard?
Mr. Horowitz. It was not the same standard.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I want to show these documents which show
the leaks from the Southern District and others from the FBI.
Do you find that troubling, that leaks in your report went out?
Mr. Horowitz. Just to be clear, we do not say where those
are from. We simply put in there the individual's titles. But
we're very concerned, as we explained in here, we're asked to
look at leaks all the time in this matter, other matters. And
if there are, as you know, multiple people who have had
disclosures or contacts it makes it very hard to figure out who
did it.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you think they were biased toward Mrs.
Clinton?
Mr. Horowitz. I have no idea one way or the other.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me move to the Strzok-Page questioning
that I have.
On November 2016, the day after the Presidential election,
Lisa Page sent a quote to Peter Strzok: Are you going to give
out your calendars? Seems kind of depressing. Maybe it should
be just the first meeting of the secret society.
Mr. Horowitz, are you familiar with that text?
Mr. Horowitz. I am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. On January 24, 2018, Ron Johnson went to
FOX News and indicated, shouting: It is further evidence of
corruption, more bias, corruption of the highest levels, the
secret society. We have an informant that was talking about a
group holding secret meetings off-site. There's so much smoke
and there's so much suspicion.
Mr. Horowitz, did your report find any evidence of a secret
society at the FBI?
Mr. Horowitz. We did not find any.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Did your report find any evidence that
there was a group at the FBI holding secret meetings off-site?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm not sure we looked for that, but
certainly as part of the Midyear investigation we didn't see--
--
Ms. Jackson Lee. In fact, Page explained that the calendars
referenced in this text message was funny and snarky calendars
of Russian President Vladimir Putin in different poses, such as
holding up a kitten.
Mr. Horowitz, Page and Strzok both told your investigator
that secret society was used as a joke. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's what they told us.
Ms. Jackson Lee. On August 15, 2016, Strzok had sent Page a
text that stated, quote: I want to believe the path you threw
out for consideration in Andy's office, and there's no way he
gets elected, but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like
an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're
40.
Mr. Horowitz, in your report Strzok explains a reference in
his text to an insurance policy, quote, reflected his
conclusion that the FBI should investigate the allegations
thoroughly right away as if Trump was going to win. Is that
correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That was his explanation.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Did your report reach any conclusions that
would contradict Mr. Strzok's explanation?
Mr. Horowitz. I think it's fair to say we had concerns
about what his intentions were there.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Did any of what you came across suggest
that they had a plan to undermine the election of Donald Trump?
Mr. Horowitz. We did not. We did not investigate, as we
said here, the Russia matter. We have ongoing work in that
regard. So----
Ms. Jackson Lee. And was there--in your opening statement I
think you said the Director, Director Comey, clearly departed
from the norms and undermined the perception of fairness of the
FBI. Those are my paraphrasing words. Is that in relation to
his handling of former Secretary Clinton's emails, which you
found that she did not break the law based upon their report?
Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady's time has expired, but you
may answer the question.
Mr. Horowitz. Yes, Comey violated the norms, as you said.
We didn't find that she didn't break the law. We found what the
prosecutor's assessment was of it and determined that it was
based on the facts and the law.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And that was that she did not break the
law?
Mr. Horowitz. That was their conclusion, correct.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, having spent the last 2 years down in the Old
Executive Office Building, along with our colleague Mr. Issa, I
didn't get an opportunity to hear all the other questions and
the answers to those questions. So rather than repeat what a
lot of others may have said, I would like to yield to my
colleague from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, my time.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Horowitz, how many text messages were exchanged between
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't have an exact number, but tens of
thousands.
Mr. Jordan. Tens of thousands. And we got to see most of
these last fall and over the last several months. But there was
one we didn't get to see, one text message we didn't get to see
until last week when your report came out.
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. And it just happened to be the most explosive
one, the one that says: We'll stop Trump. How come we didn't
see that beforehand?
Mr. Horowitz. Let me explain how we ended up finding that,
because I think it's important to also appreciate----
Mr. Jordan. I guess I'm more interested in if someone was
trying to hide it.
Mr. Horowitz. Well, we uncovered it in May, so last month.
We uncovered it in our fourth round of work on their personal--
on their FBI devices.
Mr. Jordan. That's my question. If you uncovered it a month
ago, why did we not see it until last Thursday?
Mr. Horowitz. I can't answer that question. We provided the
materials to the Department----
Mr. Jordan. But who made the decision? Was it Mr. Wray? Was
it Mr. Rosenstein? Was it Mr. Sessions? Who made the decision?
Mr. Horowitz. What we have done, as we have found these
texts, is send them to the Department and for them to produce
it to Congress, and that's what we did in May.
Mr. Jordan. And who at the Department, though?
Mr. Horowitz. We sent it to the Office of Deputy Attorney
General and----
Mr. Jordan. So Mr. Rosenstein?
Mr. Horowitz. In his office.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Rosenstein made a decision that instead of
us seeing the most explosive text message between these two key
agents who were on the Clinton team, the Russia team, and on
the special counsel team, he made a decision to wait a month
for us to see that text message.
Mr. Horowitz. I can't speak to whether anyone made a
conscious decision. I would just say we--there was in that
fourth recovery that we made in May there was 100,000-plus
lines of texts to go through. Most all of them we'd found
before. This one was one we hadn't. We didn't see it or pick it
up until June.
Mr. Jordan. And did you not see it or was it hidden from
you? Because we have the text message right before it and the
one that happened right after it, but somehow that one, the
most explosive one, was missing from the pages that we got
months ago.
Mr. Horowitz. And I can explain how we ended up finding it,
because it was missing from--we did not have it either. We
recovered it.
Mr. Jordan. So the Department didn't give it to you either?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't think the Department had it, and I
can explain why I don't think they had it.
Mr. Jordan. Okay.
Mr. Horowitz. These text messages were retained by the FBI
pursuant to a data collection where they were pulling text
messages--I'm not a tech person, I'll do my best here--they
were pulling them off the FBI devices. They each had their own
FBI phones. They were pulling them.
As we got these texts and found these concerning messages
in 2017, we then asked the FBI for all their text messages.
When we got all their text messages, as you know, we found a
window, a period of several months where there was zero.
Mr. Jordan. Right.
Mr. Horowitz. We then went and got their phones and said:
Okay, if the FBI isn't collecting them, we're going to try and
extract them from the phones.
We did a first run-through using our cyber forensics
capabilities, collected material. We went to our outside vendor
that we use to see what else that contractor had. We did
another go-round with some additional tools, found more.
We then went to the Defense Department.
Mr. Jordan. Okay.
Mr. Horowitz. Did the same thing.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah, I'm thankful that Mr. Chabot yielded me
time, but I got the gist of it. You jumped through all kinds of
hoops to retrieve it.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Jordan. The point is when you did get it Mr. Rosenstein
decided we couldn't get it until your report came out. He sat
on it for a month of time.
Mr. Horowitz. I can't speak to how they----
Mr. Jordan. Well, it's not the first time Mr. Rosenstein
has kept us from getting information. I mean, he's hid
information from us. He redacted all kinds of important
conversations between Strzok and Page. He redacted that from
us. We had to go over to the Justice Department and find it. So
this wouldn't be the first time he hasn't given us information,
frankly, I think we're entitled to.
I want to--well, I got 30 seconds. I don't have time to get
into another subject area here.
Mr. Horowitz, I appreciate that, but I do think it is
interesting that you had it, you discovered it, and we couldn't
get it right away. Like all the other text messages, we had to
wait until the final report.
With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from the District of Columbia is recognized.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horowitz, if there's a bottom line to your report it
appears to be that while there were mistakes made, the mistakes
that have been discussed, that the Clinton email--that the
investigation itself was not politically motivated. Is that a
fair rendition?
Mr. Horowitz. I think what I would say about the final
decision by the prosecutors is that we found their decision was
not based on political bias but on their assessment of the
facts, the law, and the precedent.
Ms. Norton. Now, that, of course, in spite of what has been
made at this hearing by some of my colleagues about Mr.
Strzok's testimony, you know. If one hears that testimony, it
could sound like a textbook example of bias.
So could you explain why, notwithstanding the renditions we
have heard of his virtual on-the-record, because it has been
quoted, bias, nevertheless the investigation itself was not
biased given the leading role he played in the investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. What we found was with regard to the specific
decisions we looked at pre-July 5 that there were other team
members involved in some of those. He and Ms. Page took a more
aggressive view than the prosecutors. In some of those
instances or many of those instances actually it was the
prosecutors who were making the decision, not the agents.
And so when we looked at the notes, the emails, the other
evidence we could find, and the testimony we got, we concluded
that there wasn't evidence of bias in how those decisions were
actually made or carried out, the specific ones we looked at.
Ms. Norton. Notwithstanding Strzok's involvement, there
were a sufficient number of other investigators so that the
bottom line here of no political motivation stands as far as
you're concerned?
Mr. Horowitz. As to the specific decisions we looked at,
correct, and as to the prosecutorial decision for the reasons I
indicated.
Ms. Norton. Now, there's a lot of concern about Mr. Comey's
speaking out. He used words like ``extremely careless.'' And he
has been criticized for, after the case was closed, speaking
out again.
Yet your report said, and here I'm quoting, sir: ``The
problem originated with Comey's elevation of 'maximal
transparency.'"
I tell you, sir, if someone said, ``Eleanor,'' to me,
``you're being maximally transparent,'' especially as a Member
of Congress, I would take that as a compliment. So I need to
understand your use of that word, rather than perhaps a more
critical use of language.
Mr. Horowitz. Right. Well, that was Mr. Comey's explanation
to us as to why he did it. I will say as inspectors general, as
you know, we stand for----
Ms. Norton. No, I was quoting the OIG report----
Mr. Horowitz. Right.
Ms. Norton. --found the problem originated with Comey's
elevation of maximal transparency as overriding this case. That
is to say overriding the principle that you've got to stay
silent----
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Norton. --if you are the FBI.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Look, I'm--we are as IGs for government transparency in all
ways possible. But there are places where there are other
rules, like classified material, like ongoing criminal
investigations, for the reason we said: Individuals' reputation
should not be tarnished if they're not going to be charged with
a crime. And that's a rule----
Ms. Norton. So he went beyond--his transparency is not what
you're recommending----
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Ms. Norton. --for Members of Congress.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks for your testimony, Mr. Horowitz. It has been a busy
week for you this week.
First, I'd like to turn to the question of how many emails
were exchanged on the unsecured server between Hillary Rodham
Clinton and President Barack Obama.
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know the exact number. We can go back
and look. We understood he was 1 of 13 individuals in that.
Mr. King. Do you have any sense of the volume that was
exchanged between the Secretary of State and the President?
Mr. Horowitz. I can get back to you on that. I'd have to
refresh my recollection on that one.
Mr. King. At this point you don't have a sense of that
volume?
Mr. Horowitz. I just don't.
Mr. King. And then do you have the information or a sense
of were those emails secret, top secret, classified?
Mr. Horowitz. My recollection is, as I sit here, that they
were not among the classified material, but I'm not certain of
that. So I'd need to go back and double check that.
Mr. King. And I want to ask you formally that you produce
those records for us.
Mr. Horowitz. I will do that.
Mr. King. I think it is essential that this committee
understand those facts surrounding that. And I'll get to that
hopefully in a moment.
Could you point out to us your first encounter with the
replacement of the words from the statute in 793, ``gross
negligence,'' with the words ``extreme carelessness,'' the
first encounter with that switch?
Mr. Horowitz. That was back in May as this--as the drafts
were--the Comey statement as the drafts were evolving into
June.
Mr. King. And were the fingerprints of Peter Strzok on that
exchange?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. King. Anyone else's fingerprints on that exchange?
Mr. Horowitz. I believe Ms. Page, as well.
Mr. King. And what about James Comey, had he----
Mr. Horowitz. He was very much in the middle of the
drafting that was going on.
Mr. King. The three of them were in communication and
drafting that. So it would be hard to identify exactly who
inserted it the first time. Is that a fair analysis?
Mr. Horowitz. I think we actually do have some idea of how
it got changed and who put it in, but not necessarily because
it was their decision as opposed to who was the sort of scribe
on it as opposed to the decision-maker.
Mr. King. I would like a little bit more information on
that, too, if you could, Mr. Horowitz.
Mr. Horowitz. We can do that, yes.
Mr. King. So while we're searching back for the genesis of
``extreme carelessness'' as a replacement for the statutory
language of ``gross negligence,'' could you inform the
committee here as to the genesis of the word ``intent'' as it
found its way into this dialogue?
Mr. Horowitz. So it looks like in a variety of discussions
with the team and the prosecutors, the investigative team from
the FBI and the prosecutors, that the focus was on in a
significant way--there were other factors as well here--but in
a significant way the focus was on the fact that the classified
material that was transiting through the email server was not
clearly marked as you're supposed to have it marked, with
banners saying it is classified and what level it is classified
at.
Mr. King. To more clarify my question, actually the
insertion of the word ``intent'' as a condition to a violation
of 793, when did that word first find itself in the dialogue
that you looked at?
Mr. Horowitz. That is in the dialogue months earlier, well
before the investigation reached its conclusion.
Mr. King. About when would you guess that is the months
earlier?
Mr. Horowitz. I'd have to----
Mr. King. In 2016?
Mr. Horowitz. It's in 2016.
Mr. King. Not in 2015?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm not sure whether it went back that far,
although, frankly, it could have, because there's some
indication that early on people thought that it was unlikely to
be the case.
Mr. King. Mr. Horowitz, let me assert that the evidence I'm
looking at suggests that President Barack Obama spoke that word
into law and that a taped program October 10 of 2015 he said
Hillary Clinton was careless but not intentional. That program
was aired on October 11, CBS ``60 Minutes.'' And I have the
article printed in The New York Times, that's dated the 16th of
October, the article that references the October 11, where it
says in this article, quote: ``Mr. Obama said he had no
impression that Mrs. Clinton had purposely tried 'to hide
something or to squirrel away information,' close quote.
Continuing: ``In doing so, Mr. Obama spoke directly to a core
component of the law used against Mr. Petraeus, intent, and
said he did not think it applied in Mrs. Clinton's case.''
So I'm going to suggest that the President suggested that
language through the open medium and spoke the word into the
law, that it would require intent, which shows up throughout in
the following months, in particular in James Comey's July 5,
2016, exoneration--well, let's say summary of the prosecution/
exoneration statement, six times that word ``intent,'' and I
find it no place else.
Would you have any comments on your thoughts of how that
might have been--the genesis might have gone back to the
President of the United States on that idea?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know that that was necessarily the
genesis. We don't have evidence of that. But we do have in
here, as you noted, references to the statements made by
President Obama and by his press secretary and the concerns
that those raised and the issues that--and how it was viewed
and perceived by the team, by the investigative team.
Mr. King. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz.
I yield back the balance.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Iowa yields back.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Bass.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Horowitz, thank you for this report. It lays out in
clear and unequivocal terms a conclusion that Republicans have
resisted for years: The investigation into Secretary Clinton's
emails and the decision to decline prosecution were both done
properly, without bias.
In this report you concluded, quote: ``We did not find
documentary or testimonial evidence that improper
considerations, including political bias, directly affected the
specific investigative decisions...or that the justification
offered for these decisions were pretextual.''
Is that right?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Ms. Bass. Republican Members have repeatedly declared that
the investigation was illegitimate and have questioned many
aspects of that investigation, from the Justice Department's
use of immunity agreements to the timing of James Comey
drafting process.
Did you investigate these allegations?
Mr. Horowitz. The questions of--I'm sorry, could you say
that again?
Ms. Bass. Republican Members repeatedly declared that the
investigation was illegitimate and questioned many aspects of
the investigation, from the Justice Department's use of
immunity agreements to the timing of James Comey drafting
process.
Did you investigate these allegations?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Ms. Bass. In response to your report Chairman Gowdy wrote,
quote: ``This report confirms investigative decisions made by
the FBI during this investigation were unprecedented and
deviated from traditional investigative procedures in favor of
a much more permissive and voluntary approach.''
Chairman Goodlatte similarly wrote, quote: ``The Justice
Department and FBI didn't treat her like any other criminal
suspect and didn't follow standard investigative procedures.''
This doesn't seem to reflect your report's findings to me.
In fact, your report explicitly states, and I quote: ``Contrary
to public perception, the Midyear team used compulsory process
in the Midyear investigation.''
Your report also stated, quote: ``We found that these
specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments
made during the course of an investigation by the Midyear
agents and prosecutors and that these judgment calls were not
unreasonable.''
Is that right?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Ms. Bass. The report also concluded, quote: ``We found no
evidence that the conclusions by the [Department] Prosecutors
were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather,
we determined that they were based on the prosecutors'
assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department
practice.''
Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. As to the prosecutorial decision, yes, that's
correct.
Ms. Bass. Mr. Horowitz, I appreciate you being here today.
I do want to ask you a couple of other questions.
On June 29 Democrats on this committee and the House
Judiciary Committee sent you a letter raising concerns that
Attorney General Sessions may have violated his recusal when he
participated directly and personally in President Trump's
decision to fire FBI Director James Comey.
You testified last November that you had not made a
decision, but that you were holding off while special
prosecutor Mueller has an ongoing investigation, but you also
said you would revisit your decision if new information came to
light.
Is this an accurate description?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Ms. Bass. It now appears that Attorney General's violation
of his recusal impacts issues well beyond the scope of the
special counsel's probe.
On November 13, the Department of Justice sent a letter
stating that the Attorney General has been directly involved in
decisions regarding the appointment of a special counselor to
investigate, and I quote, ``the sale of Uranium One, alleged
unlawful dealings related to the Clinton Foundation, and other
matters.''
This letter says that the Attorney General, and I quote,
``directed senior Federal prosecutors to evaluate whether a
special counsel should be appointed and told those prosecutors
to report their findings,'' quote, ``directly to the Attorney
General and deputy attorney general.''
Representative Raskin asked you about that letter and you
said you would receive and review this additional information.
On November 30 Ranking Member Cummings followed up and sent
you a letter providing this additional information and again
requesting you to conduct this review.
On December 12 you responded with a letter that said, and I
quote: ``Your letter asked the OIG to conducted an
investigation separate from that of the special counsel.''
Do you have any update to provide at this time?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't, and I stand by what I said earlier.
I think it's important for us as an OIG to consider what other
investigative activity is ongoing out there and consider that--
keep that in mind as we're deciding when would be an
appropriate time to make a determination whether to go forward
with a review.
Ms. Bass. The report your office issued last week that is
the subject of today's hearing discusses text messages sent by
FBI employees who previously were working on the special
counsel's investigation.
Can you explain why in that instance you were willing to
conduct a review related to the special counsel's investigation
but you will not review the Attorney General's potentially
ongoing violations of his recusal agreement?
Mr. Horowitz. Certainly.
So when we undertook this review and started finding the
problematic text messages back in 2017 and ultimately gathered
the evidence we gathered in July of 2017, and then met with the
Deputy Attorney General and the special counsel to inform them
of what we had found, because at the time Mr. Strzok was
working for the special counsel, I also discussed the matter
with the special counsel about what we believed was our need to
collect all of the text messages from those individuals even
beyond the Clinton email investigation so that we could make an
assessment of how their views and their conduct impacted the
Clinton email investigation.
Ms. Bass. Okay. Thank you.
I believe that you could review today whether the Attorney
General is violating his recusal when he participates in
matters that are unrelated to the special counsel's
investigation.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady from California yields back.
The gentleman from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. Amash. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to my friend,
the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Horowitz, I want to go back to where we were just a few
minutes ago. This text message, this mysterious one, that was
the most explosive one disappeared, refound, but the Department
sits on it for a month.
Can we get a copy of the correspondence that you had with
Mr. Rosenstein? Was there any type of--how did you communicate
to the Justice Department that you had found this text message?
Mr. Horowitz. My agent sent it by email.
Mr. Jordan. So you sent an email. Did you get----
Mr. Horowitz. This printout, the spreadsheets, you know, of
all the texts. We had 120,000 or so, 100,000 lines of texts.
Mr. Jordan. So you didn't specify we found this one that
had been missing?
Mr. Horowitz. I then--when we found it I specified to the
associate deputy attorney general on June 8 that he ought to
look at this one.
Mr. Jordan. Oh, so you sent it to him last month, but then
you specifically pointed it out to him last week or 2 weeks
ago?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct. When we identified it and saw it as
we were going through these hundred thousand pages.
Mr. Jordan. What response did he give you when you pointed
it out, the most explosive text message?
Mr. Horowitz. Thank you for telling me about it.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you for telling me about it. Well, yeah,
I think so. But not like, well, we need to get this to Congress
like we did all the others right away?
Mr. Horowitz. I didn't engage him on that.
Mr. Jordan. Do you know if there's anything nefarious at
work? Because when we got the original pages of the text it had
the prompting question from Ms. Page that says: He is not ever
going to become President, right? We had that one.
Mr. Horowitz. As did we.
Mr. Jordan. We have had it for months, as did you. So why
didn't we get the response? All the other times we get the back
and forth, this time we didn't.
Mr. Horowitz. I think actually it goes to the technical--
technological issue that we think needs to get addressed and
fixed, frankly. Because what happened here is on the fourth go-
round, when we were doing our quality control check on what we
had done, we found an operating system program in the phone
that was----
Mr. Jordan. So you think it was technical, you think it was
a technical problem?
Mr. Horowitz. To us that's what it appears as to why this
wasn't found before May.
Mr. Jordan. I'm more concerned about why Mr. Rosenstein
didn't give us the information when he first got it. It seems
to me he should have.
Let me go to something else here. How many different
investigations do you have going on right now? Are you looking
at--you're looking at Mr. Comey, you're looking at FISA,
potential abuse of the FISA court process. And are you looking
at the leak issue with the FBI? Are you looking at--you got
three other ones going on?
Mr. Horowitz. We've got lots of investigations going on.
Mr. Jordan. Well, I know, but with all this stuff, I know
you've got lots.
Mr. Horowitz. Yes, we're looking at the leak issue, as
well. That's ongoing.
Mr. Jordan. So all three of those----
Mr. Horowitz. Remain ongoing.
Mr. Jordan. --within ongoing investigations, right?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Do you have any idea when--I'm particularly--
well, I'm interested in all of them, but I'm particularly
interested in the FISA--potential abuse of the FISA process. Do
you have any idea when that one will be complete?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't, Congressman. In part, as you know, a
few weeks ago we were asked to broaden that and look at some
additional information and issues.
Mr. Jordan. Do you anticipate it taking 18 months like this
Clinton investigation one did, Mr. Horowitz?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't anticipate it, but let me just say,
if we had released this report in January you would not have
most of these text messages.
Mr. Jordan. No. I understand. I mean, you got to do your
work.
Mr. Horowitz. So I can't--I didn't expect that.
Mr. Jordan. As important as it is, when you look at looking
at the FISA, potential abuse of the FISA process, will you be
looking at the question of whether Mr. Rosenstein threatened
staff members on the House Intelligence Committee?
Mr. Horowitz. I've read about that recently, and I'm
certainly, as in all instances, available to take information.
I only know at this point what I've read from the newspaper.
Mr. Jordan. Would that be within the parameters of your
investigation, that question?
Mr. Horowitz. Frankly, I would have to understand a little
bit more about it and what occurred and how it might connect to
this, if at all, or whether it's something separate.
Mr. Jordan. Will you look at the issue of why when the
dossier was taken to the FISA court they didn't tell the court
who paid for the document? Will you look at that question?
Mr. Horowitz. Certainly within the FISA review----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman,
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Horowitz, when you--when you----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jordan. In the course of your investigation will you
look at the question of why when the application was taken to
the FISA court they didn't reveal the fact that the author of
the document, the author of the dossier----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Ohio controls the time.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Is it not appropriate to raise the
question as to what is the germaneness of the gentleman's line
of questioning and whether or not we are dealing with the
report of Mr. Horowitz or are we dealing with the Republicans'
attempt to undermine the Mueller investigation and as well to
fire deputy secretary--excuse me, Attorney General Rosenstein,
which they're planning to do on Friday.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady has not stated her
parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. Jackson Lee. This is not the agenda.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Ohio controls the time,
and I would ask that the time be put back on the clock that was
usurped by the gentlelady from Texas.
Mr. Jordan. I would just respond, Mr. Chairman, it's been
widely understood that when the dossier was taken to the FISA
court to get a secret warrant to spy on a fellow American
citizen they didn't tell the court two important facts. They
didn't tell the court who paid for the document, they didn't
tell the court the guy who wrote it had been fired by the FBI.
And I'm just asking as Mr. Horowitz undergoes this important
investigation if he will be examining those two fundamental
questions.
Mr. Horowitz. We will take under advisement those and other
questions that have been raised. And as we said with this
review, if we find additional issues we will look at those, as
well, and partly that's why----
Mr. Jordan. One last question, if I could, Mr. Horowitz.
May 17, 2017, Rod Rosenstein writes a memo outlining the
scope and parameters of the special counsel investigation. On
August 2, 2017, he writes another memo that in some way alters,
amends, modifies the initial scope of the investigation. And
yet we can't see that, the American people can't see that.
Seems to me if you're altering the scope of an
investigation into the guy that the American people made
President of the United States, we as Americans deserve to know
exactly the parameters and scope of that investigation.
So will you be able to get ahold of that August 2 memo and
make that available in the course of your investigation?
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman's time has expired, but you
may answer the question.
Mr. Horowitz. I'd have to think about how that connected to
our investigation and what connectivity, germaneness it would
have to ours. I'm happy to consider it. I have not seen either
of those memos myself. And like I said, on its face I'm not
sure the connection between that and the FISA. But I will
certainly take it under advisement, Congressman.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
For planning purposes, we will plan to break at 1 o'clock,
if that's okay with the Inspector General.
Mr. Horowitz. Fine with me.
Chairman Gowdy. With that, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Clay, is recognized.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And here is where I see where we are. A Presidential
candidate was targeted by Russia, Russian intelligence. Members
of Congress, including myself, were targeted, as well. And at
least 21 States had their voter information penetrated by
Russian intelligence.
That information obtained by the Russians was weaponized
with the clear intention to harm Hillary Clinton and support
the election of Donald Trump. Time will tell, when Special
Counsel Mueller issues his report, whether or not the
President's campaign actively colluded with the Russians.
Now, Mr. Horowitz, thank you for being here.
On February the 2nd, 2018, the President tweeted, and I
quote: ``The top leadership and investigators of the FBI and
the Justice Department have politicized a sacred investigative
process in favor of Democrats and against Republicans,
something which would have been unthinkable just a short time
ago,'' end of quote.
This is an accusation that has been repeated by multiple
Republican Members, including Representative Jim Jordan, who
stated in an interview about your report, and I quote: ``I
think one of the big takeaways is the exact same people who ran
the Clinton investigation, who had a bias in favor of Clinton,
who did all of these things that are not the typical practice
when you're doing an investigation, those same people took over
and ran the Russian investigation.''
You know, these are serious allegations, and I would like
to address them head on.
Mr. Horowitz, did you find any evidence that James Comey
took any investigative actions in the Clinton matter based on
political bias and, quote, in favor of Democrats and against
Republicans?
Mr. Horowitz. We did not find evidence that Mr. Comey had
acted out of political bias.
Mr. Clay. And your investigation undiscovered five FBI
employees who had exchanged texts or instant messages
reflecting strong personal political views, but you found that
even those individuals did not let their personal political
views determine the outcomes of the Clinton matter.
Your report states, and I quote: ``Our review did not find
documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the
political views these employees expressed in their text message
and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions we
reviewed.''
And you also quote: In some instances Strzok and Page
advocated for more aggressive investigative measures in the
Midyear investigation, such as the use of grand jury subpoenas
and search warrants.
Did you find that there is a pro-Democrat or anti-
Republican conspiracy at the FBI or Justice Department?
Mr. Horowitz. We didn't reach the question of whether there
was a conspiracy or not. We've just laid out here what the text
messages indicated and, as you noted, the fact that the
specific decisions we reviewed we found weren't impacted or
affected or resulted from political bias.
Mr. Clay. I see. Do you know if the Office of Professional
Responsibility is taking any actions on the subjects that you
have, on the people----
Mr. Horowitz. Director Wray testified yesterday that he had
referred--provided our information and report to the FBI's
Office of Professional Responsibility.
Mr. Clay. I see. Thank you so much for your responses.
And at this time, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to yield my
remaining time to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady is recognized for 33
seconds.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Director--excuse me, Mr. Horowitz--did
you investigate any questions about Mr. Rosenstein's actions in
your report as relates to any inappropriate behavior?
Mr. Horowitz. No.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I didn't hear you, sir.
Mr. Horowitz. No.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And did you--let us finish the question
that I had dealing with the FBI agents in the Southern District
of New York. You did confirm that they leaked. Is that not
correct?
Mr. Horowitz. We did not say anything at all about whether
they leaked or didn't leak. We're not speaking, or speak at
all, to who we are looking at or what we're looking at, other
than we're looking at the issues we were asked to look at about
investigative leaks.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And so you will continue that
investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. We will.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentlewoman from Texas yields back.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, is recognized.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horowitz, there has been a massive amount of bias
documented by you in your investigation. You have concluded
with recommendations that appear to just be more policies of
the same policies the FBI, the DOJ already had. You understood
it was already against FBI, DOJ policy to let bias come into
play in these investigations, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, you made references in your report, even
quoted from unnamed but numbered prosecutors and agents. Have
you given us the names of those individuals?
Mr. Horowitz. So we have a request for them, and we are----
Mr. Gohmert. So you haven't given us the names and now you
can't decide whether you're going to give them to us?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, let me be clear. We engaged the
committee on this. We went out, went to the FBI. The FBI raised
the concern----
Mr. Gohmert. Okay. The answer is no, you haven't given them
to us.
So let me just tell you, we're here because prosecutors and
agents at the DOJ have been biased and it may have and some of
us believe you have laid out a case that bias did affect what
was going on. And then you come in here and say: We're going to
number these people, we're not going to let you know who they
are.
But let me ask you this. Have you checked to see what
normally wouldn't matter, how they voted in a Presidential
election, except when you're investigating a nominee or a
President? Do you know how they voted? Did they donate money to
either of the candidates?
Mr. Horowitz. I have no idea how they voted, and I don't
have an idea----
Mr. Gohmert. So you're bringing this investigation in here
based on or utilizing opinions and information provided by
prosecutors and agents who may be just as biased as the people
that we're investigating, we just don't know because we hadn't
seen their texts, we hadn't seen their emails.
Normally, putting back on my felony judge hat, if a jury is
going to make a decision on guilt or innocence of a felony of,
say, a Presidential nominee, I'm going let them ask the jury
panel: Did you vote for this person, did you give money to this
person, do you have a bumper sticker for this person, did you
put a sign in their yard, did you talk this person up?
And yet you're coming in here, you don't know if these
people you were relying on actually had any biases like the
very ones you were investigating.
Well, let me ask you this. Among the supervising special
agents you referenced and the prosecutors, do you have any idea
of the percentage that may have voted for Hillary Clinton?
Mr. Horowitz. We did not ask people who they voted for.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, let me tell you, I know my friend Mr.
Nadler had referenced, said, oh, you know, a big organization
like that, probably just as many people supported Trump. I
heard Newt Gingrich yesterday said the fact is 97 percent of
the people in the DOJ that donated, don't to Democrats, 97
percent.
So there's a good chance that the people that you're
relying on did support Hillary Clinton. We don't know because
you haven't asked. It is important to know who the
investigators are and the people you're relying on.
You mentioned in here, in the report, about Strzok and the
relationship that he mentions with Judge Contreras. Do you know
why Judge Contreras was recused, was removed from the Mike
Flynn case?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know why he was recused.
Mr. Gohmert. Is that something you would investigate?
Mr. Horowitz. It's not within the scope of this
investigation.
Mr. Gohmert. I'm going reinforce the request for the
identities of the supervising special agent, the prosecutors,
and agents that were only identified by numbers and ask who
they contributed to, if anyone, in the last two cycles.
Now, in your report you said: The SSA us that the FBI did
not consider Pagliano as a subject or someone to prosecute in
connection. But this guy set up the unsecured server, as I
understood it. This is a guy that you had a laydown case, or
the DOJ did, and yet they don't put--they don't use that
leverage, they don't treat him like they did Manafort or any of
these other people.
The DOJ had leverage. And this is where bias came into
play. They didn't go after him. You said the SSA told us he
believed Combetta should have been charged with false
statements, yet nobody charged him. And why? Because bias
played a role.
I understand when you have an investigation you like to
give something, a little something to both sides, makes you
feel good. You gave us hundreds of pages of bias, but the
conclusion was just, I'm sorry, whether it was subconscious or
conscious, you had a little throwaway to go to the Democrats.
But the fact is bias is all the way through this, and I'm
sorry that you were not able to see that with what is very
obvious from your evidence.
I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Jeffries, is recognized.
Would you like to respond, Mr. Horowitz?
Mr. Horowitz. Mr. Chairman, can I just finish on the
identity issue, just so the record is clear on that?
We were asked to--when we write a report we obviously
comply with the Privacy Act and the other laws Congress has in
place on who we can speak to and who we can't. That's the first
step we do here. Much like what we lay out here with the
criticisms of folks who didn't follow the rules and the norms
and law, we followed that.
We then got the committee's request. Consistent with our
support for transparency, we would be supportive of getting the
committee that information. The FBI interposed an objection:
Because these individuals work on and have worked on
counterintelligence matters, that there might be a security or
safety issue.
That's what we've talked to the committee about. We're
happy to facilitate that issue with the committee and the FBI.
But that's the objection that was raised--what's today,
Tuesday--Monday, I think it was, by the FBI.
Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Chairman, to clarify my request, it was
not for anything to do with any counterintelligence. I don't
want to know anything about that, just who worked on this
matter.
Chairman Gowdy. I think the request is clear and his
response is clear.
We're going to go to the gentleman from New York, and then
we're going to go to the gentleman from Montana, and then we
will break, Inspector General Horowitz, just so people can know
what we're doing.
My friend from New York, Mr. Jeffries.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horowitz, we live in a democracy, not an authoritarian
state. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And in your view, is it generally appropriate
to begin to ask American citizens how they voted in a
Presidential election or in any election for that matter?
Mr. Horowitz. In my view that's not a question we should be
asking, certainly from my standpoint.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Thank you.
Special counsel's investigation into possible Russian
interference with the 2016 election has resulted in 23
indictments, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know actually.
Mr. Jeffries. Twenty individuals have been indicted in
connection with that investigation.
Mr. Horowitz. I'll accept your representation.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Three corporate entities have been
indicted in connection with the special counsel's
investigation, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Again, I don't know as I'm sitting here, but
I'll certainly accept your representation.
Mr. Jeffries. Special counsel's investigation into possible
Russian collusion identified 75 different criminal acts,
correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Same answer.
Mr. Jeffries. There have been five guilty pleas, true?
Mr. Horowitz. Same answer.
Mr. Jeffries. Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort has
been charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States,
correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Same answer. I believe that's correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And Paul Manafort is now sitting in jail,
correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That is correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And that's in connection with alleged witness
tampering, true?
Mr. Horowitz. That's what I've read.
Mr. Jeffries. And Trump's former National Security Advisor,
Michael Flynn, has pled guilty to lying to the FBI, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's my understanding.
Mr. Jeffries. His deputy campaign manager, Rick Gates, has
been indicted on conspiracy to defraud the United States, true?
Mr. Horowitz. Again, I would accept your representation.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And George Papadopoulos, a former Trump
campaign national security adviser, has pled guilty to lying to
the FBI about his contacts with Russians during the campaign,
correct?
Mr. Horowitz. I believe that's correct.
Mr. Jeffries. Now, former FBI Director James Comey
initiated the criminal investigation into possible collusion
between the Trump campaign and Russia, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Actually I'm not sure who and precisely how
it was opened.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. But he was FBI Director at the time,
true?
Mr. Horowitz. He was the FBI Director at the time.
Mr. Jeffries. And James Comey is a lifelong Republican,
correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That I don't know.
Mr. Jeffries. Bob Mueller is the special counsel leading
the criminal investigation into possible collusion between the
Trump campaign and Russia, true?
Mr. Horowitz. He is now the special counsel, correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And Special Counsel Bob Mueller is a well-
respected law enforcement professional, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. I'll speak for myself. I have respect for
him.
Mr. Jeffries. He is a man of integrity, true?
Mr. Horowitz. That's my opinion.
Mr. Jeffries. And Special Counsel Bob Mueller is a lifelong
Republican, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That I don't know.
Mr. Jeffries. Now Rod Rosenstein is the Justice
Department's deputy attorney general, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And in that capacity the deputy attorney
general oversees the special counsel's criminal investigation
into the Trump campaign, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's my understanding.
Mr. Jeffries. Now, Donald Trump, the Republican President,
appointed Rod Rosenstein to that position of deputy AG, true?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And Rod Rosenstein is a registered
Republican, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That I don't know.
Mr. Jeffries. Christopher Wray is the current FBI Director,
correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Jeffries. He was appointed to that position by Donald
Trump, true?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And in that capacity the FBI Director helps
lead the criminal investigation into the Trump campaign,
correct?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm actually not sure of that with the
special counsel, how that plays out.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. We think that he is involved.
FBI director Christopher Wray is a registered Republican,
correct.
Mr. Horowitz. That I don't know.
Mr. Jeffries. For the last few hours we have sat in this
hearing, and some of my colleagues, part of the Cover-Up
Caucus, have attempted to peddle conspiracy theories that the
investigation into the Trump campaign's potential criminality,
where we were attacked by a hostile foreign power, is a witch
hunt.
There is not a scintilla of evidence that a witch hunt
exists right now. In fact, if any, individual connected to the
2016 Presidential campaign was victimized by prosecutorial
misconduct, her name was Hillary Clinton.
The report that you produced, 500-plus pages, makes clear
that the former FBI Director violated Department of Justice
protocol on multiple occasions, most severely in July of 2016
with a public explanation of Hillary Clinton's conduct,
recklessly calling it extremely careless, violating DOJ
protocol, and then, of course, again in October of 2016, with
11 days prior to the Presidential campaign.
What are you guys complaining about? You know what
happened. James Comey decided to play judge, jury, and
executioner. And on October 28 he executed the Hillary Clinton
campaign, killed her in Pennsylvania, killed her in Michigan,
killed her in Wisconsin, and handed Donald Trump the
Presidency; and at the same time decided to pardon the Trump
campaign in the court of public opinion by refusing to confirm
to the public the investigation that was taking place in the
Trump campaign.
It's a phony, fraudulent, and fake argument. Stop peddling
lies about a so-called Democratic witch hunt to the American
people.
I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from New York yields back.
The gentleman from Montana is recognized.
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horowitz--over here, sorry--I appreciate the work you
have done and continue to do on your ongoing investigations.
I'd like to focus my short time with you on the improper
interactions and leaking of information to the media.
On page 19 of your report you state that the FBI policy and
regulations forbid the confirmation or denial and any
discussion of an active investigation, except in limited
specified circumstances. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Gianforte. Also, only the FBI Director, deputy
director, associate deputy director, and other limited staff
are authorized to speak to the media. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah.
Mr. Gianforte. So why does the agency have such a policy?
And could you briefly describe the consequences of not
following it?
Mr. Horowitz. The agency has the policy because leaks harm
cases, they can terribly damage an ongoing criminal
investigation, and they harm people's reputations. No one
should want to see anybody tarnished with mud, other
allegations that are never charged, never proven.
Mr. Gianforte. So leaks are damaging?
Mr. Horowitz. Leaks are damaging to people and
investigations.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. So on page 430 of your report you
state that the FBI policy limits employees who are authorized
to speak to the media, but you found that that policy was
widely ignored and that numerous FBI employees at all levels of
the organization were in frequent contact with reporters. Is
that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct, yeah.
Mr. Gianforte. Further, your team identified instances
where FBI employees received tickets to sporting events from
journalists, went on golfing outings with media
representatives, were treated to drinks and meals after work
with reporters, and were guests of journalists at nonpublic
social events. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Gianforte. Some might consider such gifts as bribes. At
the very minimum these are serious ethics violations.
In appendixes G and H you identify over 50 FBI employees
who had over 300 interactions with reporters during the period
you looked at. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Gianforte. What evidence did you find that these 300 or
so interactions and outings and meals and golf tournaments were
authorized and in compliance with FBI policy?
Mr. Horowitz. It appears that most, many, were not, and
that is precisely why I wanted to put this--make this public.
We have this work ongoing, so I can't speak to any individual
matter or issue, but I thought it was critical because of our
concern as we do these reports on systemic issues that the
public and policymakers and the Department of Justice and the
FBI itself understand what the challenge is. When we have to
look at leaks and there are that number of contacts it makes it
very, very, very challenging to figure out how it occurred.
Mr. Gianforte. So you noted that this leaking of
information to the media was widely known within the
organization and even played a role in decisionmaking.
Mr. Horowitz. And in addition here very concerning,
correct, that a number of people made decisions based on
concerns over what might be leaked.
Mr. Horowitz. And you note on page 429, quote: ``We have
profound concerns about the volume and extent of unauthorized
media contacts by FBI personnel that have been uncovered during
the review.''
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Gianforte. So given the policy to limit contact with
the media was very clear, knowledge of the practice of leaking
was widespread, and the potential consequences great, what
evidence did you find of any disciplinary action against
violating employees?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, when leaks were, in fact, uncovered
there was discipline. Our concern was that the contact alone
wasn't being addressed effectively and that that's where the
FBI needs to focus on and that's what Director Wray has said
publicly that he will look at.
Mr. Gianforte. So based on your investigation, how many
people have been referred to investigation in possible code
conduct violations?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm not sure that number, but I can assure
you that when we find contacts, even when we can't prove the
leak going forward, when we find contacts, even if we can't
prove that someone actually leaked, but if they contacted in
violation of policy, we will refer that to OPR for their
investigation.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. And at this point how many FBI or DOJ
employees have been fired for violating the leaking policy or
accepting improper gifts?
Mr. Horowitz. I would have to get back to you on that. I
don't know off the top of my head.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. It is very important, given the extent
of your findings.
And finally, the real issue here is can the American people
trust that these individuals will be held accountable. And can
we count on you and your organization in your role as inspector
general to ensure that this kind of improper behavior does not
persist?
Mr. Horowitz. I can. And I will say that we will, to the
extent the law permits us, make public our findings when we can
make them public.
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Inspector General, how long of a break would you like?
Mr. Horowitz. Long enough to get a sandwich or a bite to
eat.
Chairman Gowdy. Is 45 minutes enough?
Mr. Horowitz. Plenty of time.
Chairman Gowdy. Why don't we reconvene at 1:45?
With that, we're in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Gowdy. The committee will come to order.
The gentlelady, Mrs. Watson Coleman, is recognized for 5
minutes of questions.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And good afternoon to you, Mr. Horowitz. Thank you for your
testimony. Thank you for the work you've done. Thank you for
the investigation that you've overseen here today, and thank
you for the report that you've made.
I'm very struck by the report that you made: 500 pages, 17
months of investigative work, 1.2 million documents, including
over 100,000 text and instant messages, and interviewed more
than 100 witnesses, many on multiple occasions.
Am I correct that your findings, as it relates to this
Clinton email investigation, is that the decisions that were
made, the findings that were made, the investigations that were
conducted were not negatively--the outcomes were not negatively
impacted by the biases of any individuals?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct. The decision was--our conclusion was
that the decision of the prosecutors was not the result of
political bias, based on the evidence we reviewed.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
And I am very disturbed about the behavior of many people
in the FBI, starting with Mr. Comey. I find his ego exceeded
his ability to discern right from wrong. I am very concerned
about those individuals that had negative things to say about
either one of the candidates. And I am very concerned about
what I think was a failure of the leadership in the Justice
Department, who seems to me to have been intimated by Mr. Comey
and not pushing back on him and not holding him accountable.
Having said that, I'm tired of this discussion.
I thank you for your findings.
I would like for my committee, the Oversight Committee, as
well as the Judiciary Committee, of which I get the chance to
sit today but do not belong to, to look at the issues that are
impacting the safety and security of our Nation, our
reputation, and whether or not we should be using tax dollars
to try to figure out why the President of the United States of
America, his administration are doing things that are so un-
American as to rip children and babies from the hands and the
hearts of their parents and putting them in cages.
We've seen in our history two times in particular that we
should be so offended by. The first was slavery, when we ripped
families apart and wouldn't let parents be parents to their
children or wives to their husbands, and then during the World
War, when we took Japanese Americans and we put them in
internment camps.
We have seen what this kind of behavior has done in the
world when we saw what Germany did to the Jews. And now we're
doing it in the United States of America.
And I need to understand why my colleagues, who've been
elected to Congress to protect and preserve this Constitution,
this Republic, and this Nation, is sitting silently by while we
consistently observe this un-American activity on behalf of
this administration, coming from this administration, and their
complicitness in this and their silence.
I want to know why we haven't used our taxpayer dollars and
our responsibility here to look at the constant violations of
the Emoluments Clause by this President and his family and how
they consistently are intermingling their desires to get richer
and richer and richer with our safety and security with other
nations.
I want to understand why my colleagues here in this room,
in this committee, in the Judiciary Committee, and even in
Congress are silent as we become enemies to our friends and
friends to dictators.
Who are we? We are better than that.
I want to say that, if we were going to utilize our good
time, our communication to the Nation, our exploration of
what's right and what's wrong, what's going on, then we've got
lots of opportunities, from an arrogant, dismissive Secretary
of Homeland Security who has not a heart in her to a President
who doesn't even read the material before him.
So I am feeling very discouraged by where this committee
has taken us all day long. I am very discouraged by what my
colleague Mr. Hakeem Jeffries referred to as the antics of the
cover-up caucus.
And before I yield back, I just want to say that we are the
people for whom this government has been organized. It is of
us, by us, and for us. And the people must have the final word
here. Pay attention.
I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Arizona is recognized, Dr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. It's good to see you, Mr. Horowitz. Sorry you
had to hear some of the ranting and raving and people talking
out of both sides of their mouth. I mean, we can bring up
abortion. And, oh, my God, how is that not the ultimate in
hypocrisy?
But I'm going take a little different tact. I want to talk
about the foreign access to the Clinton email server.
Mr. Horowitz. Uh-huh.
Mr. Gosar. So what difficulties did the FBI have during the
intrusion analysis process of the capacity of the servers?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, in terms of difficulties, what they
were trying to do is understand who had intruded, if at all.
And one of the challenges they had was getting the servers
themselves and, obviously, recreating what was on the servers
and what emails and evidence trafficked through it, but also
the fact that foreign adversaries might not leave footprints if
they did attack the server.
Mr. Gosar. Right, but we didn't have all of the server
materials and that.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Gosar. So that leads me to my next question. So how did
the FBI square its lack of the complete data with a definitive
statement on whether an adversary compromised Clinton's server
or system?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, I think, you know, one of the issues
was trying to understand Director Comey's statement where he
both--in his July 5th statement--indicated that there wasn't
evidence of a--that they had uncovered evidence of an
intrusion, but they wouldn't necessarily know that either. And
that was a question we had. And, as we lay out here, they
explained to us the steps that they took, and we questioned the
individuals who were involved in the intrusion analysis.
Mr. Gosar. Well, that kind of gets me back to the point. So
why wouldn't you ask any and all sources, like the DNI, the
military, CIA, special ops, any remote centers, if they had
hacked into the server during this time? I mean, because it was
offline, no one really realized what this really was. This was
off--the server was here. So we could ask a number of questions
in regards to that opportunity of how they looked at that
server.
And the reason I say that is, when I asked the question
last Thursday as to who looked at that server, I was told that
it was an individual from the FBI. So, to me, that's
bothersome, because once again we saw upper-echelon FBI with
problems with this aspect.
And I'm going to come back to another aspect here, and that
is, there was a megadata abnormality that happened with Mr.
Strzok, and Mr. Strzok blew it off.
So my point is, why wouldn't we go outside the FBI to look
at the servers and this data?
Mr. Horowitz. Let me--my understanding was there was some
contact with other agencies, but I'd have to go back and just
refresh my----
Mr. Gosar. I'd love to know exactly who that is and who
they were, because my understanding is that there's something
peculiar in that regards. There were other people that noticed
something totally different than what the findings that you're
showing----
Mr. Horowitz. Right.
Mr. Gosar. --okay?
Now, I want to go back to this comment in regards--who told
Comey that ``reasonably likely'' was the proper way to explain
the results for the intrusion analysis?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't recall, as I sit here. I'd have to go
back and take a look at the report.
Mr. Gosar. Do you feel that you delved into that issue deep
enough to have a thorough conversation on that?
Mr. Horowitz. I think, to be clear, what we did was look at
what the FBI did, as opposed to do the intrusion analysis
ourselves, where, you know, as an IG, inspector general's
office, we don't do an intrusion analysis. We're looking at
what the FBI did----
Mr. Gosar. Right.
Mr. Horowitz. --to effect that.
Mr. Gosar. Well, I mean, I'm going to get back to Mr.
Strzok. I mean, so he's--my understanding is he responded to
the ``reasonably likely'' formation when providing edits back--
--
Mr. Horowitz. Right.
Mr. Gosar. --to Comey, did he not?
Mr. Horowitz. He did.
Mr. Gosar. So, once again, there's a common thread that
we're seeing here with Mr. Strzok, not just in the parsing of
words but also in megadata anomalies, as well as looking at
sources within the data.
So is Strzok's edit advice to Comey not a clear example of
where Strzok's bias is not publicly sound--to sound not too
harsh on Clinton and change the public's perception on that?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, it's certainly a place where he weighed
in and had an effect on the statement and had an impact on what
ultimately was said publicly by Comey about whether or not
there was evidence of intrusion.
Mr. Gosar. Well--and I'll get back to reiterating. I'd love
to know all the sources and actually have the server and these
devices looked at by other groups, particularly some hotshots
within DOD, DNI, to really look at this aspect, because I think
there's more to this story than meets the eye. It seems to me
that I'd want different validation than just the FBI.
Thank you, Mr. Horowitz.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Gowdy. For what purpose does the gentlemen from
New York seek recognition?
Mr. Nadler. To make a point of order.
Chairman Gowdy. State your point of order.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Gosar, a moment ago, referred to a member
on our side of the aisle as, quote, ``ranting and raving,''
speaking out of both sides of her mouth. I ask that his words
be taken down.
Mr. Meadows. So, Mr. Chairman, I think it would do us all
good to make sure that we have personalties that are not
involved in this. And I think it really degrades the overall
importance of this issue as we bring personalities in, whether
it be with other Members or others in the administration. So I
think it's important, maybe a gentle reminder would be
appropriate.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I would insist on--I would insist
either that his words be taken down or that there be an
apology.
Chairman Gowdy. Well, I'm not going to instruct the
gentleman from Arizona to apologize any more than I am other
Members who today have also said things that came precipitously
close to the line.
Mr. Nadler. I don't think anybody----
Chairman Gowdy. I will ask the gentleman from Arizona--if I
may continue. If I may continue.
Mr. Nadler. All right.
Chairman Gowdy. I will ask the gentleman from Arizona if he
wishes to rephrase or restate his comments in any way or to
make clear that he wasn't directing this at his colleague.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was acknowledging
that the other side has been ranting and raving about issues
that are not pertinent to today's hearing. And that's what I
was confronting, not just one individual person.
Chairman Gowdy. So it was a general comment as opposed to
one directly--specifically directed at an individual colleague?
Mr. Gosar. No.
Chairman Gowdy. Does the gentleman from New York still wish
to----
Mr. Nadler. Well, as long as it's clear that he was talking
in general political terms and not about an individual, okay.
Chairman Gowdy. I think it's pretty clear.
We will now recognize the gentleman from the great State of
Texas, Judge Poe.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Horowitz, for being here. You probably think
you are in the lion's den. I don't think you are. You're
handling the questions quite well.
As the chairman alluded to, I'm a former judge, a former
prosecutor like you. And the justice system, we strive--whether
we're a prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, we strive for the
goal of fairness. Whatever happens, whether it's a hearing on a
search warrant, whether it's a criminal case, we strive for
fairness.
And things must not only be fair in the Justice system,
they've got to look fair. And if they don't look fair, that's,
to us in the system, like you, just as bad as if it weren't
fair.
Prosecutors, when I was one, I had the rule, as you have,
that prosecutors must seek justice, not convictions. That's our
role when we're a prosecutor. I tried a lot of cases, and
lawyers always wanted to know from the prospective jurors if
they're biased for or against one side. If they're biased, it's
happy trails, they can't serve on the jury.
So, in this case--and it may not be an exact analogy, but
here we have a jury taking place on a case, and we find out
five of the jurors are biased for whoever they're investigating
or hearing a criminal case. Neither side would tolerate that.
They could not be involved in that proceeding. And, in some
cases, if we're proceeding in a trial and the jury's biased
from the outset, there's a mistrial. We may try it again, or it
may be dismissed with prejudice, depending on the severity of
the bias.
But, in this case, we've got two named individuals, Page
and Strzok. We know who they are. We know what they've done.
All of the things that you've mentioned.
But there are also three other unnamed biased people based
on your investigation, one lawyer and two other FBI agents.
What are their names?
Mr. Horowitz. So, as I mentioned earlier, Congressman, the
request has come in from the committee to give their names. We
went to the FBI. The FBI raised a concern because they work on
counterintelligence matters. And we are working with the
committee to try and get the information you've asked for to
the----
Mr. Poe. So the FBI does not want their names released.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Poe. And so the FBI makes the decision as to who those
other three biased people are, and they say, we're not telling
you because of some other internal reason on what they also
work on, counterintelligence----
Mr. Horowitz. Right.
Mr. Poe. --whatever that means to whoever is hearing it.
So my point is we let the FBI determine not to tell us who
the other three biased people were in this 500-page
investigation that we all now have. Does that seem a little odd
to you? I'm just asking your opinion.
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah, no, and there's a legitimate request,
reasonable request from the committee, and I don't think it is
a final decision at this point from the FBI or, in my view, a
final decision.
It's something I'm looking forward to working with the
committee to try and get the answers to, because I completely
understand what the interest is of the committee in getting
that information.
Mr. Poe. Well, it just seems to me that, in the name of
fairness, we ought to know the names of those three people who
you determined were biased in this investigation that has taken
place, this 18-month investigation that you have been working
on. I think that's in fairness, and I think the American public
would like to know who they are.
I think in this issue, changing gears a little bit to
Comey, he has done a great disservice to the reputation of the
FBI. I mean, when FBI agents would walk in my courtroom back in
Texas, you know, the jury wanted to stand up and say the
pledge, because they just trusted what they were going to say.
I think now those days are over, because the investigation must
not only be fair, it has to look fair, and it no longer looks
fair, as to what the FBI is doing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Texas yields back.
The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
How many years have you known Jim Comey?
Mr. Horowitz. He was in the U.S. attorney's office when I
started in 1991 there. So sometime after I started in 1991 I,
obviously, met him.
Mr. Cohen. How many years do you think y'all worked in the
same area? Eight years? Ten years?
Mr. Horowitz. No, no, no. He left, I think, within a year
or 2 of my arriving to come down to Virginia to work in the
U.S. attorney's office there. I'd have to go back and try----
Mr. Cohen. And then, in your position at Justice, he was at
FBI, so you had----
Mr. Horowitz. When I became IG, a year later he became the
FBI Director.
Mr. Cohen. Okay. So you've known him long enough to have an
idea about what his reputation for truth and veracity was among
other members of the Justice Department and the FBI? Is that
accurate?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Cohen. And what was his the reputation for truth and
veracity?
Mr. Horowitz. He had a very strong reputation.
Mr. Cohen. In your report, do you ever say at any point
that Jim Comey lied?
Mr. Horowitz. We do not.
Mr. Cohen. Do you know of any time when Jim Comey has lied?
Mr. Horowitz. I can't think of any as I sit here.
Mr. Cohen. So when President Trump said there's not a
bigger--a person who's told more lies in the world than Jim
Comey, you would disagree with that?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm not going to answer what other people's
views are. I think I can only speak to what my interactions
with him were----
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
Mr. Horowitz. --in my capacities.
Mr. Cohen. I know that your report basically said that Jim
Comey was exceedingly careless in coming forward before the
election with his reportage of the renewal of the investigation
of Hillary Clinton and the laptop and Anthony Weiner but that
there was no malicious intent. Is that accurate?
Mr. Horowitz. As to Mr. Comey, we didn't find any malicious
intent.
Mr. Cohen. And what he did could have possibly affected the
election. You don't know if it did or it didn't, but it could
have.
Mr. Horowitz. I have no idea.
Mr. Cohen. But it could have.
And he also could have gone into the Trump/Russia
investigation, which could have affected the investigation, and
he didn't. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. When you say ``go into,'' I'm sorry----
Mr. Cohen. He could have let the public know----
Mr. Horowitz. Oh.
Mr. Cohen. --that there was such an investigation.
Mr. Horowitz. The only thing I would say is he did not do
that----
Mr. Cohen. Right.
Mr. Horowitz. --which was consistent with policy.
Mr. Cohen. Some of the attacks were made on your decision
not to prosecute or the Justice's Department's decision not to
prosecute Secretary Clinton, and they stem from the Justice
Department and the FBI's interpretation of the legal statute
and term ``gross negligence.'' The Justice Department and FBI
interpreted the statute to require deliberate intent, and they
agreed there was simply no evidence in the Clinton case.
And your report examined this and stated, ``We found this
interpretation of section 793(f)(1) was consistent with the
Department's historical approach in prior cases under different
leadership, including the 2008 decision not to prosecute former
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for mishandling classified
documents.''
Mr. Horowitz, did you find the Department's prosecutors
investigating Secretary Clinton considered both the caselaw and
the Department's previous decision to decline the prosecution
of Mr. Gonzales?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Cohen. Can you explain to us a little bit about the
decision not to prosecute Alberto Gonzales and how that was
similar to or parallel to Secretary Clinton?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, I think the issue there--and I'd have
to go back and refresh myself on the Gonzales case--but it was
the fact that it wasn't being sent to a third party who--
classified information wasn't being provided to a third party,
and some of the other factors overlapped with the factors in
this matter, according to the prosecutor's assessment.
Mr. Cohen. The FBI has been referred to in somewhat
disparaging terms since this report. Did your report find that
the rank and file of the FBI were at all guilty of bias?
Mr. Horowitz. No, not at all. In fact, as we lay out in the
conclusion here, they worked hard to create a strong
reputation, and, as we know, conduct like this creates such
harm to that reputation that's been built up that that's why
it's, in part, so important to address and to avoid having this
kind of activity occur.
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman Gowdy, my friend, said that the
confidence in our system of law enforcement and public
prosecutions is important to its confidence in our government
and the rule of law, and I agree with him.
Would a statement to say that the FBI was a den of thieves
contribute to the soured climate that we have in this country
towards law enforcement and the rule of law?
Mr. Horowitz. You know, Congressman, I'm going to stick to
what we concluded in our report, and others can assess what
they think this----
Mr. Cohen. Is there a den of thieves at the FBI?
Mr. Horowitz. We--in this investigation or any others we've
done, we've not identified a den of thieves.
Mr. Cohen. I thank you for your service and yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Tennessee yields back.
The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Good afternoon, Mr. Horowitz.
Mr. Horowitz. Good afternoon.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I just want to go through some things.
Isn't it true that, regarding the FBI's investigation of--
--
Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's mic's not
on.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Do I get 10 more seconds?
Chairman Gowdy. Absolutely not.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. Horowitz, isn't it true that,
regarding the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's email
servers, also called the Midyear review, your report found,
quote/unquote, ``no evidence'' that the conclusions of the
Department of Justice prosecutors were affected by bias or
improper considerations?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And isn't it true that the report found
that decisions made during the 2016 campaign Midyear review
were, quote/unquote, ``based on the prosecutors' assessment of
the facts, the law, and past Department practice''?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Now, turning now to Agents Strzok and
Page, it is true that your report says that their actions
brought discredit to themselves, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. However, it's also true that you,
quote/unquote, ``did not find documentary or testimonial
evidence'' directly connecting these political views that these
employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages
to the specific investigative decisions that you reviewed.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Now, unpack that for them. How could it
be that these two individuals who texted back and forth--and I
reviewed hundreds of these texts. They're unprofessional. They
say bad things about Donald Trump. They say bad things about
Hillary Clinton. If they knew me, they'd say bad things about
me too, I'm sure.
How could it be that these two individuals, who were
tainted by this political bias, could have done what they did
and yet you say that the ultimate decisions made by the
prosecutors were not tainted by political bias?
Mr. Horowitz. So the reason and how we got to our
conclusions was by looking at all the records of all the
individuals involved in those specific decisions we looked at
as well as the prosecutors' ultimate decision. And going
through those records, the question was, was the biased
evidence by those individuals translated into action by what
turned out to be, in most instances, other people--
prosecutors----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Oh, so other people were involved. Is--
--
Mr. Horowitz. --others that were involved.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. --that what you're saying?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Oh, so it wasn't just Strzok and Page
who called all the shots on this investigation.
Mr. Horowitz. Certainly as to the decisions we looked at
pre-July. Again, I'm separating out the October events because,
in that instance, Mr. Strzok was a key decision-maker.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Okay. So let's unpack this. There's
more than two people involved here investigating the Hillary
Clinton email server situation. How many other people were
involved?
Mr. Horowitz. My understanding, there was somewhere over a
dozen. So whether it was in the 15 or so range--I don't have a
precise number, but it was certainly in that 10 to 15, 20
range, as I understand.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Oh, wow. So as many as 20 people could
have been involved in basically making decisions of this group.
And what you're saying is that these 2 people, though they
personally may have been tainted by political bias, did not
railroad the other 20 into making a decision that was
politically tainted.
Mr. Horowitz. That's my--that's--in looking at those
decisions we're talking about, that's precisely the case.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Got it.
Mr. Horowitz. There was either a broader team decision or
the prosecutors, not the agents, who made the decision.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Got it. Got it.
Now, let me take you to another point. You would agree with
me that Jim Comey, although he did announce that there was an
investigation into Hillary Clinton, did not announce any
investigation into Donald Trump, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. In October--in that fall period, he did not
announce the ongoing Russia investigation or, for that matter,
as I said, the Clinton Foundation investigation.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Correct.
Now, Strzok and Page, if they wanted to really tank Donald
Trump, the way that some of my colleagues assert that they
wanted to do, could have leaked that this investigation was
happening. But you did not uncover any evidence that Strzok and
Page did that, did you?
Mr. Horowitz. We did not uncover evidence that they
disclosed the Russia investigation. And that was one of the
arguments their lawyers made as to their conduct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. In fact, there's no evidence in your
report that anybody leaked evidence of an ongoing investigation
into Donald Trump and Russia, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. We didn't touch on the Russia investigation
in this. This was focused on the Clinton email investigation. I
will say that, obviously, we're looking at the leak question.
It could be a broader question, depending on what we find.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Sure. But in this report----
Mr. Horowitz. This report does not reference that.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Correct. That's what I thought.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Horowitz. Yep.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Tennessee, Dr.DesJarlais, is recognized.
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Horowitz, for your time and testimony
here today.
You did determine in your report that there was political
bias against President Trump evidenced by the Strzok-Page text,
correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. These same agents assigned to the
Clinton investigation were then assigned to the Russian probe,
correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. DesJarlais. Do you think that this probe, the Russian
probe, then, could potentially have been tainted by the same
political bias?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm not going to opine on that, Congressman.
We focused in this review on the Midyear investigation. As you
know, we have the ongoing work that we're doing. So I'll defer
on that, if I could.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. But it's reasonable, then, if you
found agents with political bias against the President that
were then assigned to the Russia probe, that certainly that is
something that needs to be looked at.
Mr. Horowitz. It's certainly a reasonable question and
something, as I said, that we're looking at in our ongoing
review.
Mr. DesJarlais. Now, I assume you watch the news.
Mr. Horowitz. Occasionally. I try not to, actually, as much
as perhaps I have in the past, but----
Mr. DesJarlais. Do you believe that there is anti-Trump
bias in the news, not as inspector general but just as a
private citizen?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm not going to opine on that.
Mr. DesJarlais. You don't have an opinion as a private
citizen?
Mr. Horowitz. I might have a private citizen opinion----
Mr. DesJarlais. But you won't in a hearing.
Mr. Horowitz. No.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Would it surprise you to know that 90
percent of the mainstream media coverage is anti-Trump?
Mr. Horowitz. Again, I wouldn't weigh an opinion on that,
Congressman.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Would it be safe to assume that FBI
agents and attorneys watch the mainstream news?
Mr. Horowitz. I assume the public at large does, and since
they're a part of that, I assume they do.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. So I guess what I'm getting at,
wouldn't it be fair to conclude that some of the biased
coverage has impacted their ability to fairly conduct their
investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. I couldn't draw that--I wouldn't be able to
draw that conclusion, sitting here, Congressman.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay.
While your report highlighted some of the most blatant
anti-Trump sentiments within the FBI, it concerns me that this
problem is more pervasive than we think. The FBI is oath-bound
to remain neutral and enforce the law impartially and fairly.
How can we accomplish this when there is--when there are agents
that are actively biased against our sitting President?
Mr. Horowitz. Look, I think, Congressman, you know, having
been an AUSA, worked with agents, tremendous agents, at the FBI
and other law enforcement agencies, the one thing I thought we
all understood is you're entitled to be and you should be part
of the public, the government, the democracy that we live in,
but when you get to the work and to your office, you leave your
views outside the door when you walk through, and you just
focus on your work, the law, the evidence. And that's what you
focus on.
Mr. DesJarlais. Knowing what you know, though, if you were
the subject of the investigation and knowing that the people
you just investigated were the ones doing the work, would you
not be concerned?
Mr. Horowitz. Look, I think, again, it goes to what I just
said. There are--I was a public corruption prosecutor, and the
key, the most important thing--I supervised our unit. People
who were working on those cases needed to leave whatever their
views were outside the office. They needed to come in and be
committed to focusing only on the facts and the law.
Mr. DesJarlais. But that didn't happen in this case. That
didn't happen, at least with multiple agencies----
Mr. Horowitz. Well, certainly with regard to what occurred
in October, we were concerned that that did not happen.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, I thank you for your time.
I would like to yield the balance of my time to our
chairman, Mr. Gowdy.
Chairman Gowdy. Thank you, Dr. DesJarlais.
Mr. Horowitz, I'm trying to understand, drafts of the Comey
memos indicated that the missing element was the failure to
expose the material to potentially hostile actors. And then I'm
going back to his press conference and his subsequent testimony
where he said the missing element was intent.
Mr. Horowitz. Right.
Chairman Gowdy. So I want you to put on your old hat. It's
rare, when your job is to prove intent, that you have a
defendant or a suspect who walks in and has a card out and
says: To whom it may concern, I would like to admit that I had
the intent to commit a violation of each and every essential
element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
I've never had that happen. Have you?
Mr. Horowitz. I can't recall that happening as an AUSA.
Chairman Gowdy. You have to prove intent with
circumstantial--usually it's circumstantial evidence. Rarely do
you have direct evidence of intent. Is that fair?
Mr. Horowitz. That's fair, although there are times people
do things on camera and admit things----
Chairman Gowdy. They do.
Mr. Horowitz. --in a wiretap that gives you pretty good
evidence of intent.
Chairman Gowdy. Those don't go to trial that much.
Sometimes those plead.
Mr. Horowitz. Those plead.
Chairman Gowdy. When you're going to trial, the best you
can have sometimes is circumstantial evidence.
Mr. Horowitz. Sometimes that is the best you have.
Chairman Gowdy. All right. Such as false exculpatory
statements, false nonexculpatory statements, concealment,
destruction of evidence, knowledge, absence of mistake, notice
of wrongdoing. I can't think of a better source for that
potential circumstantial evidence than the actor, the target,
the defendant himself or herself, can you?
Mr. Horowitz. That's usually where you find some of your
best evidence.
Chairman Gowdy. All right. I'm out of time.
If any of my colleagues give me any more of their time, I
want to close the loop on how to prove this missing element and
whether or not, in your judgment, in this case, a fulsome
effort was made when they did interview the target.
With that, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, between Republican-led committees, there have
been numerous hearings on the topic of Hillary Clinton's
emails. Hillary Clinton has been the gift that Republicans
can't get enough of.
The American people will recall that, during the run-up to
the 2016 Presidential election, House Republicans held numerous
hearings about then-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. We
remember what House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy admitted
when he told a reporter, quote, ``Everybody thought Hillary
Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi
special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers
today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's
untrustable,'' end quote.
Well, Mr. Chairman, today finds us again mired in another
hearing about Hillary Clinton's emails. And instead of holding
hearings to muck up Hillary Clinton, today we're holding this
hearing hoping that the American people are distracted from
important issues of today.
As chants of ``Lock her up'' fade from our memories, our
consciences are being disturbed as we hear the ProPublica
footage of the little children crying, ``I want my mama,'' ``I
want my daddy.'' As I prepared for this hearing last night, all
I could hear were the cries of those children being held in
private, for-profit jails crying out for their parents.
Mr. Chairman, I think we should have hearings about how the
Trump administration is deporting their parents as those
children remain wards of this country. And we also can be
looking into issues like what was reported last week, the New
York attorney general's investigation and criminal referral to
the Department of Justice.
The same day that the OIG report came out, New York
attorney general, his office--or her office sued Donald Trump,
his children, and the Trump administration, with alarming
allegations about flagrant violations of the law and
potentially criminal acts.
The New York attorney general found, and I quote, ``In sum,
the investigation revealed that the foundation was little more
than a checkbook for payments to non-profits from Mr. Trump or
The Trump Organization. This resulted in multiple violations of
State and Federal law because payments were made using
foundation money regardless of the purpose of the payment. Mr.
Trump used charitable assets to pay off the legal obligations
of entities he controlled, to promote Trump hotels, to purchase
personal items, and to support his Presidential election
campaign.''
The complaint included images of emails from campaign
staff, such as Corey Lewandowski, directing political spending
out of the foundation's accounts. It included a note, clearly
in the President's own handwriting, directing foundation money
to be used to settle a lawsuit against Mar-a-Lago, his country
club estate for the ultra-rich.
This is simply stunning. The New York attorney general
alleged that there were, quote, ``multiple violations of State
and Federal law,'' end quote. The New York attorney general
sent an official criminal referral letter to the IRS and also
to the Federal Election Commission to investigate tax and
election law violations. The letter to the FEC copied an
official from the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal
Division of the Department of Justice.
Now, more than ever, we need strong and independent
oversight to ensure that Federal law enforcement and
prosecutors can do their job free of political pressure. Based
on the President's past statements and actions, I have serious
concerns that he or his political allies will attempt to make
this new potential criminal case go away.
And so I think we will once again need to rely on your
office, Mr. Horowitz, for that oversight. Can you commit to us
here today that your office will look into this criminal
referral to ensure that there is no improper outside
influence--or inside influence, for that matter--including any
attempts from the President or his staff to shut down an
investigation into the conduct of the President or his family?
Mr. Horowitz. So certainly matters that are within our
jurisdiction and our authority we're prepared to conduct
appropriate oversight on. There are some things that will be
within our jurisdictions, some things that are not within our
jurisdiction, and I think it really depends ultimately on what
comes to us in terms of a referral or not, if and when one does
come.
So that's what I can tell you in a hypothetical. But thatis
why we're here as Inspector General Office, and if it's within
our jurisdiction, we will obviously take any referrals and look
at it carefully.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I thank you for your exhaustive
investigation in this report. I think you've done a great job,
and I thank you.
And, with that, I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Georgia yields back.
The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horowitz, did Lisa Page work on the Hillary email
investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. She did.
Mr. Massie. Did she work on the Russian investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. She did.
Mr. Massie. Did she work on the Mueller investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes, she did.
Mr. Massie. When you or your people asked her why she used
her FBI phone for personal purposes, what did she tell you was
the predominant reason?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, as she indicated, she and Mr. Strzok
were having a relationship, and they were using the phone to
communicate with each other for that purpose.
Mr. Massie. To cover up the affair, to keep their spouses
from knowing?
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah.
Mr. Massie. So she texted something that you asked her
about. This is an April 1st, 2016, text. I want you to tell me
why she told you she sent this text.
She said, ``So look, you say we text on that phone when we
talk about hillary because it cant be traced, you were just
venting bc you feel bad that youre gone so much but it cant be
helped right now.''
Why did she--what did she tell you was the reason she sent
that to Strzok?
Mr. Horowitz. The--she told us this was an example--and I'm
looking at our report here--why she had used the phone to keep
this information from their spouses, and this was an example of
that.
Mr. Massie. And, in this text, she said she was coaching
Strzok, basically, on what to tell his wife, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Massie. So she was telling him how to lie. She was
using a government phone to tell her husband how to cover up an
affair, coaching him on how to lie, and using the pretext of
this investigation to carry out this affair with her coworker.
So she coached her coworker and lover on how to lie to his
wife, used government resources to do it and the pretext of
this investigation to conceal what they both knew was immoral
behavior. Did that give you any reason to doubt her testimony
to you in the interviews?
Mr. Horowitz. I think, frankly, as to all the individuals,
when we go in, we come in with a healthy skepticism, as you
would expect us to. And I think we, you know, treated her no
differently than we would treat others in terms of going in and
looking. And I think, you know, as you can see here, we
expressed our skepticism of some of the explanations we got.
Mr. Massie. Your report's really good at uncovering bias,
so I want to talk about some bias that has been uncovered by
your report that's not being covered in the news. So I want to
read you five texts.
March 12th, 2016, Page forwarded an article about a
conservative candidate in Texas, stating, ``What the f is wrong
with people?'' Strzok replied, ``That Texas article is
depressing as hell. But answers how we could end up with [Trump
as President].''
August 26th, 2016, Strzok sends to Page, ``Just went to a
southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support.''
August 29th, 2016, Agent 5 to Agent 1: ``I would rather
have brunch with Trump and a bunch of his supporters like the
ones from Ohio that are retarded.''
October 28th, 2016, Agent 5 lists things that he's sick of,
and he lists on there the ``average American public.''
And then on November 9th, 2016, unnamed FBI employee says,
``Trump supporters are all poor to middle-class, uneducated,
lazy POS''--we know what that stands for--``that think he will
magically grant them jobs for doing nothing. They probably
didn't watch the debates and aren't fully educated on his
policies.''
This is bias at the FBI at the top level. I'm not saying at
the field agent level. They probably more reflect the American
people. But at the top, highest-most level, you have a bias
against the American people. And this terrifies the average
worker, who is paying their salary with their tax dollars. So I
think that's something we need to look at.
I want to yield my remaining minute to the gentleman from
Ohio, Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Horowitz, James Comey, Director of the FBI; Andy
McCabe, Deputy Director; Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki; General
Counsel Jim Baker;FBI Counsel Lisa Page; and Deputy Head of
Counterintelligence Peter Strzok--these were six important
people at the FBI. Is that right?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Jordan. And they were the key players on the Clinton
investigation and on the Russian investigation, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. They were certainly important on both.
Mr. Jordan. Has Mr. Comey been fired?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Has Mr. McCabe been fired?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Did Mr. McCabe lie under oath, according to
your report?
Mr. Horowitz. In our view, yes.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah. Is there a criminal referral for Mr.
McCabe?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm not going to comment on that.
Mr. Jordan. Has Mr. Rybicki left the FBI?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Has General Counsel Jim Baker left the FBI?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Was he removed from his position prior to
leaving the FBI?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm not sure of that.
Mr. Jordan. Has Lisa Page left the FBI?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Was she reassigned prior to leaving the FBI?
Mr. Horowitz. I believe so.
Mr. Jordan. And has Peter Strzok been removed from his
position as Deputy Head of Counterintelligence?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Now, Mr. Horowitz, you've been in the DOJ for
10 years. You've been inspector general for 6 years. You're
chief of all the inspector generals. Have you ever, ever seen
anything like this at any other Federal agency in your time in
the Federal Government, six of the top people fired, demoted,
reassigned, or left?
Mr. Horowitz. I obviously can't speak broadly to other
areas that I haven't known before, but, yes, this is
concerning.
Mr. Jordan. I've been in this town 11-1/2 years. I have
never seen anything like this. Even the IRS scandal didn't come
close.
And, again, this is not any type of reflection on the rank-
and-file agents who I know you respect, we all respect, and do
a great job. But these were the six key people. I have never
seen anything like this in my time in government. My guess is
there's not a person on this dais who has, as well.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Maryland, Professor Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Horowitz, our committee seems deeply lost in the forest
today. A lot of my constituents are baffled why, at a moment
when the U.S. Government is separating thousands of children
and parents at the border in a way that threatens to make us an
international pariah, the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight
Committee are doing nothing about this scandalous policy but,
rather, seem stuck in a time warp, doing another investigation
into an investigation into an investigation of Hillary
Clinton's emails.
The amazing thing is that the majority chose to reenter
this maze when your report was perfectly clear on its findings.
And I quote, ``We found no evidence that the conclusions by the
prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper
considerations. Rather, we determined they were based on the
prosecutors' assessment of facts, the law, and past Department
practice.''
Indeed, you seemed to find that the major case of
prosecutorial wrongdoing here took place at the expense of
Secretary Clinton. While Director Comey properly kept secret
the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign's involvement with
Russian agents throughout the campaign, he repeatedly ignored
Department policy to release information about the Clinton
email investigation.
Mr. Horowitz, did you make a finding about why Director
Comey violated DOJ policy and tradition in the Clinton case
while steadfastly refusing to talk about Trump/Russia? This
might have cost the Democrats the election. And Comey, of
course, was a lifelong Republican.Was he motivated by
partisanship and bias? Was that something that you found?
Mr. Horowitz. We did not find that Director Comey's
decisions were based on political bias.
Mr. Raskin. Do you think we're making a mistake not to
blame that decision on partisan bias because he was a
Republican?
Mr. Horowitz. Again, I'll stick with our finding, which is
that we did not see evidence of political bias.
Mr. Raskin. Well, all of this seems to come down to, in my
view, the text in this sophomoric texting relationship between
Strzok and Page, a couple now made almost as famous as Bonnie
and Clyde or Romeo and Juliet by this committee.
We've all read and heard these titillating messages between
the two. Sure enough, they don't like Donald Trump. They're
very snarky about him. They called him an idiot. They were also
snarky about Eric Holder, Chelsea Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and
my good friend Martin O'Malley.
So, if the question is whether they liked Donald Trump, of
course not. They called him an idiot. But your job as the
inspector general is not to diagnose their private biases as
government employees but, rather, the character of their public
actions. Mr. Gohmert seemed to think it's sufficient to
disqualify public prosecutors or investigators because of their
private biases.
And I'm wondering whether you could illuminate for the
committee the difference between a private bias or political
opinion someone might have and a public bias that actually gets
activated in the character of a public investigation or policy.
Mr. Horowitz. I think it's fair to say, if you are involved
in a democracy, whether you're a Federal prosecutor, an agent,
or just a citizen going about your business, you have views,
political views. You vote; you have positions. That's what you
would want people to do and be engaged in democracy.
When you are a law enforcement agent, when you are a
Federal prosecutor, you have to understand and appreciate that
whatever your views are as a citizen, you keep them outside the
office and away from your decision making.
And what was troubling here is--and I understand the
explanation that was provided to us by Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page,
that they thought these were private. But they weren't. They
were using their FBI devices, sometimes at work, sometimes not
at work, to speak about individuals they were investigating.
So they weren't just speaking about a generic election that
they cared about. It just so happened that the people they were
speaking about had a connection to the investigations they,
themselves, were working on. And, in some instances, they tied
that discussion to their investigative work, and that's what's
concerning.
Mr. Raskin. Okay.
When these text messages came out, it turned out that
representatives of the Department of Justice actually convened
a select group of reporters in advance to show them the texts.
And there was great mystery about why that happened.
Have you made any progress in investigating why this was
leaked in advance by the Department of Justice to certain
reporters?
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah, we haven't undertaken a full
investigation of it. We made clear to the committee that we
were unaware of that until after it happened and we got
complaints in from it. We were told it was considered by the
Department and by its lawyers.
And so, as you know, the IG doesn't have authority over
decision by lawyers in the course of their legal authority.
Under the IG Act, those go to the Department's Office of
Professional Responsibility. And so they would be the ones who
would have to be consulted as to what they ultimately found----
Mr. Raskin. So you're not doing any further investigation.
Mr. Horowitz. We don't have jurisdiction, actually. Because
what we first learned right away was that lawyers had been
consulted and lawyers had given advice. And once that happens,
while we would--and the committee has supported given us that
jurisdiction, at this point we don't have it.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, is
recognized.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horowitz, thank you. And for your entire team, some of
which are Republicans, some of which are Democrats, some of
which are unaffiliated, I thank you for your unbiased way that
you conducted this comprehensive report, and for the rest of
the team at large that's probably back at DOJ watching this.
And so I want to get right to the heart of the matter. One
of the concerns that I have when we look at bias in the
analysis that you made at the very end, it is incumbent upon
any team to make sure that they do the investigation without
bias. And it is clear that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had some
bias. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Meadows. And so, if you were to learn that they had a
disproportionate role in the investigation, both on this
investigation and the Russia investigation, that would mean
that their bias would have a disproportionate contribution to
that decision, would that not?
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah, and I'm going to stick to this review,
since I know this one at this point, but, yes, that would be a
concern.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me go further. You're the
one that actually discovered the text messages.
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Meadows. Your forensic team.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Meadows. So why would the FBI not have been able to
find that?
Mr. Horowitz. So----
Mr. Meadows. Did they look?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, the first batch we recovered in 2017--
--
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Horowitz. --we found because we asked for text
messages.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And so they produced them to you.
Mr. Horowitz. They produced them to us. Then we asked for
more.
Mr. Meadows. So the ones that you found forensically----
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Meadows. --why did they not find those?
Mr. Horowitz. If you didn't do the forensic work on the
phones, you wouldn't have found the text messages on the
phones.
Mr. Meadows. So they really just didn't look is what you're
saying. The FBI didn't look.
Mr. Horowitz. Nobody looked beforehand, correct.
Mr. Meadows. So you looked, but they didn't look.
Mr. Horowitz. They hadn't looked.
Mr. Meadows. So was it a lack of curiosity on their part? I
mean, because you're the ones----
Mr. Horowitz. I think you'd have to ask the FBI on that, as
to why they didn't----
Mr. Meadows. Well, but if they were really serious about
oversight and they were really serious with the confines of
these text messages, I think an investigator would want to know
if they had bias within their own agency, wouldn't you?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes. And I would just add, we've had those
phones in our custody for probably about a year now or 6 months
now. So, just to be clear, we've had them the last 6----
Mr. Meadows. Since then. Well, you've done a lot more with
them than they did, and I'll give you that.
And so let me--I want to focus on what's not in the report.
Because, as we look at what's not in the report, what's not in
the report is, as you know, the intelligence community IG
actually was part of the predication for this investigation. Is
that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Meadows. They were so concerned that there might have
been foreign infiltration into this that they went immediately
to the FBI to let them know about that. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. I know they went to them. I don't know the--
--
Mr. Meadows. Well, I talked to the IG, and he indicated
that he went literally that day, got in a car, went over and
met. And so he was really concerned that there were some
anomalies in the metadata that would----
Mr. Horowitz. Right.
Mr. Meadows. --suggest that a foreign actor was getting
copies of potential emails. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Horowitz. I am. And I've talked to him as well.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. And so, if they are that concerned, do
you not find it curious that the FBI investigators, Peter
Strzok and his team, did not ever talk to them other than that
initial meeting where they did that? Would you think that part
of an investigation would be to go back to the very people that
brought up the accusation to say, what did you find?
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah, I assume that would be----
Mr. Meadows. But that's not in your report.
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Meadows. And they didn't do that, did they?
Mr. Horowitz. I'd have to double check that.
Mr. Meadows. Yeah. I can tell you that the last time that
they talked to them was when they gave the referral to close it
out after the Comey incident.
So wouldn't you find that curious, that they wouldn't have
looked any further?
Mr. Horowitz. If they didn't, yes.
Mr. Meadows. All right. And so you can get back to the
committee on that.
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. All right.
So let me go on a little bit further. So, if they didn't
look and if we don't have that information, your staff
indicated that, indeed, emails with at least some classified
information did go to a foreign entity or a third party.
Mr. Horowitz. Yes. One of the individuals who was on
Secretary Clinton's staff, his email account, private email
account, Gmail account, was hacked.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
And so let me look at four other things that I need to hear
some clarification. Because there are some text messages. We
know that Peter Strzok worked on both the Russia and the
Hillary Clinton investigations, so I want to make sure that
these text messages don't apply to Hillary.
So, on July the 29th, before the investigation into the
Russia investigation started, there was a text message that
says, do you want us to reach out to Gurvais? And I think
they're referring to Gurvais Grigg at that particular point.
And they said, well, why do you want to do that? Well, we want
to see if he actually has the names that we already have.
Now, I'm troubled by this a little bit. Did that apply to
the Hillary Clinton investigation? It was already closed at
that point.
Mr. Horowitz. It was already closed. I'd have to go back
and double check.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Why I'm curious is, why would they be
checking with someone who his specialty is, quote, ``FBI
advanced electronic surveillance''? Why would he be checking
before a Russia investigation is opened with somebody who does
essentially bugging and monitoring to find out anything that
might have been going on? Why would that have happened?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know.
Mr. Meadows. Okay.
So let me go on a little bit further then. The text message
that says the White House is running this, which happened on
August 5th, was that in reference to Russia or Hillary Clinton?
Mr. Horowitz. Our assumption and understanding was it was
not Hillary Clinton's matter because that had been closed
already.
Mr. Meadows. That's my assumption as well.
And the one that says that the President wants to know
everything about this that happened on September 2nd, was that
with Hillary or with the Russia investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. Our understanding is that would not have been
Hillary, that would have been the Russia matter.
Mr. Meadows. Yeah.
So, looking at the difference between the way that the
Hillary Clinton investigation was notified and researched
versus the way that it appears that the Russia investigation,
did the administration, the previous administration, take an
abnormal interest in all of that?
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman's time has expired, Mr.
Inspector General, but you may answer.
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know the answer to that at this point
because that was not part of this review. But, certainly, it's
something we, as we look at the matters that have recently been
referred to us, we will be considering.
Mr. Meadows. I thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from North Carolina yields
back.
The gentleman from California is recognized, Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz.
I want to see if we can summarize your findings after a
long day going through your testimony.
Do you agree, yes or no, that Hillary Clinton committed no
crimes?
Mr. Horowitz. Our finding is that the prosecutors looked at
the facts along with the evidence to conclude she shouldn't be
charged.
Mr. Swalwell. Do you agree, yes or no, that Page and Strzok
acted inappropriately?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Swalwell. And you agree they were removed by Bob
Mueller from his team?
Mr. Horowitz. He was removed. Ms. Page had already returned
prior to our notification to the special counsel.
Mr. Swalwell. You agree that Director Comey never leaked
the Russia investigation, the existence of it, prior to his
testimony to Congress?
Mr. Horowitz. He did not disclose it back at the time
period we looked at.
Mr. Swalwell. You agree there's no evidence that Jim Comey
lied to you in your investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. We did not make any finding that he lied to
us.
Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Horowitz, do you think it is time to move
on past the Hillary Clinton emails?
Mr. Horowitz. I think we have put forward our report.
Congress has a separate oversight authority and interest, and
I'm not going to speak to what Congress should or shouldn't do.
Mr. Swalwell. Because I appreciate your work on this, and I
think it was fair findings all around, but the only text
messages that I really care about right now are the hundreds of
people at home and across the country who are asking me what in
the hell is the Judiciary Committee doing right now? I mean,
this is maddening. I don't know if my colleagues are checking
their voice mails or checking your you emails or checking your
Twitter feed; people aren't talking about the God-damned
emails. They're not. They're talking about kids separated from
their mom and their dad sitting in cages on our southern
border.
And then they say: Hey, Congressman Swalwell, which
committee is responsible for that?
And I tell them: Well, it is the Judiciary Committee.
Great. So, when you get back to Congress on Tuesday, you
guys are immediately going to look at why this is happening,
right?
No, we're having a hearing, I tell them, but our hearing is
on Hillary Clinton emails.
You know how upsetting that is? That is upsetting to
Republicans, Democrats, people who don't give a rip about
politics.
This is important. People should be held accountable for
inappropriate behavior, Mr. Inspector General, and again, I
appreciate that you're doing that, but our responsibility is to
act on behalf of the American people, and we're not helpless.
We're actually the one committee in Congress that is not
helpless to act when families are being ripped apart.
So I would ask Chairman Goodlatte, please interrupt me if
you intend when we conclude today to hold a hearing on how
we're going prevent future families from being separated and
reunite those who have already been torn apart.
Mr. Gowdy, again, interrupt me if you have a plan for what
we're going to do next what I can tell my constituents because
the only thing they care about right now is that the United
States that they know is no longer a compassionate one.
Chairman Goodlatte. Would the gentleman yield?
The gentleman may be pleased to know that, on the floor, on
Thursday, as soon as Thursday, there will be a bill to address
the very problem the gentleman is talking about, but it has
nothing to do with the importance of making sure that the
Federal Bureau of Investigation does not repeat what it did in
2016 and into 2017.
Mr. Swalwell. And reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I
understand that's a partisan bill without Democratic support,
and that did not come through this committee. Again, we have an
opportunity to act now. I saw Mr. Meadows at the White House
today, and, Mr. Meadows, I was encouraged by what you said that
families shouldn't be ripped apart, but here we sit.
Mr. Meadows. Well, if the gentleman will yield.
Mr. Swalwell. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. I have a nonpartisan bill that does not deal
with a wall, does not deal with sanctuary cities, that I
introduced an hour ago. If he would like to cosponsor with me,
we'll bring it together.
Mr. Swalwell. Let's work on that, Mr. Meadows, because my
constituents, and I think all of our constituents want to make
sure that we show compassion, that we show heart, and that
Congress acts. There's consensus on this issue. And it is just
maddening that the one committee that has the responsibility to
do something is focused on this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, is recognized.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horowitz, with the Weiner laptop issue, I think that
you had said Peter Strzok's explanation for his conduct was not
really persuasive.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. DeSantis. So it would be reasonable for somebody to
infer that his actions, at least with the Weiner thing, were
motivated by his bias.
Mr. Horowitz. And that was precisely our concern.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. July 31 Strzok, the same Strzok that's
bias affects how he is handling the Weiner laptop, opens up a
counterintelligence investigation against Trump's campaign.
Why? We're trying to get the reason. Some guy made a comment in
a bar, so he opens up an investigation. Eighth of August he is
asked: Trump can't be President, right, right? No, he can't.
We'll stop it.
Why was that text message not originally produced to you?
What did the FBI tell you?
Mr. Horowitz. So what appears happened is that its
collection mechanism, the program it used, was not collecting
all the text messages.
Mr. DeSantis. But you had every other text message from
that day, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Actually, I don't know the answer to that. I
thought I did, but I'm not sure.
Mr. DeSantis. So, when you guys went back recently and got
this damning one, was that the only one from that day that you
found that was new?
Mr. Horowitz. I would have to go check, but there was at
least one other--actually, there were several others, but at
least one other relevant to our review that we had not seen
before that we found as we went back through it.
Mr. DeSantis. And that was--so it was their explanation
that it was not human agency, that it was some type of glitch?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct, right.
Mr. DeSantis. Well, look, this is the most damning one of
all.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. DeSantis. I guess theoretically possible it could be
the glitch, but I need an explanation for that.
Now, the 16th of August, the infamous insurance policy text
message. They have a scenario thrown out in Andrew McCabe's
office that Trump can't win. Strzok says: No, no, no. We can't
take that risk. We need an insurance policy.
Their explanation: Oh, we don't really know. We don't
remember the meeting.
I mean, was it persuasive or credible how they explained
that text message?
Mr. Horowitz. It wasn't persuasive to us.
Mr. DeSantis. It was total not at all. And so here's the
thing that I get with the insurance policy. If the
investigation was validly predicated in the Trump's campaign,
who the hell cares whether he was going to win or not? If it is
an investigation, you should want to do it. This tells me that
they're saying: Well, heck, if the guy may win, then we have to
do this.
Peter Strzok, the same guy who said, ``We'll stop him,''
who opened this up on the 31st of July based off some errant
comment in a bar. This stinks to high heaven.
Let me ask you this: The three other FBI agents who you're
not naming you said because they're involved in
counterintelligence, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Not me. The FBI has asked they not be named.
Mr. DeSantis. Why did we get Peter Strzok's name, though.
That's what I don't understand.
Mr. Horowitz. So what we do is, when we prepared the
report, we do an analysis under the Privacy Act Federal law,
and our determination was that because of his--the level he was
at at the agency, Deputy Assistant Director, the Privacy Act
balance weighed against him, and we would make it public. As to
the others, they're lower down.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay.
Mr. Horowitz. And the balance went the other way.
Mr. DeSantis. Two of the three had worked for Mueller?
Mr. Horowitz. That's my understanding.
Mr. DeSantis. Do they still work for Mueller?
Mr. Horowitz. My understanding is no.
Mr. DeSantis. So did they get removed because of bias?
Mr. Horowitz. I believe at least one of them--and I can
double-check this--was removed after we alerted again the
special counsel to the text messages. It may have been both of
them, but I think it was one.
Mr. DeSantis. Is it fair to say that your investigation
identified a culture of leaking in the FBI?
Mr. Horowitz. That's precisely what we say here and is a
very big concern.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. Let me ask you about the Clinton-Lynch
tarmac meeting. Is that plane monitored in any way, either
audio or visual monitoring, Lynch's plane?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't believe there's audio monitoring.
Mr. DeSantis. You were never given any type of document
that memorialized any conversation between the two?
Mr. Horowitz. No, not at all.
Mr. DeSantis. And what was your report's view of Lynch's
explanation for the meeting? I know it was about a 20-minute
meeting. She said it was about grandkids. Could you fill up--I
don't think she has grandkids. So what did you think? How did
you guys view that?
Mr. Horowitz. I think we laid out there what the
explanation was from former Attorney General Lynch, President
Clinton, that was the sum total of the evidence that we had,
and they both explained, and we detailed here what they said
occurred during the during the meeting, and that is the basis
for our evidence at this point.
Mr. DeSantis. Comey in his statements to you guys said that
there was, you know, they were grappling with the Hillary
stuff; there's no evidence of willfulness. But was there any
doubt that Hillary intended to create a separate server? I
mean, that was done willfully, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes, that was never the question.
Mr. DeSantis. So the question is, if you take a willful
action, and there are certain consequences that are reasonably
foreseeable--I mean, there's certainly aspects of the law where
you would be held liable for that. So you're setting up a
parallel system knowing you're going to conduct the main
business of Secretary of State, one of the most sensitive
positions in our government. The idea that Comey's like, ``Oh,
there was just no willfulness here,'' I didn't really find his
explanation credible. I know you guys have looked at it, but I
just wanted to put that on the record.
I'm out of time. So I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands is recognized, Ms.
Plaskett.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Horowitz, for being here.
I have--since, you know, I'm further down in seniority I
have the ability to now ask you some questions trying to
clarify what my other colleagues were discussing with you.
In your discussion with Mr. Meadows, there was a question
that the texts sent between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page discussed
the White House running this. You said you assumed that this
text was not referring to the Clinton email matter and that you
assumed it referred to the Russian investigation. I just want
to clear up, do you actually know who the text was referring
to?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm sorry. The particular----
Ms. Plaskett. The text that says the White House is running
this.
Mr. Horowitz. No, my understanding just the general
reference to the White House. I don't know if there was a
particular person.
Ms. Plaskett. And if it was to discuss the Russia
investigation, it is not the Russia collusion investigation by
the special counsel; it is referring to the Russia election
interference investigation, right?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Ms. Plaskett. We have so many investigations here. Let's
keep them in line. Now also in your discussion with Mr.
Meadows, there would seem to be some logical analogy that was
made, and as an attorney, you know, that's one of thing that we
look at is the logical inferences, and I wasn't sure if it was
necessarily correct. The discussion was that if you have a
person who has a disproportionate bias in their personal, that
you also then have to look at their disproportionate amount of
decisionmaking in determining how that. Is that necessarily how
one determines if their bias, in fact, affects the outcome?
Mr. Horowitz. I had understood it as that they would have a
disproportionate, given their role, impact on decisions that
were made.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay.
Mr. Horowitz. And that may be----
Ms. Plaskett. And that is if their personal bias then bled
into their work, as well, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct, and I think that--I think in terms
of answering, it wasn't, was there disproportionate--did they,
in fact, cause an impact, but rather, given their role, did
they have a disproportionate----
Ms. Plaskett. So the disproportionate bias of Page and
Strzok in terms of their bias against now President Trump, was
that disproportionate in size to their decisionmaking?
Mr. Horowitz. I wouldn't know. You know, as I said earlier,
I don't have precisely which decisions they made over this
period of time.
Ms. Plaskett. Let's move on to someone else who may have
had a bias. My former boss, Director Comey, was a Republican,
was he not?
Mr. Horowitz. I have read that. I don't know at the time
whether he was.
Ms. Plaskett. I worked with him in a Republican
administration----
Mr. Horowitz. --I've heard also he changed his
registration----
Ms. Plaskett. --appointed by----
Mr. Horowitz. --I just I don't know----
Ms. Plaskett. So I worked with him in a Republican
administration when he was the Deputy Attorney General of the
Justice Department. Would his bias as a Republican and him
being the decision-maker have affected why he decided not to
leak or not to discuss the Russia investigation itself?
Mr. Horowitz. Our concern about what Mr. Strzok did, what
Ms. Page does, wasn't based on their political affiliation,
but, rather, on the text messages, so whether Mr. Comey----
Ms. Plaskett. Did you know their political affiliation?
Mr. Horowitz. I do not know their political affiliation.
Ms. Plaskett. But we know the affiliation of Mr. Comey, but
we're not going to count that against him?
Mr. Horowitz. I think you have every right to register with
whichever political party or none at all, and that----
Ms. Plaskett. Sure, because we are still a democracy, are
we not?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Ms. Plaskett. But listening to my colleagues, it would seem
that if anyone has a personal opinion about someone, that it
should automatically exclude them from working in the FBI or
working any place else and that justice should not be blind
anymore.
Mr. Horowitz. I don't think, and I don't think I have
suggested, that your personal opinion prohibits you from
working in the FBI or the Justice Department. The concern here
are the text messages that they exchanged about people they
were looking at.
Ms. Plaskett. Sure, because bias--I mean, before the
election, many of my colleagues had a bias against Trump, but
it appears now that he is the chief executive, that they have
all fallen right in line and follow right behind whatever he
says, even though many of them made public statements against
him and against some of the opinions that he had before he
became President.
In your investigation, you said you looked at 1.2 million
documents, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Ms. Plaskett. And in those documents, which are now being
subpoenaed by Chairman Gowdy as well as Chairman Goodlatte, on
the documents for investigation on the FBI's handling of
Secretary Clinton's emails, have you had access to all of the
documents that the Justice Department has subpoenaed but
haven't received? Isn't that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That the Justice Department--you mean the
Congress has subpoenaed? Right.
Ms. Plaskett. Subpoenaed, correct.
Mr. Horowitz. Yes, we have had access to all the records--
--
Ms. Plaskett. And your office was able to review those
documents and any other documents that's needed as part of your
investigation for this report?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Ms. Plaskett. And your report concluded, and I quote: We
found no evidence that the conclusions by the Department
prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper
considerations. Rather, we determined that they were based on
the prosecutor's assessment of the facts, the law, and past
Department practices. Correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Ms. Plaskett. And so I just want you to be careful because
now that you have not followed the conclusion that the
Republicans would like you to, you may, in fact, be up for a
special counsel investigation yourself.
And I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. On that sobering note, Inspector General
Horowitz, we will now go to the gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I could take just a moment, I would like to say thank
you for your leadership. You have been the voice of justice,
not just for today but for more than 7 years. I have no doubt
that you will continue to be a warrior against injustice and
for the underprivileged, and I am proud to have served with you
and call you my friend.
Mr. Horowitz, you previously testified that, during the
investigation, you found additional texts between Agents Strzok
and Page on FBI devices which the FBI had not analyzed,
including texts about meeting in Andy's office. I'm assuming
that wasn't Andy Griffith, Andy Cohen, or Andy Rooney. The
closeness of referring to Andy bothers me a little bit because
evidently it says there may have been some relationships. Of
course, according to your words, according to your report
somebody denies--which one denies that meeting happened? Is it
former FBI Director Andrew McCabe or is it Peter Strzok?
Mr. Horowitz. I think the denial is that Mr. McCabe says he
does not recall being present for that meeting.
Mr. Walker. He doesn't recall being present for that
meeting. Have we investigated that further? Have you referred
that to be investigated further because that's a pivotal point
in all of this as far as what was said, who was involved in
these meetings, whether there was intent, or whether there was
bias.
Mr. Horowitz. I think we have investigated, frankly, as far
as we can take it and could find evidence to see whether he was
present, and, you know, we have laid out here what we found
ultimately.
Mr. Walker. Does it concern you that the FBI did not
further investigate this issue of these discovered text
messages? Seems like it raises larger questions with some of
the behavior at the FBI. Does that offend you, bother you?
Mr. Horowitz. What has concerned us is that the FBI has
this imperfect system of collecting records, has known that for
some time, and needs to get it fixed. Frankly, once we started
looking at these text messages, we were going to be the ones
who kept digging to get them, so I didn't expect at that point
the FBI----
Mr. Walker. Fair enough. Because of Strzok's actions--I
have a question, can you with certainty express that the
Hillary Clinton investigation was without bias or interference?
Mr. Horowitz. I cannot speak to every single decision that
was made he might have been involved in. So I can't speak to
that broader point.
Mr. Walker. So you're not saying that there wasn't bias. It
appears that you are saying that bias may have existed in all
of this but not to the place that you could prove that it
influenced the investigations.
Mr. Horowitz. Where we looked on the decisions we looked at
and the prosecutor's decision, we made the finding we felt we
could make.
Mr. Walker. Do you understand why the American people are
having some trouble with all of this when you begin to talk
about, well, there's biased behavior, but is it a subject of
call to where that bias level may have reached whether it
influenced--the amount of time that Peter Strzok spent as the
lead investigator, do you understand why the American people
would be upset at least the appearance of all of this?
Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely, and I'm upset at all of this. I
think it is precisely why it cast a cloud over the
investigation. It undermines confidence in it. All of those
impacts are very serious and very significant on a very
important FBI investigation. That should never happen, and it
happened because of these text messages and what these
employees were doing. It should not have occurred, period.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, and it is one of the reasons that
you're respected on both sides of the aisle. I do remember--in
fact, it might have been my question or another member on the
House Oversight Committee--that when asked of former Director
James Comey as far as why not to bring charges, I believe his
response that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges. As
good as the job that you are doing, my question to you would
be, is there any room that if there was other investigations or
if there was other inspections, if you will, would people--do
you feel like do you agree with James Comey on your conclusion
that this would be the same conclusion or is there room that
other people, other investigators might find different
conclusions?
Mr. Horowitz. You know, I think, as you have seen in
commentary about the findings and the report, what we try to
lay out: This was the policy. This is how they reached the
decision. And others are free to disagree with that.
Mr. Walker. When it comes to the number of FBI employees
who were in contacts with the journalists, was it the FBI
employee or the reporter who seemed to initiate contacts that
resulted in this back-and-forth conversation, or did they seem
like long-term relationships?
Mr. Horowitz. Some of them, based on what we have, you
know, seen, did not seem like--well, let me just, looking at
the charts here, you can see these are not, generally speaking,
one call, so I would leave it at that. We are looking at that
deeper question.
Mr. Walker. When you say you're looking at it, does that
mean it may warrant more investigations for some of those who
have been players in this situation?
Mr. Horowitz. There are active investigations ongoing by
our office.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from North Carolina yields
back.
The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to begin by lamenting the fact that we are not
having Judiciary oversight hearings to address this barbaric
child separation policy. I just came back from Brownsville,
Texas, and McAllen. It is despicable what is happening in our
name. We're not having bills to address dozens of ideas to
reduce gun violence in this country. We're not marking up the
Dream Act. We're not marking up legislation to protect the
special counsel or to protect our elections from foreign
interference. But, alas, we're having another hearing on the
Clinton emails.
So let me just start, Mr. Horowitz, with a basic question.
Your investigation was to focus on the investigation of Hillary
Clinton's emails, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Cicilline. And was part of your investigation to
examine whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians?
Mr. Horowitz. That was not part of this investigation.
Mr. Cicilline. Did you investigate or make findings about
collusive behavior between the Trump campaign and the Russians?
Mr. Horowitz. The only matter we touched on with Russia was
that October matter----
Mr. Cicilline. I take it that's a no. Was part of your
investigation to review whether the President of the United
States obstructed justice during the course of the special
counsel's investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. We looked at the Clinton email investigation.
Mr. Cicilline. That's yes or no. Was that part of your
investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. It was not.
Mr. Cicilline. Okay. And you didn't make any investigation
or findings related to the President's potential obstruction of
justice. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. It had nothing to do with this investigation.
Mr. Cicilline. Okay. So the President's claim that your
report makes clear that he is completely exonerated--there's no
obstruction of justice and no evidence of collusion--is a lie
or at least unsupported by your report?
Mr. Horowitz. Our report focused on the Clinton email
investigation----
Mr. Cicilline. Does your report in any way support the
President's claim that he is completely exonerated, there's no
evidence of collusion, no evidence of obstruction of justice?
The answer is no.
Mr. Horowitz. Our investigation focused on the Clinton
email investigation.
Mr. Cicilline. And so your report does not contain any
findings, not a single one in 500 pages that would support the
President's claim that your report, authored by you, exonerates
him fully and presents evidence of no collusion and no
obstruction of justice. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm going focus on our report, and there are
individuals----
Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Horowitz, the truth matters. Can you say
in open--I'll finish my question. I get to ask the questions.
Will you admit in open session that your report does not
support the claim from the President of the United States that
he is completely exonerated, that there's no evidence of
collusion between his campaign and the Russians and that
there's no evidence of obstruction of justice? Your report does
not investigate or make findings on those issues at all, does
it?
Mr. Horowitz. We do not make findings on those.
Mr. Cicilline. Okay. So that would mean that's not a
truthful statement. I'm not asking you to say that. I know it
is hard for you to do that. It is the President; I get it. But
it is important that the American people know that the 500
pages that you dedicated your career to developing with
professionals does not support any such claim by the President.
I'm not asking you for an answer. That's a statement.
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah.
Mr. Cicilline. Let me go next, Mr. Horowitz, to your--the
part of your investigation that focuses on--you may have heard
the President and many of his allies make numerous statements
about your report that were designed to make the American
people believe the opposite of what is obvious from your
report's findings, that the FBI's actions had an impact on the
2000 Presidential election and in Donald Trump's favor. Your
report found no evidence that the FBI or DOJ's conclusions in
the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails were
politically motivated, and your report found that Director
Comey violated Department of Justice policies by speaking
publicly about Secretary Clinton's closed case in July of 2006
and by disclosing the reopening of the investigation in October
of 2016. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Certainly the latter part, I----
Mr. Cicilline. That it violated Department policy?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes. The earlier part I was----
Mr. Cicilline. Okay. And your report discusses why the
Justice Department and the FBI have a policy and practice of
refusing to speak publicly about ongoing investigative
activity. It explains the stay silent principle exists to
protect the privacy and reputational interests of the subjects
of the investigation and also the Department's ability to
effectively administer justice without political or undue
outside influence, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Cicilline. Would you agree that the FBI--when the FBI
speaks publicly about an ongoing case, it risks harming the
subject's reputational interest?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Cicilline. In this case, that subject of potential harm
was Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Cicilline. Your report, Mr. Horowitz, also has a
subsection entitled ``Avoiding the Perception that the FBI
Concealed the New Information to Help Clinton Win the
Election.'' In that section, Director Comey says his decision
to disclose the investigation reopening was to avoid, quote,
corrosive doubt that you had engineered a cover up to protect a
particular candidate. Your report found, however, that Director
Comey, quote--and this is your words--did not assess risks
even-handedly. In weighing his actions, did Director Comey ever
express fear that his notification to Congress would tip the
scales or at least appear to tip the scales against Hillary
Clinton in favor of Donald Trump?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't recall him saying that to us as sort
of one of his explanations.
Mr. Cicilline. But Director Comey was afraid that if he
stayed silent about the reopening of the case, that he would
unfairly be accused of helping Hillary Clinton. Isn't that
correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That was one of the concerns he expressed.
Mr. Cicilline. And so, sir, when the President said, when
he praised Director Comey's actions when he made that
disclosure and said, ``It took guts for Director Comey to make
the move that he made,'' end quote, what he did was the right
thing, Chairman Goodlatte said he was very appreciative that
Director Comey had the courage to step forward and our very own
Chairman Gowdy went on to FOX News and stated Director Comey
did the right thing in supplementing his testimony. Isn't it
true, Mr. Horowitz, just to reiterate, your report concludes
Director Comey's October 26 notification to Congress was not
the right thing?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes, on October 28, correct.
Mr. Cicilline. So I hope the Justice Department and the FBI
learned their lesson from your report and do not cave to the
ongoing bullying of President Trump and his allies in Congress.
Instead, they must once again uphold longstanding principles
and the rule of law, even while facing the onslaught of unfair
political attacks. We expect nothing less of you.
And, with that, I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back. Since my name
was invoked, before we go to the gentleman from Texas, I would
just point out that we don't live in a binary world. You can
notify Congress without writing a letter that is publicly
disseminated. You have other options, including notifying
Congress in a confidential manner.
With that, the former United States attorney from Texas Mr.
Ratcliffe.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Chairman.
Inspector Horowitz, in your report and now in your
testimony, you said that you are deeply troubled and very
concerned that the anti-Trump bias reflected in the Strzok-Page
text messages was so great as to have possibly impacted Peter
Strzok's conduct about in the Weiner laptop part of the Hillary
Clinton investigation. Is that fair?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So, if the Department of Justice and the
FBI's own inspector general is very concerned and deeply
troubled about Peter Strzok's anti-Trump bias affecting his
actions as an FBI agent, is it unreasonable for President Trump
as the subject of an investigation to likewise be very
concerned and deeply troubled that Mr. Strzok was put in charge
of the Trump Russia investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. You know, I'm going to step back on that,
Congressman, and speak to the broader point that that's
precisely why we were concerned, generally speaking, about the
election review, that those kind of messages create that
appearance of bias that undercuts credibility and the ability
to do investigation. I can't speak to----
Mr. Ratcliffe. I'm not asking you to make any findings
about the Trump Russia matter. I'm asking you about the people
that you investigated in your report, people whose actions you
found so deeply troubling and very concerning. I just want to
find out if you think it is unreasonable for the President to
feel the same way you do.
Mr. Horowitz. My concern on that is, as you know, we're
currently reviewing that, and I want to be careful. I don't
want to be myself seen as prejudging any outcomes here. So I'm
going to let folks draw----
Mr. Ratcliffe. Again, I'm not----
Mr. Horowitz. --what they want to draw from this, but I
don't want to be seen as making any judgments on that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, do you think it is unreasonable for
President Trump to be very concerned or deeply troubled, as you
were, that 8 days after Peter Strzok was put in charge of the
Trump Russia investigation, that he promised another FBI
employee, Lisa Page, that Trump would never be President
because he would stop it?
Mr. Horowitz. I think any individual in this country should
be concerned about that kind of language.
Mr. Ratcliffe. And the reason you're concerned about that,
Inspector General, I think is because you have said numerous
times here that Strzok's stated bias and stated willingness to
act on that bias are antithetical to the core values of the
FBI, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Right.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Another thing that is antithetical to the
FBI and the Department of Justice and our entire justice system
is putting people in charge of investigating people they hate,
of people that they are biased against and that they are
prejudiced against, right?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Ratcliffe. And we don't do that in our justice system.
We can't do that in our justice system, a system where the
bedrock principle has to be the fair and impartial
administration of justice, free from bias and prejudice, right?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So I think the point that you're making and
that I agree with is that anyone--you, me, any member of
Congress, any American--who becomes the subject of an
investigation should not be investigated by people who have
sent hundreds of hateful text messages about them before the
investigation ever began and then continued to send them while
the investigation was occurring. That is, by definition,
prejudicial to the fair and impartial administration of
justice, isn't it?
Mr. Horowitz. I think that is precisely the concern.
Mr. Ratcliffe. And yet that is exactly what happened to
President Trump. Now, to your credit, Inspector Horowitz, you
revealed the astonishing level, the outrageous level of bias
and prejudice, and when you did, Special Counsel Mueller
removed Peter Strzok from the case, but you and I are former
prosecutors, and you and I both know that it is impossible to
remove bias and prejudice from all of the actions taken, all of
the decisions made, all of the investigative plans implemented,
all of the evidence gathered by Peter Strzok and at least two
other Trump-hating FBI agents and lawyers who were assigned to
the investigation. That's pretty hard to do, isn't it?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, that is precisely the question, as you
know, we're looking at.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So my colleagues over there just keep
pointing out that your report doesn't state any conclusions
about the Trump Russia investigation, and they're right. The
report doesn't state any conclusions, but your findings of
fact, your findings of fact about the people in charge of the
Trump Russia investigation in the case of Peter Strzok, for 9
months, the person in charge of the investigation, well, that
leads to all sorts of undeniable conclusions about pervasive
bias and prejudice against President Trump by the people who
never, ever should have been in charge of gathering evidence
against him.
Let me switch topics in the remaining 20 seconds I have.
Did Jim Comey make the decision not to prosecute Hillary
Clinton before or after her July 2, 2016, interview?
Chairman Gowdy. I'm going to let you answer the question
even though the gentleman from Texas grossly misjudged the
amount of time he does not have left anymore. It is actually 20
seconds over, rather than under, but you can answer the
question.
Mr. Horowitz. As we laid out here and described here, prior
to the July 2nd interview, absent, as we were told, either a
confession or a false statements, the decision had been made to
close the investigation.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So the fact that Director Comey testified
under oath to Members of Congress, in response to a question
about whether or not the decision was made before or after,
unequivocally stated after, do you think it is reasonable for
Members of Congress to think that they were misled by that
answer?
Mr. Horowitz. I probably would have to look at the
transcript. As you know, so much of that turns on the precise
question and answer so----
Mr. Ratcliffe. So can I take that as a promise to look at
that?
Mr. Horowitz. I'll take a look at the question and answer,
and then we can talk further, Congressman, about that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Inspector Horowitz. I appreciate
your work.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Horowitz, for being here, and I want to
commend you and your team for a very thorough report. You have
taken extreme care to make sure you don't jump to conclusions.
You've indicated where the lines are between judgment acting in
accordance with various protocols and norms and rules of the
Department and so forth. You have indicated that the bias that
you have identified did not affect or contaminate the
investigative decisions that were being made at the highest
levels, which is important.
When you focus on Jim Comey and his conduct, you point to
issues of compliance with Department guidelines and norms and
standards that you think are very important. I think that's
valid. I think it is also important to observe that that
doesn't in any way get to the question of the credibility or
truthfulness of an individual. You can say this person is not
adhering to what we think is a departmental standard. That
doesn't go to whether they're being truthful to their basic
credibility and so forth. If I didn't comply with a rule on how
much time I'm supposed to take here in asking you a question
and then I went out in the hall and I saw someone knock someone
else over and run down the hall and I wanted to testify to
that, you wouldn't say, ``I'm not going to believe you because
you didn't follow the clock when you were in the hearing.'' And
that's important because it may be that Jim Comey down the line
becomes a witness in various contexts, and there's nothing in
your report that I see, and I think you said this in response
to Congressman Cohen, that would suggest that you have any
reason to think that he has lied, that he misled you, that he
was not truthful in the course of your conducting this
investigation. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Sarbanes. Now, I wanted to move to the question of--as
I step away from this, and I sort of don't consider particular
individuals but look at the standards you're articulating for
what's a good investigation and how to carry it out, you have
identified a variety of things: First of all, follow the rules
that exist. Be consistent in following those; that's one of the
major concerns you had in terms of the process for taking
certain decisions on investigations. So be consistent. Follow
the rules. Another thing you have talked about is the
importance of there not being leaks, and you have identified
some issues with that at the FBI, but that is also--that goes
to the overall legitimacy of an investigation, that there not
be leaks. You have talked about the issue of bias, and I assume
that your expectation would be that a good investigation would
be one where, if there's evidence of bias in a way that could
affect the investigation, that steps need to be taken to
address that bias.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct. Or the appearance potentially.
Mr. Sarbanes. Or the appearance of bias. So stepping away
from that and thinking about those kinds of standards on how an
investigation should proceed, you've actually left me in a
position of being--having a lot of confidence in the way Bob
Mueller is conducting his investigation because, if you take
those standards that you are highlighting and you apply them to
how he and his team are conducting themselves, he passes with
flying colors. Where there's been evidence of bias, he has
taken steps.
In fact, you acknowledge that Ms. Page, Mr. Strzok are not
part of that team anymore because he took quick action when
there was evidence of bias or even the appearance of bias.
There's no suggestion that there have been improper leaks from
this investigation. And by all accounts, both Bob Mueller and
Rod Rosenstein are following to the T the rules and standards
that ought to apply to the investigation.
So I want to thank you and your team for describing a set
of standards for how to conduct an investigation because I
think when you take that set of standards and you apply it to
the way Bob Mueller is conducting his investigation, you can
see that he is doing it in a diligent and conscientious way as
a straight arrow, and that's why I think we need to support
that investigation.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Horowitz, for being here.
In late September of 2016, the FBI came into possession of
the Anthony Weiner laptop, which contained hundreds of
thousands of potentially emails related to the Clinton
investigation.
My first question, would you say that this discovery was
rapidly communicated with the Midterm Clinton investigation
team and the FBI, or was it slow-walked?
Mr. Horowitz. The New York office promptly reported it to
the Midyear Clinton investigation team.
Mr. Hice. Okay. And when did Peter Strzok, of course, who
was leading the Clinton investigation, when did he--when was he
made aware of the laptop?
Mr. Horowitz. On September 28.
Mr. Hice. All right. So the next day or close within days.
All right. So this is the same Peter Strzok has come up in
multiple ways, repeatedly bashed President, well, candidate
Trump at that time, and then committed to stop him from
becoming President.
Now, from Strzok's--from the perspective of his superiors,
Bill Priestap, for example, was he at this time committed to
the Clinton investigation, or was his focus more on the Russian
investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. At the time of September 28th and -9th, Mr.
Strzok was working on the Russia investigation. And his
supervisor was working, not just on that but as you might
expect, as Assistant Director of Counterintelligence, a wide
variety of matters as we lay out here.
Mr. Hice. Right. On page 297 of your report, Priestap said
that the Weiner laptop was not his top priority at this time
due to his involvement in the Russia investigation. You said
that Priestap himself said that: I don't want to say
distracted, but, yeah, my focus wasn't on the Midyear anymore.
And Strzok himself was assigned to both the Russia and Clinton
investigations at this point, but he was still the lead in the
Clinton investigation.
So it is fair to say, by your report, that the superiors
were distracted at this time. They were not focused on the
Midyear investigation but on the Russia investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct. And to be clear, for Mr. Priestap,
he was also talking about the election interference issues more
broadly than just what has now come to be known as the Russia
investigation.
Mr. Hice. Which adds to the whole scenario that he was
distracted; his focus was not on the Clinton investigation
anymore. So here we go back to Strzok. He is presented now with
a choice. He receives the information from the discovery of the
Weiner laptop, hundreds of thousands of emails, potentially
damaging and at least related to the Clinton investigation. He
has a choice now to either follow up on the leads from that
laptop and report them in a timely manner, or knowing that his
superiors are distracted, he can conveniently place this laptop
discovery on the back burner. And so how long did it take
Strzok and the Midyear team to finally get around to the
laptop?
Mr. Horowitz. So there was activity the next day, September
29, and then there was some discussions back and forth up
through October 3 or 4, and then no activity whatsoever until
the New York field office again raised a concern on October 21
ultimately--or around October 21--ultimately resulting in a
call on October 21 from the U.S. Attorney's Office from the
Southern District of New York to the Deputy Attorney General's
Office inquiring about why there's been no activity.
Mr. Hice. So Strzok was taking this slow. I mean, he was
not--he did not report it in a timely manner and pursue this
thing. It was only after the New York group pushed it that he--
that Strzok got on board and said we've got to do something
about this
Mr. Horowitz. Strzok and others, yes.
Mr. Hice. All right. But that's the timeline in all of
this.
And so, I mean, from every appearance, he did everything he
could to prevent this discovery from becoming public because it
may hurt the Clinton campaign. And you, yourself, stated that
you could not with any confidence say that Strzok's political
bias did not lead him to delay looking at the laptop. Do you
still stand by that?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Hice. Okay. So this is where the whole cycle comes back
to me, where every appearance and action by Strzok at this
point is that his political bias did, in fact, prevent him from
bringing forth this information, because it may hurt the
Clinton campaign.
And this is precisely, really, one of the big things that
to me is just the elephant in the room where there not only was
political bias, but action based on that bias to protect one
individual over the other, Clinton over Trump. And this is the
same Strzok who is leading the Russian investigation, which, of
course, is the foundation of the Mueller special counsel. So
tremendous concern here.
Again, I thank you for being here.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
Inspector General Horowitz, how about we take a 10-minute
break, recess, and then reconvene?
Mr. Horowitz. Whatever is good for the committee.
Chairman Gowdy. That suits you, 10 minutes?
Mr. Horowitz. It suits me.
Chairman Gowdy. In 10 minutes we'll reconvene.
[recess.]
Chairman Gowdy. The committee will come to order.
The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized.
Mrs. Lawrence. Hello? Are the mikes on? Hello?
Can I reclaim my time, sir?
Chairman Gowdy. You've lost no time.
Mrs. Lawrence. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you.
It's concerning to me that we've spent almost 5 hours here
of this esteemed body which I am a Member of to discuss tapes
of Hillary Clinton when we know that we have a humanitarian
issue happening in our country that we need to resolve.
But with that being said, President Trump fired Director
Comey on May 9, 2017, and on May 10, 2017, Chairman Jason
Chaffetz sent a letter to you, sir, asking that you investigate
the decision to fire James Comey. Did you receive that letter?
Mr. Horowitz. I did.
Mrs. Lawrence. You separately stated that if circumstances
warranted, the OGI will consider including other issues that
may arise during the course of the review and the
recommendation to remove Comey, indeed, warranted some
consideration. Am I correct, sir, you said that?
Mr. Horowitz. Yeah. If circumstances warranted, we would
expand----
Mrs. Lawrence. My question to you is, did you expand the
scope of your review into the 2016 election to encompass the
firing of Director Comey?
Mr. Horowitz. We did not.
Mrs. Lawrence. Why didn't you?
Mr. Horowitz. For similar reasons to what I mentioned
earlier, which is my understanding that it may be the subject
of an ongoing special counsel review, that there wasn't a
reason for us to make a determination at that point in time----
Mrs. Lawrence. Did someone direct you not to?
Mr. Horowitz. Nobody directed us not to.
Mrs. Lawrence. Is your office currently investigating the
firing of Director Comey?
Mr. Horowitz. We have not announced any review regarding
that.
Mrs. Lawrence. I didn't say announcement. Are you currently
investigating?
Mr. Horowitz. As I said a minute ago, if there is a basis
for us to look at it, we will assess and look at it. But my
understanding is that it is something that the special counsel
is reviewing, and if----
Mrs. Lawrence. And that's your sole decision to make?
Mr. Horowitz. It is my sole decision to make.
Mrs. Lawrence. Have you encountered any attempts to
interfere with, obstruct, or curtail that investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. Zero, of my own investigations. This
investigation or other work, we've had no interference at all.
Mrs. Lawrence. Has any entity or individual denied you
witnesses or documents that you have requested as a part of
your investigation that you have presented to us?
Mr. Horowitz. We got access to everything. And as we note
here, two witnesses did not agree to voluntarily be interviewed
by us, and we had no ability to compel them.
Mrs. Lawrence. Is there--and I will ask you again--is there
a role that your office will play in the investigation that
does not interfere with Special Counsel Mueller's probe?
We have multiple investigations that have happened with the
Hillary Clinton emails. Why are you making that sole decision
that because there is one investigation that you will not
investigate the firing of FBI agent Comey?
Mr. Horowitz. As a general matter, Congresswoman, and it's
not unique to this matter, as a general matter, when there are
ongoing Justice Department investigations, FBI, others, we
understand that we don't want to be in the middle of an ongoing
investigation. And we defer and wait until the conclusion of
that to assess whether there's something for us to review.
And the special counsel, as does the deputy attorney
general and others, understand that under the IG Act, if they
see misconduct by Justice Department officials, they're
obligated to notify us of that.
Mrs. Lawrence. So you are stating on the record now that
there will be no investigation from your office, based on your
sole decision, of the firing of Director Comey?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm not saying that. I'm saying we have not
made a decision with regard to the request we received as to
whether we should or should not do that.
Mrs. Lawrence. So how long will that process take for you
to make a decision?
Mr. Horowitz. In all likelihood, until we understand that
there is no other investigation going on of that within the
Justice Department, we would wait until that point in time. And
obviously, that----
Mrs. Lawrence. I would like to ask a question. Repeatedly
we've heard about the possible obstruction of the election of
our current President. And last time I checked, even though the
crowd numbers don't match his statements, he is the President
of the United States.
So we are investigating whether a person's personal opinion
is one that is conduct that we are finding to be, as far as
employment, because it was a government phone, is that the
issue that is the core of this, the fact that someone does not
support a certain political candidate?
Mr. Horowitz. It has nothing--from my standpoint and our
findings, it has nothing to do with that.
Mrs. Lawrence. Well, that's been brought up multiple times
today, that you said because of the email where he said that
we'll stop that.
Mr. Horowitz. My point being it doesn't matter who he's
trying to stop. What I've said repeatedly is I don't care
whether he was trying to stop the local election, the
Presidential election, or any candidate. An FBI agent cannot
take a position or state like that that they would consider
using their official action to affect any candidates.
Mrs. Lawrence. I agree with that, but I do not want a
slippery slope that this President is immune to anyone not
agreeing with him. And I've heard that repeatedly today as if
it's a capital crime because someone did not agree or support.
But I do support what you're saying, in the role of an FBI
agent, that we do not expect that. And I want to be clear, this
is a democracy still and we still have freedom of speech.
Thank you.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentlelady from the State of North Carolina is
recognized.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield my
5 minutes to you.
Chairman Gowdy. I thank the gentlelady.
Inspector General Horowitz, I want to go back for a couple
minutes on the issue of intent. Am I correct, is that your
understanding from what Jim Comey said, that the missing
element was some element of intent that he was reading into the
statute?
Mr. Horowitz. That's what he said. I think what the
prosecutors were looking at was knowledge and----
Chairman Gowdy. Knowledge of the wrongfulness of her
conduct or knowledge that her arrangement with herself may have
allowed classified information to traverse her server?
Mr. Horowitz. Knowledge that classified information
actually did transit through her server----
Chairman Gowdy. All right.
Mr. Horowitz. --as of the absence of markings.
Chairman Gowdy. Well, the questions I have for you are
equally applicable whether the missing intent is knowledge or
intent.
Can you think of a better way to determine what an actor
knew than to ask the actor what he or she knew? Am I missing
some better repository of evidence than to actually interview
the target or the suspect yourself?
Mr. Horowitz. I would say there could be instances where
there would be better evidence, like contemporaneous
recordings, as opposed to the interview where the person might
not be candid. But you clearly would want to----
Chairman Gowdy. I'm not aware of those in this case.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Chairman Gowdy. But perhaps you know something I do not.
Mr. Horowitz. No, I'm not. But I'm just saying you asked
hypothetically is there a better way to get evidence of
someone's state of mind about the----
Chairman Gowdy. Given the evidentiary restrictions in this
case, can you think of any better way to resolve that issue of
knowledge than to actually interview the target herself?
Mr. Horowitz. No. I think you would want to interview the
target herself.
Chairman Gowdy. All right.
And what would you ask the target? You were a highly
decorated Federal prosecutor from one of the most prestigious
districts in the country. What would you ask the defendant if
you were trying to determine whether or not that person, that
suspect, had knowledge?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, you'd certainly want to start at the
beginning, which is, why did the server come to be set up, what
was the rationale behind it, what did you understand it would
be used for, questions like that, because so much of it would
be focused on what the intent, rationale, thinking was behind
creating your own separate server or domain name from the
outset.
Chairman Gowdy. If multiple explanations have been given in
the past on that very issue, would you ask the suspect or the
target to reconcile those different explanations?
Mr. Horowitz. Presumably, you would ask the subject during
the interview in any area where there might be differing
reports of testimony or recollections.
Chairman Gowdy. If there had been false exculpatory
statements made in connection with the fact pattern, would you
ask the target or the suspect to explain those false
exculpatory statements?
Mr. Horowitz. I think if you were interviewing any witness
you would want to ask them about information that was out there
that would suggest there was a false exculpatory.
Chairman Gowdy. When I use the phrase ``consciousness of
wrongdoing,'' what does that mean to you?
Mr. Horowitz. That means you have an awareness, perhaps
unstated, that the conduct that you've engaged in is wrongful
in some way.
Chairman Gowdy. What about concealment?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, that can mean, I guess, different
things, depending upon the nature of the concealment. It can be
active. It can be passive at some level. But it's keeping
something from somebody else. And, you know, we have a concern
here about concealment on what happened in connection with July
5th.
Chairman Gowdy. How about the destruction of evidence?
Mr. Horowitz. Again, that can be personal or it can be
knowing that someone else is going to do it, but it is
obviously destroying evidence or information that has
evidentiary value.
Chairman Gowdy. I guess what I'm kind of struggling with a
little bit, I was actually asked over the weekend whether or
not I think she should have been charged. I can't answer that
question because I don't think she was interviewed properly.
And it's very difficult to go back and conduct a proper
interview after one has already been botched.
Did you see all of the questions that you and I just went
over in the 302? Were all of those asked of her during that
July interview?
Mr. Horowitz. I think one of the concerns that's been
raised is that, a 302 only being a summary of what was said,
that there isn't a transcript or other more definitive report
on precisely all the questions and answers.
So we have a summary, and that's what we're working off of,
that. It's an extensive summary, but it's still not a
transcript.
Chairman Gowdy. Well, given the fact that you and I agree
that actually talking to the witness, the suspect, the target
might be, absent a contemporaneous recording, some of the
better evidence on knowledge and intent, how in the hell was
Jim Comey able to draft an exoneration press release 6 weeks
before that interview took place?
Mr. Horowitz. You know, I think it's clear from looking at
what we uncovered that by that point in time they had largely
concluded what they had concluded. And if you----
Chairman Gowdy. But my question is, if what you're missing
was knowledge and/or intent and the single best repository for
that evidence is the person you've yet to talk to, how in the
hell can you make that conclusion?
Mr. Horowitz. I think--I'll give you what the answer was
that we got back, which was: Of course we kept open the
possibility that we would find some evidence that would change
that view. That was the explanation we were given.
Chairman Gowdy. If that were true, did you find drafts of
inculpatory press releases?
Mr. Horowitz. We did not.
Chairman Gowdy. You found no memos or drafts where he had
decided to charge her?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct. We were told, by the way, by
the prosecutors, as you see here, that they did not draft
anything until after the interview, precisely because they
wanted to wait before making a final judgment for the
interview.
Chairman Gowdy. Isn't that what we normally do, wait until
the last interview is----
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Chairman Gowdy. This is my last question I'll have for you.
Back when you did trial work, do you remember the judge ever
admonishing the jury that you are not to make up your mind
until the last witness has testified and the last piece of
evidence has been introduced? Do you remember a jury ever being
told that by a judge?
Mr. Horowitz. Not only do I remember that as a prosecutor,
but I actually served on a jury last year. So I remember that
from the judge's instruction.
Chairman Gowdy. It's kind of one of the basic precepts of
our justice system, is that you wait until it's over before you
draw a conclusion. And I am just dumbfounded that Director
Comey would draft a press release and cite the missing element
when the single best repository of potential evidence on that
element had yet to be talked to. I just--I find that stunning.
But I'm also stunningly out of time, so I'll go to the
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gaetz.
Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And from the Amazon jungles to the streets of Shalimar,
Florida, I've had a chance to observe the patriotic service of
many frontline FBI agents, and I'm in violent agreement with
Director Wray that the information in your report does not in
any way impugn the incredible work that they do.
Refresh my recollection. We know who Lisa Page is, she sent
all these bad text messages about Donald Trump, but we don't
know who FBI Agents 1 through 5 are. Why the disparate
treatment?
Mr. Horowitz. So when we write up our report, we apply
Privacy Act and other laws to decide who we can--whose name we
can disclose and whose name, on balance, we think as a legal
matter we can't. That's why you see some names in here and some
names anonymized. We have the request from the committee.
As I mentioned, we sought to get approval from the FBI to
send that information forward. They----
Mr. Gaetz. What's the reason the FBI gave you as to why we
couldn't learn who FBI Agents 1 through 5 are?
Mr. Horowitz. They mentioned a couple of reasons, but the
primary reason was that because those individuals--two of them
were agents, one's a lawyer--work on counterintelligence
matters, they had a security and safety----
Mr. Gaetz. Peter Strzok worked on counterintelligence
matters, and we know who he is.
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Gaetz. Why the disparate treatment?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm just telling you what was reported to us.
And, you know, as----
Mr. Gaetz. Who's Attorney Number 2?
Mr. Horowitz. I'd have to think about who that is, but I,
again, I'd want to make sure that what I was saying wasn't
putting someone in jeopardy or at risk.
Mr. Gaetz. What was the reason the FBI gave for not telling
us who Attorney Number 2 is?
Mr. Horowitz. The same reason, that that individual works
on counterintelligence matters and safety and security reasons
as well as some other reasons.
Mr. Gaetz. What were they? I want to obtain the full
universe of reasons. Because, you know, I feel as though
sunshine, transparency will be the way to root out this bias
that we seem to see reflected.
Are you familiar with the resistance movement in this
country?
Mr. Horowitz. I am familiar with it from looking at some of
these text messages, but I am not personally familiar----
Mr. Gaetz. What's your general understanding of what that
movement is?
Mr. Horowitz. I just could tell you what it says here.
Somehow, you know, resist what's going on in the country in
terms of the government, governance. I have no real personal
knowledge of----
Mr. Gaetz. Does it mean resist Donald Trump, resist his
Presidency?
Mr. Horowitz. That's my understanding certainly as it was
played out here.
Mr. Gaetz. So you've got Peter Strzok, who goes from the
Hillary Clinton email investigation to the FBI Trump-Russia
investigation to the Mueller probe. You've got Lisa Page, who
goes from the Hillary Clinton email investigation to the FBI
Russia investigation to the Mueller probe. And then you have
Attorney Number 2, who similarly goes from the Hillary Clinton
email investigation to the Trump-Russia investigation to the
Mueller probe.
It seems like a very bizarre coincidence that the way
people tended to end up on the Mueller probe was some
association with Hillary Clinton, whether it was the people I
just identified or whether it was Andrew Weissman, who attended
Hillary Clinton's election night party, or whether it was
Jeannie Rhee, who had defended the Clinton Foundation in FOIA
defenses.
It seems so bizarre that the people you would go and
accumulate to prosecute the President of the United States and
investigate him would be so intertangled with these fact
patterns regarding Hillary Clinton. Does that strike you as
odd?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know if it strikes me as odd other
than I know it, as to the three individuals you mentioned,
occurred.
Mr. Gaetz. Is that usual, for someone who's like directly
tied to one element of a fact pattern to then migrate over to
these other investigations?
Mr. Horowitz. It's an excellent point, Congressman. We
actually make that here as well, that from a management matter,
having done corruption cases, you wouldn't put someone who just
investigated an individual on one side to go investigate the
other person.
Mr. Gaetz. Who made those staffing decisions?
Mr. Horowitz. It would have been the leadership of the FBI.
Mr. Gaetz. So it would have been James Comey, who's been
fired. It would have been Andrew McCabe, who has been referred
for criminal prosecution as a consequence of your good work.
Attorney Number 2 says ``viva le resistance'' while
actively investigating President Trump. Is that right?
Mr. Horowitz. That's my understanding.
Mr. Gaetz. And does it trouble you that someone who is
tasked with investigating the President was associating himself
with a resistance movement against the very same President?
Mr. Horowitz. I'll say what I said earlier. I don't care
who that person was investigating, that person should not be
making comments about an individual or related to a person
they're investigating or the FBI is working on.
Mr. Gaetz. It will be totally unacceptable to my
constituents to say that there was a person who went from the
Hillary Clinton email investigation to the Trump-Russia
investigation to the Mueller probe who identified himself and
who you identified as the lead FBI lawyer on the Mueller probe
and we don't get to know who that person is. Associating with
the resistance, going after the President after this totally
botched Hillary Clinton email investigation that you've
appropriately highlighted.
In this country, we cannot live in a world where unelected
people at the FBI get to shelter someone who I believe was
actively working against the President and actively associating
and identifying with a movement that is intended to frustrate
everything that this President is trying to do.
So I hope we get that information, Mr. Chairman, and I
yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Inspector General Horowitz, not only for
your long patience today, but for your professionalism on so
many levels.
One of the things that I think the facts seem to bear out
from this hearing today, that there was bias by key
investigators collecting evidence; their investigative evidence
was provided then to prosecutors; these prosecutors, based on
that evidence, acted accordingly, without any bias of their
own, in coming to their conclusions.
Is it possible that prosecutors can be misled by biased
investigators who guide or withhold evidence?
Mr. Horowitz. It's certainly a possibility that, you know,
something like that could happen. I don't--we didn't--in the
evidence we reviewed, we didn't see that here, but certainly--
--
Mr. Russell. Well, given the actions of the investigators
expressing bias, which was very detailed in the report, and the
statements and draft statements of the Director months before
the investigation was complete, do you think it possible they
already had an outcome in mind?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, I think clearly they had an--that the
FBI, through Director Comey, had an outcome in mind, given the
drafting starting in early May.
Mr. Russell. And while prosecutors were found to be
unbiased in their conclusions, did that same conclusion exist
with those making investigative decisions whose evidence would
ultimately be provided to the prosecutors?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, Director Comey obviously heading up the
FBI and his folks, we lay out here that they believed by early
May that, absent confession, some unusual event or discovery of
evidence they didn't anticipate or false statements, that they
thought this was heading towards a declination.
Mr. Russell. I guess that, you know, that's the concern
that the American people have, is the investigation was not
even closed, that we have the Bureau, the Justice Department,
in fact, in your own reports, and I quote: ``We were
particularly concerned about the text messages sent by Strzok
and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance
that investigative decisions they made were impacted by bias or
improper considerations.''
Along that same vein, quote: ``We did not have confidence
that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation
over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead
discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.''
And then a last one to highlight here: ``It is not only
indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously,
implies a willingness to take official action to impact the
Presidential candidate's electoral prospects.'' And then you
highlight that this is antithetical to the core values of the
FBI and the Justice Department, and I think that's true.
In your report you discuss also that Mr. Comey was
concerned about a classified issue specific to Lynch and that
there are questions that many of us have related to these
issues that arose in March 2016 that alleged bias or attempts
by Attorney General Lynch to impede the Midyear investigations,
and that some of that information suggests, or could, that
Comey may have also been attempting to influence the
investigation.
Your report says that you detail perhaps some answers to
some of these questions and others in a classified appendix.
When will you provide the committees copies of the classified
index?
Mr. Horowitz. So that classified appendix was classified by
the intelligence community. We don't do that. It ended up--
we're not the classifiers. They classified it at such a high
level, some of the information, that it made it impossible to
make it available to the Members as we wanted to. Only certain
Members would have been able to see it.
We have gone back to the intelligence agencies and said:
Please let us know what is the material that gets us to this
level so we can bring it down to a level where everybody can
look at it. We just got a report back from some of the intel
agencies today. We're hoping--or last night--we're hoping to
get the rest of it in the next few days.
I've raised this with the deputy attorney general's office,
that we need this changed, you need to see it. It's important
for the Congress to see it. And we're going to work hard to get
that.
Mr. Russell. Absolutely. And can the House hold a copy in
our secure SCIF----
Mr. Horowitz. That's exactly what I'm working to----
Mr. Russell. --an unredacted copy?
Mr. Horowitz. Right. That's exactly what I'm working to
get.
Mr. Russell. Because we've been through this rodeo before.
And I've gone down to the tank and I've read redacted things,
and then had members, high-placed members of our Bureau and
Justice Department say, well, this is because of Freedom of
Information Act redactions, as if that were a grounds to
withhold information from Congress.
Which agency in specific? Is it the CIA that's making the
determination that members of committees are not authorized to
view the classified index?
Mr. Horowitz. My understanding is it's--speaking with the
ODNI, the Office of Director of National Intelligence, and the
CIA, that they're working through these issues with the FBI.
Mr. Russell. Well, I thank you for that, Inspector General,
and thank you for your great work. And we will be right there
backing you up, that Oversight and Judiciary Committees, with
obvious jurisdiction, need, for the sake of the American
people, to see what it is that they are concealing. And we
await those answers.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Oklahoma yields back.
The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horowitz, thank you for your time today and your
dedicated work. I'm going to speak fast.
18 U.S.C. Section 793(f) reads in relevant part, as you
know: Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession
or control of any document or writing relating to the national
defense, through gross negligence permits the same to be
removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone
in violation of his trust, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for not more than 10 years or both.
Isn't it true that Director Comey's initial draft
statement, which he shared with FBI senior leadership,
criticized Clinton's handling of classified information as,
quote, ``grossly negligent''?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. And according to your report,
Lisa Page is identified as the person who raised concerns about
the term ``gross negligence'' in that draft statement, and it
was later replaced with the phrase, quote, ``extremely
careless.'' Is that right?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Isn't it true that ``gross
negligence'' is a legal term with criminal implications, while
``extremely careless'' is a subjective term with no criminal
implications?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I want to pick up on what
Chairman Gowdy asked you a few moments ago. You've said a
couple times today the focus in this particular investigation
was on actual knowledge. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The problem I have and the real
question here is that that's not a standard of focus or an
interpretation that's provided in the express language of the
operative statute. Isn't that right?
Mr. Horowitz. That is correct. And when I say this
investigation, it obviously means the Department's Midyear
investigation, not our review.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Right. And so the Department used
this application of the statute, there's no express language in
the statute to give them that authority. The question is, where
did that come from? By what authority did these investigators
unilaterally decide to employ an actual knowledge standard in
interpreting the statute?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, as we looked at their--at the written
evidence, the documents, and then interviewing the prosecutors,
they describe their rationale for interpreting the statute that
way as both a legal consideration, because of concerns over
whether a prosecution would be upheld if it was successful, and
their belief that, based on the legislative history of the
statute, it required something more than gross--pure gross
negligence, and the statute's absence of a definition of gross
negligence.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. And was there any precedent,
specific precedent for them to do that?
Mr. Horowitz. They were relying on prior Department
precedents. In other words, how the Department they believed
interpreted the statute over time.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Let me move on.
Of course, everyone in America now knows the sordid history
and the infamous text messages between FBI agents Peter Strzok
and Lisa Page, including the August 8, 2016, exchange where
Strzok assured Ms. Page that they would, quote, stop the
election of Donald Trump.
Isn't it reasonable to conclude that criminal charges
brought against Mr. Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, would
hurt her campaign and thus potentially help Donald Trump to be
elected?
Mr. Horowitz. I think that's probably a given I might have
to think a little bit about.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. A matter of common sense, right?
And wouldn't it--and wouldn't that outcome be the opposite of
what Strzok promised his paramour in those text messages that
we've all seen now?
Mr. Horowitz. I guess so, though, frankly, I haven't
stepped back and thought about and, frankly, haven't focused on
what the implications of it ultimately could be as it played
out. Just sort of as it was, it was problematic.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, the American people have,
and many Americans would logically conclude that this political
bias directly affected specific investigative decisions and
judgment calls. But we'll disagree about that.
I'm running out of time. I want to get to something that's
very personal for you.
By all accounts, you're an American patriot. You're an
esteemed and trusted public servant. We thank you for that
service.
Let me ask you this personal question. Is the American
people's trust in our justice system and the people's faith in
our institutions important to you as an individual?
Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. And do you believe those things
are important to our Republic as a whole?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. In your important role at DOJ, do
you believe you have a personal duty to help guard the
integrity of and maintain the people's faith in our
institutions?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Let me ask you this very
important question then, based on that. If your report had
concluded that the evidence showed that improper
considerations, including political bias of FBI agents, did
directly affect specific investigative decisions, do you think
that would have risked eroding the American people's trust in
our justice system and the people's faith in our institutions?
Mr. Horowitz. It could have had I guess even--it could have
had a greater impact. I think this has an impact, standing
alone.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. But Does it--would you agree that
it stands to reason that a man in your position might be
tempted to rationalize a report that political bias did not
affect the Clinton investigation as somehow serving the greater
good of not completely undermining the country's faith in our
FBI?
Mr. Horowitz. Look, I look at this evidence and my team
looks at this evidence based on our judgments, our best
judgments on this. We don't pull our punches because of
concerns over how it'll seem or appear. I think anybody who
tells me that having just completed an investigation where I
called the former FBI Director insubordinate and issued a
report about the deputy director lying under oath, I don't
think anybody can accuse us of pulling our punches on that.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Could you at least see--I'm out
of time--could you at least see how reasonable people might
reach a different conclusion, though?
Mr. Horowitz. As I said in my opening, Congressman, the
purpose of laying out this in 500-plus pages is precisely so
the American public, who are the people who I serve, we all
serve, can make their own judgments. And people will agree or
disagree. We've done our best to put our judgment on it. I
would just assure everybody we didn't pull any punches on it.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I appreciate your service.
I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Louisiana yields back.
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
What a long day, Mr. Horowitz. Thank you for your patience.
You know, following up on the gentleman from Louisiana's
style of questioning as well as content, would it be fair to
conclude by the American people that a hearing such as this is
designed to discredit an ongoing investigation, criminal
investigation by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and using
your report to do that? Might that be something?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm not going to speculate----
Mr. Connolly. Of course, you're not.
Mr. Horowitz. --on anybody's intent.
Mr. Connolly. Of course, you're not. But that kind of
leading question deserves a leading question in return.
One suspects, sitting here, that we're up to no good. Two
committees with a big hearing to try to prove that there was
such unbelievable bias within the FBI, political bias, that it
taints everything they're doing.
And I look at your conclusion. You say there are many
lessons to be learned from the Department and the FBI's
handling of the Midyear investigation, but among the most
important is the need to respect the institutions' hierarchy
and structure and to follow established policies, procedures,
and norms even in the highest profile and most challenging
investigations. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That is correct.
Mr. Connolly. Is it established policy, Mr. Horowitz, DOJ
policy, to disband an investigation, an ongoing investigation,
because, say, somebody's personal lawyer says it's an
investigation that will be cleared up with a pardon?
Mr. Horowitz. No policy in the Department.
Mr. Connolly. There's no such policy?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Connolly. In fact, that would be bad policy, would it
not?
Mr. Horowitz. That would not be good policy.
Mr. Connolly. Is it established Department of Justice
policy to disband an investigation because, let's say, the
subject or one of the potential subjects of the investigation
calls it a witch hunt?
Mr. Horowitz. I think, as the Director said yesterday
during our Senate hearing, that that decision is made solely by
the FBI.
Mr. Connolly. Is it established Department of Justice
policy to disband an ongoing criminal investigation because a
high-level government official says it's time to wrap it up?
Mr. Horowitz. Not unless it's someone who has authority
over it and has made that conclusion that it's reasonable,
based on the facts and the law.
Mr. Connolly. So I take your report to basically say we
have to return to a normal process and allow investigations to
work their will, but we can't infect them with bias.
I thought I read in your report, despite hours of hearings
here, with 76 Members, I thought your report concluded that in
the conclusion with respect to Secretary Clinton's emails you
did not detect any evidence of the effect of bias in that
conclusion?
Mr. Horowitz. On the conclusion of the prosecutors on
whether or not to charge.
Mr. Connolly. Right. Right. So despite all this Sturm und
Drang, there's no evidence that a bias influenced that
conclusion.
Mr. Horowitz. The prosecutor's conclusion, correct.
Mr. Connolly. Hmm. By the way, I remember Mr. Nadler a
little earlier asking about the--because we're hearing so much
about two particular FBI agents who favored, apparently,
Hillary Clinton or at least did not like Mr. Trump--a lot of us
join in that sentiment--but are you aware of any FBI agents
who, in fact, loved Mr. Trump and didn't like Mrs. Clinton?
Mr. Horowitz. We looked at the team that worked on this
investigation and the Clinton email investigation and we
reported what we found in terms of biased texts.
Mr. Connolly. Did anyone ever refer you to, say, the New
York field office of the FBI?
Mr. Horowitz. There were comments made by the FBI general
counsel about his understanding of the view of agents in the
New York field office.
Mr. Connolly. My time is almost up. There are a lot of
people who believe the New York office had profound bias that
was anti-Clinton that actually influenced Mr. Comey's thinking.
I just wish the fervor shown here was reflected in our
willingness to look objectively at other needs for
investigation, especially with respect to Cabinet members in
the current administration. I believe we now have over 50
subpoena requests in my committee to the chairman, none of
which have been issued. I wish we had in-depth hearings with
respect to potential corruption and ethical lapses by members
of the Cabinet, but we haven't done that.
But we are going to spend a joint committee hearing, full
committee, looking in the past at something that's already been
adjudicated.
I want to thank you, Mr. Horowitz, and your colleagues for
a fine piece of professional work, and I hope it doesn't get
distorted through this process.
I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Virginia yields back.
The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. Grothman.Okay. We've already spent a lot of time on Mr.
Strzok and Ms. Page, but they have obviously said things that
you would consider that they had a strong bias towards Ms.
Clinton becoming President, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. We were concerned about their biased
statements, yes.
Mr. Grothman. Oh, and by the way, if something happens or
they make decisions that favor Ms. Clinton and they have talked
about bias towards Ms. Clinton, you will not say that it has
necessarily affected their decision, correct? You will give
them the benefit of the doubt in your paper?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know if it's right to say we give
them the benefit of the doubt as opposed to we would go and
look for the evidence to see if we could find evidence of bias.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. But if they make a decision that
happens to favor Ms. Clinton or happens to hurt Mr. Trump, you
do not by itself say that's an indication of bias?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, I would say that with regard to the
October decision to not prioritize the Weiner laptop and
prioritize the Russia investigation, we reached the
determination we were concerned that it could have evidenced
bias.
Mr. Grothman.Okay. Now, there were five other people that
you mentioned specifically in the report that apparently said
things that would indicate they either did not like Mr.--they
did not like Mr. Trump, correct?
Mr. Horowitz. Three others plus the two of them. Five
total.
Mr. Grothman. So a total of five. Did you find anybody else
in any of the emails you looked at throughout the
investigation, even minor bit players, that would indicate
political bias?
Mr. Horowitz. You know, we saw in various messages sort of
discussions that are--that were tangential, in our view, to the
events. And so I can't sit here and I have to check to see
which side everybody was on and who they spoke about, but
nothing that we thought connected in any way----
Mr. Grothman. Okay. But there were other comments on the
election?
Mr. Horowitz. There's going to be people making comments.
Mr. Grothman. Comments. Of course, they're going to make
comments.
Mr. Horowitz. So that's--I'm just hesitant to say----
Mr. Grothman. It would seem to me in this environment it
would stick in your mind if anybody happened to make a comment
indicating they wanted President Trump to win. Do you ever
remember any comments like that from any of these emails?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't remember anything as I sit here.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Several of these people were involved
in more than one investigation, which kind of concerns me. Was
it a coincidence that people who had an anti-Trump bias wound
up in two separate investigations or three separate
investigations?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, what we describe here is the decision
was made in July after the Clinton investigation was closed in
Director Comey's announcement and the Attorney General's
announcement when the Russia matter opened to take some of
those same members and put them on that next investigation,
which we state is from a management standpoint something we
would be--thought was a concerning decision.
Mr. Grothman. Was it a coincidence, though, they happened
to be Clinton partisans? I guess that's my concern. Of all
these seas of FBI people, and we're told they're so
professional, is it a coincidence that people who have so
brazenly expressed anti-Trump sentiment would wind up on these
two key political investigations?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, just keep in mind these texts aren't
discovered until 2017 when we start our review. So----
Mr. Grothman. Right. I understand that. But would you think
it was--it hits me as unusual, given the huge volume of work
the FBI has to do, that these clearly anti-Trump people wound
up on these two politically charged investigations. No?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know exactly how they ended up on the
other investigation--other than Mr. Strzok was at the time the
deputy assistant director of counterintelligence. So----
Mr. Grothman. Are you investigating the Russian
investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. We are now looking at, in light of the
referrals we've had over the last several months, the question
about the FISA issues that were referred to us as well as the
campaign-related questions that have been referred to us.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. But you're not prepared yet to talk
about any information on political bias?
Mr. Horowitz. No. It would certainly be premature. We're
still investigating it, for the very reasons that people have
expressed concern about the--you know, the----
Mr. Grothman. I'll give you a broader question, which
involves not just this investigation but the whole what we'll
call the swamp. I don't mean this to be a partisan thing,
because this was an unusual Presidential election. It wasn't
really a Republican versus Democrat election, it was kind of a
swamp versus nonswamp, because a lot of the Republicans I don't
think wanted Mr. Trump to win either, because they were kind of
wedded to the swamp.
When I look at the voting results in the District of
Columbia and surrounding areas, I see--I think the whole
country in general was about half Clinton, half Trump. But you
look at Montgomery County, 19 percent Trump; Alexandria County,
17 percent; Arlington County, 16 percent; Prince George's
County, 8 percent; District of Columbia, 4 percent.
We're living in an area here which is just so out of whack
with the rest of the country, you know, so right across the
board that it's hard to believe.
Are we in a situation here in which not just with regard to
the FBI, but other Federal agencies as well, we have to worry
that political bias may creep into decision making?
And my constituents are worried, IRS, EPA, everything, that
if it's known that they are supporters or people who want to
reduce the swamp, that these agencies may come after them. Is
this a--should be an overriding concern of people living in
this rather unusual area here?
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman is out of time, but you may
answer the question.
Mr. Horowitz. I mentioned, Congressman, I think what's so
concerning about this and these texts is because it creates
that appearance and, rightfully so, that concern. You know, the
Justice Department and the FBI has offices in every part of
this country. Some parts of the country have voting records one
way, some have the other way.
When you show up in an office and you work for the Justice
Department, you work for the FBI, it doesn't matter whether
you're in a red State, a blue State, a purple State, a red
district, a green district, it should have zero bearing. You
walk in that door, if you can't be a professional and walk in
that door and do your job, you got to get a different job.
That's what it's all about.
And I've seen commentators write about this, and I had a
colleague in Southern District of New York who's written about
this. We went to the office, and I didn't know what my
colleagues' political views were. I just knew they cared about
investigating the heck out of the case. And if someone deserved
to be charged, they were charged; and if someone deserved to be
convicted, they brought the case to the courtroom to see if
they could--to see what the jury would decide.
And that's what the Justice Department's about. And if you
can't walk in the door and leave your views behind, you got to
get a different job.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It was reported that on May 15 you completed a draft of the
report that we're discussing today and then you circulated all
of it or portions of it to various individuals: Mr. Comey,
McCabe, Loretta Lynch, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok. Were there
others that received portions of that draft?
Mr. Horowitz. So individuals who provided voluntary
testimony whose conduct is critiqued in here, as a matter of
fairness--and we do this in every single review we do. We
changed no practices here. We give them a chance to come in, as
a matter of fairness, to tell us if they think we got it wrong
or to give us additional evidence if they think we missed
something. And that's what we do.
Mr. Biggs. Right. So I appreciate that. You testified to
that earlier today. So I'm wondering did you give it to anyone
else other than those people I just named?
Mr. Horowitz. We--yes.
Mr. Biggs. Okay.
Mr. Horowitz. So any--the individuals in here who you see
whose conduct was critiqued, we would give it to them and, as a
matter of course--every IG does this--you give it to the
Department and the----
Mr. Biggs. Sure. And that would be like--so you gave it
to--and I don't mean to interrupt, but we only have 5 minutes.
I've been waiting for hours. You've been very good here being
many hours, but you've got to at least talk and I haven't got
to do that until just now, and I live to talk.
So I guess what I'm asking is, did you give it to
Prosecutor 1, Agent 1? They all got it, right?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. So did they respond?
Mr. Horowitz. Some did, some didn't.
Mr. Biggs. Okay. And I guess my question at this point is,
we've sent you a letter asking for copies of the original
draft, any alterations made, edits, red lines. And I hope that
we can get that from you.
I want to go to--is there a chance we're going to get any
of that information from you?
Mr. Horowitz. What I'd like to do is, as we normally do and
I like to do, is engage with you and----
Mr. Biggs. Perfect.
Mr. Horowitz. --the committee about it. I understand the
concern. I want to talk it through with you and the other
Members who signed the letter and the chairs and the ranking
member and have a candid discussion about it.
Mr. Biggs. Love to do that. We can do that offline.
Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely.
Mr. Biggs. Yeah. Great. Thank you.
So you testified earlier this morning when Mr. Jordan from
Ohio first questioned you--he took several hits at you. You
must have felt like a pinata. Don't feel bad.
Mr. Horowitz. Not at all.
Mr. Biggs. I get that all the time. That Peter Strzok led
the Hillary Rodham Clinton--the investigation into her emails.
Do you remember saying that?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. Okay. Then on page 148 of your report you
mentioned the critical roles that both Strzok and Page played
in most of the decisions made by the FBI, right?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Biggs. Fair statement?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. And so Lisa Page's duty was she was advising the
deputy director, Andrew McCabe, legally, and from reading this,
I get the impression that on a lot more than legal. She's
giving perhaps even some strategic information and advice, as
well, and counsel.
And as you just said, Mr. Strzok, he basically led the
investigation and he was acting in some ways, through that
chart of order, he's kind of--he's kind of the liaison between
all the other analysts and the decision-makers. But he is kind
of in the decision-maker, because he's always there with the
decisionmaking body. He's giving inputs. And that's what I want
to talk about today.
We're talking about--we've been talking about bias a lot.
And everybody walks in with bias and you have to be able to set
it aside. But in this particular thing the output, the output,
and the way you phrased it, and you've been very careful as
you've answered today, and in this report you said it didn't--
the bias of these people did not directly affect the outcome.
But I'm here to suggest to you that inputs affect outcomes. The
outputs come on.
So when you have this very notion of these people, for all
we know, they're filtering information, we don't know anything
really what's going on in the decisionmaking process, you can't
recreate it, but we know that there's certain outputs, and
those outputs point to Hillary Clinton's not going to be
charged.
The biases that are reflected by these two people who have
extraordinary inputs seems to indicate that they could have
impacted those outputs. Am I wrong on that? I mean, I view what
you've said here. So what I want to say is, could they have
indirectly affected the outcome here?
Mr. Horowitz. It could have, and we don't rule it out. And,
frankly, I think what you have a right to expect from us is
this kind of report laying out the facts, so that you and every
Member and every person in this country can make their own
assessment.
Mr. Biggs. Well, I will say in my last minute, in my last
second, that you've written a report that the other folks that
disagree with me will say that, see, there was no bias here,
you know, if there was any bias, it was against Hillary
Clinton.
And people on my side look at it and say, you've got people
working here at the highest levels who appear to have been
controlling the inputs that are going into the decisionmaking
process, and that indicates that the ultimate output may,
indeed, have been biased.
Thank you. I have no further time.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Arizona yields back.
The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General, let me paint a little picture of the FBI that I
knew for many years, and I think most would agree. They are the
premier law enforcement agency not just in the United States,
but I think most likely in the world. Would you agree with
that?
Mr. Horowitz. I think they're viewed--and I'll say one of,
because we oversee other law enforcement agencies at the
Justice Department.
Mr. Rutherford. Okay. I'll let you off the hook on that
one.
But also that Mr. Strzok, who's risen to a very high level
within that organization, has to be a premier agent within the
premier agency, the FBI.
Mr. Horowitz. That's certainly what we were told.
Mr. Rutherford. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
Mr. Rutherford. And so--and, in fact, I don't know that the
FBI, at least in the 40 years that I've been in law
enforcement, ever conducted an investigation that brought the
integrity of the agency and the investigative process under
such scrutiny and questioning of the integrity of the agency.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. Horowitz. It certainly has brought incredible scrutiny
and undercut the credibility of the organization in a way that
is unfair to all these thousands of agents out there.
Mr. Rutherford. Exactly. I've never seen anything like it.
And in fact even Agent Strzok, I don't know of anything in his
past that ever questioned his integrity and his service to the
FBI or his country. Do you?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm not aware of anything.
Mr. Rutherford. So when I look at your report and then you
outline several investigative and prosecutorial missteps in
this particular case--and I'll read just a few of them for you.
This is from Roman numeral I in the summary:
The preference for consent over compulsory process to
obtain evidence; decision not to obtain or to seek to review
certain evidence, such as the personal devices used by
Secretary Clinton's senior aides; the use of voluntary
witnesses over these interviews; quote, ``decisions to enter
into 'Letter Use' or 'Queen for a Day' immunity agreements with
three witnesses,'' some of which I think might have been
potential targets as well, had the potential anyway; the use of
consent agreements and active production immunity to obtain the
laptops used by Clinton's attorneys, Cheryl Mills and Heather
Samuelson, to cull her personal and work-related emails; the
handling of the Clinton interview on July 2; the tarmac
meeting; the Midyear Exam delay in looking into the Anthony
Weiner laptop situation; Director Comey's drafting of an
exoneration letter in May.
So my question is, when you look at these things in their
totality--you look at them individually, you may not--you may
not see much. But you know in a civil rights prosecution, you
look at patterns or practices, it will overcome any written
policy that they may be presenting. And all a plaintiff has to
do is show a pattern or practice to overcome a defense by an
organization that, you know, we have this policy against, you
know.
So when you say that you found political bias but it had no
effect on the investigation, it seems to negate this pattern or
practice that clearly existed in this investigation.
Mr. Horowitz. I just--I want to say we didn't find that it
didn't have any impact on the investigation. We couldn't
possibly have looked at all these decisions, as you said, that
covered all this period of time. What we found was focused on
the individual investigations.
And I think what's important for people to understand is
our responsibility as an inspector general or as inspectors
general in looking at these issues, not to say this was
thorough or not thorough or the best choice or not the best
choice or could have been done more aggressively or not, but
we're looking at was there misconduct.
Mr. Rutherford. Let me ask one more question very quickly.
Have you ever seen a public relations campaign mounted
surrounding an investigation like we saw here where there's a
SAC conference so that the agency can pass down information on
this case so that they can swat down, quote, swat down stories
about it, and they even briefed retirees. Have you ever seen
that before?
Mr. Horowitz. It's a great question, Congressman, actually
the first in yesterday's hearing and today who's asked about
that portion of the report. And it doesn't directly affect this
investigation, but for the reasons you indicated, I think we
were concerned particularly in the context of when it was
occurring, which was in October----
Mr. Rutherford. Correct.
Mr. Horowitz. --during the campaign.
And in our view, you look at that and you say, you know
what, when there's a campaign going on and either side
commenting on this, the best place for the Justice Department
to be is on the sidelines. The political debate will be the
political debate. It might be fair; it might be unfair.
But when you start doing that and sending out talking
points across the country you might actually be encouraging
people--maybe unintentionally, we didn't make an intent finding
here--but maybe unintentionally encouraging people to, as you
suggested, get the word out. Well, it may cause other people to
want to speak who maybe don't agree with the talking points.
And so that was one of the areas that we had concern about.
And I appreciate you raising that, Congressman, because I----
Mr. Rutherford. My time is up. I just can't figure out how
Peter Strzok is still at the FBI.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good to see you, General Horowitz. I have a very high
regard for you. And I think you know that.
Your report states that various witnesses told you that the
mishandling of classified information was a persistent practice
at the State Department. And the State Department is so screwed
up in the handling of classified information that if they had
wanted to prosecute Secretary Clinton, that they would have had
to prosecute 150 State Department people.
Does that basically invalidate the statute?
Mr. Horowitz. It doesn't. That's what they told us was one
of their rationales though for it.
Mr. Palmer. I don't know if you're going to allow me to do
this with you, but I want to do this in regard to the statement
of an insurance policy, okay? It's not in regard to the Russia
probe. I know that's coming later. But, obviously, Andrew
McCabe put Peter Strzok in charge of the Russia probe.
Are you aware that Strzok went to London in July of 2016?
Mr. Horowitz. I've learned of that through various public
reports.
Mr. Palmer. And I think it would be fair to say that McCabe
approved that trip and approved the expenditures for that?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know the answer one way or the other.
Mr. Palmer. I just wonder what other justification there
could have been for a trip to London at that particular time
other than the Russia probe? And what concerns me was that when
he returned he almost immediately launched that probe. That
McCabe, I think approved him going to London, he came back and
he launched it.
Do you think there's any possibility that Strzok had prior
knowledge that Christopher Steele was assembling the dossier?
Mr. Horowitz. You know, that's one of the issues we are--
have been asked to look at, and so we're in the middle of that
work on how that played out with regard to the FISA
application.
Mr. Palmer. And I'm glad that you made that point because I
think another question I need to ask, was there any possibility
that the dossier was at least part of Strzok's insurance
policy? Because that statement came later, I believe.
Mr. Horowitz. Right. The insurance policy statement came up
on----
Mr. Palmer. Well, here is what concerns me about it, is
that you've got McCabe, whose wife received almost $700,00 in
campaign contributions from the Clintons. It was almost 40
percent of her total campaign contributions. And obviously
there was a very strong relationship. McCabe put Strzok in
charge of this. He either sent Strzok to London or allowed him
to go or approved it.
Do you think that either of them had knowledge that the
Clinton campaign paid for the dossier?
Mr. Horowitz. I don't know the answer to that as I sit
here, but that, you know, is something that is part of the
review that we're doing. It will be touched on in terms of the
dossier.
Mr. Palmer. Well, and I appreciate that. I look forward to
reading that report. And I understand, you know, what you're
trying to do.
But let me ask you this in regard to bias. And I want to be
maybe the one guy that doesn't go over time today.
All things being equal, if someone said they thought that
another inspector general would be more qualified than you to
do this investigation, I think we'd both agree that there was
some bias involved there. It might be qualified. It might be
justified. But there would be some bias there that they
preferred someone else over you, okay.
But if that same person called you and your colleagues
pieces of crap, and that's not what they--the word they used--
or repeatedly referred to you as loathsome or an idiot, awful,
used the F word in regard to you, referred to your team as
retarded, crazies, or, as Mrs. Clinton said, deplorables, I
think that would go beyond bias. I think you might even
consider that extreme prejudice or maybe even extreme animus.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. Horowitz. I think, you know, as we've talked about when
we----
Mr. Palmer. I'm just asking this, you know, hypothetically.
If I were responsible for the job, the assignments you got, and
I made comments privately like that about you that later became
public, how would you feel about that?
Mr. Horowitz. Oh, I think it certainly is evidence of a
biased state of mind like we----
Mr. Palmer. But it would indicate that I had made a
determination that I was going to prevent you from advancing
your career. I just would ask you, would you have any
confidence that you would be treated fairly under those
circumstances?
Mr. Horowitz. I think I'd have--you'd have reason for
concern, and it is precisely why this is so problematic.
Mr. Palmer. And especially if it were persistent, right to
the very end.
Mr. Horowitz. That's right.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Alabama yields back.
The gentlelady from Georgia is recognized.
Mrs. Handel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you so much, Mr. Horowitz, for being here.
A January 14, 2016, letter from IG Charles McCullough
discusses sworn declarations that dozens of Secretary Clinton's
emails were top secret and special access program levels. This
information, as you well know, is so sensitive that even for IG
McCullough he had to get special clearance in order to even see
them. Treating information like this improperly would almost
certainly have resulted in serious consequences for just about
anybody, not in this situation.
The letter, this letter from IG McCullough, was out well
before Comey changed the May memo language from, quote, ``gross
negligence to extremely careless.'' And since we have a lot of
viewers watching this, and we tend to in this committee, both
of these committees, be very legalese, could you describe for
everyone the difference between those two phrases?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, ``gross negligence'' is a legal term
found in Section 793. Whereas, ``extremely careless'' is a
nonlegal term to describe, as used here by former Director
Comey, to describe what his characterization was of the
conduct.
Mrs. Handel. So did I hear you correctly that there's
really nothing in the U.S. Code that deals with, quote,
``extreme carelessness'' or ``extremely careless'' when it
comes to handling classified information?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mrs. Handel. Okay. So information classified at this level
contains very critical information, critical to national
security, protecting the identity of U.S. intelligence assets.
Is it possible that Comey chose ``extremely careless'' or
``extreme carelessness'' precisely because of the fact that
that phrase is not in the U.S. Code?
Mr. Horowitz. In fact, that's what we were told, is the
reason for the change was to take it from what was in the
statute to something outside the statute.
Mrs. Handel. Well, thank you. I think all of us on the
committee and those watching appreciate that clarity.
I want to follow up on something that Chairman Gowdy
brought up earlier, and that has to do with the interview
process.
Secretary Clinton was voluntarily interviewed rather than
appearing before the grand jury?
Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
Mrs. Handel. Were Secretary Clinton's attorneys, Ms. Mills
and Samuelson, I believe their names were, present for that
interview?
Mr. Horowitz. There were multiple lawyers present,
including Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson.
Mrs. Handel. Mills and Samuelson. Interesting.
Were they not also witnesses in this investigation?
Mr. Horowitz. They were.
Mrs. Handel. It would strike me that's a little bit unusual
to have witnesses a party to an interview with the subject of
the investigation.
Mr. Horowitz. Which is why we found that it was not
consistent with normal investigative practice. And actually
Director Comey--sorry, Director Wray yesterday also suggested
that.
Mrs. Handel. Was that interview recorded?
Mr. Horowitz. It was not.
Mrs. Handel. Why?
Mr. Horowitz. The FBI, as a matter of its practice, does
not record interviews of witnesses.
Mrs. Handel. Is that one of your recommendations, to change
that? I would hope so.
Mr. Horowitz. We actually don't have that in a
recommendation. That's been a subject of discussion for many,
many years within the Justice Department.
Mrs. Handel. So there was a written report?
Mr. Horowitz. There was a written summary report of the
interview.
Mrs. Handel. Oh, so only a summary.
So when I read your report, the IG report, that the
decision not to prosecute Secretary Clinton was essentially
made prior to her interview, did I read that correctly?
Mr. Horowitz. What we were told is absent a confession or a
false statement, the plan was to close the investigation
immediately after the interview.
Mrs. Handel. So if the decision not to prosecute was
largely made prior to even talking to her, how could it--and
there's been all of the discussion today about whether or not
she had willful knowledge of intent--how could anybody even
know if she had willful intent or knowledge if they didn't talk
with her before they made the decision?
And then secondly, with the conversation and what we now
know is the very extreme bias, particularly of Strzok and
several other agents who, as I read the report, were part of
that investigation, how can anyone really be sure that there
wasn't bias in the way that interview was conducted when it
went to the prosecutorial decision?
Mr. Horowitz. And what we went and looked at was the
summary and the preparation that went into the interview to see
whether the questions that were intended to be asked were in
fact asked.
During that, in terms of whether individuals who were in
the room were biased or expressed biased----
Mrs. Handel. You would have absolutely no idea.
Mr. Horowitz. We wouldn't know one way or the other.
Although, I would, you know, say, you know, Mr. Strzok was in
the room, but not one of the questioners, and we had concerns
about his text messages. And one of the two questioners was one
of the other three individuals we've referenced here with
problematic text messages.
Mrs. Handel. Very disturbing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy.
Mr. Horowitz, I have a statement and then a quick question.
I go home to Kentucky every weekend. And when I'm home I'm
talking to a lot of people all across the State. My district is
very vast, from one State to the other. When we're home during
recess, I talk to a lot of people.
The biggest complaint that I hear from the good,
hardworking people in my congressional district in southern
Kentucky is thedisgusting news that they've seen about the
obvious bias from the FBI and from the investigators. And it
leads in to people's minds exactly what the President has been
saying, that this is a witch hunt. This is a witch hunt that
every time they turn on the television there is news about the
Russia investigation, very little news on certain media outlets
about the things that obviously Hillary Clinton did that were
illegal.
The approval ratings for the FBI and the Department of
Justice now, I would assume are at record lows, probably lower
than Congress, and that's not very good.
What steps must the FBI take to restore confidence, to
eliminate the obvious political bias that was displayed by
reading your report with the FBI in this investigation? What
steps does the FBI need to take to eliminate, not reduce, but
eliminate political bias in the agency?
Because any time there's an investigation of any type--and
one of the main items in the case is conversations with the
FBI. And as Congresswoman Handel said, you don't record things
in the FBI, it's your word. The word today isn't worth what it
should be from the Nation's premier intelligence agency.
So this is a very serious issue that is dividing America.
It's really frustrating those of us on the Oversight Committee
that have tried to find answers from an agency that, quite
frankly, has not been transparent with the American public.
What steps can the FBI take in the future to eliminate this
and correct this problem and restore the confidence of America?
Mr. Horowitz. Well, I think one of the things we've laid
out here, we have nine recommendations in here on various
systemic issues, but I think, as I said in my opening and as we
say here, really getting back to core values and understanding
and making sure that the organization at a leadership level and
at a senior level across the organization understands the
principles and the norms and follows them.
And, again, I will say, having been an AUSA, obviously it
was many years ago now, but I don't think what occurred here
represents what thousands of agents would do in terms of their
political views or other biases they may have. They understand
they may have views, but they understand when they go to work
those views stay behind.
And that's what, at a core level, that's what really has to
happen, because it is why these kinds of text messages are so
corrosive. It's because people see them and they say, how can
someone be an FBI agent who has these views?
It happens in civil rights cases. How can people have views
we sometimes see when you look at their messages about the
people they're investigating. It can't happen?
Mr. Comer. Well, when you have an agency that has a black
eye, whether it is the VA or the FBI, I think the best decision
a leader could do is change leadership.
I support what President Trump did in firing Comey. I think
that was the right decision. And hopefully, with your report
and with the work of Congress, we can work to restore the
confidence of the American public in the FBI and the Department
of Justice.
And Mr. Chairman, I have about a minute left. I would like
to yield my time to my friend Mark Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. Horowitz, I want to come back to something we talked
about earlier, the disclosure of FBI Attorney 1 and FBI
Attorney 2. And you said, I think I'm correct, that they did
not want that divulged because they actually worked in
counterintelligence. Is that correct?
Mr. Horowitz. That's what we were told by the FBI.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. But you know who the people are?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Meadows. And I would say, based on your report, I know
who they are. And what I guess I'm concerned about is you know
that they don't work for the counterintelligence division.
Mr. Horowitz. Well, two of the agents do.
Mr. Meadows. Agents. I'm talking about attorneys.
Mr. Horowitz. There's one lawyer who is in here. So there
are five people total.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Horowitz. Page, Strzok, two other agents.
Mr. Meadows. But you had a dialogue between FBI Attorney 1
and Attorney 2?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Meadows. And those two attorneys, do they not work for
Trish Anderson?
Mr. Horowitz. Those two attorneys work in the Office of
General Counsel----
Mr. Meadows. Yeah. And so would one of those attorneys be
Sally Moyer?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm going to defer to what the----
Mr. Meadows. But they don't work in counterintelligence. I
mean, if that's the reason the FBI is giving, they're giving
you false information because they work for the general
counsel.
Mr. Horowitz. Well, let me just add, they were talking
about----
Mr. Meadows. Is the other one Kevin Kleinsman?
Mr. Horowitz. They were talking about the other attorney
there that we have their text messages in here----
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Horowitz. --that they were concerned about, along with
the other two. I'm not here to articulate the FBI's interest.
We oversee the FBI----
Mr. Meadows. Well, we're going to get to the bottom of it,
like Mr. Comer was talking about.
And I think the other thing that I would ask you to look
into, there is growing evidence that 302s were edited and
changed. And it gets back to what Mrs. Handel said in terms of
those particular interview sessions. And those 302s, it is
suggested that they were changed to either prosecute or not
prosecute individuals, and that is very troubling.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horowitz. If I could just mention, we have been getting
those kind of referrals. And as often happens when we issue
reports like this, we get other information coming to us, and
we're intending to follow up on that.
But I just want to reassure you and the committee, I'm here
to let you know what we're being told by the FBI is their
concerns. Obviously, Director Wray and the leadership of the
FBI and ourselves, I'm certainly not looking to step aside on
this, but it is their interests that need to be articulated to
the committee.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from North Carolina yields
back.
The gentleman, Mr. Rothfus, is recognized.
Mr. Rothfus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Inspector, for being here this afternoon and
all day here.
You identified a lot of devices that were part of the
investigation in your report, the different servers and
personal devices.
Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
Mr. Rothfus. In your investigation, did you review whether
those conducting the Midyear investigation searched for emails
with the Clintonemail.com route on databases that held data
collected pursuant to FISA?
Mr. Horowitz. I'm not sure as I sit here, but I can
certainly get back to you promptly on that.
Mr. Rothfus. Yeah. I'd like to know that.
Page 186 of the report, when discussing the topic of
whether the FBI would have a separate announcement from the DOJ
about the declination to prosecute, Director Comey said the FBI
was in the middle of a 500-year flood.
And the quote here is, quote: I mean, to my mind, it was a
crazy idea, but we were in a 500-year flood. As you all have
now investigated enough and lived enough to know, that this is
a circumstance that has never happened before, we're criminally
investigating one of the candidates for President of the United
States. President Obama's comments obviously weighed on me as
well. You've got the President who has already said there's no
``there'' there. So all of that creates a situation where how
do you get out of this without grievous damage to the
institution.
Reading this sounds as though Director Comey, his decision
in this context of having a separate statement, was imbued with
political considerations, does it not?
Mr. Horowitz. He was certainly speaking about the political
perceptions that resulted from President Obama's comments and
other actions he was concerned with.
Mr. Rothfus. Well, he was considering matters just beyond
facts, was he?
Mr. Horowitz. Correct. Correct.
Mr. Rothfus. And he was considering how in his own
subjective view that the FBI was going to be viewed in response
to this investigation.
Mr. Horowitz. Agreed.
Mr. Rothfus. And the same would hold true not just for his
July 5 press conference but his October 28th letter?
Mr. Horowitz. Agreed.
Mr. Rothfus. You wonder how the FBI gets to a point where
there's a 500-year flood. You know, I represent Johnstown,
Pennsylvania, and they had a horrific flood back in 1889. And
there was a big rainstorm before that flood, but there were
things going on years before. And if you read David
McCullough's book about the flood, you understand that things
were going on before.
And to understand this in context, we're here today because
you had the third-highest official in the executive branch
decide to conduct official business on a private server for
whatever reason. And I read through this report and just see
political consideration after political consideration.
Isn't Mr. Comey's decision to usurp the authority of the
Attorney General in order to protect the Bureau inherently a
political decision?
Mr. Horowitz. I think you can certainly view it that way.
Mr. Rothfus. On Page 10, the report states that Mr. Comey's
decisionmaking--his decisionmaking process made an implicit
assumption that President Clinton would be President. Isn't
that yet another example of politics playing a role here?
Mr. Horowitz. It is certainly his reading the politics tea
leaves, in his view.
Mr. Rothfus. When Mr. Comey described Attorney General
Lynch's presence imbued corrosive doubt into the entire
process, doesn't this confirm the need for a special counsel in
this investigation from the very beginning?
Mr. Horowitz. I think if Director Comey's view was, as he
laid out, the answer wasn't, I'm going to take over and
announce the decision. The answer was, I'm going to go to the
Attorney General, explain my concerns, and ask her to either
recuse or get a special counsel.
Mr. Rothfus. You know, going back over the years, and I
talk about how the 500-year flood, things happening for years,
and you look at everything that was circulating in, first, the
Clinton administration and all the scandals that we saw then,
and the continuing scandals.
I remember the '96 campaign and the fundraising scandal
there and Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung and Johnny Huang and
Maria Hsia. And Louis Freeh was looking at that, the Director
of the FBI, and he said: It is difficult to imagine at that
time a more compelling situation for an independent counsel.
But Janet Reno never appointed one.
Why wasn't a special counsel ever appointed in this Clinton
email investigation looking at Attorney General Lynch? Why is
it that they never?
Mr. Horowitz. We have explanations here as to why it was.
Attorney General Lynch said she didn't think the standard was
met and that there should be one applied. Director Comey
essentially told us that he was using it as a leverage point to
get the investigation moving as opposed to it actually being
presented for serious consideration.
Mr. Rothfus. But we see instance after instance where
Director Comey was making political calculations.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman is out of time.
Mr. Horowitz. I think the start, I'll go back to what we've
talked about in here and what I talked about earlier.
And as you referenced, it is easy to say there's a 500-year
flood, but the reality is we're faced all the time with what
people perceive to be unique circumstances. That doesn't mean
you make various judgments along the way. In fact, I think many
people would argue that's when it's most important to stay true
to what the institution's values are, norms are, procedures
are.
And you're right, the right approach here, if there was a
concern that the Attorney General could not fairly or by
appearance decide this, the right response would have been for
Director Comey to present that to the Attorney General and for
her to make a decision. But she ultimately was the one who was
politically accountable in our system of government for that
final decision, not him.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
This concludes today's hearing. I'll recognize the
gentleman from Virginia, then the gentleman from Maryland for
any concluding remarks.
Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Mr. Horowitz. It's been a long day. I think
you're going on 7 hours here with very little respite from
that. But I think you've handled yourself well and we very much
appreciate that.
You know, at the beginning of this hearing I posed the
question, why should Americans care about what we're talking
about here today?
And, unfortunately, I think we heard from some of our
members that we don't care about these emails anymore, we don't
care about these GD emails and texts, I assume they're
referring to as well, from Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page.
But I'd like everyone here to think about, what if the shoe
was on their foot? What if high-ranking people in the Nation's
most important law enforcement organization were talking about
an investigation into them and they showed that kind of animus,
that kind of bias in the process?
You, Mr. Horowitz, have a number of times today made it
very clear that you understand how important it is that the
American people have the assurance that when it comes to the
enforcement of our laws that justice is blind and that the
guarantee of our Constitution of equality under the law for all
people is fulfilled.
I don't think we can say that here right now,
unfortunately, about this very sorry circumstance. And we're
going to continue to pursue this until we have the assurance
that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of
Justice have cleaned house and are making the necessary changes
to ensure that in the future, whether it is the 2020
Presidential election or whether it's Jane Doe or Joe Smith's
criminal investigation, that they will, indeed, experience
equality under the law and the kind of extreme bias that we've
seen in looking at some of the most prominent investigations in
American history will not happen again.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Virginia yields.
The gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Horowitz, I want to thank you so much. I want to thank
the ladies and gentlemen behind you and all of those who have
had anything to do with pulling this report together.
I want to thank you for the recommendations, because I
think they go to the heart of the problem.
You know, as I sit here and I think about life, you know,
and I tell my constituents this, I tell them I wish there were
not a Republican and a Democratic party. I wish I was not a,
quote, ``politician.'' You know why? Because I think that when
people hear us a lot of time, or hear me, they just assume that
I'm saying things based upon political expediency or trying to
help a party. My party.
But there are certain things that are about--are bigger
than party, like country and being a human being.
And I think that when we talk about--you know, when I read
your report and I looked at what you've done, it's the people
like the ones that's sitting behind you that take an oath to do
their very, very best and to be honest and to uphold the
Constitution of our country. Those are the people that will
keep our democracy together. And I say it with all of the
sincerity I have in my heart.
Everywhere I go, Mr. Horowitz, and I want you to understand
this, I've never seen so many people scared. They're scared. I
mean, American citizens scared. And they're scared of where our
country is going.
But I think what you have done here today, that is
examining--first of all, bringing to the table integrity,
bringing to the table integrity and honesty, and just calling
it like it is.
You may have come out with a report that I didn't like. I
mean, there are certain things I saw in the report that didn't
sit well with me. But you know what? I'm able to walk away from
here believing that you all upheld your oath and your
principles for honesty and integrity. Not about party. Not
about gender. None of that. Not pro-Trump, against Trump,
Republican, whatever. But integrity.
And that integrity, and I tell my staff, that integrity
will--you don't have to change from time to time. Whatever that
integrity is and you meet that level, it's always going to be.
So, you know, the thing I'm trying to get through to you is
that I want you to continue to do what you're doing. Because
the people like the people who are sitting behind you and you
are the folk who are going to make sure that this democracy,
which so often we take for granted, so often we forget that
this democracy allows us to be the people that we are and to do
the things that we do and allow us to be all that God meant for
us to be.
But it takes people with that high standard, those high
standards, that no matter what happens, no matter where the
wind may blow, no matter how difficult it may become, no matter
how unpopular it may become--and by the way, that's where Comey
made a mistake.
Comey got so--this is my own personal opinion--he got so
rattled by our Republican friends trying to get the 302s and
all that, I think he buckled. That does not mean that he's not
a good man. That means that he used poor judgment at that time.
But, again, the democracy is held together by us, by
people, determining that--and I'll close with this. I keep
going back to something that Martin Luther King said, and I
think about it all the time, when he talked about, and he's
quoting another preacher, but he said: Silence can become
betrayal. Silence can become betrayal. When you see something
wrong, you've got to deal with it.
And because if we don't, then we go down a slippery slope
of betraying not only the people that we represent, all of us--
and that includes, I'm just talking about all of us in
government--not only do we betray them, but we betray
generations yet unborn.
And so, again, I thank you.
And as to the FBI, you know, Strzok and Page and the other
folks, they did some damage, ain't no doubt about it. No doubt
about it. And I cannot get away from the questions that--the
excellent questions that the chairman asked.
But I believe in my heart--and I wanted to listen to your
answers very carefully and how, you know, when you say that the
problem originated with Comey's elevation and he got a little--
he got off the track. I think the idea is that we have created
a track through the practices of the DOJ that we've created a
road, and all he had to do is stay on track and he would have
been fine. He may have gotten battered a bit, but he would have
been fine.
And that's why the integrity issue becomes so significant.
And so I'm just glad that we have people like you all who are
able to come to the table. And yeah, you're going to catch some
hell, probably, you already have. But you can stand, no matter
what, and you can say we've looked at it, we gave it our best.
You may not agree with us, but we believe in our hearts that
this is--these are the right decisions. And I accept that.
And with that, I thank you.
Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for any
member on either committee to submit written opening statements
for the record.
I will just say this quickly. Mr. Horowitz, it has been a
long day. There are many important and many would argue,
including me, urgent issues facing our country today. Some of
them have been alluded to today. But there is nothing more
important and nothing is ever more urgent than us having
confidence in our justice system.
So I will apologize to no one for having a hearing on your
report which takes a really hard look at some institutions we
desperately need.
And I'll say this as a compliment to you and your team. I
was thinking over the weekend how much better off our country
would be had you and your team conducted the investigation that
is the subject of your report. And make no mistake, you and I
probably would have reached some different conclusions as old,
washed up prosecutors do from time to time. You can look at a
fact pattern and draw different conclusions.
I don't mind if people are wrong. I really mind if they're
unfair. We can survive being wrong. We can survive calling jump
balls differently. We're not going to make it if our system is
perceived as being biased and unfair.
So thank you for your work. I know it took a long time. But
as you correctly noted, some of the information that my
colleagues found most probative came towards the end. So it's a
good thing that you did not succumb to all of our pressures and
wrap this thing up before its natural chronology.
And we wish you the same objectivity and fact-centricity
that you showed in this investigation with the others. Our
country, I think, is counting on you and your team to do in
your subsequent investigations exactly what you've done in this
one, which is just call balls and strikes. And people are
welcome to draw different conclusions, but they're not entitled
to their own version of the facts.
With that, to you and your team, thank you.
We're adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the committees were adjourned.]